82682 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 84, 261, 262, 266, 270, 

and 271 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606; FRL–10105–02– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV84 

Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Management of Certain 

Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes 

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 of 2020. This 

rulemaking establishes an emissions 

reduction and reclamation program for 

the management of hydrofluorocarbons 

that includes requirements for leak 

repair and installation and use of 

automatic leak detection systems for 

certain equipment using refrigerants 

containing hydrofluorocarbons and 

certain substitutes; the servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment to be done with reclaimed 

hydrofluorocarbons; the initial 

installation and servicing and/or repair 

of fire suppression equipment to be 

done with recycled hydrofluorocarbons, 

technician training, and recycling of 

hydrofluorocarbons prior to the disposal 

of fire suppression equipment 

containing hydrofluorocarbons; removal 

of hydrofluorocarbons from disposable 

cylinders before discarding them; and 

certain recordkeeping, reporting, and 

labeling requirements. In addition, EPA 

is establishing alternative Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act 

standards for certain ignitable spent 

refrigerants being recycled for reuse. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

10, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christian Wisniewski, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Protection (Mail Code 

6205A), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 202–564–0417; email address: 

wisniewski.christian@epa.gov. You may 

also visit EPA’s website at https://

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

further information. 

For information related to the 

alternative standards for certain 

ignitable spent refrigerants under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), please contact Tracy Atagi, 

Materials Recovery and Waste 

Management Division, Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(5304T), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 566–0511; email address: 

atagi.tracy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

used, we mean EPA. Acronyms that are 

used in this rulemaking that may be 

helpful include: 

AHRI—Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute 

ALD—Automatic Leak Detection 

AIM Act—American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 

APF—Air Permitting Forum 

APU—Auxiliary power unit 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

ASTM—American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

BOEM—Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management 

BTU/h—British thermal units per hour 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CARB—California Air Resources Board 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4—Methane 

CO2—Carbon dioxide 

CO2e—Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

DOD—Department of Defense 

DOI—Department of the Interior 

DOJ—Department of Justice 

DOT—Department of Transportation 

EEAP—Environmental Effects Assessment 

Panel 

EOL—End of Life 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency 

ER&R—Emissions Reduction and 

Reclamation 

EVe—Exchange Value Equivalent 

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration 

FEMA—Fire Equipment Manufacturers 

Association 

F–HTFs—Fluorinated Heat Transfer Fluids 

FOIA—Freedom of Information Act 

FSSA—Fire Suppression Systems 

Association 

GHG—Greenhouse gas 

GWP—Global Warming Potential 

HARC—Halon Alternatives Research 

Corporation 

HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HCFO—Hydrochlorofluoroolefin 

HEEP—HFC Emissions Estimating Program 

HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon 

HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin 

HSWA—Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 

HVAC—Heating, Ventilation, and Air 

Conditioning 

HVACR—Heating, Ventilation, Air 

Conditioning, and Refrigeration 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

in-Hg—inches of Mercury 

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IPR—Industrial Process Refrigeration 

LRM—Lifecycle refrigerant management 

MACS—Mobile Air Climate Systems 

Association 

MMTCO2e—Million Metric Tons of Carbon 

Dioxide Equivalent 

MMTEVe—Million Metric Tons of Exchange 

Value Equivalent 

MVAC—Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner 

NAICS—North American Industrial 

Classification System 

NAFED—National Association of Fire 

Equipment Distributors 

NEDA/CAP—National Environmental 

Development Association’s Clean Air 

Project 

NFPA—National Fire Protection Association 

NODA—Notice of Data Availability 

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OCS—Outer Continental Shelf 

OCSLA—Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

ODP—Ozone Depletion Potential 

ODS—Ozone-depleting substances 

OEM—Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

PII—Personally identifiable information 

ppm—Parts Per Million 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act 

PTAC—Packaged terminal air conditioners 

R4 Program—Refrigerant Recovery, Reclaim, 

and Reuse Requirements (CARB Program) 

RACA—Request for Additional Consumption 

Allowance 

RACHP—Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, 

and Heat Pumps 

RCOP—Recycling Code of Practice 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SAE—Society of Automotive Engineers 

SC-HFC—Social Cost of Hydrofluorocarbons 

SISNOSE—Significant Economic Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

TFA—Trifluoracetic acid 

TSD—Technical Support Document 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

VCOP—Voluntary Code of Practice 

VRF—Variable Refrigerant Flow 

VSQG—Very Small Quantity Generator 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. What is the purpose of these 

regulations? 

B. What is the summary of the regulations 

finalized in this notice? 

C. What is the summary of the costs and 

benefits? 

II. General Information 

A. Do these regulations apply to me? 

B. What is EPA’s authority for these 

regulations? 

III. Background 

A. What are HFCs? 

B. How do HFCs affect public health and 

welfare? 

C. What regulatory programs addressing 

refrigerants has EPA already established 

under the Clean Air Act? 

1. National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program (CAA section 608) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82683 

1EPA has issued regulations establishing and 

codifying a framework for phasing down HFC 

production and consumption through an allowance 

allocation program, ‘‘Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Establishing the Allowance 

Allocation and Trading Program Under the 

American Innovation and Manufacturing Act’’ (86 

FR 55116, October 5, 2021)—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)— 

referred to as the ‘‘2024 Allocation Rule’’ 

throughout this document. 

2EPA has issued regulations addressing the 

framework for how EPA intends to implement its 

authority to restrict the use of HFCs in sectors and 

subsectors where they are used, as well as 

establishing certain restrictions on the use of HFCs 

in specific sectors or subsectors in which they are 

used, ‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Restrictions on the Use of Certain 

Hydrofluorocarbons Under the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020’’ (88 FR 

73098, October 24, 2023)—referred to as the ‘‘2023 

Technology Transitions Rule’’ throughout this 

document. EPA issued an interim final rule under 

the Technology Transitions program further 

addressing a particular subsector (88 FR 88825, 

December 26, 2023). 

2. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

Servicing Program (CAA section 609) 

3. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program (CAA section 612) 

IV. How is EPA regulating the management 

of HFCs and their substitutes? 

A. What definitions is EPA implementing 

under subsection (h)? 

1. Terms That Did Not Generate Comment 

and That EPA Is Finalizing as Proposed 

2. Terms That Received Comment or That 

EPA is Modifying 

3. What additional comments did EPA 

receive on definitions? 

B. What types of equipment is EPA 

addressing under subsection (h)? 

C. How is EPA addressing leak repair? 

1. What refrigerants are subject to leak 

repair requirements? 

2. Appliances with what charge size are 

subject to leak repair requirements? 

3. What leak repair provisions is EPA 

establishing? 

a. Leak Rate Calculations 

b. Requirement To Repair Leaks, Timing 

and Applicable Leak Rates 

c. Verification Testing 

d. Leak Inspections 

e. Chronically Leaking Appliances 

f. Retrofit and Retirement Plans 

g. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

D. How is EPA establishing requirements 

for the installation of automatic leak 

detection systems? 

1. Automatic Leak Detection Requirements 

2. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

E. How is EPA establishing requirements 

for recovered and reclaimed HFCs? 

1. Reclamation Standard 

2. Requirements for Servicing and/or 

Repair of Existing Equipment in the 

RACHP sector 

F. How is EPA establishing an HFC 

emissions reduction program for the fire 

suppression sector? 

1. Nomenclature Used in This Section 

2. Emissions Reduction in the Fire 

Suppression Sector 

a. Minimizing Releases of HFCs 

b. Requirements for Initial Installation of 

Equipment for Fire Suppression 

c. Requirements for Servicing and/or 

Repair of Existing Equipment for Fire 

Suppression 

d. Fire Suppression Technician Training 

e. Recycling of HFCs Prior to Disposal of 

Fire Suppression Equipment Containing 

HFCs 

f. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

G. What requirements is EPA establishing 

for handling disposable cylinders? 

1. Requirements for Disposable Cylinders 

2. Small Cans of Refrigerant 

H. How is EPA establishing RCRA 

refrigerant recycling alternative 

standards? 

1. Nomenclature Used in This Section 

2. Background 

3. Final Alternative RCRA Standards for 

Ignitable Spent Refrigerants Being 

Recycled for Reuse 

a. Comments on the RCRA Alternative 

Standards and Changes Made in 

Response to Comments 

b. Scope of the Final RCRA Alternative 

Standards 

c. RCRA Alternative Standards 

Requirements 

4. RCRA Very Small Quantity Generator 

Wastes 

5. RCRA Regulation of Exports and Imports 

of Certain Ignitable Spent Refrigerants 

6. Applicability of Alternative Standard in 

RCRA-Authorized States 

7. Effect on State Authorization 

I. MVAC Servicing and Reprocessed 

Material 

V. How is EPA treating data reported under 

this rule? 

A. Background on Determinations of 

Whether Information is Entitled to 

Treatment as Confidential Information 

1. Confidential Treatment of Reported 

Information 

2. Emission Data Under section 114 of the 

Clean Air Act 

B. Data Elements Reported to EPA Under 

the Leak Repair Provisions 

C. Data Elements Related to Fire 

Suppression 

VI. What are the costs and benefits of this 

action? 

A. Background 

B. Estimated Costs and Benefits of the 

Final Rule 

1. Total Incremental Costs and Benefits of 

the Final Rule 

2. Estimating Costs and Benefits Based on 

Affected Equipment and Appliances 

VII. How is EPA considering environmental 

justice? 

VIII. How is EPA responding to other 

comments on the proposed rule? 

IX. Judicial Review 

X. Severability 

XI. 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 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

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 these 

regulations? 

The 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

facilitating the transition to nextgeneration technologies by restricting 

use of these HFCs in the sector or 

subsectors in which they are used; 2 and 

promulgating certain regulations for 

purposes of maximizing reclaiming and 

minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment and ensuring the safety of 

technicians and consumers. This 

rulemaking focuses on the third area— 

establishing certain regulations for HFCs 

and their substitutes for the purposes of 

maximizing reclaiming and minimizing 

releases of HFCs from equipment and 

ensuring the safety of technicians and 

consumers. 

More specifically, subsection (h) of 

the AIM Act, titled ‘‘Management of 

Regulated Substances,’’ directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations to control, 

where appropriate, any practice, 

process, or activity regarding the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment that involves: 

a regulated substance (used 

interchangeably with ‘‘HFCs’’ in this 

rulemaking), a substitute for a regulated 

substance, the reclaiming of a regulated 

substance used as a refrigerant, or the 

reclaiming of a substitute for a regulated 

substance used as a refrigerant. 

This rulemaking establishes the 

Emissions Reduction and Reclamation 

(ER&R) Program to implement the 

provisions of subsection (h), including 

its authority to issue regulations to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82684 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

3The terms ‘‘reclaim’’ and ‘‘recycle’’ have 

different regulatory purposes and definitions under 

RCRA than under the CAA and the AIM Act. Under 

RCRA, a material is ‘‘reclaimed’’ if it is processed 

to recover a usable product, or if it is regenerated. 

Examples are recovery of lead values from spent 

batteries and regeneration of spent solvents (See 40 

CFR 261.1(c)(4)). Reclamation is one of the four 

types of ‘‘recycling’’ identified in 40 CFR 261.2(c) 

that can involve management of a solid waste under 

RCRA. 

4ASHRAE Standard 34–2022 assigns a safety 

group classification for each refrigerant that consists 

of two alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2 or B1). The 

capital letter indicates the toxicity class (‘‘A’’ for 

lower toxicity) and the numeral denotes the 

flammability. ASHRAE recognizes three 

classifications and one subclass for refrigerant 

flammability. The three main flammability 

classifications are Class 1, for refrigerants that do 

not propagate a flame when tested as per the 

ASHRAE 34 standard, ‘‘Designation and Safety 

Classification of Refrigerants;’’ Class 2, for 

refrigerants of lower flammability; and Class 3, for 

highly flammable refrigerants, such as the 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. ASHRAE recently 

updated the safety classification matrix to include 

a new flammability subclass 2L, for flammability 

Class 2 refrigerants that burn very slowly. 

control such practices, processes, or 

activities, particularly as related to the 

management, use, and reuse of HFCs 

and substitutes in equipment. Further, 

these regulations include provisions to 

support implementation of, compliance 

with, and enforcement of requirements 

under subsection (h) of the AIM Act. 

Additionally, EPA is establishing 

alternative RCRA standards for certain 

ignitable spent refrigerants being 

recycled for reuse, as that term is used 

under RCRA.3 These standards involve 

regulatory changes to 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) parts 261 through 271 

and are separate from the regulations 

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

These standards are established under a 

different set of statutory authorities than 

the ER&R regulations, and they are part 

of an independent and distinct 

regulatory regime. EPA is providing 

notice of the AIM Act regulations and 

the RCRA regulations in one Federal 

Register notice given both the RCRA 

regulations concerning the recovery and 

recycling of certain ignitable spent 

refrigerants and the AIM Act regulations 

concerning recovery and reclamation of 

refrigerants may be of interest to some 

of the same stakeholders. 

B. What is the summary of the 

regulations finalized in this notice? 

EPA is promulgating two separate and 

distinct sets of regulations. First, EPA is 

establishing an ER&R program for the 

management of HFCs and certain 

substitutes under subsection (h) of the 

AIM Act. The Agency is including 

provisions that address the purposes 

identified in subsection (h)(1) of the 

AIM Act of maximizing reclamation, 

minimizing the release of HFCs from 

equipment, and ensuring the safety of 

technicians and consumers. 

Specifically, the AIM Act regulations 

include requirements for: 

• Leak repair of appliances that 

contain at least 15 pounds of a 

refrigerant that contains an HFC or a 

substitute for an HFC with a global 

warming potential (GWP) above 53, 

with specific exceptions; 

• Installation and use of an automatic 

leak detection (ALD) system for certain 

new and existing appliances containing 

1,500 pounds or more of a refrigerant 

that contains an HFC or a substitute for 

an HFC with a GWP above 53; 

• A reclamation standard limiting the 

amount of virgin HFCs that can be 

contained in reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants; 

• The servicing and/or repair of 

existing equipment in certain 

refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat 

pumps (RACHP) subsectors to be done 

with reclaimed HFCs; 

• The servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment that contains HFCs, with the 

purpose of minimizing the release of 

HFCs from that equipment, including 

requirements for the initial installation 

and servicing and/or repair of fire 

suppression equipment to be done with 

recycled HFCs, as well as requirements 

related to technician training in the fire 

suppression sector; 

• Removal of HFCs from disposable 

cylinders before discarding; and 

• Recordkeeping, reporting, and 

labeling. 

Enforcement and compliance. To 

support compliance with these 

requirements, EPA is establishing 

labeling, reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements as described in this 

rulemaking notice. The Agency intends 

to use a reporting platform the same as 

or similar to those used for prior AIM 

Act rules, and will consider making 

information not entitled to confidential 

treatment, as described in section V of 

this action, publicly available. 

Exemptions for certain applications 

and other provisions. Provisions 

finalized in this action do not apply to 

two applications, mission-critical 

military end uses and on board 

aerospace fire suppression, as listed at 

40 CFR 84.13(a), for a year or years for 

which that application receives an 

application-specific allowance as 

defined at 40 CFR 84.3. As such, the 

provisions established in this action 

include exemptions for the following 

applications, for a year or years for 

which that application receives an 

application-specific allowance: 

• Mission-critical military end uses 

and 

• On board aerospace fire 

suppression. 

Amendments to the RCRA hazardous 

waste regulations. Second, EPA is 

amending a separate set of regulations 

promulgated under RCRA, a separate 

statutory authority from the AIM Act, to 

establish alternative standards for 

ignitable spent refrigerants when 

‘‘recycled for reuse,’’ as the term is to be 

defined under RCRA. EPA is 

establishing that the alternative 

standards at 40 CFR part 266, subpart Q, 

under RCRA, apply to HFCs and other 

substitutes that are lower flammability 

(i.e., that do not belong to flammability 

Class 3 as classified by the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 34–2022).4 EPA is limiting the 

alternative standards to lower 

flammability HFCs and substitutes 

(Class 1, 2, and 2L) because of the lower 

risk of fire from the collection and 

recycling for reuse of these refrigerants, 

and the greater market value of these 

refrigerants, which supports the 

conclusion that these spent refrigerants 

will be recycled for reuse and not 

stockpiled, mismanaged, or abandoned. 

Other topics. Together with the 

proposal for this rule, EPA issued an 

advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking 

information on approaches for 

establishing requirements for technician 

training and/or certification. As stated at 

proposal, EPA is not addressing 

technician training in this final 

rulemaking and accordingly is not 

responding to comments on the ANPRM 

in this final rule. 

Additionally, EPA is not finalizing as 

part of this action under the AIM Act 

the proposed provisions for container 

tracking of HFCs that could be used in 

the servicing, repair, and/or installation 

of refrigerant-containing or fire 

suppression equipment. EPA is also not 

finalizing in this action provisions 

requiring the initial installation of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in 

certain subsectors in the RACHP sector 

to be done with reclaimed refrigerant 

where HFCs or a blend containing HFCs 

are used. The Agency intends to further 

consider those provisions and the 

comments submitted on the proposed 

requirements before determining how to 

proceed. As such, EPA need not 

respond to public comments on those 

proposed requirements as part of this 

action. 

EPA received many comments on this 

rulemaking, including those that were 

in general support or opposition of the 

various provisions. Specific comments 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82685 

5This rule established the methodology for 

allocating HFC production and consumption 

allowances starting with calendar year 2024 

allowances and adjusted the consumption baseline 

downward by less than 0.5 percent to reflect 

corrected data, among other changes (88 FR 46836, 

July 20, 2023). EPA also finalized another 

rulemaking in 2023 to update the regulations 

established in the HFC Allocation Framework Rule. 

That rule ‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Adjustment to the Hydrofluorocarbon Baseline,’’ 

amended the production baseline downward by 

0.005 percent to reflect corrected data (88 FR 44220, 

July 12, 2023). 

6U.S. EPA. 2023. EPA’s Vintaging Model 

representing the Allocation Framework Rule as 

modified by the 2024 Allocation Rule RIA 

Addendum and the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule RIA Addendum. VM IO file_v4.4_02.04.16_

Final TT Rule 2023 High Addition. 

7Unless stated otherwise, costs and benefits in 

this section are presented in 2022 dollars. 

as relevant to provisions in this 

rulemaking are discussed in the 

respective sections of this rulemaking. 

Some comments raised issues that are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking; 

because those comments require no 

response, EPA need not address them in 

this notice, though in many cases the 

Agency has noted the submission of 

such comments for informational 

purposes. 

C. What is the summary of the costs and 

benefits? 

The costs and benefits for the 

provisions related to managing 

regulated substances and their 

substitutes in this rule comes from the 

Analysis of the Economic Impact and 

Benefits of the Final Rule: Management 

of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Substitutes Under Subsection (h) of the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 technical 

support document (TSD) (referred to as 

the ‘‘Economic Impact and Benefits 

TSD’’ in this rule) and the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) Addendum for 

this rule (referred to in this rule as the 

‘‘RIA addendum’’) contained in the 

docket of this rule to provide the public 

with information on the relevant costs 

and benefits of this action, and to 

comply with executive orders. EPA 

notes that the costs and benefits 

associated with the management of 

regulated substances and their 

substitutes under the AIM Act are 

described and calculated separately 

from those associated with the 

amendments to the RCRA hazardous 

waste regulations. These analyses—as 

summarized later in this section— 

highlight the economic costs and 

benefits of the provisions in this 

rulemaking. 

Given that the provisions being 

finalized concern the management of 

HFCs, and HFCs are subject to the 

phasedown of production and 

consumption under the AIM Act, the 

Agency relied on its previous analyses 

as a starting point for the assessment of 

costs and benefits of this rule. 

Specifically, the Allocation Framework 

Rule, ‘‘Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Establishing the 

Allowance Allocation and Trading 

Program Under the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act’’ (86 

FR 55116, October 5, 2021), the 2024 

Allocation Rule, ‘‘Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Allowance 

Allocation Methodology for 2024 and 

Later Years’’ (88 FR 46836, July 20, 

2023),5 and the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, ‘‘Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the 

Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons 

Under the American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020’’ (88 FR 

73098, October 24, 2023) are assumed as 

a baseline for this rule. In this way, EPA 

analyzed the potential incremental 

impacts of the rule, attributing benefits 

only insofar as they are additional to 

those already assessed in the Allocation 

Framework Rule RIA, the 2024 

Allocation Rule RIA Addendum, and 

the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule 

RIA Addendum (collectively referred to 

as ‘‘Allocation and 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rules’’ in this discussion). 

As detailed in the RIA addendum and 

the Economic Impact and Benefits TSD, 

the number, charge sizes, leak rates, and 

other characteristics of potentially 

affected RACHP equipment were 

estimated using EPA’s Vintaging 

Model.6 These estimates served as a 

basis for calculating the reductions in 

HFC consumption and emissions from 

the various requirements of the final 

rule. As described in the RIA addendum 

and the Economic Impact and Benefits 

TSD, the leak repair and ALD system 

provisions finalized in this rule are 

assumed to result in the repair of 

leaking systems earlier than they 

otherwise would have, leading to 

reduced emissions of HFCs. Provisions 

requiring reclaimed refrigerant, 

requirements for the fire suppression 

sector, and provisions related to the 

handling of disposable cylinders are 

further estimated to result in 

incremental reductions in HFC 

emissions. 

Estimated reductions in HFC releases 

from equipment result in climate 

benefits due to reduced climate forcing, 

which have been monetized in the RIA 

addendum by multiplying avoided 

emissions by estimates of the social cost 

of each HFC (collectively referred to as 

SC–HFC) affected by the rule. The RIA 

addendum includes these SC–HFC 

estimates and uses them in some of the 

analyses for the purpose of providing 

information to the public and to comply 

with executive orders. Although we 

utilized the SC–HFC estimates for 

purposes of those analyses, this action 

does not rely on those values or the 

resulting quantification of climate 

benefits as a record basis for this rule, 

and we would reach the same 

conclusions in absence of the social 

costs of HFCs. In the years 2026 through 

2050, EPA estimates the rule will 

prevent approximately 120 million 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(MMTCO2e) in HFC emissions, and the 

present value of economic benefit of 

avoiding the damages associated with 

those emissions is estimated at $8.4 

billion (discounted to 2024 dollars using 

a three percent discount rate).7 The 

annual benefits are estimated to 

decrease over time due to the HFC 

phasedown and the transition out of the 

higher-GWP HFCs, lowering the average 

GWP of later emissions. For example, it 

is estimated that the leak repair and 

ALD system provisions will prevent 

approximately 5.6 MMTCO2e of HFC 

emissions in 2030 and 3.0 MMTCO2e in 

2040. 

Reducing HFC emissions due to fixing 

leaks earlier is also anticipated to lead 

to savings for some system owners and 

operators, as less new refrigerant needs 

to be purchased to replace leaked 

refrigerant. In 2026, it is estimated that 

the leak repair and ALD provisions will 

lead to savings of $19.5 million (2022$) 

based on reduced HFC refrigerant 

needed to maintain the equipment. We 

also are aware that a refrigerantcontaining appliance would operate less 

efficiently if not properly charged and 

maintained, leading to increased energy 

costs; however, we have not quantified 

such savings in our analysis. EPA 

acknowledges that these $19.5 million 

in savings may not completely offset 

leak repair compliance costs and may 

not accrue uniformly to all regulated 

entities. Further, while these provisions 

have been estimated to result in savings, 

EPA understands that entities that may 

be affected by these regulations might 

not perform the practices, processes, or 

activities that would result in cost 

savings absent regulation. When entities 

are reviewing their own economic 

analyses, some factors may be pertinent 

that make new technologies or 

economically favorable best practices 

less attractive than existing practices, or 

some market failure may exist that acts 

as a barrier to businesses’ adoption of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82686 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

8 Klemick, Heather & Kopits, Elizabeth & 

Wolverton, Ann. ‘‘Potential Barriers to Improving 

Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings: The 

Case of Supermarket Refrigeration.’’ Journal of 

Benefit-Cost Analysis. 8, 2017, pp. 1–31. 

9 In the 2023 Technology Transitions RIA 

Addendum, EPA analyzed a ‘‘base case’’ and a 

‘‘high additionality’’ scenario. The former is used as 

the baseline to analyze the base case scenario for 

this rule. See the RIA addendum and Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD for additional details. 

the most profitable course.8 For 

example, market failures may exist 

where there is imperfect information or 

split incentives, such as decisionmakers not knowing the percentage of 

energy use associated with refrigeration 

or the costs of replacing refrigerant lost 

from leaking appliances. 

The compliance costs of the rule 

include recordkeeping and reporting 

costs, the costs of purchasing and 

operating ALD systems, costs of 

required inspections, the cost of 

repairing leaks earlier than would have 

been necessary without the provisions, 

the costs associated with using 

reclaimed HFCs in certain RACHP 

subsectors for the servicing of existing 

equipment (vis a vis virgin 

manufactured HFCs), the costs 

associated with minimizing releases of 

HFCs from fire suppression equipment 

(including using recycled HFCs in the 

initial and servicing and/or repair of fire 

suppression equipment), and the cost of 

disposable cylinder management 

requirements. In the years 2026 through 

2050, these provisions would result in 

compliance costs (inclusive of 

refrigerant savings) with a present value 

estimated at $1.5 billion (in 2022 dollars 

discounted to 2024) at a two percent 

discount rate, $1.3 billion at a three 

percent discount rate, or $0.9 billion at 

a seven percent discount rate. 

Taking into account both benefits and 

compliance costs over the 2026 through 

2050 time period, it is estimated that the 

rule results in present value net benefit 

(climate benefits, as monetized by 

application of SC-HFCs, discounted at 

three percent, minus compliance costs) 

of $6.9 billion (with compliance costs 

discounted at two percent) to $7.5 

billion (with compliance costs 

discounted at seven percent). 

As detailed in the RIA addendum and 

the Economic Impact and Benefits TSD, 

these values represent an estimate of 

potential incremental benefits and 

assume that industry would comply 

with previous AIM Act regulations as 

outlined in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions RIA Addendum 9 but would 

not undertake certain improvements to 

leak repair and refrigerant recovery 

practices in the absence of this 

rulemaking that were not required by 

those regulations. Since these 

assumptions are ultimately uncertain, in 

the RIA addendum and the Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD, EPA has also 

provided estimates under an additional 

scenario in which leak repair and 

recovery improvements do occur in the 

baseline, thus resulting in lower 

incremental benefits. The assumptions 

in this alternative scenario translate into 

reduced estimates of the incremental 

effect of the provisions of this final rule 

since additional impacts are only 

quantified insofar as they go beyond 

baseline assumptions of existing policy 

and industry practice. 

Some of the information regarding 

projected impacts of certain aspects of 

the action was considered by EPA as it 

finalized this rulemaking. To the extent 

that EPA has considered such 

information, it is compiled in the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD, 

which is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. While EPA has included 

estimates of the costs and benefits of 

this rulemaking in the RIA addendum to 

provide the public with information on 

the relevant costs and benefits of this 

action and to comply with Executive 

Orders, the analysis in the RIA 

addendum does not form a basis or 

rationale for any of the provisions EPA 

is promulgating in this rulemaking. 

Further, as explained previously in 

this section, although EPA is using the 

SC-HFCs for purposes of some of the 

analysis in the RIA addendum, this 

action does not rely on those SC-HFC 

estimates as a record basis for the 

Agency’s action. EPA would reach the 

conclusions in this rule even in the 

absence of the SC-HFCs. Additional 

information on these analyses can be 

found in section VI of this preamble, as 

well as the RIA addendum, which is in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

II. General information 

A. Do these regulations apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

the regulations established in this final 

rule if you own, operate, service, repair, 

recycle, dispose, or install equipment 

containing HFCs or their substitutes, as 

well as if you recover, recycle, or 

reclaim HFCs or their substitutes. You 

may also be potentially affected if you 

manufacture or sell equipment 

containing HFCs or their substitutes. 

Potentially affected categories, by North 

American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS) code, are included in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES

NAICS Code NAICS industry description 

236118 .............. Residential Remodelers. 

236220 .............. Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. 

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

238990 .............. All Other Specialty Trade 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82687 

TABLE 1—NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES—Continued 

NAICS Code NAICS industry description 

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

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

334413 .............. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. 

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

334516 .............. Analytical Laboratory Instrument 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

441310 .............. Automotive Parts and Accessories Stores. 

443141 .............. Household Appliance Stores. 

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

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

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

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

446191 .............. Food (Health) Supplement Stores. 

449210 .............. Electronics and Appliance Retailers. 

452311 .............. Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters. 

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

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

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

488510 .............. Freight Transportation Arrangement. 

493110 .............. General Warehousing and Storage. 

531120 .............. Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Mini warehouses). 

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

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

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

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

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

561210 .............. Facilities Support Services. 

561910 .............. Packaging and Labeling Services. 

561990 .............. All Other Support Services. 

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

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). 

722511 .............. Full-service Restaurants. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82688 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

10For purposes of this provision, EPA views 

‘‘reclaim,’’ ‘‘reclaiming,’’ and ‘‘reclamation’’ as 

similar terms and when used as nouns uses them 

interchangeably in this ER&R action. 

11As noted previously in this action, ‘‘regulated 

substance’’ and ‘‘HFC’’ are used interchangeably in 

this ER&R action. 

12EPA has determined that the exchange values 

included in subsection (c) of the AIM Act are 

identical to the GWPs included in the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

(2007). EPA uses the terms ‘‘global warming 

potential,’’ ‘‘GWP,’’ and ‘‘exchange value’’ 

interchangeably in this rulemaking. 

13 IPCC (2007): Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, 

R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. 

Chidthaisong, J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. 

Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. 

Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. 

Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. 

Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. Somerville, 

T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood and D. Wratt, 

2007: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 

2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA https:// 

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1. The IPCC’s Fourth 

Assessment Report is also referred to as IPCC AR4. 

14 In affirming this aspect of the Allocation 

Framework Rule, the D.C. Circuit held that ‘‘EPA 

has statutory authority to regulate HFCs within 

blends . . . because an HFC within a blend remains 

a regulated HFC under the Act.’’ Heating, Air 

Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors Int’l v. 

EPA, 71 F.4th 59, 64 (D.C. Cir. 2023). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this rulemaking. This table 

lists the types of entities that EPA 

expects could potentially be regulated 

by this rulemaking. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also 

be regulated. To determine whether 

your entity may be regulated by this 

rulemaking, you should carefully 

examine the regulatory text at the end 

of this document. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of these 

regulations to a particular entity, 

consult the people listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What is EPA’s authority for these 

regulations? 

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 (42 U.S.C. 7675). 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 (42 U.S.C. 

7675(k)(1)(A)). Subsection (k)(1)(C) of 

the Act also 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 (42 U.S.C. 

7675(k)(1)(C)). Accordingly, the 

promulgation of these regulations under 

the AIM Act 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 in three main ways: 

phasing down HFC production and 

consumption through an allowance 

allocation program; facilitating the 

transition to next-generation 

technologies by restricting use of these 

HFCs in the sector or subsectors in 

which they are used; and promulgating 

certain regulations for purposes of 

maximizing reclaiming and minimizing 

releases of HFCs from equipment and 

ensuring the safety of technicians and 

consumers. This rulemaking focuses on 

the third area—establishing certain 

regulations for HFCs and their 

substitutes for the purposes of 

maximizing reclaiming 10 and 

minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment and ensuring the safety of 

technicians and consumers. 

The identification of regulated 

substances is addressed under 

subsection (c) of the Act. The Act lists 

18 saturated HFCs, and by reference any 

of their isomers not so listed, which are 

covered by the statute’s provisions and 

are referred to as ‘‘regulated 

substances’’ 11 under the Act (42 U.S.C. 

7675(c)(1)). Congress also assigned an 

‘‘exchange value’’ 12 13 to each regulated 

substance. EPA is also authorized to 

designate additional substances as 

regulated substances if they meet certain 

criteria; for example, to be listed, the 

substance must be a saturated HFC that 

has an exchange value greater than 53 

(which is also the lowest exchange 

value for a regulated substance listed in 

subsection (c)(1) of the Act) (42 U.S.C. 

7675(c)(3)). 

The regulated substances addressed in 

this rulemaking may be used neat (i.e., 

as a single component substance) or in 

a blend with other substances, which 

may include other regulated substances 

and/or substitutes for regulated 

substances. The requirements included 

in this rulemaking for regulated 

substances apply regardless of whether 

the regulated substance is used neat or 

in a blend. In taking this approach, EPA 

is not concluding that a blend that uses 

one or more regulated substances is 

itself a regulated substance. Rather, the 

Agency is intending to regulate the 

regulated substance(s) used within a 

‘‘blend of substances’’ (42 U.S.C. 

7675(c)(3)(B)(ii)), such that the 

requirements applicable to equipment 

that uses regulated substances also 

affect equipment that uses regulated 

substances in blends. This is consistent 

with approaches that the Agency has 

taken under the Allocation Framework 

Rule (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021), the 

2024 Allocation Rule (88 FR 46836, July 

20, 2023), and the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule (88 FR 73098, October 

24, 2023).14 Furthermore, subsection 

(h)(1) requires EPA to promulgate 

regulations addressing certain practices, 

processes, or activities involving, among 

other things, a regulated substance or a 

substitute for a regulated substance (42 

U.S.C. 7675(h)(1)(A)–(B)). Consistent 

with those provisions, regulatory 

requirements under subsection (h) may 

also apply with respect to substitutes for 

regulated substances, regardless of 

whether the substitute is used neat or in 

a blend. In taking this approach for 

substitutes for a regulated substance, 

EPA is not concluding that a blend that 

uses one or more such substitutes that 

are so regulated is itself a regulated 

substance under subsection (c) of the 

Act, nor is EPA designating the 

substitute a regulated substance under 

subsection (c) of the Act. Rather, such 

substitutes are simply addressed, as 

appropriate, under EPA’s authority to 

promulgate regulations under 

subsection (h) for certain practices, 

processes, or activities that involve a 

substitute for a regulated substance. 

Subsection (h) of the AIM Act is titled 

‘‘Management of Regulated Substances.’’ 

For purposes of maximizing reclaiming 

and minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment and ensuring the safety of 

technicians and consumers, subsection 

(h)(1) directs EPA to promulgate 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, any practice, process, or 

activity regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves a regulated substance, a 

substitute for a regulated substance, the 

reclaiming of a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant, or the reclaiming of a 

substitute for a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant (42 U.S.C. 7675(h)(1)). 

Subsection (h)(1) further provides that 

this includes requiring, where 

appropriate, that any such servicing, 

repair, disposal, or installation be 

performed by a trained technician 

meeting minimum standards, as 

determined by EPA. The phrase ‘‘where 

appropriate’’ in subsection (h)(1) 

provides EPA discretion to reasonably 

determine how the regulations under 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82689 

subsection (h)(1) will apply because 

‘‘where appropriate’’ clearly leaves EPA 

flexibility to determine how to regulate 

in the context of subsection (h). In 

exercising its discretion under this 

provision, EPA has taken a number of 

considerations into account, such as: the 

text of subsection (h)(1) itself, including 

the statutory purposes identified in that 

provision; the anticipated effectiveness 

of the requirements under consideration 

in serving those purposes; the intent of 

subsection (h), considering the overall 

context and structure of the AIM Act; 

and information and insight drawn from 

EPA’s past experience with the same or 

similar practices, processes, or 

activities, as well as sectors, subsectors, 

and markets, gained from implementing 

other programs, including under other 

provisions of the AIM Act and the CAA. 

Under subsection (h)(2)(A) of the AIM 

Act, the Agency ‘‘shall consider the use 

of authority available . . . under this 

section to increase opportunities for the 

reclaiming of regulated substances used 

as refrigerants.’’ Subsection (h)(2)(B) of 

the Act further provides that a 

‘‘regulated substance used as a 

refrigerant that is recovered shall be 

reclaimed before the regulated 

substance is sold or transferred to a new 

owner, except where the recovered 

regulated substance is sold or 

transferred to a new owner solely for the 

purposes of being reclaimed or 

destroyed.’’ 

Further, subsection (h)(3) provides 

that in promulgating regulations to carry 

out subsection (h), EPA may coordinate 

those regulations with ‘‘any other 

regulations promulgated by the [EPA] 

that involve—(A) the same or a similar 

practice, process, or activity regarding 

the servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment; or (B) 

reclaiming.’’ The statute’s use of ‘‘may’’ 

conveys the Agency discretion to choose 

whether to coordinate regulations under 

subsection (h) with other Agency 

regulations, as well as determine the 

circumstances in which it is appropriate 

to undertake such coordination. 

Congress did not define the term 

‘‘coordinate’’ in the AIM Act. EPA 

interprets the term, as used in this 

context, as encompassing a variety of 

forms of coordination that could 

potentially be used for the specified 

types of regulatory provisions and 

interprets (h)(3) as conveying discretion 

to EPA to select the form or forms of 

coordination that are appropriate for the 

particular circumstances and regulatory 

provisions under consideration in a 

given action. This action under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act describes 

whether and where EPA is coordinating 

with regulations that involve the same 

or similar practices, processes, or 

activities regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment or 

reclaiming, and the Agency’s rationale 

on the appropriateness of coordinating 

with these regulations. For example, 

coordination could include establishing 

parallel requirements under subsection 

(h), where appropriate, as in another 

regulatory regime so that a similar 

practice, process, or activity in similar 

equipment is held to similar standards 

under both regimes. It could also 

include deciding not to establish 

requirements under subsection (h) in 

certain situations, such as when an 

existing requirement already applies to 

a similar practice, process, or activity 

under another set of regulations that 

EPA views as adequate to also address 

the purposes of subsection (h). 

Coordination could also mean 

coordinating rulemaking schedules or 

timing for certain requirements under 

subsection (h) that cover a similar 

practice, process, or activity as covered 

in a previous regulation and would meet 

the purposes of subsection (h). Finally, 

coordination may also mean 

coordinating the requirements under 

subsection (h) with revisions to 

regulations under other statutory 

authorities that address related 

practices, processes, or activities, with 

the goal of developing independent 

regulatory regimes that operate well 

together to achieve their stated goals. 

Subsection (h)(4) expressly states that 

any rulemaking under subsection (h) 

shall not apply to a regulated substance 

or a substitute for a regulated substance 

that is contained in a foam. Thus, the 

requirements in this rulemaking do not 

apply to regulated substances or 

substitutes for regulated substances 

when those substances are contained in 

foams. 

Finally, subsection (h)(5) provides 

that, subject to availability of 

appropriations, EPA shall establish a 

grant program to award small business 

grants for the purchase of new 

specialized equipment for the recycling, 

recovery, or reclamation of a substitute 

for a regulated substance, including the 

purchase of approved refrigerant 

recycling equipment for recycling, 

recovery, or reclamation in the service 

or repair of motor vehicle air 

conditioner (MVAC) systems. Funds 

have not been appropriated for this 

grant program. The establishment of this 

program is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

establishing an ER&R program that 

includes requirements for leak repair for 

certain equipment containing a 

refrigerant that contains an HFC or 

certain substitutes for HFCs; installation 

and use of ALD systems for certain 

equipment; the servicing and/or repair 

of refrigerant-containing equipment 

with reclaimed HFCs in certain RACHP 

subsectors; requirements for the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment that contains HFCs to be 

done with recycled HFCs, with the 

purpose of minimizing the release of 

HFCs from that equipment, as well as 

requirements related to technician 

training in the fire suppression sector; 

and recovery of HFCs from disposable 

cylinders before discarding. EPA is also 

establishing recordkeeping, reporting, 

and/or labeling requirements pursuant 

to these provisions. 

Under subsection (h)(1), EPA is 

directed to promulgate certain 

regulations for ‘‘purposes of maximizing 

the reclaiming and minimizing the 

release of a regulated substance from 

equipment and ensuring the safety of 

technicians and consumers.’’ Subsection 

(h) further specifies that those 

regulations are to control, where 

appropriate, any practice, process, or 

activity regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves a regulated substance, a 

substitute for a regulated substance, the 

reclaiming of a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant, or the reclaiming of a 

substitute for a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant. Together, the 

provisions, as summarized here and 

explained in greater detail in the 

relevant sections of this rulemaking, are 

designed to further those three purposes 

described in subsection (h)(1); i.e., (1) 

maximizing reclaiming, (2) minimizing 

the release of regulated substances from 

equipment, and (3) ensuring the safety 

of technicians and consumers, 

consistent with the scope of regulatory 

authority under that provision. As EPA 

interprets the statutory text, the suite of 

regulations established under 

subsection (h)(1) of the Act, taken 

together, are to focus on serving these 

purposes, though the individual 

regulatory provisions under subsection 

(h)(1) need not each connect to all three 

purposes. This interpretation is integral 

to establishing an effective regulatory 

program, as some regulatory provisions 

that might be considered under (h)(1) 

may be highly efficacious at addressing 

one of the regulatory purposes but not 

address the other two, or alternatively, 

may be important to support the 

functioning of the regulatory program as 

a whole, but not be focused on any of 

the specific purposes. Accordingly, this 

understanding of the statutory text will 

support EPA’s ability to develop 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82690 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

15While 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. 

16World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, 

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

Switzerland, 2022. Available at: https://

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

17 Ibid. 

18A recent study estimated that global 

compliance with the Kigali Amendment is expected 

to lower 2050 annual emissions by 3.0–4.4 

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

hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions and the 

resulting global warming based on recent trends in 

observed abundances and current policies. Atmos. 

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

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

19The Ministerial meeting on Climate, Energy 

and Environment ends with the adoption of a joint 

communique ́, April 30, 2024, available: https://

www.g7italy.it/en/the-ministerial-meeting-onclimate-energy-and-environment-ends-with-theadoption-of-a-joint-communique/. 

20Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers’ 

Meeting Communique ́, April 29–30, 2024, available: 

https://www.g7italy.it/wp-content/uploads/G7- 

Climate-Energy-Environment-MinisterialCommunique_Final.pdf. 

21World 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. 

22WMO, 2022. 

23Radiative forcing is expressed in units of watts 

per square meter (W/m2) and is defined by the IPCC 

as ‘‘a measure of the influence a factor has in 

altering the balance of incoming and outgoing 

energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an 

index of the importance of the factor as a potential 

climate change mechanism.’’ IPCC, 2007: Climate 

Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of 

Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

regulations that work together to help 

achieve the statutory purposes. 

Together, the provisions in this action 

serve the purposes described in (h)(1), 

with certain provisions more geared 

towards one or two of the purposes 

identified in subsection (h)(1). For 

example, the provisions related to leak 

repair in this action are directed at the 

purpose of minimizing the release of a 

regulated substance from equipment, 

but also help serve the purpose of 

maximizing the reclaiming of a 

regulated substance. Those provisions 

set requirements for when and how 

equipment must be serviced and leaks 

in equipment must be repaired. Taking 

these actions will minimize the release 

of regulated substances through such 

leaks, as the sooner a leak is found and 

repaired, the less HFC will be released 

from that leak. Further, by limiting the 

amount of regulated substances released 

from leaks in equipment, the 

opportunity to recover and subsequently 

reclaim these regulated substances 

increases. Thus, the provisions related 

to leak repair also help serve the 

purpose of maximizing the reclaiming of 

regulated substances. 

Another example is the provisions for 

the installation and use of ALD systems, 

which, similar to the leak repair 

provision, help address the purposes 

articulated in subsection (h)(1). In 

general, ALD systems will alert an 

owner or operator to leaks in refrigerantcontaining appliances well before any 

measurable decrease in the level of 

performance of the equipment. 

Identifying and repairing leaks sooner as 

a result of detecting the leak with an 

ALD system will further limit the 

amount of regulated substance released 

from the leak and maintain more of the 

regulated substance within the 

equipment, where it will be available for 

eventual recovery and reclamation. 

In addition to establishing 

requirements for the management of 

HFCs and substitutes, this action 

includes provisions designed to support 

enforcement and compliance, including 

recordkeeping and reporting. As stated 

earlier in this section, subsection 

(k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act states that CAA 

section 114 applies to the AIM Act and 

rules promulgated under it as if the AIM 

Act were included in CAA Title VI. 

Thus, CAA section 114, 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. 

These provisions and ones like them are 

integral to establishing an effective 

regulatory program, and thus are 

important to the overall efficacy of the 

HFC management program at achieving 

the purposes articulated in subsection 

(h)(1), even if they may be less directly 

connected to those purposes if viewed 

in isolation. 

EPA is also establishing alternative 

RCRA standards for ignitable spent 

refrigerants being recycled for reuse. 

These standards are not part of the 

regulations under subsection (h)(1) of 

the AIM Act but rather involve revisions 

to independent regulatory provisions, 

under a separate and distinct statutory 

authority. More specifically, the action 

under RCRA involves regulatory 

changes to 40 CFR parts 261 through 

271, and those changes are made under 

the authority of sections 2002, 3001, 

3002, 3003, 3004, 3006, and 3010 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 

(SWDA), as amended by the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 

as amended by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

This statute is commonly referred to as 

‘‘RCRA.’’ 

III. Background 

A. What are HFCs? 

HFCs are anthropogenic 15 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 more potent than carbon dioxide 

(CO2). 

HFC use and emissions 16 have been 

growing worldwide due to the global 

phaseout of ozone-depleting substances 

(ODS) under the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer (Montreal Protocol) and the 

increasing use of refrigeration and air 

conditioning equipment globally. 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 will 

substantially reduce future emissions, 

leading to a peaking of HFC emissions 

before 2040.17 18 For additional context, 

EPA further notes that the G7 Climate, 

Energy, and Environment ministers met 

in April 2024 and issued a joint 

declaration, which included statements 

recognizing the importance of reducing 

non-CO2 carbon emissions and other 

climate pollutants, including HFCs, and 

supporting robust implementation of the 

Kigali Amendment.19 The joint 

declaration 20 also included the 

commitment of the relevant 

governments to, among other things, 

take concrete actions to reduce non-CO2

emissions and promote the proper 

choice of refrigerants as well as the 

management of HFCs throughout their 

lifecycle including through leak 

prevention and end-of-life management 

of refrigerants. 

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 21 and a further 19 percent from 

2016 to 2020. The four most abundant 

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

125, HFC–23, and HFC–143a.22

HFCs excluding HFC–23 accounted 

for a radiative forcing 23 of 0.025 W/m 2


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82691 

on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, 

R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 104 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ 

ar4/syr. 

24 Guus J.M. Velders, David W. Fahey, John S. 

Daniel, Stephen O. Andersen, Mack McFarland, 

Future atmospheric abundances and climate 

forcings from scenarios of global and regional 

hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs) emissions, Atmospheric 

Environment, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.071, 

2015. 

25 Ibid. 

26Calculations based on EPA’s Vintaging Model, 

which estimates the annual chemical emissions 

from industry sectors that historically used ODS, 

including refrigeration and air conditioning, foam 

blowing agents, solvents, aerosols, and fire 

suppression. The model uses information on the 

market size and growth for each end-use, as well 

as a history and projections of the market transition 

from ODS to substitutes. The model tracks 

emissions of annual ‘‘vintages’’ of new equipment 

that enter into operation by incorporating 

information on estimates of the quantity of 

equipment or products sold, serviced, and retired 

or converted each year, and the quantity of the 

compound required to manufacture, charge, and/or 

maintain the equipment. Additional information on 

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

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

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014. 

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

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

27 In describing these 2009 Findings, EPA is 

neither reopening nor revisiting them. 

in 2016, rising to 0.037 W/m2 in 2020. 

This is an increase of nearly a third in 

total HFC forcing relative to 2016. This 

radiative forcing was projected to 

increase by an order of magnitude to 

0.25 W/m2 by 2050.24 If the Kigali 

Amendment is fully implemented, it is 

expected to reduce the future radiative 

forcing due to HFCs (excluding HFC–23) 

to 0.13 W/m2 in 2050, which is a 

reduction of about 50 percent compared 

with the radiative forcing projected in 

the business-as-usual scenario of 

uncontrolled HFCs.25

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. These 18 HFCs 

are all saturated, meaning they have 

only single bonds between their atoms, 

and therefore have longer atmospheric 

lifetimes. 

In the United States, HFCs are used 

primarily in refrigeration and air 

conditioning equipment in homes, 

commercial buildings, and industrial 

operations (approximately 75 percent of 

total HFC use in 2018) and in air 

conditioning in vehicles and 

refrigerated transport (approximately 8 

percent). Smaller amounts are used in 

foam products (approximately 11 

percent), aerosols (approximately 4 

percent), fire protection systems 

(approximately 1 percent), and solvents 

(approximately 1 percent).26

EPA estimated in the Allocation 

Framework Rule (86 FR 55116, October 

5, 2021) as updated under the 2024 

Allocation Rule (88 FR 46836, July 20, 

2023), 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. That estimate included 

both consumption as defined in 40 CFR 

84.3—i.e., with respect to a regulated 

substance, bulk production plus bulk 

imports minus bulk exports—and, 

although not requiring AIM Act 

allowances, the amount in imported 

products containing a regulated 

substance, less the amount in exported 

products containing a regulated 

substance. Annual avoided 

consumption was estimated at 42 

MMTCO2e in 2022 and 282 MMTCO2e 

in 2036. In order to calculate the climate 

benefits associated with consumption 

abatement, the consumption changes 

were expressed in terms of emissions 

reductions. EPA estimated that for the 

years 2022 through 2050, the HFC 

phasedown will avoid emissions of 

4,560 MMTCO2e of HFCs in the United 

States. The annual avoided emissions 

are estimated at 22 MMTCO2e in the 

year 2022 and 171 MMTCO2e in 2036. 

More information regarding these 

estimates is provided in the Allocation 

Framework Rule RIA and the 2024 

Allocation Rule RIA Addendum, which 

can be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The Agency calculated incremental 

avoided consumption and emissions 

under the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule (88 FR 73098, October 24, 2023). 

HFC consumption reductions beyond 

those from the HFC phasedown as 

stipulated in the previous paragraph 

ranged from 720 to 1,113 MMTCO2e for 

the years 2025 through 2050. EPA also 

estimated that the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule will achieve an 

additional 83 to 876 MMTCO2e of 

avoided emissions over these years, 

2025 through 2050. The 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule RIA 

Addendum, as well as the TSD, Costs 

and Environmental Impacts, are 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

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 

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 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 Agency 

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 

CAA section 202(a) (74 FR 66496, 

December 15, 2009).27 In the 2009 

Endangerment Finding, the 

Administrator found under CAA section 

202(a) that elevated atmospheric 

concentrations of six key, well-mixed 

GHGs—CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)— 

‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger the public health and welfare 

of current and future generations’’ (74 

FR 66523, December 15, 2009), and 

subsequent 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 

population of the United States. 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 likely 

reduces cold-related mortality, evidence 

indicates that the increases in heat 

mortality will be larger than the 

decreases in cold mortality in the 

United States (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 United States, 

including in the largest metropolitan 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82692 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

28The 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). 

29 In describing these 2016 Findings, EPA is 

neither reopening nor revisiting them. 

30An additional resource for indicators can be 

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

31 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 ́an, S. Berger, N. Caud, 

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

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

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

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3– 

32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001. 

32USGCRP, 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. 

33 IPCC, 2021. 

34A class I or class II substance is an ozonedepleting substance (ODS) listed at 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart A, appendix A or appendix B, respectively. 

This document refers to class I and class II 

substances collectively as ODS. 

35The term ‘‘ODS refrigerant’’ as used in this 

document refers to any refrigerant or refrigerant 

blend in which one or more of the components is 

a class I or class II substance. 

36The term ‘‘substitute’’ for the purposes of the 

regulations under CAA section 608 is defined at 40 

CFR 82.152. 

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, elderly 

people, and poor people are among the 

most vulnerable to these climate-related 

health effects (74 FR 66498, December 

15, 2009). 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding also 

documented, together with the 

extensive scientific and technical 

evidence in the supporting record, that 

climate change touches nearly every 

aspect of public welfare 28 in the United 

States, 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 United 

States that raise humanitarian, trade, 

and national security issues for the 

United States (74 FR 66530, December 

15, 2009). 

In 2016, the Administrator similarly 

issued Endangerment and Cause or 

Contribute Findings for GHG emissions 

from aircraft under CAA section 

231(a)(2)(A) (81 FR 54422, August 15, 

2016).29 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 

Endangerment Findings ‘‘strengthen and 

further support the judgment that GHGs 

in the atmosphere may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger the public 

health and welfare of current and future 

generations’’ (81 FR 54424, August 15, 

2016). 

Since the 2016 Endangerment 

Finding, the climate has continued to 

change, with new records being set for 

several climate indicators such as global 

average surface temperatures, GHG 

concentrations, and sea level rise. 

Moreover, heavy precipitation events 

have increased in the Eastern United 

States, while agricultural and ecological 

drought has increased in the Western 

United States, along with more intense 

and larger wildfires.30 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.’’ 31 These updated 

observations and projections document 

the rapid rate of current and future 

climate change both globally and in the 

United States.32 33

C. What regulatory programs addressing 

refrigerants has EPA already established 

under the Clean Air Act? 

EPA is issuing regulations that are 

designed to establish a comprehensive 

HFC management program that serves 

purposes including maximizing HFC 

reclamation and minimizing the release 

of HFCs from equipment while 

coordinating these efforts with other 

similar programs where appropriate. 

EPA has an extensive history under 

CAA Title VI regulating the sectors in 

which HFCs and substitutes are 

typically used, including where they are 

used as refrigerants and for other 

purposes. For example, EPA has 

regulated stationary refrigeration and air 

conditioning applications under CAA 

section 608, as well as MVACs under 

CAA section 609, and has evaluated 

alternative substances for refrigeration, 

air conditioning, and other uses under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program under CAA section 

612. 

1. National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program (CAA Section 608) 

CAA section 608, titled ‘‘National 

Recycling and Emission Reduction 

Program,’’ has three main components. 

First, CAA section 608(a) requires EPA 

to establish standards and requirements 

regarding the use and disposal of class 

I and class II substances.34 The second 

component, CAA section 608(b), 

requires that the regulations issued 

pursuant to subsection (a) contain 

requirements for the safe disposal of 

class I and class II substances. The third 

component, CAA section 608(c), 

prohibits the knowing venting, release, 

or disposal of ODS refrigerants 35 and 

their substitutes 36 in the course of 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances or industrial 

process refrigeration (IPR). EPA refers to 

this third component as the ‘‘venting 

prohibition.’’ CAA section 608(c)(1) 

establishes the venting prohibition for 

ODS refrigerants effective July 1, 1992, 

and it includes an exemption from this 

prohibition for ‘‘[d]e minimis releases 

associated with good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose’’ 

any such substance. CAA section 

608(c)(2) extends CAA section 608(c)(1) 

to substitute refrigerants, effective 

November 15, 1995. CAA section 

608(c)(2) also includes a provision that 

allows the Administrator to exempt a 

substitute refrigerant from the venting 

prohibition if he or she determines that 

such venting, release, or disposal of a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82693 

37The only 40 CFR part 82, subpart F 

requirements that applied to substitute refrigerants 

prior to the 2016 CAA Section 608 Rule were the 

venting prohibition and certain exemptions from 

that prohibition, as set forth in section 82.154(a). 

38Ozone-depleting refrigerants and appliances 

that contain or use any amount of ODS continue to 

be subject to all applicable subpart F requirements, 

including those in 40 CFR 82.157. 

39APF Petition for Reconsideration, January 

2017, available: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453-0228. 

40The State and municipal petitioners are the 

State of New York, State of Connecticut, State of 

Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of 

Minnesota, State of New Jersey, State of Oregon, 

Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Washington, 

District of Columbia, and City of New York. 

41NEDA/CAP Petitions for Reconsideration/ 

Petition for Rulemaking, May 2020, available: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQOAR-2017-0629-0345. 

substitute refrigerant ‘‘does not pose a 

threat to the environment.’’ 

EPA first issued regulations under 

CAA section 608 on May 14, 1993 (58 

FR 28660, ‘‘1993 Rule’’), to establish the 

national refrigerant management 

program for ODS refrigerants recovered 

during the service, repair, or disposal of 

air conditioning and refrigeration 

appliances. Since then, EPA has revised 

these regulations, which are found at 40 

CFR part 82, subpart F, (‘‘subpart F’’), 

through subsequent rulemakings 

published between 1994 and 2020. 

Regulations issued under CAA section 

608 include, among other things, the 

venting prohibition and sales 

restrictions for refrigerants (40 CFR 

82.154); safe disposal of appliances (40 

CFR 82.155); proper practices for the 

evacuation of refrigerant from 

appliances (40 CFR 82.156); required 

practices for appliance maintenance and 

leak repair (40 CFR 82.157); standards 

for recovery and/or recycling equipment 

(40 CFR 82.158); technician and 

reclaimer certification requirements (40 

CFR 82.161 and 82.164, respectively); 

and reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements (40 CFR 82.166). 

Appendices A through E at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F, provide, among other 

things, specifications for refrigerants; 

performance standards for refrigerant 

recovery, recycling, and/or reclaiming 

equipment; and standards for becoming 

a certifying program for technicians. 

As it pertains to regulations under 

CAA section 608, EPA has used the term 

‘‘non-exempt substitute’’ to refer to nonozone depleting refrigerants that have 

not been exempted from the venting 

prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2) 

and 40 CFR 82.154(a) in the relevant 

end use. Similarly, the term ‘‘exempt 

substitute’’ refers to a non-ozone 

depleting refrigerant that has been 

exempted from the venting prohibition 

under CAA section 608(c)(2) and 40 

CFR 82.154(a) in the relevant end use. 

A few exempt substitutes have been 

exempted from the venting prohibition 

in all applications. Notably, in 2016, 

EPA updated existing refrigerant 

management requirements and extended 

the full set of the subpart F refrigerant 

management requirements, which prior 

to that rule applied only to ODS 

refrigerants,37 to non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants, such as HFCs and 

hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs). See 81 FR 

82272 (November 18, 2016), hereafter 

‘‘2016 CAA Section 608 Rule.’’ Among 

the subpart F requirements extended to 

non-exempt substitute refrigerants in 

the 2016 CAA Section 608 Rule were 

provisions that restricted the servicing 

of appliances and the sale of refrigerant 

to certified technicians; specified the 

proper evacuation levels before opening 

an appliance; required the use of 

certified refrigerant recovery and/or 

recycling equipment; required 

refrigerant be recovered from appliances 

prior to disposal; required appliances 

have a servicing aperture or process stub 

to facilitate refrigerant recovery; 

required refrigerant reclaimers be 

certified to reclaim and sell used 

refrigerant; and established standards 

for technician certification programs, 

recovery equipment, and the purity of 

reclaimed refrigerant. The 2016 CAA 

Section 608 Rule also extended the 

appliance maintenance and leak repair 

provisions, currently codified at 40 CFR 

82.157, to appliances that contain 50 or 

more pounds of non-exempt substitute 

refrigerant. It also made numerous 

revisions to improve the efficacy of the 

refrigerant management program as a 

whole, such as revisions of regulatory 

provisions for increased clarity and 

readability, and removal of provisions 

that had become obsolete. 

After promulgation, the Agency 

reviewed the 2016 CAA Section 608 

Rule, focusing in particular on whether 

the Agency had the statutory authority 

to extend the full set of subpart F 

refrigerant management regulations to 

non-exempt substitute refrigerants, such 

as HFCs and HFOs. In 2018, EPA 

proposed to withdraw the extension of 

the provisions of 40 CFR 82.157 to 

appliances using only non-exempt 

substitute refrigerants (83 FR 49332, 

October 1, 2018).38 In 2020, EPA 

published a final rule (85 FR 14150, 

March 11, 2020, hereafter ‘‘2020 CAA 

Section 608 Rule’’) withdrawing the 

extension of the leak repair 

requirements—including requirements 

for repairing leaks, conducting leak 

inspections, and keeping applicable 

records—for appliances containing only 

such substitute refrigerants. Other 

subpart F provisions that were extended 

to substitute refrigerants in the 2016 

CAA Section 608 Rule, as mentioned in 

the previous paragraph, were left in 

place for appliances containing HFCs 

and other non-exempt substitute 

refrigerants. There were no changes to 

any of the regulatory requirements for 

ODS in the 2020 CAA Section 608 Rule. 

Petitions for judicial review were filed 

on the 2016 CAA Section 608 Rule and 

separately on the 2020 CAA Section 608 

Rule. Two industry coalitions, the 

National Environmental Development 

Association’s Clean Air Project (NEDA/ 

CAP) and the Air Permitting Forum 

(APF), filed petitions for judicial review 

of the 2016 CAA Section 608 Rule in the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in 2017. 

APF also filed an administrative 

petition for reconsideration before EPA 

regarding the 2016 CAA Section 608 

Rule.39 In 2020, the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) and a group of 

State and municipal petitioners 40 filed 

petitions for judicial review of the 2020 

CAA Section 608 Rule in the D.C. 

Circuit. NEDA/CAP also filed an 

administrative petition regarding the 

2020 CAA Section 608 Rule, styled as a 

petition for reconsideration or in the 

alternative a petition for rulemaking.41

These four petitions for review were all 

consolidated (Case No. 20–1150, D.C. 

Cir.) in July of 2020, and in August of 

2020 the court severed four issues raised 

in NEDA/CAP and APF’s administrative 

petitions for reconsideration and 

assigned them to a different case (Case 

No. 20–1309, D.C. Cir.). Both cases are 

now being held in abeyance. 

The E.O. issued on January 20, 2021, 

‘‘Executive Order on Protecting Public 

Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 

Crisis,’’ directed review of certain 

agency actions taken between January 

20, 2017, and January 20, 2021 (86 FR 

7037, January 20, 2021). The 2020 CAA 

Section 608 Rule was one of the actions 

subject to review. In light of this review 

and the Agency’s consideration of 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act, EPA has 

developed this rulemaking, which, 

among other things, involves evaluating 

the application of leak repair 

requirements to appliances using HFCs 

and substitute refrigerants under 

subsection (h). Because this action is 

rooted in EPA’s authority under the 

AIM Act, this rulemaking does not 

reopen or otherwise address the 

question of the authority for such 

requirements under the CAA. Similarly, 

EPA is not reopening or revisiting any 

of the regulations under CAA section 

608 in this rulemaking. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82694 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

42A related definition for ‘‘MVAC-like appliance’’ 

is found at 40 CFR 82.152: MVAC-like appliance 

means a mechanical vapor compression, open-drive 

compressor appliance with a full charge of 20 

pounds or less of refrigerant used to cool the 

driver’s or passenger’s compartment of off-road 

vehicles or equipment. This includes, but is not 

limited to, the air-conditioning equipment found on 

agricultural or construction vehicles. This 

definition is not intended to cover appliances using 

R–22 refrigerant. 

43Section 609(b)(1) defines the term 

‘‘refrigerant,’’ ‘‘[a]s used in this section’’, to mean 

‘‘any class I or class II substance used in a motor 

vehicle air conditioner. Effective 5 years after 

November 15, 1990, the term ‘refrigerant’ shall also 

include any substitute substance.’’ EPA’s 

implementing regulations include a parallel 

definition of this term at 40 CFR 82.32(f). 

44Equipment that extracts and recycles refrigerant 

is referred to as recover/recycle equipment. 

Equipment that extracts but does not recycle 

refrigerant is referred to as equipment that recovers 

but does not recycle refrigerant, or as recover-only 

equipment. 

2. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

Servicing Program (CAA section 609) 

CAA section 609 directs EPA to issue 

regulations establishing standards and 

requirements for the servicing of 

MVACs. For purposes of the regulations 

implementing CAA section 609, ‘‘motor 

vehicle air conditioners’’ 42 is defined at 

40 CFR 82.32(d) as mechanical vapor 

compression refrigeration equipment 

used to cool the driver’s or passenger’s 

compartment of any motor vehicle. This 

definition further states that it is not 

intended to encompass certain 

hermetically sealed refrigeration 

systems used on motor vehicles for 

refrigerated cargo and the air 

conditioning systems on passenger 

buses. For purposes of the section CAA 

section 609 regulations, ‘‘motor vehicle’’ 

is defined at 40 CFR 82.32(c) as any 

vehicle which is self-propelled and 

designed for transporting persons or 

property on a street or highway, 

including but not limited to passenger 

cars, light-duty vehicles, and heavyduty vehicles. This definition further 

provides that it does not include a 

vehicle where final assembly of the 

vehicle has not been completed by the 

original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM). 

Under CAA section 609 and 

regulations that implement it, no person 

repairing or servicing motor vehicles for 

consideration (e.g., payment or 

bartering) may perform any service on 

an MVAC that involves the refrigerant 43

without properly using approved 

refrigerant recovery or recovery and 

recycling equipment, and no such 

person may perform such service for 

consideration unless such person has 

been properly trained and certified. 

CAA section 609 also contains 

restrictions on the sale or distribution, 

or offer for sale or distribution, of class 

I and class II substances suitable for use 

as a refrigerant in MVACs in containers 

of less than 20 pounds, except to a 

person performing service for 

consideration on MVAC systems. 

Regulations issued under CAA section 

609, codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart 

B, include, among other things, 

prohibited and required practices for 

persons repairing and servicing MVACs 

for consideration (40 CFR 82.34); 

requirements for refrigerant handling 

equipment (40 CFR 82.36); approval 

processes for independent standards 

testing organizations (40 CFR 82.38); 

requirements for certifications that any 

person servicing or repairing MVACs for 

consideration must submit to EPA; and 

related recordkeeping requirements (40 

CFR 82.42). Appendices A through F at 

40 CFR part 82, subpart B, provide 

minimum operating requirements for 

equipment used for the recovery, 

recycling and/or recharging of 

refrigerant used in MVACs. 

In 1992, EPA published a rule (57 FR 

31242, July 14, 1992) under CAA 

section 609 establishing standards and 

requirements for servicing of MVACs 

and restricting the sale of small 

containers of ODS. The regulations, 

which appear in 40 CFR part 82, subpart 

B, require persons who repair or service 

MVACs for consideration to be certified 

in refrigerant recovery and recycling 

and to properly use approved 

equipment when performing service 

involving the refrigerant. Consistent 

with the definition in CAA section 

609(b)(1), ‘‘refrigerant’’ is defined in 

subpart B as any class I or class II 

substance used in MVACs, and to 

include any substitute substance 

effective November 15, 1995. The 1992 

CAA section 609 Rule also defined 

approved refrigerant recycling 

equipment as equipment certified by the 

Administrator or an approved 

organization as meeting either one of the 

standards in 40 CFR 82.36. Such 

equipment extracts and recycles 

refrigerant or extracts but does not 

recycle refrigerant, allowing that 

refrigerant to be subsequently recycled 

on-site or to be sent off-site for 

reclamation.44 EPA based the regulatory 

equipment standards in subpart B on 

those developed by the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). They 

cover service procedures for 

dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC–12 or R– 

12) recover/recycle equipment (SAE 

J1989, issued in October 1989); test 

procedures to evaluate R–12 recover/ 

recycle equipment (SAE J1990, issued in 

October 1989 and revised in 1991); and 

a purity standard for recycled R–12 

refrigerant (SAE J1991, issued in 

October 1989). Only equipment certified 

to meet the standards set forth in 

appendix A at 40 CFR part 82, subpart 

B, or that meets the criteria for 

substantially identical equipment, was 

approved under CAA section 609 for 

use in the servicing of MVACs at that 

time. 

EPA issued another rule under CAA 

section 609 in 1997 (62 FR 68026, 

December 30, 1997) in response to the 

increasing use of substitute refrigerants, 

particularly 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane 

(HFC–134a or R–134a). The 1997 CAA 

Section 609 Rule established standards 

and requirements for the servicing of 

MVACs that use any refrigerant other 

than R–12. The rule also stated that 

refrigerant (whether R–12 or a 

substitute) recovered from motor 

vehicles at motor vehicle disposal 

facilities may be re-used in the MVAC 

service sector only if it has been 

properly recovered and recycled by 

persons who are either employees, 

owners, or operators of the facilities, or 

technicians certified under CAA section 

609, using approved equipment. This 

differs from the rules established under 

CAA section 608, in which no person 

may sell or distribute, or offer for sale 

or distribution, used refrigerant 

(including both ODS and non-exempt 

substitutes such as HFCs) unless it has 

first been reclaimed by a certified 

reclaimer (40 CFR 82.154(d)). The 1997 

CAA Section 609 Rule also established 

conditions under which owners and 

operators of motor vehicle disposal 

facilities may sell refrigerant recovered 

from such vehicles to technicians 

certified under CAA section 609. 

3. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program (CAA section 612) 

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 

as where ODS historically have been 

used. Under SNAP, EPA evaluates 

acceptability of substitutes for ODS 

based primarily 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 (ODP) and GWP, 

exposure assessments, toxicity data, 

flammability, and other environmental 

impacts. This assessment could take a 

wide range of forms, such as a 

theoretical evaluation of the properties 

of the substitute, a computer simulation 

of the substitute’s performance in the 

sector or subsector, lab-scale (table-top) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82695 

45The revisions in 40 CFR 84.3 are described in 

EPA’s Allowance Allocation Methodology for 2024 

and Later Years rule, which was published on July 

20, 2023 (88 FR 46836). That rulemaking focuses on 

the second phase of the HFC phasedown and, 

among other things, establishes the allocation 

methodology for the ‘‘general pool’’ of HFC 

production and consumption allowances for 2024 

through 2028. Available at: https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/20/ 

2023-14312/phasedown-of-hydrofluorocarbonsallowance-allocation-methodology-for-2024-andlater-years. 

46EPA notes that in a few instances the proposed 

definition for a term included a phrase like ‘‘as used 

in this subpart’’ or ‘‘for purposes of this subpart.’’ 

EPA is not including those phrases in the final 

definitions, as the second sentence of § 84.102 in 

the final rule already makes clear that the 

definitions are for ‘‘purposes of this subpart C.’’ 

47As described in Section IV.F.1, EPA views the 

terms, ‘‘fire suppressants’’ and ‘‘fire suppression 

agents’’ as interchangeable for this rule. 

evaluations of the substitute, or 

equipment tests under various 

conditions. 

IV. How is EPA regulating the 

management of HFCs and their 

substitutes? 

As described in the following 

sections, EPA is establishing an ER&R 

program for the management of HFCs 

under subsection (h) of the AIM Act that 

includes requirements regarding several 

topics, including leak repair 

requirements for certain refrigerantcontaining appliances and installation 

and use of ALD systems for certain 

equipment; requirements for the 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment; 

requirements for the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of fire 

suppression equipment that contains 

HFCs, with the purpose of minimizing 

the release of HFCs from that 

equipment, including requirements for 

the initial installation and servicing 

and/or repair of fire suppression 

equipment with recycled HFCs, as well 

as requirements related to technician 

training in the fire suppression sector; 

and recovery of HFCs from disposable 

cylinders before discarding. As 

discussed in greater detail in section X 

of this preamble, EPA intends for the 

regulatory provisions established under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act in this 

final action to be able to stand 

independently from one another and 

has designed them accordingly. For 

example, the leak repair requirements 

for refrigerant-containing appliances are 

designed to operate independently from 

the requirements for servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of fire 

suppression equipment. 

A. What definitions is EPA 

implementing under subsection (h)? 

EPA has operated a refrigerant 

management program for decades under 

the CAA. More recently, EPA 

established regulatory programs related 

to the HFC phasedown and the 

technology transitions provisions under 

the AIM Act. Rules implementing those 

CAA and AIM Act programs have 

included defined terms, which EPA was 

mindful of when proposing and 

finalizing definitions for the ER&R 

program under subsection (h) of the 

AIM Act. 

The Allocation Framework Rule (86 

FR 55116, October 5, 2021) established 

regulatory definitions at 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart A to implement the framework 

for phasing down HFCs under the AIM 

Act, with certain revisions to the 

definitions section at 40 CFR 84.3 (see 

88 FR 46836, July 20, 2023).45

Subsequently, the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule (88 FR 73098, October 

24, 2023) established additional 

regulatory definitions in 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart B, at 40 CFR 84.52 to implement 

subsection (i) of the AIM Act. To 

maintain consistency, except as 

otherwise explained in this rule, EPA 

generally intends to use terms in this 

rulemaking, and in the new subpart C 

established by this rule, consistent with 

their definitions in subparts A and B, 

but there may be exceptions, such as 

where one term has different definitions 

under different subparts. The 

definitions under subpart A had already 

been finalized when this rule was 

proposed. Accordingly, consistent with 

the proposal, for terms not defined in 

subpart C but that are defined in subpart 

A (40 CFR 84.3) those definitions apply. 

As noted previously, EPA also 

considered the definitions in subpart B 

(40 CFR 84.52) in establishing the 

definitions and regulations in subpart C 

but is not incorporating those 

definitions into subpart C, in part to 

avoid potential confusion if the same 

term was defined differently in subparts 

A and B, but not defined in subpart C. 

EPA is also establishing definitions for 

terms that are applicable only under 40 

CFR part 84, subpart C, and do not have 

counterparts in the definitions under 40 

CFR part 84, subparts A or B. 

Many of the terms and definitions 

considered in this action are similar to 

those used to implement programs 

under CAA sections 608 and 609, with 

only limited changes as needed to 

conform with the AIM Act or this 

action. EPA considered these previously 

defined terms, from 40 CFR 82.152 and 

40 CFR 82.32, where they are used in 

the same or substantially similar 

manner. The regulated community for 

these regulations under subsection (h) 

and those under CAA sections 608 and 

609 overlap; therefore, maintaining the 

same or similar definitions, where 

consistent with AIM Act requirements 

and the purposes of this action, 

facilitates implementation by those who 

have been using and are familiar with 

these terms. Because EPA’s authority 

under the AIM Act extends beyond the 

sectors covered by 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F, where it is necessary or 

helpful for clarity, EPA is specifying 

certain definitions that apply to the 

terms as they refer to refrigerantcontaining equipment or as they apply 

to fire suppression equipment (see, e.g., 

the definition for ‘‘disposal’’). EPA may 

consider adding additional subsectors in 

a future rulemaking and accordingly 

may consider updating these definitions 

in the future. 

1. Terms That Did Not Generate 

Comment and That EPA Is Finalizing as 

Proposed 

Many proposed definitions did not 

garner specific comment. For the 

reasons discussed in the proposed rule, 

EPA is finalizing the following terms 

substantively as proposed, although in 

some instances with minor edits that do 

not alter their meaning (e.g., a nonsubstantive change in a word’s tense or 

removal of redundant language 46): 

Certified technician means a 

technician that has been certified per 

the provisions at 40 CFR 82.161. 

Component, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

a part of the refrigerant circuit within an 

appliance including but not limited to 

compressors, condensers, evaporators, 

receivers, and all of its connections and 

subassemblies. 

Custom-built means that the 

industrial process refrigeration 

equipment or any of its components 

cannot be purchased and/or installed 

without being uniquely designed, 

fabricated, and/or assembled to satisfy a 

specific set of industrial process 

conditions. 

Fire suppression technician means 

any person who in the course of 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment could be reasonably 

expected to violate the integrity of the 

fire suppression equipment and 

therefore release fire suppressants 47

into the environment. 

Follow-up verification test, as it 

relates to a refrigerant-containing 

appliance, means those tests that 

involve checking the repairs to an 

appliance after a successful initial 

verification test and after the appliance 

has returned to normal operating 

characteristics and conditions to verify 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82696 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

that the repairs were successful. 

Potential methods for follow-up 

verification tests include but are not 

limited to the use of soap bubbles as 

appropriate, electronic or ultrasonic 

leak detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, 

fluorescent dye and black light, infrared 

or near infrared tests, and handheld gas 

detection devices. 

Full charge, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

the amount of refrigerant required for 

normal operating characteristics and 

conditions of the appliance as 

determined by using one or a 

combination of the following four 

methods: 

(1) Use of the equipment 

manufacturer’s determination of the full 

charge; 

(2) Use of appropriate calculations 

based on component sizes, density of 

refrigerant, volume of piping, and other 

relevant considerations; 

(3) Use of actual measurements of the 

amount of refrigerant added to or 

evacuated from the appliance, including 

for seasonal variances; and/or 

(4) Use of an established range based 

on the best available data regarding the 

normal operating characteristics and 

conditions for the appliance, where the 

midpoint of the range will serve as the 

full charge. 

Initial verification test, as it relates to 

a refrigerant-containing appliance, 

means those leak tests that are 

conducted after the repair is finished to 

verify that a leak or leaks have been 

repaired before refrigerant is added back 

to the appliance. 

Leak inspection, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

the examination of an appliance to 

detect and determine the location of 

refrigerant leaks. Potential methods 

include but are not limited to ultrasonic 

tests, gas-imaging cameras, bubble tests 

as appropriate, or the use of a leak 

detection device operated and 

maintained according to manufacturer 

guidelines. Methods that determine 

whether the appliance is leaking 

refrigerant but not the location of a leak, 

such as standing pressure/vacuum 

decay tests, sight glass checks, viewing 

receiver levels, pressure checks, and 

charging charts, must be used in 

conjunction with methods that can 

determine the location of a leak. 

Leak rate, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means the rate at 

which an appliance is losing refrigerant, 

measured between refrigerant charges. 

The leak rate is expressed in terms of 

the percentage of the appliance’s full 

charge that would be lost over a 12- 

month period if the current rate of loss 

were to continue over that period. The 

rate must be calculated using one of the 

following methods. The same method 

must be used for all appliances subject 

to the leak repair requirements located 

at an operating facility. 

(1) Annualizing Method. 

(i) Step 1. Take the number of pounds 

of refrigerant added to the appliance to 

return it to a full charge, whether in one 

addition or in multiple additions related 

to same leak, and divide it by the 

number of pounds of refrigerant the 

appliance normally contains at full 

charge; 

(ii) Step 2. Take the shorter of the 

number of days that have passed since 

the last day refrigerant was added or 365 

days and divide that number by 365 

days; 

(iii) Step 3. Take the number 

calculated in Step 1 and divide it by the 

number calculated in Step 2; and 

(iv) Step 4. Multiply the number 

calculated in Step 3 by 100 to calculate 

a percentage. This method is 

summarized in the following formula: 

(2) Rolling Average Method. 

(i) Step 1. Take the sum of the pounds 

of refrigerant added to the appliance 

over the previous 365-day period (or 

over the period that has passed since the 

last successful follow-up verification 

test showing all identified leaks in the 

appliance were repaired, if that period 

is less than one year); 

(ii) Step 2. Divide the result of Step 

1 by the pounds of refrigerant the 

appliance normally contains at full 

charge; and 

(iii) Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 

2 by 100 to obtain a percentage. This 

method is summarized in the following 

formula: 

EPA further notes that, as discussed 

in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, 

owner or operators may preemptively 

repair leaks prior to adding refrigerant 

and calculating the leak rate for a 

refrigerant-containing appliance. After 

the completion of preemptive repair, an 

owner or operator must calculate the 

leak rate to see if the refrigerantcontaining appliance was leaking above 

the applicable leak rate threshold and 

complete the full suite of leak repair 

requirements as described in section 

IV.C.3 (e.g., verification tests, leak 

inspections, etc.) if the appliance was 

leaking above the applicable threshold. 

If the refrigerant-containing appliance 

was found to be leaking below the 

applicable leak rate threshold then no 

further action is necessary after the 

completion of the preemptive repair. 

Alternatively, an owner/operators may 

use the amount of refrigerant lost in lieu 

of the amount of refrigerant added to 

calculate the leak rate prior to adding 

refrigerant if they have a valid method 

of determining the amount of refrigerant 

lost (e.g., evacuating the appliance and 

comparing the amount of refrigerant 

evacuated to the full charge). 

Mothball, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means to evacuate 

refrigerant from an appliance, or the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2ER11OC24.001</GPH> ER11OC24.002</GPH>

Leakrate __ po_un_ds_o __ f_r...,efr_i...,genm __ t_ad_de_d x ___ 36_5...,day8/. ___ rye,_ar ___ x l0O% 

(.% per year) pounds of refrigerant shorter of: # days since 

in full charge refrigerant last added or 365 days 

pounds of refrigerant added over past 365 days 

(or since the last successful follow-up verification test showing a1I identified 

Leak rate = leaks in the appliance were repaired~ if that period is less than one year) x 100% 

(% per year) pounds of refrigerant in full charge 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82697 

affected isolated section or component 

of an appliance, to at least atmospheric 

pressure, and to temporarily shut down 

that appliance. 

Motor vehicle, means any vehicle 

which is self-propelled and designed for 

transporting persons or property on a 

street or highway, including but not 

limited to passenger cars, light-duty 

vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles. This 

definition does not include a vehicle 

where final assembly of the vehicle has 

not been completed by the original 

equipment manufacturer. 

Motor vehicle air conditioner (MVAC), 

means mechanical vapor compression 

refrigerant-containing appliances used 

to cool the driver’s or passenger’s 

compartment of any motor vehicle. This 

definition is intended to have the same 

meaning as in 40 CFR 82.32. 

Normal operating characteristics and 

conditions, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means appliance 

operating temperatures, pressures, fluid 

flows, speeds, and other characteristics, 

including full charge of the appliance, 

that would be expected for a given 

process load and ambient condition 

during normal operation. Normal 

operating characteristics and conditions 

are marked by the absence of atypical 

conditions affecting the operation of the 

appliance. 

Owner or operator, means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, or controls 

any equipment, or who controls or 

supervises any practice, process, or 

activity that is subject to any 

requirement pursuant to this subpart. 

Recycling, when referring to fire 

suppression or fire suppressants, means 

the testing and/or reprocessing of 

regulated substances used in the fire 

suppression sector to certain purity 

standards. 

Refrigerant circuit, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

the parts of an appliance that are 

normally connected to each other (or are 

separated only by internal valves) and 

are designed to contain refrigerant. 

Reprocess, means using procedures 

such as filtering, drying, distillation, 

and other chemical procedures to 

remove impurities from a regulated 

substance or a substitute for a regulated 

substance. 

Retire, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means the 

removal of the refrigerant and the 

disassembly or impairment of the 

refrigerant circuit such that the 

appliance as a whole is rendered 

unusable by any person in the future. 

Seasonal variance, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

the removal of refrigerant from an 

appliance due to a change in ambient 

conditions caused by a change in 

season, followed by the subsequent 

addition of an amount that is less than 

or equal to the amount of refrigerant 

removed in the prior change in season, 

where both the removal and addition of 

refrigerant occurs within one 

consecutive 12-month period. 

Stationary refrigerant-containing 

equipment means refrigerant-containing 

equipment, as defined in this subpart, 

that is not an MVAC or MVAC-like 

appliance, as defined in this subpart. 

EPA notes that for this definition the 

phrase ‘‘motor vehicle air conditioner’’ 

was used in the proposed definition, but 

in the final definition EPA is replacing 

that phrase with its abbreviation 

‘‘MVAC’’ to maintain consistency with 

other definitions in this rule. This 

change does not alter the meaning of the 

term. 

Technician, as it relates to any person 

who works with refrigerant-containing 

appliances, means any person who in 

the course of servicing, repair, or 

installation of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance (except MVACs) could be 

reasonably expected to violate the 

integrity of the refrigerant circuit and 

therefore release refrigerants into the 

environment. Technician also means 

any person who, in the course of 

disposal of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance (except small appliances as 

defined in 40 CFR 82.152, MVACs, and 

MVAC-like appliances), could be 

reasonably expected to violate the 

integrity of the refrigerant circuit and 

therefore release refrigerants from the 

appliance into the environment. 

Activities reasonably expected to violate 

the integrity of the refrigerant circuit 

include but are not limited to: Attaching 

or detaching hoses and gauges to and 

from the appliance; adding or removing 

refrigerant; adding or removing 

components; and cutting the refrigerant 

line. Activities such as painting the 

appliance, rewiring an external 

electrical circuit, replacing insulation 

on a length of pipe, or tightening nuts 

and bolts are not reasonably expected to 

violate the integrity of the refrigerant 

circuit. Activities conducted on 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

have been properly evacuated pursuant 

to 40 CFR 82.156 are not reasonably 

expected to release refrigerants unless 

the activity includes adding refrigerant 

to the appliance. Technicians include 

but are not limited to installers, 

contractor employees, in-house service 

personnel, and owners and/or operators 

of refrigerant-containing appliances. 

EPA further notes that this definition 

deviates slightly from the definition of 

‘‘technician’’ at 40 CFR 82.152 to 

conform with the AIM Act grant of 

authority. EPA is also defining 

‘‘certified technician’’ to make it clear 

that EPA is referring to persons certified 

per 40 CFR 82.161 for the purposes of 

these regulations. When specifically 

referring to technicians certified under 

40 CFR part 82, subpart B, the term 

‘‘609-certified technician’’ is used. 

2. Terms That Received Comment or 

That EPA Is Modifying 

This section discusses comments 

received on specific proposed 

definitions, EPA’s responses to those 

comments, and any changes made to the 

final definitions in response to those 

comments. It also includes discussion of 

certain modifications in the final rule to 

definitions that did not receive 

comment as discussed previously. 

Comfort cooling. EPA proposed to 

define this term as ‘‘the refrigerantcontaining appliances used for air 

conditioning to provide cooling in order 

to control heat and/or humidity in 

occupied facilities including but not 

limited to residential, office, and 

commercial buildings. Comfort cooling 

appliances include but are not limited 

to chillers, commercial split systems, 

and packaged roof-top units.’’ 

As described below, after considering 

public comment on this definition, EPA 

is modifying its definition of ‘‘comfort 

cooling’’ to include dual-function heat 

pumps as an additional example of the 

term. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA’s definition of ‘‘comfort 

cooling’’ include single-function (heat 

only) and dual-function (heating and 

cooling) heat pump appliances. 

Response: EPA agrees that dualfunction heat pumps are included 

within the definition of ‘‘comfort 

cooling’’ because those appliances 

provide cooling. To provide another 

relevant example of comfort cooling 

applications, EPA is adding dualfunction heat pumps to the illustrative 

list of examples in the definition. EPA 

is not including single-function heat 

pump applications as an example of an 

application included in ‘‘comfort 

cooling’’ because EPA does not view it 

as fitting within this particular category 

as the definition is currently drafted. 

EPA may in the future consider 

proposing to include single-function 

heat pump applications under comfort 

cooling or under a different category of 

equipment. 

Commercial refrigeration. EPA 

proposed this definition to mean ‘‘the 

refrigerant-containing appliances used 

in the retail food and cold storage 

warehouse subsectors. Retail food 

appliances include the refrigeration 

equipment found in supermarkets, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82698 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

convenience stores, restaurants and 

other food service establishments. Cold 

storage includes the refrigeration 

equipment used to store meat, produce, 

dairy products, and other perishable 

goods.’’ 

EPA is finalizing two modifications to 

the proposed definition of ‘‘commercial 

refrigeration.’’ Both modifications 

involved replacing the term 

‘‘refrigeration equipment’’ in sentences 

two and three of the proposed definition 

of the term to ‘‘refrigeration-containing 

appliance’’ in the finalized term. These 

changes were made because 

‘‘refrigeration equipment’’ is not a 

defined term under this subpart, but 

‘‘refrigeration-containing appliance’’ is. 

EPA did not receive comment on the 

definition of ‘‘commercial 

refrigeration.’’ 

Disposal. EPA’s proposed definition 

of ‘‘disposal’’ (see 88 FR 72216, 72298, 

October 19, 2023) applied to 

‘‘refrigerant-containing appliances.’’ 

This was done to maintain consistency 

with the definition of ‘‘disposal’’ in 40 

CFR 82.161 which applies to 

‘‘appliances.’’ EPA is finalizing a 

definition of disposal with two parts, 

with the first part relating to 

‘‘refrigerant-containing equipment’’ and 

the second part relating to ‘‘fire 

suppression equipment.’’ Furthermore, 

in the first part of the final definition 

EPA is using the term ‘‘refrigerantcontaining equipment’’ instead of 

‘‘refrigerant-containing appliance’’ to 

more fully align with the regulatory 

definition with how the term disposal is 

used under subsection (h)(1) of the AIM 

Act, which states ‘‘the Administrator 

shall promulgate regulations to control, 

where appropriate, any practice process 

or activity regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

(emphasis added).’’ ‘‘Refrigerantcontaining equipment’’ is broader than 

‘‘refrigerant-containing appliance’’ and 

includes everything covered under the 

definition of ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

appliance’’ (e.g., any air conditioner, 

MVAC, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer) 

while also including refrigerantcontaining components. However, the 

regulatory requirements related to 

disposal of refrigerant-containing 

equipment established in this final 

action at 84.106 apply to refrigerantcontaining appliances (rather than 

refrigerant-containing equipment), and 

this change in the definition is not 

intended to broaden the scope of these 

requirements. 

EPA added a second part to the final 

definition of disposal to distinguish 

disposal of fire suppression equipment. 

Since this final rule regulates the 

disposal of fire suppression equipment, 

which may differ from the disposal of 

refrigerant-containing equipment, the 

Agency is specifying how the term 

‘‘disposal’’ relates to fire suppression 

equipment in this subpart, for greater 

clarity of the regulatory provisions. This 

final definition of disposal is analogous 

to the definition of ‘‘disposal of haloncontaining equipment’’ in the halon 

emissions reduction requirements at 40 

CFR part 82, subpart H, which EPA 

referenced in the proposal, describing 

its intent to propose requirements 

similar to those in subpart H. The final 

definition parallels the definition of 

disposal at 40 CFR 82.260, with the 

words ‘‘fire suppression equipment’’ 

replacing the term ‘‘halon-containing 

equipment’’ to maintain consistency 

with regulations for the disposal of 

halon-containing equipment, including 

halon-containing equipment used in fire 

suppression applications. The revised 

definition can be read in full below: 

Disposal, as it relates to refrigerantcontaining equipment, means the 

process leading to and including: 

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping, 

or placing of any discarded refrigerantcontaining equipment into or on any 

land or water; 

(2) The disassembly of any refrigerantcontaining equipment for discharge, 

deposit, dumping, or placing of its 

discarded component parts into or on 

any land or water; 

(3) The vandalism of any refrigerantcontaining equipment such that the 

refrigerant is released into the 

environment or would be released into 

the environment if it had not been 

recovered prior to the destructive 

activity; 

(4) The disassembly of any refrigerantcontaining equipment for reuse of its 

component parts; or 

(5) The recycling of any refrigerantcontaining equipment for scrap. 

Disposal, as it relates to fire 

suppression equipment, means the 

process leading to and including: 

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping, 

or placing of any fire suppression 

equipment into or on any land or water; 

(2) The disassembly of any fire 

suppression equipment for discharge, 

deposit, dumping, or placing of its 

discarded component parts into or on 

any land or water; or 

(3) The disassembly of any fire 

suppression equipment for reuse of its 

component parts. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the proposed definition of disposal 

(which as originally proposed was 

specific to a ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

appliance’’) is inconsistent with the 

principles of safe disposal under 40 CFR 

82.155 and with the definition of 

disposal under RCRA. The commenter 

asserted that parts 4 and 5 of the 

definition incorrectly conflate two 

different processes (disassembly and 

recycling). The commenter further 

stated that since there are ‘‘safe 

disposal’’ regulations at 40 CFR 82.155, 

it is counterproductive to have a 

definition of disposal that includes 

principles of recycling, because disposal 

and recycling are entirely different 

processes. The commenter also stated 

that the definition of disposal under 40 

CFR 82.155 and 40 CFR 84.102 is 

incompatible with RCRA’s definition of 

disposal under 40 CFR 260.10, which 

does not include practices of 

disassembly or recycling. The 

commenter requested that EPA align the 

proposed definition with those in 40 

CFR 82 subparts B and F to minimize 

complications and contradictions 

between these AIM Act subsection (h) 

regulations and CAA title VI 

regulations. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a 

definition of ‘‘disposal,’’ as it relates to 

refrigerant-containing equipment, that 

parallels the definition in 40 CFR 

82.152. To the extent the commenter is 

suggesting that the proposed definition 

of disposal is inconsistent with the 

requirements in 82.155, EPA disagrees. 

Rather, the definition in 40 CFR 84.102 

is analogous to the definition of disposal 

in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F at 40 CFR 

82.152, the safe disposal provisions also 

found subpart F at 40 CFR 82.155, as 

82.155 does not contain a separate 

definition of ‘‘disposal.’’ To the extent 

this comment relates to the 

requirements of or suggestions to change 

82.155 or any other regulations under 

CAA title VI, it is outside the scope of 

this rulemaking and requires no further 

response. 

EPA disagrees that parts 4 and 5 of the 

proposed definition (see at 88 FR 72216, 

72298, October 19, 2023) are incorrectly 

conflated. Recycling and disassembly 

for reuse are distinct processes under 

these regulations, but they are both endof-life practices for refrigerantcontaining equipment. The definition is 

intended to include a range of end-oflife practices to ensure the requirements 

cover the range of relevant activities. 

The commenter has not provided 

sufficient rationale for why the relevant 

requirements under this subpart should 

not apply to both disassembly and 

recycling. Accordingly, the Agency is 

retaining both 4 and 5 in the definition 

as it relates to refrigerant-containing 

equipment. 

The definitions of recycle and 

disposal under RCRA are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act and this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82699 

action to establish the definitions that 

will apply for the regulations 

implementing that provision. For 

information on public comments on the 

proposed RCRA alternative standards, 

and EPA’s responses, please see RCRA 

Alternative Standards for Ignitable 

Spent Refrigerants: Response to 

Comments Document, available in the 

docket. 

Equipment. EPA proposed this 

definition to mean ‘‘any device that 

contains, uses, detects or is otherwise 

connected or associated with a regulated 

substance or substitute for a regulated 

substance, including any refrigerantcontaining appliance, component, or 

system.’’ 

EPA is modifying its definition of 

equipment to specify that fire 

suppression equipment is also included 

under the definition of equipment. This 

revision is intended to clarify the 

definition by providing another 

illustrative example of equipment that is 

included in the definition. EPA does not 

view this list of examples as being 

exhaustive, however as it would be 

unnecessarily cumbersome to list all of 

the equipment that is included in the 

regulatory definition. For example, 

while not expressly listed in the 

definition. EPA also understands this 

definition to include direct and indirect 

ALD systems, including point detection 

systems, are a subset of equipment 

because ALD systems are devices that 

detect regulated substances or 

substitutes for regulated substances. 

EPA also added the word ‘‘to’’ after the 

word ‘‘connected’’ to maintain 

consistency with other definitions that 

use the phrase ‘‘connected to.’’ 

Fire suppression equipment. EPA’s 

proposed definition of this term (see 88 

FR 72216, 72298, October 19, 2023) 

described what would be included in 

the definition and also stated, among 

other things, that the term would not 

include mission-critical military end 

uses and systems used in deployable 

and expeditionary situations. EPA is 

modifying the final definition by 

replacing the phrase ‘‘mission-critical 

military end uses and systems’’ with 

‘‘military equipment’’ to provide greater 

clarity on situations in which military 

equipment are exempt from certain 

provisions of the rule. As discussed 

later in this section, EPA is amending 

the definition of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in the same manner. 

EPA intended the proposed definition 

to clarify that certain military 

equipment would not be subject to 

regulatory requirements in certain 

situations. The reference to ‘‘missioncritical military end uses and systems’’ 

was intended to be analogous to the use 

of the similar term ‘‘mission-critical 

military end uses’’ in 40 CFR 84.13(a). 

After further reflection and 

consideration of the comments 

submitted, the Agency has concluded 

that it would be clearer to separately 

address the exemption for missioncritical military end uses, and that this 

approach would better align with how 

these end-uses are treated under other 

provisions of the AIM Act. Accordingly, 

as noted in section I.B, EPA is also 

establishing an exemption from the 

ER&R regulations for mission-critical 

military end uses, as listed at 40 CFR 

84.13(a), for a year or years for which 

the application receives an applicationspecific allowance as defined at 40 CFR 

84.3. This approach mirrors the 

approach in regulations established 

under the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule at 84.56(a)(2) and better aligns with 

the regulations under 84.13. Given the 

addition of this exemption to the 

regulations finalized in this rule (see 

84.114(b)), there is no need to exclude 

mission-critical military end uses from 

the definition of fire suppression 

equipment. With respect to military 

systems used in deployable and 

expeditionary situations, as stated in the 

proposal, there are situations in which 

the unique design and use of this 

equipment makes it impossible to 

recover fire suppression agents during 

the service, repair, disposal, or 

installation of such equipment. Because 

this rule does not define ‘‘end uses’’ or 

‘‘systems,’’ EPA is using the broader 

term ‘‘equipment’’ to improve 

understanding and clarify its intent that 

no military equipment used in 

deployable and expeditionary situations 

is subject to the regulations for fire 

suppression equipment in this rule. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA exclude individual fire 

extinguishers from the definition of 

‘‘fire suppression equipment.’’ Another 

commenter supported exempting 

mission-critical military end uses from 

certain requirements of the rule. This 

commenter suggested that EPA could 

improve the clarity of the rule by stating 

that specific requirements (e.g., leak 

repair, ALD systems) do not apply to 

mission-critical end uses and systems, 

rather than embedding the exemption in 

the definitions of ‘‘refrigerantcontaining equipment’’ and ‘‘fire 

suppression equipment.’’ The 

commenter further stated that 

affirmatively stating that certain 

requirements do not apply to missioncritical military end uses would make 

this rule consistent with the Allocation 

Framework Rule and would help 

improve compliance with this final rule. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s request to exclude 

individual fire extinguishers from the 

definition of fire suppression 

equipment. EPA has a long history 

under the CAA title VI regulations of 

considering fire suppression as both 

streaming (e.g., fire extinguishers) and 

total flooding applications. The 

commenter did not provide sufficient 

rationale for changing that approach in 

this rule and EPA is concerned that 

doing so would limit the ability of this 

rule to achieve its intended purpose 

with respect to minimizing releases 

from fire suppression equipment. 

In response to the comment 

suggesting that EPA exempt missioncritical military end uses from certain 

requirements of the rule separate from 

the definition, as described above, EPA 

notes, that it has created a separate 

exemption in these regulations for 

mission-critical military end uses, as 

listed at 40 CFR 84.13(a), for a year or 

years for which that application receives 

an application-specific allowance as 

defined at 40 CFR 84.3. As explained 

above, EPA is taking this approach, 

rather than listing the exemption in 

each specific requirement, as that 

approach better aligns with the 

approach under other AIM Act rules, 

which should ease understanding of the 

exemption and facilitate 

implementation and compliance. 

Industrial process refrigeration. EPA 

is finalizing this term as proposed to 

mean ‘‘complex, customized, 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

are directly linked to the processes used 

in, for example, the chemical, 

pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and 

manufacturing industries. This sector 

also includes industrial ice machines, 

appliances used directly in the 

generation of electricity, and ice rinks. 

Where one appliance is used for both 

industrial process refrigeration and 

other applications, it will be considered 

industrial process refrigeration 

equipment if 50 percent or more of its 

operating capacity is used for industrial 

process refrigeration.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

in the Technology Transitions program, 

EPA determined appliances that cool 

data centers, information technology 

equipment facilities (ITEFs), computer 

room cooling equipment, 

communications rooms, and appliances 

associated with cooling other spaces 

dedicated to maintaining the operating 

temperatures of electronic devices were 

not IPR or comfort cooling. The 

commenter further stated that under 40 

CFR part 82, subpart F these refrigerantcontaining devices are comfort cooling. 

The commenter requested that EPA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82700 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

specify whether these appliances are 

comfort cooling or IPR. The commenter 

stated that all industrial facilities have 

data centers or computer rooms and 

need to understand how to properly sort 

their appliances because this impacts 

leak rate repair triggers and appliance 

repair time. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that the definition of ‘‘comfort cooling’’ 

in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F codified at 

40 CFR 82.152 includes appliances that 

cool data centers, ITEF, computer 

rooms, communications rooms, and 

electronic devices. EPA intends for its 

definition of ‘‘industrial process 

refrigeration’’ under these regulations to 

parallel the definition within 40 CFR 

82.152 as many of these requirements 

established for industrial process 

refrigeration and comfort cooling in this 

rule are analogous to those that apply 

under 40 CFR part 82, subpart F and 

EPA anticipates that using parallel 

definitions will facilitate understanding 

of the rule’s requirements amongst 

regulated entities and support 

compliance for those entities that 

already have established approaches to 

complying with similar requirements for 

similar equipment under subpart F. 

Accordingly, the appliances that cool 

data centers, ITEF, computer room 

cooling equipment, communications 

rooms, and appliances associated with 

cooling other spaces dedicated to 

maintaining the operating temperatures 

of electronic devices are considered 

comfort cooling for purposes of the 

ER&R program established in this rule. 

Installation. EPA is finalizing this 

term as proposed to mean ‘‘the process 

of setting up equipment for use, which 

may include steps such as completing 

the refrigerant circuit, including 

charging equipment with a regulated 

substance or substitute for a regulated 

substance, or connecting cylinders 

containing a regulated substance or a 

substitute for a regulated substance to a 

total flooding fire suppression system, 

such that the equipment can function 

and is ready for use for its intended 

purpose.’’ 

The definition of ‘‘installation’’ for 

purposes of the ER&R program is 

broader than a definition for a similar 

term used in the Technology Transitions 

program, which is found in 40 CFR part 

84, subpart B. Specifically, the 

definition for ‘‘install’’ in subpart B 

refers only to the completion of a fieldassembled system’s circuit. 

‘‘Installation’’ in this rulemaking under 

subsection (h) includes processes, 

practices and activities related to 

installation of equipment that are 

encompassed in the Technology 

Transitions program’s definitions for 

both ‘‘installation’’ and ‘‘manufacture’’ 

at 40 CFR 84.52, as well as other types 

of installation. EPA is establishing a 

broader definition under subsection (h) 

to encompass the full range of practices, 

processes, or activities that are relevant 

to the installation of equipment that is 

regulated under this action, or that may 

be regulated under a future rule under 

subsection (h). Included under this 

definition of installation is the process 

of setting up of ALD systems for use, 

because ALD systems are considered 

equipment under this subpart. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the activity of installation is commonly 

understood to relate to physically 

placing equipment in a facility or 

location, not to the initial charging of 

equipment during manufacture nor the 

field charging of refrigeration systems 

during construction. The commenter 

further maintained that read together, 

the terms that Congress used in 

subsection (h)(1) (‘‘servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment’’) 

naturally refer to work performed on the 

equipment, not to the design of the 

equipment or the choice of which 

refrigerant is used in the equipment. 

The commenter asserted that if Congress 

had intended for EPA to have the ability 

to mandate what type of refrigerant is 

used in the equipment, it would more 

naturally have listed installation first in 

the serialization of activities, because 

installation is the first activity in the 

temporal sequence, followed by 

servicing and repair, and ultimately 

disposal of the equipment at end of life 

(EOL). 

Another commenter stated that 

subsection (h)(1) contained limited 

authority regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, and installation of equipment, 

and that the scope of any EPA 

regulations to implement subsection 

(h)(1) must remain within these 

parameters. The commenter further 

stated that subsection (h) does not 

contain any provision concerning the 

‘‘initial’’ charging of equipment prior to 

sale or distribution—nor is there any 

specific mention in the statute of any 

subsequent charging of existing 

equipment. The commenter also stated 

that ‘‘servicing’’ was not defined in the 

proposed rule and that EPA has not 

clarified what constitutes ‘‘servicing’’ of 

existing equipment, although, charging 

of existing equipment could constitute 

‘‘servicing.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with 

commenters that the term ‘‘installation’’ 

as used in context in subsection (h)(1) 

of the AIM Act does not include the 

addition of refrigerant to an appliance. 

Read in context, in relevant part, 

subsection (h) directs EPA to establish 

regulations to ‘‘control, where 

appropriate, any practice, process, or 

activity regarding the . . . installation of 

equipment . . . that involves’’ an HFC 

or a substitute for an HFC or the 

reclaiming of an HFC or a substitute for 

an HFC used as a refrigerant. The 

commenter’s overly narrow 

interpretation is not the best reading of 

this provision. For example, it does not 

account for the full range of practices, 

processes, or activities that are involved 

in installation of equipment, and it does 

not recognize the scope of discretion 

that subsection (h)(1) conveys to EPA. In 

directing EPA to regulate ‘‘any practice, 

process, or activity regarding the . . . 

installation of equipment’’ ‘‘where 

appropriate’’ Congress afforded EPA 

discretion to determine what control 

measures are appropriate for particular 

practices, processes, and activities, and 

also to reach practices, processes, and 

activities that regard—or relate to— 

installation, rather than limiting EPA to 

only addressing practices, processes, 

and activities that occur directly during 

the placement of equipment on the site. 

Thus, EPA interprets this provision to 

convey regulatory authority that extends 

to a range of practices, processes, or 

activities regarding installation, and that 

includes activities both before and after 

placement on the site. From a technical 

perspective, an important part of 

installation of equipment is to prepare 

it for use, and adding refrigerant to 

refrigerant-containing equipment is a 

critical step in preparing the equipment 

for use, as the equipment cannot serve 

its intended use until it has been 

charged. Thus, charging is part of 

installation, and activities related to 

charging of equipment are related to the 

installation process and within this 

grant of authority under subsection 

(h)(1) concerning practices, processes, 

or activities regarding installation. 

Based on this interpretation of the 

statutory text, EPA is including the 

charging of equipment in the definition 

of ‘‘installation’’ in these regulations 

implementing subsection (h)(1). EPA 

agrees with the commenters to the 

extent that they assert that the terms 

that Congress used in subsection (h)(1) 

(‘‘servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment’’) include 

work performed on the equipment, but 

for the reasons explained earlier in this 

response, EPA disagrees that the 

regulatory authority under subsection 

(h)(1) is limited to work performed 

directly on equipment. EPA disagrees 

with one commenter’s suggested 

definition of ‘‘installation’’ as it would 

end at mere placement of the equipment 

on site and exclude work performed to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82701 

allow the system to function. Given that 

the text of subsection (h)(1) of the AIM 

Act expressly provides that the 

regulations established are to address 

practices, processes, or activities 

regarding the installation of equipment 

‘‘that involves a regulated substance or 

a substitute for a regulated substance,’’ 

EPA concludes it is not appropriate to 

create a definition that focuses solely on 

work on the equipment and excludes 

work that plainly ‘‘involves’’ an HFC or 

substitute for an HFC, such as charging 

equipment. Further the Agency does not 

ascribe the same meaning to the 

sequencing of the terms as one of the 

commenters does, and the commenter’s 

interpretation is not the best reading of 

the statutory text as it could eliminate 

many aspects of installation without any 

indication that Congress intended for 

the term to be so limited. Further, there 

could be other reasons that Congress put 

‘‘installation’’ at the end of the 

sequence. For example, Congress may 

have been aware of mirroring similar 

provisions in CAA section 608, such as 

section 608(a)(1) and (2), which convey 

authority to establish regulations related 

to the ‘‘service, repair, or disposal of 

appliances and industrial process 

refrigeration.’’ Congress may have added 

‘‘installation’’ at the end of the sequence 

because it was an addition to the terms 

that were included in section 608. 

Accordingly, EPA does not agree that 

either the interpretation of the statutory 

term ‘‘installation’’ or the definition of 

the term in the implementation of the 

statutory text through the regulations 

should be as limited as commenters 

suggest. 

EPA disagrees with the comment that 

EPA define ‘‘servicing’’ in this final 

rule. EPA did not propose to do so, in 

part because it expected that the term 

would be understood by the regulated 

community without a definition, based 

in part on its experience with the 

regulations under CAA section 608, 

which addresses servicing of appliances 

without defining the term, and to EPA’s 

knowledge, that lack of a definition has 

not hindered implementation of those 

regulations. EPA interprets installation 

and servicing to have distinct meanings 

under subsection (h)(1), as each is listed 

separately. However, EPA understands 

that adding refrigerant to existing 

equipment may also be part of servicing 

that equipment and does not intend for 

the inclusion of charging equipment in 

the regulatory definition of installation 

to suggest that adding refrigerant to 

equipment would only occur during 

installation, but simply that it may 

occur as part of installation. While EPA 

is not establishing a definition of 

servicing in this rule, it notes that other 

examples of servicing may include, but 

are not limited to, activities that involve 

the opening of the refrigerant loop, such 

as charging equipment, replacing 

component parts, or checking for leaks. 

EPA discusses its authority for the 

requirements finalized in this rule 

regarding installation and servicing of 

equipment in greater detail in the 

relevant sections below. 

MVAC-like appliance. EPA proposed 

this term to mean ‘‘a mechanical vapor 

compression, open-drive compressor 

refrigerant-containing appliance with a 

full charge of 20 pounds or less of 

refrigerant used to cool the driver’s or 

passenger’s compartment of off-road 

vehicles or equipment. This includes, 

but is not limited to, the airconditioning equipment found on 

agricultural or construction vehicles. 

This definition is intended to have the 

same meaning as defined in 40 CFR 

82.152.’’ 

EPA is modifying its proposed 

definition of ‘‘MVAC-like appliance’’ by 

deleting the first instance of the phrase 

‘‘or equipment’’ and changing the 

second instance of ‘‘or equipment’’ with 

‘‘or appliances.’’ EPA deleted the first 

instance of the phrase ‘‘or equipment’’ 

from the definition because the use of 

the term ‘‘equipment’’ in this instance 

does not align with the definition of 

‘‘equipment’’ as defined in this 

rulemaking. This deletion is intended to 

clarify the intent of the definition, as the 

use of ‘‘equipment’’ in this context of 

‘‘off-road vehicles or equipment’’ could 

have been confusing because it is not 

being used in the sense of how the term 

‘‘equipment’’ is defined in these 

regulations. Regarding the second 

instance of ‘‘air conditioning 

equipment’’ EPA changed this language 

to ‘‘air conditioning appliances’’ to 

better align the types of devices that the 

definition of the term ‘‘MVAC-like 

appliance’’ covers under 40 CFR 82.152 

with the types of devices covered under 

this rulemaking. EPA also removed the 

word ‘‘defined’’ from the definition to 

maintain consistency with the 

definition of ‘‘motor vehicle air 

conditioners.’’ EPA still intends the 

definition to have the same meaning as 

in 40 CFR 82.152. 

Recover. EPA proposed this term to 

mean ‘‘the process by which a regulated 

substance, or where applicable, a 

substitute for a regulated substance, is 

removed, in any condition, from 

equipment; and stored in an external 

container, with or without testing or 

processing the regulated substance or 

substitute for a regulated substance.’’ 

EPA is modifying its definition of 

‘‘recover’’ by putting the number ‘‘(1)’’ 

before the phrase: ‘‘removed, in any 

condition, from equipment and’’ and the 

number ‘‘(2)’’ before the phrase ‘‘stored 

in an external container, with or 

without testing or processing the 

regulated substance or substitute for a 

regulated substance.’’ EPA made this 

edit to clarify the text and to more 

closely align its definition of ‘‘recover’’ 

with the corresponding definition in the 

Act, though the AIM Act separates these 

two phrases with the letters ‘‘(A)’’ and 

‘‘(B)’’ instead of ‘‘(1)’’ and ‘‘(2).’’ 

The term ‘‘recover’’ is defined in the 

AIM Act at subsection (b)(10) as ‘‘the 

process by which a regulated substance 

is (A) removed, in any condition, from 

equipment; and (B) stored in an external 

container, with or without testing or 

processing the regulated substance.’’ 

EPA proposed to extend the regulatory 

definition in these regulations to 

include ‘‘where applicable, substitutes 

for regulated substances’’ to support 

implementation of subsection (h)(1), 

which authorizes certain regulations 

involving substitutes for regulated 

substitutes. Substitutes for regulated 

substances are used in the same 

applications and often the same 

equipment as the regulated substances 

that they are being used in place of. 

Thus, recovering a substitute for a 

regulated substance would also occur, 

as appropriate, during the servicing, 

repair, or disposal of equipment and 

could be addressed by regulations under 

subsection (h)(1). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the term ‘‘recover’’ is insufficiently 

defined under the AIM Act and 

indicated that this could lead to a 

loophole where virgin HFCs are placed 

into equipment for only a short amount 

of time and then labeled as recovered. 

Another commenter stated that EPA 

should consider recovered refrigerant as 

refrigerant ‘‘installed in equipment for 

the purpose of operating the equipment 

for an extended amount of time.’’ 

Response: EPA responds that, as 

noted above, subsection (b)(10) of the 

AIM Act defines ‘‘recover’’ as ‘‘the 

process by which a regulated substance 

is (A) removed, in any condition, from 

equipment; and (B) stored in an external 

container, with or without testing or 

processing the regulated substance.’’ 

This definition is similar to the same 

term as defined in 40 CFR 82.152, 

which defines ‘‘recover’’ to mean ‘‘to 

remove refrigerant in any condition 

from an appliance and to store it in an 

external container without necessarily 

testing or processing it in any way.’’ 

While charging a regulated substance 

into a piece of equipment and then 

recovering it without allowing it to be 

used for its intended purpose could be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82702 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

a loophole, EPA has not encountered 

confusion around this term under the 

CAA regulations at 40 CFR 82.152, and 

the commenters did not provide 

sufficient rationale to change this aspect 

of the statutorily defined term in this 

regulation. 

The Agency however takes note of the 

scenario the commenter provided as a 

potential means for circumventing the 

requirements and views such an 

approach as inconsistent with the intent 

of the definition. Moreover, EPA is 

establishing a definition of ‘‘virgin 

regulated substance’’ in this rulemaking 

to make it clear that introduction of a 

regulated substance to equipment, such 

as a refrigerant-containing appliance or 

fire suppression equipment, solely or 

primarily to convert or attempt to 

convert its status to a ‘‘used’’ regulated 

substance and circumvent the intended 

requirements of this rule is not 

permissible. A regulated substance that 

has had no bona fide use in equipment 

(as described in the definition for 

‘‘virgin regulated substance’’) would 

still be considered a virgin regulated 

substance. 

Refrigerant. EPA proposed this term 

to mean, ‘‘for purposes of this subpart, 

any substance, including blends and 

mixtures, consisting in part or whole of 

a regulated substance or a substitute for 

a regulated substance that is used for 

heat transfer purposes, including those 

that provide a cooling effect.’’ 

After considering comments, EPA is 

modifying the final definition by 

replacing the phrase ‘‘including those 

that provide a cooling effect’’ with the 

phrase ‘‘and provides a cooling effect.’’ 

This change aligns with the definition of 

‘‘refrigerant’’ in 40 CFR 82.152 and will 

maintain a consistent understanding of 

the term in the ER&R program and in 

the regulations under section 608 of the 

CAA. EPA is also removing the phrase 

‘‘for the purposes of this subpart’’ from 

this definition for reasons stated in 

section IV.A.1 of this preamble. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether heat transfer fluids that do not 

provide a cooling effect are regulated 

under this rule. The commenter stated 

that EPA’s proposed definition could 

include heat transfer fluids that do not 

provide a cooling effect, including 

fluorinated heat transfer fluids (F– 

HTFs). The commenter indicated that 

this was likely not EPA’s intention, 

citing EPA’s rulemaking 69 FR at 11946, 

11957 (March 12, 2004), which 

excluded heat transfer fluids that do not 

provide a cooling effect. The commenter 

further stated that F–HTFs have never 

been used as a substitute for ODS, 

unlike regulated substances that provide 

a cooling effect. The commenter 

provided the following alternative 

definition: ‘‘Refrigerant, for purposes of 

this subpart, means any gaseous 

substance, including blends and 

mixtures, consisting in part of or whole 

of a regulated substance or a substitute 

for a regulated substance that is used in 

a heat cycle, and reversibly undergoes a 

phase change from a gas to a liquid, to 

provide a cooling effect.’’ 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s suggestion for an 

alternative definition for the term 

refrigerant and in response agrees with 

the commenter that F–HTFs that do not 

circulate through the compressor of a 

system are not considered refrigerants 

for the purposes of this rule. EPA has 

historically treated these fluids 

separately from refrigerants. However, 

EPA notes that subsection (h)(1) of the 

AIM Act is not limited to refrigerants 

but rather ‘‘equipment . . . that 

involves a regulated substance, or a 

substitute for a regulated substance.’’ 

This rule includes HFCs used as fire 

suppression agents in fire suppression 

equipment and in a later rulemaking 

action could include HFCs used as heat 

transfer fluids. Furthermore, the 

commenter’s alternative definition only 

covers vapor compression systems and 

not alternative types of refrigeration 

systems such as non-mechanical heattransfer with a circulating cooler or a 

thermosiphon, which EPA has included 

as an end-use under SNAP. For those 

reasons, rather than adopting the 

commenters’ suggested definition, EPA 

is modifying the proposed definition as 

described above to clarify that heat 

transfer fluids that do not provide a 

cooling effect are not included in the 

definition of ‘‘refrigerant’’ established in 

this rule. 

Refrigerant-containing appliance. 

EPA proposed this term to mean ‘‘any 

device that contains and uses a 

regulated substance or substitute for a 

regulated substance as a refrigerant 

including any air conditioner, motor 

vehicle air conditioner, refrigerator, 

chiller, or freezer. For a system with 

multiple circuits, each independent 

circuit is considered a separate 

appliance.’’ 

After considering comments, EPA is 

modifying the final definition. First, 

EPA is removing the phrase ‘‘motor 

vehicle air conditioner’’ and replacing it 

with its abbreviation ‘‘MVAC’’ to 

maintain consistency with other 

definitions where the term ‘‘motor 

vehicle air conditioner(s)’’ is 

abbreviated. After the term ‘‘MVAC,’’ 

EPA is also adding the word ‘‘MVAClike appliance’’ to provide another 

example of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance. Second, EPA is replacing the 

phrase ‘‘a system with multiple 

circuits’’ to ‘‘such devices with multiple 

circuits.’’ This edit is intended to 

increase clarity, as the term ‘‘device’’ is 

used in the last sentence to maintain a 

parallel sentence structure with the first 

sentence of the definition, which uses 

the term ‘‘any device.’’ The final 

definition also adds ‘‘including but not 

limited to,’’ to clarify that air 

conditioners, refrigerators, chillers, and 

freezers are intended as illustrative 

examples, but is not an exhaustive list 

of all possible devices that meet the 

definition of refrigerant-containing 

appliances under this subpart. EPA 

further notes that a refrigerantcontaining appliance could be of any 

size and include residential, 

commercial, or industrial appliances. 

As the term ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

appliance’’ is not a defined term under 

the AIM Act, and as the Agency is 

establishing certain regulatory 

requirements that apply only to 

refrigerant-containing appliances in this 

rule, the regulatory definition is 

designed to provide clarity as to what 

types of equipment are subject to those 

requirements. EPA intends this term to 

be a subset of the broader category of 

‘‘refrigerant-containing equipment’’ 

which is also defined in this rule as 

discussed below, and EPA understands 

that any exclusions from the definition 

of ‘‘refrigerant-containing equipment’’ 

would necessarily also apply to 

refrigerant-containing appliances. EPA 

notes that this definition differs from 

the definition of a similar term, 

‘‘appliance,’’ under CAA section 608. 

CAA sections 601 and 608 specified that 

an appliance ‘‘is used for household or 

commercial purposes,’’ and that phrase 

also appears in the definition of 

‘‘appliance’’ in 40 CFR 82.152. The AIM 

Act has no analogous provision; rather 

subsection (h) focuses more broadly on 

‘‘equipment.’’ Accordingly, EPA is not 

including that phrase in defining 

‘‘refrigerant-containing appliance’’ for 

purposes of implementing subsection 

(h). Similar to EPA’s approach to similar 

equipment under the application of title 

VI of the CAA (e.g., under sections CAA 

sections 608 and 612), EPA is defining 

a ‘‘refrigerant-containing appliance’’ to 

consist of an independent circuit. The 

independent circuit provides the 

desired cooling effect, typically 

consisting of a compressor, condenser, 

evaporator, and metering device in an 

enclosed refrigerant loop. EPA notes 

that a given piece refrigerant-containing 

equipment could contain multiple 

independent circuits and thus be 

considered as multiple, separate 

‘‘refrigerant-containing appliances.’’ For 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82703 

instance, some food retail cases have 

been made with multiple independent 

circuits, each one containing the 

maximum 150-gram charge limit of 

propane, thus allowing a single case to 

address a higher refrigeration load. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that EPA define each 

independent closed loop circuit as a 

separate appliance, citing confusion 

caused by different usage of the term 

‘‘appliance’’ by the industry. 

Response: EPA agrees that each 

independent closed loop circuit is a 

separate appliance and has clarified the 

final definition, as described above. 

Refrigerant-containing equipment. 

EPA proposed this term to mean 

‘‘equipment that contains, uses, or is 

otherwise connected or associated with 

a regulated substance or substitute for a 

regulated substance that is used as a 

refrigerant. This definition includes 

refrigerant-containing components, 

refrigerant-containing appliances, and 

MVAC-like appliances. This term does 

not include mission-critical military end 

uses and systems used in deployable 

and expeditionary situations. This term 

also does not include space vehicles as 

defined in 40 CFR 84.3.’’ 

EPA is modifying the final definition 

by replacing the phrase ‘‘missioncritical military end uses and systems’’ 

with ‘‘military equipment.’’ EPA also 

added the word ‘‘to’’ after the word 

‘‘connected’’ to maintain consistency 

with other definitions that use the 

phrase ‘‘connected to.’’ Finally, EPA is 

removing the phrase ‘‘MVAC-like 

appliances’’ from the definition because 

‘‘MVAC-like appliances’’ are examples 

of refrigeration-containing appliances. 

As such, keeping the term in the 

definition would be extraneous. 

As finalized, this definition of 

‘‘refrigerant-containing equipment’’ 

does not include military equipment 

used in deployable and expeditionary 

applications, nor does it include space 

vehicles. These exclusions are based on 

EPA’s understanding that there are 

situations in which the unique design 

and use of military equipment used in 

deployable and expeditionary situations 

and space vehicles make it impossible 

to recover refrigerant during the service, 

repair, disposal, or installation of the 

equipment. Likewise, requiring 

adherence to the leak repair 

requirements and other provisions for 

refrigerant-containing equipment in this 

rulemaking in an active military zone of 

engagement, including military systems 

used in deployable and expeditionary 

situations, could lessen the military 

effectiveness of the equipment. 

Similarly, the exclusion for space 

vehicles is based on EPA’s 

understanding that requiring leak repair 

and other provisions in this rulemaking 

for such equipment could lessen their 

effectiveness. EPA notes that an 

identical exclusion for military 

equipment and space vehicles was made 

in the finalized definition of ‘‘fire 

suppression equipment.’’ Further, as 

noted in section I.B and-explained in 

greater detail in the discussion of the 

definition for ‘‘fire suppression 

equipment’’ above, while EPA replaced 

the phrase ‘‘mission-critical military 

end uses and systems’’ with ‘‘military 

equipment’’ in this definition, this final 

rule also includes a separate exemption 

from the ER&R regulations for missioncritical military end uses (as listed at 40 

CFR 84.13(a)), for a year or years for 

which the application receives an 

application-specific allowance as 

defined at 40 CFR 84.3. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule creates confusion by 

having separate definitions for 

equipment, refrigerant-containing 

appliance, and refrigerant-containing 

equipment. The commenter stated that 

EPA’s definition of ‘‘refrigerantcontaining appliance’’ would have been 

sufficient for all the instances in which 

‘‘equipment’’ or ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

equipment’’ were used, and that EPA 

should only finalize a definition for 

‘‘refrigerant-containing appliance,’’ and 

rename it ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

equipment’’ to be consistent with 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment, as the terms ‘‘equipment,’’ 

‘‘refrigerant-containing equipment,’’ and 

‘‘refrigerant-containing appliance’’ are 

not used interchangeably in the rule. 

Rather, these three definitions are 

intended to have distinct meanings. For 

example, ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

equipment’’ is a broader category that 

includes applications that are not 

covered under ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

appliance.’’ For example, ‘‘refrigerantcontaining equipment’’ includes 

refrigerant-containing components, 

whereas the definition of ‘‘refrigerantcontaining appliance’’ does not. 

‘‘Equipment’’ is an even broader 

category that includes both equipment 

that does and equipment that does not 

contain refrigerant. For example, fire 

suppression equipment is included in 

the definition of equipment but not the 

definition of ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

equipment.’’ Different requirements 

apply to different types of equipment 

under the regulations established in this 

final rule. Given these distinctions, EPA 

is retaining all three of these definitions 

in the final rule. 

Repair. EPA proposed this term to 

mean, ‘‘for purposes of this subpart and 

as it relates to a particular leak in a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, to 

mean making adjustments or other 

alterations to that refrigerant-containing 

appliance that have the effect of 

stopping leakage of refrigerant from that 

particular leak.’’ 

EPA is modifying this term by 

removing the phrase ‘‘for the purposes 

of this subpart’’ from this definition for 

reasons stated in section IV.A.1 of this 

preamble. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for EPA’s proposed definition of 

repair and the discussion of the purpose 

of repair in the preamble of the 

proposed rule. 

Response: After considering 

comments, EPA is finalizing the 

definition of ‘‘repair’’ as proposed, 

though EPA is deleting the phrase ‘‘for 

purposes of this subpart’’ from the 

definition. 

Retrofit. EPA proposed this definition, 

as it relates to a refrigerant-containing 

appliance, to mean ‘‘to convert an 

appliance from one refrigerant to 

another refrigerant. Retrofitting includes 

the conversion of the appliance to 

achieve system compatibility with the 

new refrigerant and may include, but is 

not limited to, changes in lubricants, 

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

appliance components. Retrofits 

required under this subpart shall be 

done to a refrigerant with a lowerGWP.’’ 

EPA is modifying the final definition 

by removing the last sentence requiring 

that retrofits be done with a refrigerant 

with a lower-GWP. The proposed 

definition was meant to prevent the 

retrofit of refrigerant-containing 

appliances to a higher-GWP refrigerant 

as a compliance option. EPA decided in 

this final rule to not require the retrofit 

of an appliance to a lower-GWP 

refrigerant. The Agency acknowledges 

that there are situations where 

retrofitting to a lower-GWP refrigerant 

may not be feasible, such as when there 

is an inadequate supply of lower-GWP 

refrigerant or when technical standards 

do not allow the retrofit from a nonflammable refrigerant to a flammable 

refrigerant. Some appliances may have a 

limited number of lower-GWP 

alternatives, making it more difficult to 

retrofit a system to meet leak repair 

requirements. While the owner of a 

refrigerant-containing appliance has 

other ways to meet leak repair 

requirements, such as sufficiently 

repairing leaks or retiring the system, 

EPA does not want to limit the number 

of compliance options by prohibiting 

the retrofit of an appliance to a higherGWP refrigerant. EPA emphasizes that it 

still encourages the retrofit of systems to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82704 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

48The definition for substitute in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule is: ‘‘any substance, 

blend, or alternative manufacturing process, 

whether existing or new, that may be used, or is 

intended for use, in a sector or subsector with a 

restriction on the use of regulated substances and 

that has a lower global warming potential than the 

GWP limit or restricted list of regulated substances 

and blends in that sector or subsector.’’ Under this 

definition, substitutes include regulated substances 

(e.g., HFC–32 used in lieu of R–410A in commercial 

unitary AC), blends containing regulated substances 

(e.g., R–454B used in lieu of R–410A in residential 

unitary AC), blends that do not use a regulated 

substance (e.g., R–441A used in lieu of R–410A in 

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

HFOs, hydrocarbons, R–717, and R–744 (CO2)), and 

not-in-kind technologies (e.g., finger-pump bottles 

in lieu of aerosol cans, or vacuum panels in lieu of 

foam insulation). (See 88 FR 73098, 73110, October 

24, 2023). 

lower-GWP refrigerants whenever 

possible. 

Comment: A few commenters were 

opposed to a requirement that retrofits 

always be to a refrigerant with a lowerGWP. One commenter stated that 

requiring retrofits to only lower-GWP 

refrigerants would produce logistical 

challenges, create supply constraints, 

and increase costs. Another commenter 

stated that EPA should avoid 

discouraging retrofits from refrigerants 

like R–22, R–404A, and R–507A to 

lower-GWP alternatives that still exceed 

the GWP limits in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule (R–448, R–449, R–427, 

R–407H, and R–407A for commercial 

and industrial). The commenter stated 

that transitioning from R–404A to 

lower-GWP options will benefit the HFC 

phasedown. One commenter supported 

EPA retaining its definition to require 

retrofits to low-GWP refrigerants and 

stated that requiring retrofit plans to use 

lower-GWP refrigerants is consistent 

with the phasedown and the intent of 

the AIM Act and may help mitigate 

ongoing leakage that may occur after the 

retrofit is completed. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments both supporting and 

opposing the proposed definition. After 

consideration of these comments, for the 

reasons discussed above in describing 

the modifications to the proposed 

definition in the final definition, EPA is 

not requiring that retrofits use lowerGWP refrigerants in this final rule. As 

noted above, while not requiring it, EPA 

encourages the retrofit of refrigerantcontaining appliances to lower-GWP 

refrigerants whenever possible. With 

respect to the comments related to the 

restrictions established in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, EPA notes 

that rule did not address retrofits and 

that rule applies only to new systems 

(including for refrigerant-containing 

appliances). Additionally, with respect 

to the comment that requiring retrofits 

to lower-GWP refrigerants may help 

mitigate ongoing leakage after the 

retrofit is complete, EPA notes that 40 

CFR 84.106(h)(4) requires that all leaks 

be repaired as part of any retrofit plan, 

which should also ameliorate concerns 

about ongoing leakage related to the 

retrofit. Regarding the intent of the Act, 

the commenter did not provide any 

rationale to support the position that the 

intent of the AIM Act was to require 

retrofits to use lower-GWP refrigerants. 

EPA further notes that the AIM Act does 

not expressly address whether a lowerGWP refrigerant should be used for 

retrofits, and for the reasons explained 

above, EPA has decided not to establish 

that requirement in this rule. 

Substitute for a regulated substance. 

EPA is finalizing this definition as 

proposed to mean ‘‘a substance that can 

be used in equipment in the same or 

similar applications as a regulated 

substance, to serve the same or a similar 

purpose, including but not limited to a 

substance used as a refrigerant in a 

refrigerant-containing appliance or as a 

fire suppressant in fire suppression 

equipment, provided that the substance 

is not a regulated substance or an ozonedepleting substance.’’ 

Subsection (h)(1) expressly authorized 

EPA to promulgate certain regulations 

involving a regulated substance, a 

substitute for a regulated substance, the 

reclaiming of a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant, or the reclaiming of a 

substitute for a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant. EPA is defining 

‘‘substitute for a regulated substance’’ in 

this subpart for additional clarity that 

the use of this term in subsection (h) 

and in the regulations established in 

this rule differs from how the term 

‘‘substitute’’ is used in subsection (i) 

and defined in 40 CFR part 84, subpart 

B.48 The definition under subsection (h) 

makes clear that substitutes do not 

include HFCs or ODS and are instead a 

different category of substances. 

Examples of a substitute for a regulated 

substance that are encompassed by this 

definition under subsection (h) include 

but are not limited to HFOs, 

hydrocarbons (e.g., propane, isobutane), 

ammonia (NH4), and CO2. A substitute 

for a regulated substance may be used 

neat or in a blend. However, a blend 

that contains a regulated substance is 

subject to the requirements that apply 

under this rule to regulated substances 

because those requirements apply to 

regulated substances regardless of 

whether the regulated substance is used 

neat or in a blend, as described above 

in section II.B of this preamble. 

This distinction between substitutes 

and regulated substances for purposes of 

these regulations is also helpful for 

implementing certain provisions of this 

rulemaking that apply differently to 

regulated substances than to substitutes 

for regulated substances. For instance, 

the leak repair requirements apply to all 

regulated substances but only apply to 

substitutes for a regulated substance 

with a GWP greater than 53. 

As noted in the Executive Summary 

of this preamble at section I.A, the terms 

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

used interchangeably in this preamble. 

Similarly, the term ‘‘substitute for an 

HFC’’ may be used interchangeably with 

‘‘substitute for a regulated substance’’ in 

this preamble. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

further clarification of the definition. 

The commenter stated that the 

definition of ‘‘regulated substance’’ in 

40 CFR 84.106(a)(1) is easy to 

understand unlike the definition in 40 

CFR 84.106(a)(2). The commenter 

highlighted the complexity of 

determining the GWP of a substitute for 

a regulated substance, because the 

proposed methodology involved 

consulting three separate references that 

may vary in accessibility. The 

commenter requested that EPA provide 

a list of all substitutes for regulated 

substances with a GWP greater than 53, 

and that the Agency should not list 

substitutes for regulated substances with 

a GWP of less than 53, as doing so 

contributes to confusion. 

Response: EPA responds that to the 

extent the commenter read the proposed 

regulations at 40 CFR 84.106(a)(1) and 

(2) as definitions, that interpretation 

misunderstands the intent of those 

provisions, which are designed to 

describe the applicability of the 

requirements in 40 CFR 84.106, not 

provide general definitions. To the 

extent the commenter intended to 

request the addition of definitions, EPA 

responds that subsection (c)(1) of the 

AIM Act lists regulated substances for 

the purpose of this and other 

rulemakings under the AIM Act, such as 

the Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 

55116, October 5, 2021) and the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule (88 FR 

73098, October 24, 2023). The term 

‘‘regulated substance’’ is defined in part 

84, subpart A (40 CFR 84.3), with a 

current list provided in appendix A to 

part 84, and this appendix applies to the 

whole of part 84, including subpart C. 

Accordingly, EPA concludes it is not 

necessary to again list the regulated 

substances with a GWP greater than 53 

in this action. While subsection (c)(3)(A) 

of the AIM Act authorizes the 

Administrator to designate as a 

regulated substance a substance that is 

not included in the list in subsection 

(c)(1) if certain criteria are met, EPA did 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82705 

49EPA held stakeholder meetings for public input 

on November 9, 2022, and March 16, 2023, and also 

solicited feedback through a webinar for EPA’s 

GreenChill Partnership program on April 12, 2023. 

not propose to add any regulated 

substance to the statutory list, and is not 

finalizing any addition. To the extent 

the commenter opposes such a listing, 

EPA finds that concern is beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking and thus 

requires no further response. 

In response to the commenter’s 

statements about the complexity of 

consulting multiple sources to 

determine the GWP of a substitute for a 

regulated substance, EPA notes that as 

described in section IV.C.1 of this 

preamble, the Agency is not finalizing 

the methodology to determine GWP of 

a substitute for a regulated substance, as 

proposed. EPA is instead finalizing the 

provisions to use a list of GWPs for 

various substitutes for regulated 

substances codified in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule at 40 CFR 

84.64. EPA is taking this approach 

because it agrees that having these 

GWPs in one concise list will limit 

confusion and enhance accessibility. 

Virgin regulated substance. EPA 

proposed this definition to mean ‘‘any 

regulated substance that has not had any 

bona fide use in equipment except for 

those regulated substances contained in 

the heel or the residue of a container 

that has bona fide use in the servicing, 

repair, or installation of equipment.’’ 

EPA is modifying the final definition 

by removing the phrase ‘‘except for 

those regulated substances contained in 

the heel or the residue of a container 

that has bona fide use in the servicing, 

repair, or installation of equipment.’’ 

EPA’s proposed definition of ‘‘virgin 

regulated substance’’ excluded 

refrigerant heels because EPA wanted to 

include refrigerant heels recovered from 

a container as recovered material for 

purposes of meeting the reclamation 

standard. However, EPA concluded that 

refrigerant heels are best described as 

‘‘virgin regulated substances’’ because 

refrigerant heels have not had a bona 

fide use in equipment. EPA still 

recognizes the value of recovered heels, 

and thus EPA is not counting refrigerant 

heels that are removed from containers 

to contribute towards the 15 percent 

virgin material limit discussed in 

section IV.E.1 of this preamble. 

The final definition of ‘‘virgin 

regulated substance’’ makes it clear that 

the introduction of a regulated 

substance to equipment, such as a 

refrigerant-containing appliance or fire 

suppression equipment, solely to 

convert its status to a ‘‘used’’ regulated 

substance and circumvent the intended 

requirements of this rulemaking is not 

permissible. This scenario, where a 

regulated substance is charged into 

equipment and subsequently recovered 

without any bona fide use, was brought 

to EPA’s attention by stakeholders 

including during public stakeholder 

meetings as the Agency developed this 

rulemaking.49 This issue was also raised 

in public comments on the proposed 

rule, as indicated in the comments 

summarized immediately below. Under 

the definition finalized in this rule, a 

regulated substance that has had no 

bona fide use in equipment would be 

considered a virgin regulated substance. 

Comment: One commenter stated it is 

arbitrary and capricious to limit the 

definition of ‘‘virgin regulated 

substance’’ to refrigerant without a 

‘‘bona fide use’’ in equipment because 

EPA does not define ‘‘bona fide use’’ 

and offers a limited explanation of the 

term. While the commenter agreed that 

only refrigerant that was used in an 

appliance for its intended purpose 

should qualify as recovered refrigerant, 

the commenter stated that it is not clear 

who the compliance obligation to make 

this determination of ‘‘bona fide use’’ 

falls on. The commenter further stated 

that the heel or residue of a container 

should not by default be considered 

‘‘virgin’’ on the basis that it had a bona 

fide use, but instead be categorized 

based on the nature of its origin. 

Multiple commenters requested that 

EPA define ‘‘bona fide use.’’ One 

commenter stated that EPA should 

define a minimum length of time that 

refrigerant can be in equipment or some 

other objective criteria before it has had 

a ‘‘bona fide use.’’ Another commenter 

stated that the term ‘‘bona fide use’’ has 

never been used in any definition of 

reclaim or reclamation either under title 

VI of the CAA, the AIM Act, or under 

the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute’s (AHRI) 700 

standard for reclamation, and that EPA 

provides no justification for using the 

term. Two commenters stated that it is 

unclear how EPA will determine 

whether refrigerant has had a ‘‘bona fide 

use.’’ One commenter claimed that not 

having a precise definition of ‘‘bona fide 

use’’ will undermine the refrigeration 

industry and lead to fraud, since entities 

could briefly pass refrigerant through 

chillers or other equipment and then 

remove it, process it, and send it out for 

‘‘AHRI 700 certification.’’ Lastly, one 

commenter stated that it is necessary to 

specify the use conditions from which 

refrigerant can be recovered in order to 

consider them reclaimed. The 

commenter asserted this would help 

avoid the ‘‘potential laundering of 

newly produced material into the 

reclamation market.’’ 

A few commenters recommended that 

EPA distinguish between virgin 

refrigerant and recovered heel. One 

commenter requested that EPA define 

heel as ‘‘the residual amount of any 

regulated substance in a disposable 

cylinder.’’ The commenter stated that 

residual amounts of regulated 

substances left in a disposable cylinder 

that has not had a bona fide use in 

equipment should be considered a 

‘‘virgin regulated substance’’ whereas 

any residual amounts left in a 

disposable cylinder that has had a bona 

fide use in servicing, repair, or 

installation should be considered a 

recoverable substance for reclaim. The 

commenter remarked that these 

definitions should only apply to 

disposable cylinders and not other types 

of containers, as those heels are 

properly accounted for as virgin gas. 

Another commenter suggested the 

recovered heel should be considered in 

the context of cylinders rather than 

containers to avoid gaming the system 

of recovering from larger containers. 

Two commenters asserted that EPA 

should define heel based on how the 

refrigerant was used or obtained, not on 

the type of container the refrigerant is 

in. A commenter gave an example of 

refrigerant left in an International 

Organization for Standardization tank or 

rail car. The commenter stated that 

under EPA’s proposed definition of 

‘‘virgin regulated substance,’’ all of the 

unused refrigerant in these containers 

would need to be considered a ‘‘heel’’ 

and have to be reclaimed even though 

the refrigerant would still have the 

properties of virgin refrigerant. Another 

commenter discussed the possibility of 

large quantities of refrigerant being sent 

to a reclaimer as ‘‘bona fide heel’’ and 

asked for clarification on whether a 

bona fide heel could include the entire 

contents of a container. One commenter 

requested that the words ‘‘heel’’ and 

‘‘residue’’ both be defined as ‘‘the vapor 

contents remaining in a container once 

the last drop of liquid has been 

removed.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees that limiting 

the definition of ‘‘virgin regulated 

substances’’ to refrigerant that has not 

had a ‘‘bona fide use’’ in equipment is 

arbitrary and capricious and, after 

considering the comments on this topic, 

is finalizing a definition of ‘‘virgin 

regulated substance’’ to mean ‘‘any 

regulated substance that has not had any 

bona fide use in equipment.’’ 

Commenters did not provide alternate 

definitions or approaches that would 

sufficiently address the concerns raised 

by commenters and stakeholders that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82706 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

entities could briefly pass refrigerant 

through equipment and claim the 

refrigerant was recovered. After 

considering the public input on this 

issue, the Agency concludes that it is 

important to finalize a definition of 

‘‘virgin regulated substance’’ that 

indicates that virgin refrigerant is 

refrigerant that has not had bona fide 

use in equipment to address these 

concerns and help ensure the integrity 

of the reclamation requirements. In 

response to the comment on compliance 

obligation, EPA notes there is no 

obligation to make a determination of 

bona fide use under the definition itself; 

however, the definition informs 

compliance with other regulatory 

obligations, and to determine the 

compliance obligation one would need 

to examine the relevant regulatory 

requirement. 

While EPA is not finalizing a 

definition for ‘‘bona fide use’’ in this 

rule, the Agency notes that at a 

minimum, refrigerant that has had a 

‘‘bona fide use’’ is refrigerant that has 

been used in equipment to transfer heat 

between materials and then recovered 

for the purposes of reclamation or 

disposal. It is EPA’s position that there 

is no set amount of time that a 

refrigerant should be used in a system 

before it is considered to have had a 

‘‘bona fide use.’’ Since there are a 

diverse range of applications in which 

refrigerants are used, and a variety of 

circumstances around that use, it is not 

appropriate to define a specific 

timeframe that applies for all 

refrigerants and applications. However, 

the amount of time refrigerant is used 

and other circumstances surrounding its 

use should together indicate that the use 

was for purposes of the equipment’s 

maintenance or operation, rather than 

for the purpose of converting or 

attempting to convert the HFC’s status 

to a ‘‘used’’ regulated substance and 

circumvent the requirements of this 

rule. Examples of ‘‘bona fide use’’ of 

refrigerant in equipment include, but 

are not limited to, refrigerant recovered 

from equipment once the refrigerant 

becomes contaminated, or refrigerant 

removed from an appliance due to 

changes in ambient conditions 

according to the provisions of seasonal 

variance in 40 CFR 82.152. Conversely, 

as indicated previously, passing a 

regulated substance through equipment 

and then recovering without an 

operational reason to do so (e.g., 

without an indication of contamination 

or equipment malfunction), for the 

purpose of this treating the regulated 

substance as used, would not be 

considered bona fide use under this 

definition.’’ 

Even assuming the comments that the 

term ‘‘bona fide use’’ has not been used 

previously in other rulemakings or 

regulatory texts under CAA title VI or 

the AIM Act is true, EPA does not 

believe that is a reason to not use the 

term here. EPA’s justification for using 

the term is to differentiate ‘‘virgin 

regulated substances’’ from those 

substances that have been used in 

equipment for their intended purposes 

and should no longer be considered 

virgin refrigerant. Some commenters 

expressed concern with the definition of 

recovery because there is the potential 

that virgin regulated substances would 

be charged into equipment or 

appliances and then recovered in an 

attempt to circumvent regulatory 

requirements established under this 

rule. EPA responds that the Agency 

considers the definition of ‘‘virgin 

regulated substance’’ for the purposes of 

these regulations under subsection (h) to 

address those concerns and reiterates 

that adding refrigerant to an appliance 

for the purpose of recovering it shortly 

thereafter, and then considering it 

‘‘used’’ is not considered ‘‘bona fide 

use.’’ 

EPA did not propose and is not 

establishing a definition for residue or 

establishing various definitions for heel 

based on different types of containers. 

While in the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD EPA estimates an average 

refrigerant heel at a specific percent of 

a container’s nominal capacity, EPA 

acknowledges that there may be 

variations in the amount of HFCs that 

remain in a container. 

The definition of ‘‘heel’’ in 40 CFR 

84.3 to mean ‘‘the amount of a regulated 

substance that remains in a container 

after it is discharged or off-loaded (that 

is no more than 10 percent of the 

volume of the container)’’ applies to this 

rulemaking, as EPA is adopting 

definitions from 40 CFR part 84, subpart 

A for terms that are not separately 

defined in this rule. EPA clarifies that 

the heel could never be considered to 

include more than 10 percent of the 

container. EPA is not differentiating 

between refrigerant heels in different 

types of containers in this rulemaking to 

maximize the reclamation of refrigerant 

heel, except to clarify that the ten 

percent limit applies regardless of the 

type of container. 

In response to comments about 

whether refrigerant should be classified 

by the nature of its origin, EPA notes 

that it is distinguishing refrigerant by its 

prior use, not the type of container it is 

in. As stated previously, refrigerant that 

has had bona fide use in equipment 

would be considered recovered 

material, whereas refrigerant that has 

not had a bona fide use in equipment 

would not be considered recovered. In 

response to the comment suggesting that 

EPA not specify that refrigerant heel or 

residue must include only vapor 

contents in this rulemaking, EPA has 

decided not to include such a 

specification, as the Agency 

understands that there may be situations 

where refrigerant heel is not entirely 

vapor, even if the amount of refrigerant 

heel remaining in the container is less 

than 10 percent of the container’s 

volume. 

3. What additional comments did EPA 

receive on definitions? 

Some commenters suggested that EPA 

create defined terms that the Agency did 

not propose. Those terms are: reclaim, 

saturated hydrofluorocarbon, regulated 

substance, substitute, essential use, 

narrowed use limit, and technology 

transitions petition. For the reasons 

discussed in this section, EPA is not 

establishing definitions for these terms 

in this action. 

Reclaim: Multiple commenters 

requested that EPA define ‘‘reclaim’’ or 

a phrase containing the word ‘‘reclaim’’ 

to improve the clarity of the rule. One 

commenter claimed that reclaimed 

refrigerant referred to in 40 CFR 

84.112(e) may be refrigerant that either 

has ‘‘not had bona fide use in 

equipment’’ or recovered refrigerant 

(removed from equipment), and that 

these requirements are not 

interchangeable because recovered 

material could be virgin. The 

commenter asserted that EPA should 

clarify that reclaimed refrigerant must 

be non-virgin in origin. Another 

commenter suggested that EPA could 

consider instituting a policy in which 

the amount of material that can be sold 

by an entity as reclaimed cannot exceed 

material recovered. Another commenter 

suggested that EPA should define 

‘‘certified reclaimed refrigerant’’ as 

‘‘used (recovered) refrigerant . . . from 

a previously operational appliance’’ in 

line with the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) definition. 

Response: Subsection (b)(9) of the 

AIM Act provides a statutory definition 

for ‘‘reclaim; reclamation.’’ This 

definition refers to the reprocessing of a 

recovered regulated substance to meet at 

least the purity described in standard 

AHRI 700–2016 (or an appropriate 

successor standard adopted by the 

Administrator), and that the purity of 

the reclaimed regulated substances must 

be verified using, at a minimum, the 

analytical method described in that 

standard. EPA promulgated a definition 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82707 

50Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17, section 95373. 

for ‘‘reclaim’’ in the Allocation 

Framework Rule (86 FR 55116, October 

5, 2021) that is consistent with the 

definition provided by the AIM Act and 

that appears in 40 CFR 84.3. As 

provided in the regulations established 

in the final rule, for terms not defined 

in subpart C but that are defined in 

section 84.3, the definitions in section 

84.3 shall apply, because the definition 

in 84.3 is also appropriate for the rule. 

EPA is not establishing a separate or 

different definition of ‘‘reclaim’’ in this 

action. This approach has the further 

benefit of providing consistency in the 

use of this term in this action with how 

it is used in other regulations 

implementing the AIM Act. Regarding 

the suggested definition of ‘‘certified 

reclaimed refrigerant,’’ EPA notes that 

CARB’s definition of that term includes 

practices meant to ensure that reclaimed 

refrigerant meets certain standards (such 

as being from a previously operational 

appliance).50 EPA is not finalizing a 

definition of ‘‘certified reclaimed 

refrigerant,’’ nor is EPA providing a 

definition specifying what standards 

reclaimed refrigerants have to meet 

beyond what is already required under 

the AIM Act. In provisions that appear 

outside of the definition section of the 

regulations established in this final rule, 

EPA is requiring that refrigerant contain 

no more than 15 percent virgin material 

as specified in the reclamation standard 

found in 40 CFR 84.112(a) and that 

reclaimed refrigerant must meet AHRI 

standards or other applicable purity 

specifications. Because these provisions 

address the standards that would apply 

for reclaimed refrigerant, EPA concludes 

that the definitions such as those 

suggested by the commenters are not 

necessary. As indicated by these 

requirements, to the extent that the 

comments suggest that reclaimed 

refrigerant cannot include any virgin 

HFCs, EPA disagrees. EPA further 

explains its reasons for allowing up to 

15 percent virgin material in refrigerant 

that meets the reclamation standards 

established in the rule in section IV.E.1 

of this preamble. EPA disagrees with the 

comment that a reclaimer should not be 

able to sell more reclaimed refrigerant 

than the amount of recovered refrigerant 

it received. Reclaimers often will hold 

recovered refrigerant until there is a 

sufficient quantity to process efficiently 

or until a change in market conditions. 

Therefore, the amount reported as 

reclaimed will not align with, and could 

potentially exceed, the amount reported 

as received. 

Saturated hydrofluorocarbon: One 

commenter requested that EPA define 

‘‘saturated’’ as it relates to a 

hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant and use 

that term throughout the rulemaking. 

Response: EPA disagrees that there is a 

need to use or define the term 

‘‘saturated hydrofluorocarbon’’ for 

purposes of this action. As described 

previously, subsection (c)(1) of the AIM 

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.’’ EPA is also authorized to 

designate additional substances that 

meet certain criteria as regulated 

substances and one of those criteria is 

that the substance must be a saturated 

HFC. Further, the term ‘‘regulated 

substance’’ is defined in part 84, subpart 

A (40 CFR 84.3), with a current list 

provided in Appendix A to part 84, and 

this appendix applies to all of part 84 

including subpart C. EPA has also 

explained that it is using the terms HFC 

and regulated substances 

interchangeably in this action. These 

provisions make clear which HFCs are 

addressed by this action, obviating any 

need to define ‘‘saturated’’ by regulation 

or use the term ‘‘saturated 

hydrofluorocarbon’’ throughout the 

regulations established in this rule. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the rule should define the terms 

‘‘regulated substance,’’ ‘‘substitute,’’ 

‘‘essential use,’’ ‘‘narrowed use limit,’’ 

and ‘‘technology transitions petition.’’ 

The commenter stated that these terms 

are important to understand the scope 

and applicability of the HFC phasedown 

program, and not defining these terms 

could create confusion and 

inconsistency in interpreting the rule. 

Response: The terms ‘‘essential use,’’ 

‘‘regulated substance,’’ ‘‘narrowed use 

limit,’’ ‘‘substitute,’’ and ‘‘technology 

transitions petition’’ appear to be 

similar to or the same as terms used in 

other regulatory programs under the 

AIM Act or the CAA. For example, the 

terms ‘‘essential use’’ and ‘‘regulated 

substance’’ are defined under the 

Allowance Allocation program (40 CFR 

part 84, subpart A), ‘‘narrowed use 

limit’’ is defined under SNAP (40 CFR 

part 82, subpart G), and ‘‘substitute’’ 

and ‘‘technology transitions petition’’ 

are defined under the Technology 

Transitions program (40 CFR part 84, 

subpart B), respectively. The commenter 

has not explained what relevance such 

terms would have to this rulemaking 

and, with the exception of the term 

‘‘regulated substance’’ which is used in 

the regulations finalized in this action, 

the connection is not apparent to EPA. 

With respect to the term ‘‘regulated 

substance,’’ as explained earlier in this 

section, because EPA is not defining 

that term separately in subpart C, the 

definition under 40 CFR 84.3 also 

applies in subpart C. No additional 

definition is needed. EPA further notes 

that while it is not establishing a 

definition for ‘‘substitute’’ in this rule, 

it is defining the term ‘‘substitute for a 

regulated substance’’ for purposes of the 

regulation, for the reasons discussed in 

section IV.A.2 of this preamble. 

B. What types of equipment is EPA 

addressing under subsection (h)? 

Subsection (h) of the AIM Act 

provides EPA authority to promulgate 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, any practice, process, or 

activity related to the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves HFCs or their substitutes, 

or the reclaiming of HFCs or their 

substitutes used as refrigerants. EPA 

interprets this provision to include 

authority to regulate, as appropriate, 

practices, processes, or activities related 

to any equipment that uses a regulated 

substance or a substitute for a regulated 

substance. Regulated substances and 

their substitutes are typically used in 

RACHP equipment as a refrigerant. 

Regulated substances and/or their 

substitutes may also be used in other 

types of equipment, such as equipment 

used in aerosols, fire suppression, 

solvent cleaning, foam blowing, and 

others. However, as explained in section 

II.B of this preamble, subsection (h)(4) 

of the AIM Act expressly provides that 

any rulemaking under subsection (h) 

shall not apply to a regulated substance 

or a substitute for a regulated substance 

that is contained in a foam. Thus, this 

rulemaking did not propose and is not 

finalizing any requirements for 

regulated substances or their substitutes 

when they are contained in foams. 

Accordingly, EPA interprets its 

authority under subsection (h) to 

include promulgating regulations that 

control the types of practices, processes, 

or activities identified in subsection 

(h)(1) in any of those sectors, subsectors, 

or applications, with the limitation that 

EPA does not interpret its regulatory 

authority under subsection (h) to extend 

to HFCs or substitutes for HFCs when 

they are contained in foams. 

EPA is establishing requirements for 

the servicing, repair, disposal, and/or 

installation of equipment in the RACHP 

and fire suppression sectors as 

described in sections IV.C through G of 

this preamble. EPA interprets 

subsection (h) to provide authority that 

could be applied to practices, processes, 

or activities related to equipment across 

a broad range of sectors, subsectors, or 

applications that involve regulated 

substances and/or their substitutes. At 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82708 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

51 In other actions by EPA, such as the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule or rulemakings and/or 

notices under the SNAP program, EPA refers to this 

subsector as ‘‘automatic commercial ice machines’’ 

or ‘‘commercial ice machines,’’ respectively. EPA is 

clarifying that in this rulemaking, we intend for the 

term ‘‘automatic commercial ice makers’’ to cover 

the same types of refrigerant-containing equipment 

as those covered under ‘‘automatic commercial ice 

machines’’ in the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule 

or those covered as ‘‘commercial ice machines’’ 

under SNAP. 

52This list currently matches the list of regulated 

substances in subsection (c) of the AIM Act. 

this time, EPA is focusing on certain 

sectors and subsectors in the 

requirements finalized in this 

rulemaking. In future rulemakings, EPA 

may consider establishing requirements 

for equipment in other sectors, 

subsectors, or applications that involve 

regulated substances and/or their 

substitutes. The relevant sections of this 

preamble describe the requirements that 

EPA is establishing for equipment in 

certain sectors and subsectors and how 

EPA understands these sectors and 

subsectors as relevant for these 

requirements. 

Where EPA is establishing 

requirements for certain sectors or 

subsectors, we intend to be consistent 

with how those sectors or subsectors are 

understood under other provisions of 

the AIM Act and/or CAA title VI that 

address the same sector or subsector, 

such as subsection (i) of the AIM Act, 

through the Technology Transitions 

program. EPA issued a final Technology 

Transitions Rule on October 24, 2023 

(88 FR 73098), which provides 

additional detail on many of the same 

sectors and subsectors for which this 

action finalizes certain requirements 

under subsection (h). EPA also 

considered how those sectors or 

subsectors are addressed in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule in 

finalizing this rule under subsection (h) 

of the AIM Act. 

EPA is establishing certain provisions, 

as described later in this preamble, for 

certain equipment in applicable 

subsectors within the RACHP sector in 

this action. Such subsectors within the 

RACHP sector include: supermarket 

systems; refrigerated transport; and 

automatic commercial ice makers.51

EPA is also establishing certain 

provisions for equipment in the fire 

suppression sector, as described later in 

this preamble. 

C. How is EPA addressing leak repair? 

EPA is finalizing aspects of the 

proposed leak repair requirements, with 

modifications after consideration of the 

comments and information received on 

the proposed rule, as discussed in 

further detail in the following sections. 

The Agency is finalizing leak repair 

requirements for refrigerant-containing 

appliances with a charge size of 15 

pounds or more that contain an HFC or 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53. In the proposal, EPA 

bifurcated its compliance dates based on 

charge size, with refrigerant-containing 

appliances containing 50 pounds or 

more needing to comply within 60 days 

of publication in the Federal Register 

and refrigerant-containing appliances 

between 15 and 50 pounds having a 

compliance date of one year after 

publication in the Federal Register. In 

this final rule, after consideration of the 

comments, EPA is establishing one 

compliance date for all applicable 

appliances: January 1, 2026. The Agency 

views this change as reasonable to 

provide additional time for owners or 

operators with an appliance with a 

charge size of 50 pounds or more to 

comply with the leak repair 

requirements and avoid potential 

confusion due to varied compliance 

dates. Additionally, EPA is finalizing 

the narrow exemption of refrigerantcontaining appliances in the residential 

and light commercial air conditioning 

and heat pumps subsector from the leak 

repair provisions in this final rule. 

1. What refrigerants are subject to the 

leak repair requirements? 

EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that 

the leak repair requirements apply to 

certain appliances that contain 

refrigerants that are composed in whole 

or in part of either a regulated substance 

or a substitute for a regulated substance 

with a GWP greater than 53, for reasons 

discussed in the proposal and in this 

final rule. To determine if the refrigerant 

contains a regulated substance, the 

owner or operator should consult the 

list of regulated substances provided in 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 84.52 In the 

proposed rule, to determine whether an 

appliance containing a substitute for a 

regulated substance is required to 

comply with the leak repair provisions, 

EPA described the process for 

determining the GWP of regulated 

substances and/or their substitutes in 

the proposed Technology Transitions 

Rule (87 FR 76738, 76750, December 15, 

2022). In the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, published in the 

Federal Register on October 24, 2023 

(88 FR 73098), EPA established a table 

listing the GWP values for substances 

that are not regulated substances. In this 

final rule, EPA is adopting the same 

approach for determining GWPs for 

those substances as in the final 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, codified 

at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B (40 CFR 

84.64(a)–(c)) and, for consistency, is 

referencing the table at 40 CFR 84.64(b) 

for determining the GWPs of the listed 

commonly used non-HFC constituents. 

For purposes of this rulemaking, owners 

or operators should use the GWPs listed 

in that table to determine if the 

refrigerant contains a substitute for an 

HFC with a GWP greater than 53. 

Comment: The Agency received 

multiple comments on the refrigerants 

subject to the leak repair provisions, 

including comments opposing a limit of 

53 GWP for substitutes of HFCs. Some 

commenters suggested the Agency use a 

more generic value such as 100 or 150 

to be consistent with the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule’s 

approach. Another commenter 

expressed support for EPA’s continued 

use of 100-year GWPs for the 

implementation and administration of 

provisions under the AIM Act and 

stated that they oppose the use of 20- 

year GWPs for the implementation of 

AIM Act rules. Finally, one commenter 

described issues with the proposal’s 

resources to determine the GWPs of 

constituent parts of refrigerant blends or 

commonly used refrigerant alternatives. 

The commenter suggests that EPA 

compile a singular comprehensive list 

encompassing all substitute substances 

for GWPs exceeding 53. Additionally, 

the commenter stated that there is no 

reason to provide reference to 

substances with GWPs less than 53 to 

avoid confusion as these substitutes are 

not subject to this regulation. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, EPA notes that it is 

finalizing, as proposed, that the leak 

repair requirements apply to refrigerantcontaining appliances containing an 

HFC refrigerant or a substitute for HFC 

refrigerants that has a GWP above 53. 

EPA acknowledges comments seeking 

consistency across programs for GWP 

limits and finds it appropriate to 

continue to use 100-year GWPs for this 

rulemaking given the AIM Act uses 100- 

year GWPs. As discussed in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, the final 

limits in that rule were informed by a 

range of information, including the 

petitions, the Agency’s evaluation 

consistent with the factors identified in 

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

comments received on that rule. Those 

considerations do not apply to this 

rulemaking, which is being undertaken 

under a different statutory provision 

and which establishes requirements that 

apply to certain substitutes for HFCs. As 

stated in the proposed rule under 

subsection (h), the GWP of 53 for 

substitutes for HFCs was chosen, given 

it is the lowest GWP of the HFCs that 

could be listed as a regulated substance 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82709 

under subsection (c)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the 

AIM Act. For purposes of this 

rulemaking, the Agency concludes it 

appropriate to parallel this statutory 

provision for the GWPs of the 

substances that could be designated as 

regulated substances under the Act. 

Regardless of GWP, any refrigerant that 

contains an HFC is covered under the 

leak repair provisions. Using a GWP of 

53 for substitutes maintains consistency 

between the HFCs and their substitutes 

that are regulated under this rule under 

subsection (h). Moreover, the Agency 

notes that currently the vast majority of 

HFC refrigerants and refrigerant blends 

containing HFCs in equipment have 

much higher GWPs, often 20 to 50, or 

even more than 75 times as high as this 

cutoff. The Agency is aware of one HFC 

blend, IKON–A, currently in use for IPR 

which has a GWP below 53. However, 

the inclusion of a regulated HFC in the 

refrigerant blend means that any 

refrigerant-containing appliances using 

this blend are subject to the leak repair 

provisions of this final rule. In the 

future, EPA may find similar blends 

acceptable to use in specific 

applications, under other regulatory 

programs, but their applicability for the 

leak repair provisions of this final rule 

is subject to whether a blend contains 

an HFC or a substitute with a GWP 

greater than 53, not the GWP of the 

blend overall. Additionally, EPA 

acknowledges that over time the 

refrigerant market is likely to shift, 

particularly in light of the HFC 

phasedown under both the AIM Act and 

Montreal Protocol, the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, and business 

decisions to use refrigerants that do not 

contain HFCs or a substitute with a 

GWP above 53. 

EPA is establishing a lower-GWP 

threshold for the leak repair 

requirements in this final rule than it 

established under the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule for the use of an HFC 

in certain new equipment. EPA 

considers this lower threshold to be 

appropriate given the different goals of 

these regulations. One purpose for 

regulations under subsection (h), 

including the leak repair requirements, 

is minimizing releases of regulated 

substances from equipment. The 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule was 

focused on restricting the use of higherGWP HFCs in new equipment. 

Equipment that is compliant with the 

subsection (i) requirements may still be 

regulated under subsection (h) to 

minimize releases of HFCs from the 

equipment. Using a GWP of 53 as the 

cutoff under these regulations will 

address the release of substitutes with 

potentially comparable climate impacts 

to that of substances that are or could 

be listed as regulated substances. 

Further, if EPA were to establish a 

higher-GWP as the threshold, such as 

150 or 700, that could create an 

incentive to switch to a substitute with 

a GWP greater than 53 but below that 

150 or 700 GWP cut off to avoid a need 

to comply with leak repair 

requirements, even though those 

substitutes could have greater climate 

impact if released than some listed 

regulated substances. 

Regarding the comments related to 

how to determine the GWP of 

substitutes, EPA responds that in the 

final rule, EPA has streamlined the 

process for owners or operators to 

determine the GWP of HFCs or 

substitutes for HFCs. An owner or 

operator can view GWP values for 

regulated substances by consulting the 

table in appendix A to 40 CFR part 84. 

Owners or operators can consult the 

table at 40 CFR 84.64(b) for determining 

the GWPs of listed commonly used nonHFC constituents to determine if the 

refrigerant contains substitute for an 

HFC with a GWP greater than 53. The 

list at 40 CFR 84.64(b) contains 

substitutes with GWPs less than 53 for 

purposes of the regulations under 

subpart B, but EPA disagrees that their 

inclusion would create confusion, as the 

regulatory text established in this 

rulemaking is clear that this list is being 

consulted for purposes of the subpart C 

regulations to determine whether a 

refrigerant contains a regulated 

substance with a GWP greater than 53. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that EPA should consider safety aspects 

(e.g., toxicity, flammability) of particular 

substances when deciding whether to 

apply the leak repair provisions, adding 

that subsection (h) specifically directs 

the Agency to ensure the safety of 

technicians and consumers. One 

commenter asked the Agency to 

consider whether a system is in direct 

or indirect contact with building 

occupants and charge size in its 

determination around applicability, 

rather than solely basing mandates on 

GWP. One of the commenters stated that 

the 53 GWP limit would drive more use 

of HFC–152, which the commenter 

claims is not a viable refrigerant and has 

historically been used agriculturally as 

a rodenticide. 

The same commenter also requested 

that the Agency consider the provisions 

for leak repair under the parameters of 

safety and performance. The commenter 

specifically highlighted environmental 

concerns regarding the toxicity of 

fluorinated hydrocarbons that contain 

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

(PFAS) and degrade into trifluoracetic 

acid (TFA). They suggested that the 

Agency require leak repair of systems 

with a charge size of 50 or more pounds 

for any HFCs, HFOs, or 

hydrochlorofluoroolefins (HCFOs) if the 

decomposition of said substance 

decomposes into TFA at levels greater 

than a 10 percent yield. The commenter 

used HFO–1234yf as an example, which 

produces byproduct yields of TFA 

greater than 10 percent. 

Response: With respect to the 

comment suggesting that EPA consider 

performance as a parameter for these 

regulations, EPA notes that the statutory 

text under subsection (h)(1) does not 

mention consideration of performance 

as a separate parameter in establishing 

regulations under this provision. 

Further, the commenter did not provide 

any supporting analysis or technical 

information to explain why it would be 

useful to consider performance as a 

parameter in establishing the leak repair 

requirements, or how doing so might 

affect the final rule. Nothing in the 

comment suggests that performance of 

refrigerant-containing appliances would 

be negatively affected by this final rule 

or that this rule would prevent an owner 

or operator from addressing 

performance issues as appropriate. 

Thus, the Agency is not using 

performance as a separate parameter in 

establishing the final rule’s leak repair 

requirements. Additionally, the Agency 

is aware that leaky equipment can have 

performance issues, and following the 

requirements in this rule may also have 

the effect of helping address those 

issues. 

With respect to comments on safety, 

The Agency agrees that subsection (h)(1) 

of the AIM Act identifies ensuring the 

safety of technicians and consumers as 

one of the purposes for regulations 

under this subsection. EPA has a long 

history of screening the risks of ODS, 

HFCs, and their substitutes under 

SNAP, which for decades has provided 

a list of acceptable alternatives for a 

number of sectors. EPA does not view 

the GWP threshold, and the applicable 

refrigerants covered in the final 

rulemaking, as a significant safety risk 

to technicians and consumers if the 

refrigerants are properly managed. 

Refrigerants used in appliances have 

been thoroughly screened for risks 

associated with toxicity, flammability, 

asphyxiation, and physical hazards 

before being listed as acceptable for use 

under SNAP’s comparative risk 

framework. While some refrigerants may 

be mildly flammable (e.g., A2L 

refrigerants) or have toxicity (e.g., 

ammonia), proper system design, 

engineering controls, and other 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82710 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

53Available at https://www.epa.gov/pfas. 

54The 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. 

55UNEP. 2022 Assessment Report of the 

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel. Available 

at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/ 

EEAP-2022-Assessment-Report-May2023.pdf. 

56 Ibid. 

techniques mitigate the risk for the use 

of refrigerants in appliances. EPA also 

notes the existence of other regulations 

that address the risks related to specific 

compounds, like ammonia (e.g., EPA’s 

Risk Management Program under the 

CAA). EPA disagrees with one 

commenter’s suggestion to base the 

applicability of the leak repair 

requirements on whether the appliance 

is in direct or indirect contact with 

building occupants or other suggested 

factors (e.g., toxicity). The commenter 

has not persuasively explained why 

such an approach would better serve the 

goals of ensuring the safety of 

technicians and consumers than having 

the leak repair requirements apply to 

equipment regardless of whether it is in 

direct or indirect contact with building 

occupants (or technicians and 

consumers, for that matter), particularly 

considering the rigorous evaluation of 

refrigerants under SNAP’s comparative 

risk framework and other regulations 

addressing potential health and safety 

concerns. It is also not clear how such 

an approach would serve other statutory 

goals for regulations under subsection 

(h)(1) such as maximizing reclamation 

and minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment. Considering all three 

purposes, EPA concludes that it is 

appropriate to apply the leak repair 

requirements to equipment that is in 

both direct and indirect contact with 

consumers. With respect to the 

comment suggestion that EPA consider 

charge size in determining applicability 

of the leak repair provisions, EPA has 

considered charge size, as discussed in 

section IV.C.2 of this preamble. In 

response to one commenter’s specific 

concern with HFC–152, the Agency 

responds that we are not aware of any 

use of HFC–152 in the RACHP sector in 

the United States. Further, as HFC–152 

is a listed regulated substance, if it were 

used in refrigerants, the leak repair 

requirements would apply; thus, EPA 

disagrees that the GWP threshold of 53 

for substitutes for HFCs would drive 

additional use of HFC–152. However, 

EPA is aware of significant use of HFC– 

152a with a GWP of 124, which is also 

a regulated substance and above the 53 

GWP threshold. 

EPA acknowledges the concerns one 

commenter raised regarding PFAS. 

There is currently no single commonly 

agreed definition of PFAS, and whether 

HFCs, HFOs, or HCFOs 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.53 This rule does 

not in any way establish a definition of 

PFAS, nor do the leak repair or other 

requirements in this final rule depend 

on a specific definition. As previously 

stated, SNAP already considers 

potential risks to human health and the 

environment via its comparative risk 

framework. Regardless of what 

definition of PFAS is used, not all PFAS 

are the same in terms of toxicity, for 

example. If a chemical has been found 

to present lower overall risk to human 

health or the environment, it might be 

found acceptable under SNAP 

regardless of whether or not it falls 

under a particular definition of PFAS. 

Potential risks to human health or the 

environment regarding PFAS have been 

considered directly on a chemical-bychemical basis and are not based on 

whether a specific chemical falls into a 

particular category of substances. 

Therefore, EPA elected in this final rule 

to require leak repair for all refrigerants 

that contain an HFC or an HFC 

substitute with a GWP greater than 53, 

without regard to whether or not the 

substance falls within a particular 

definition of PFAS. Under that 

approach, regulated entities are not 

required to use any particular HFC or 

HFC substitute, and the approach 

inherently permits equipment owners 

and operators to make decisions about 

what refrigerants are appropriate for use 

in their particular equipment. 

Regarding the commenter’s related 

concern regarding atmospheric 

decomposition of certain HFCs, HFOs, 

and HCFOs 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 Montreal 

Protocol’s Environmental Effects 

Assessment Panel (EEAP) 54 about 256 

PFAS are in commercial use, with 

widely differing physical, chemical, and 

biological properties.55 The 2022 EEAP 

Assessment Report 56 explained that one 

source of TFA in the environment is the 

degradation of some HFCs, HCFCs, 

HFOs, and HCFOs, while 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 Assessment 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.’’ It 

further explains that 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. These greater concentrations 

are 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 Assessment 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 

considers ecotoxicity as a criterion 

when evaluating alternatives under its 

comparative risk framework and 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 in those actions 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 the future. 

However, in light of this scientific and 

technical information regarding the 

potential impacts of TFA from releases 

of HFCs, HCFCs, HFOs, and HCFOs, 

EPA does not agree that it is necessary 

to apply the leak repair requirements 

based on whether a refrigerant 

decomposes into TFA at levels greater 

than a 10 percent yield. 

Comment: Some commenters stated 

that the leak repair provisions should 

apply to substitutes regardless of GWP 

as this would result in decreasing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82711 

refrigerant emissions. One commenter 

suggested that the Agency omit the GWP 

threshold for ‘‘non-natural’’ (i.e., 

fluorinated) substitute refrigerants. One 

commenter did not express an opinion 

on the proposed GWP limit of 53 but 

appreciated that the Agency could 

extend beyond a GWP of 53 in the 

future. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that in 

the future the Agency could consider 

whether a GWP limit lower than 53 is 

appropriate. One of the purposes stated 

in the AIM Act for regulations under 

subsection (h) is minimizing releases of 

regulated substances from equipment, 

and the 53 GWP threshold in this final 

rule parallels the lowest listed GWP of 

regulated substances in the AIM Act. 

Given the range of refrigerants currently 

in use that have a variety of properties 

and characteristics (including a wide 

range of GWPs), EPA concludes that it 

is appropriate to use a GWP of 53 as the 

threshold for substitutes for HFCs that 

would be subject to leak repair 

requirements in this rulemaking, as that 

will address the release of substitutes 

with potentially comparable climate 

impacts to that of substances that are or 

could be listed as regulated substances, 

regardless of whether that substance is 

a fluorinated substitute. Further, nonHFC refrigerant substitutes below the 53 

GWP threshold do not have 

commensurate climate impacts on HFCs 

or their covered substitutes. Therefore, 

EPA finds it is appropriate to not 

establish leak repair requirements for 

non-HFC substitutes with a GWP below 

53 at this time. If EPA becomes aware 

of concerns related to this limitation as 

the refrigerant market shifts to lowerGWP substitutes for HFCs, EPA could 

consider revisiting the requirement via 

a notice-and-comment rulemaking. By 

finalizing a GWP threshold of 53, as 

well as the provision to include 

refrigerant blends with any HFCs as 

components regardless of their GWPs, 

EPA is not precluding further 

consideration of a lower-GWP threshold 

in the future. 

The Agency is finalizing leak repair 

requirements for appliances that use a 

refrigerant blend that contains an ODS 

and an HFC or a substitute for an HFC 

with a GWP greater than 53 to 

simultaneously meet the leak repair 

provisions promulgated under CAA 

section 608 at 40 CFR 82.157, and the 

provisions in this action, to the extent 

that either set of requirements is 

applicable. EPA intends for the leak 

repair requirements in this rulemaking 

to be sufficiently consistent with the 

requirements at 40 CFR 82.157 such that 

both sets of requirements could be met 

for refrigerant-containing appliances 

that use a refrigerant blend containing 

an ODS and an HFC or a substitute for 

an HFC with a GWP above 53 and that 

have a full charge of 50 or more pounds 

of refrigerant. Due to the difference in 

charge sizes for equipment covered by 

40 CFR 82.157 and the leak repair 

requirements finalized in this action, 

such appliances using such a refrigerant 

blend with a charge size of 15 pounds 

or higher but below 50 pounds are only 

subject to the requirements under 

subsection (h). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed requirements for owners 

and operators with an appliance using 

both ODS and HFCs were unnecessarily 

burdensome. The commenter expressed 

the view that any differences with the 

40 CFR 82.157 ODS requirements (e.g., 

leak rate calculations, lowering the 

proposed threshold for chronically 

leaking appliances) would significantly 

increase the complexity and burden of 

requirements. Another commenter 

requested clarification on the types of 

appliances containing ODS that would 

be subject to the leak repair provisions. 

The commenter posited two scenarios. 

One would imply that all appliances 

containing only ODS refrigerant are 

exempt from the provisions of the rule, 

and the other would imply that 

appliances regulated by 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F are excluded from this rule’s 

leak repair requirements. One 

commenter stated that having the 

requirements be consistent with those 

for ODS would make it easier for the 

many end users who are already 

required to comply with ODS substance 

requirements. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that 

where appropriate, consistent leak 

repair requirements could smooth 

implementation of both programs. As 

described in this section, the conclusion 

that refrigerant-containing appliances 

using a refrigerant blend containing an 

ODS and an HFC or a substitute for an 

HFC with a GWP greater than 53 is 

subject to leak repair requirements 

under both CAA section 608 and 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act is the 

result of how applicability is 

determined for these provisions. EPA 

intends for the leak repair requirements 

in this rulemaking to be sufficiently 

consistent with the requirements under 

CAA section 608 such that both set sets 

of requirements could be met for 

refrigerant-containing appliances using 

an ODS/HFC blend. The Agency did not 

reopen the requirements promulgated 

under CAA section 608, codified at 40 

CFR part 82, subpart F, in its proposed 

rule under subsection (h) of the AIM Act 

and is not amending those regulations 

in this final rule, including the 

applicability provisions through this 

action. Thus, those provisions continue 

to apply for appliances using a 

refrigerant that contains an ODS with a 

full charge of 50 or more pounds of 

refrigerant. 

In consideration of (h)(3), which 

authorizes EPA to coordinate with other 

similar EPA regulations, including the 

extensive experience in implementing 

leak repair requirements under CAA 

section 608 codified at 40 CFR 82.157, 

EPA is finalizing many provisions that 

are identical or similar to those in 40 

CFR 82.157. Examples include the 

methodology for determining the leak 

rate, the timing for repairs, and 

verification tests. One notable difference 

between the regulatory requirements 

under CAA section 608 and subsection 

(h) of the AIM Act is the applicable 

charge size, which is discussed in 

section IV.C.2 of this preamble. The 

similarities in these requirements 

should facilitate compliance with both 

sets of requirements where both apply. 

Accordingly, EPA does not agree with 

the comments that complying with the 

ODS and HFC leak repair provisions 

simultaneously would be unduly 

burdensome. Furthermore, the 

commenters did not provide sufficient 

data to support this statement or to 

allow EPA to fully evaluate 

commenter’s claims of undue burden 

and other potential approaches to 

addressing such burden. The grants of 

authority under CAA section 608 and 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act are not 

identical, and more than 30 years have 

passed since the issuance of the initial 

regulations under CAA section 608. 

Therefore, in some instances, this final 

rule does differ from the CAA section 

608 regulations. EPA is not establishing 

an exemption from the requirements in 

this rule for equipment that is subject to 

the requirements under 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F, because, if such equipment 

also contains an HFC or a substitute for 

an HFC with a GWP above 53, it is 

appropriate for it to comply with the 

leak repair requirements under 

subsection (h)(1). This approach ensures 

that such equipment is subject to 

requirements designed to meet the 

direction under and the particular 

statutory purposes identified in 

subsection (h), such as maximizing 

reclaim and minimizing releases of 

HFCs from equipment. 

To address one commenter’s request 

for clarity on the overlap of leak repair 

requirements for appliances containing 

ODS and HFCs and their substitutes, 

EPA reiterates that owners and 

operators would only need to comply 

with the leak repair provisions under 

both 40 CFR part 82, subpart F and 40 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82712 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

57 ‘‘Bus’’ is defined at 40 CFR 1037.801 and 

means ‘‘a heavy-duty vehicle designed to carry 

more than 15 passengers. Buses may include coach 

buses, school buses, and urban transit buses.’’ 

58U.S. EPA. 2023. EPA’s Vintaging Model 

representing the Allocation Framework Rule as 

modified by the 2024 Allocation Rule RIA 

Addendum and the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule RIA Addendum. VM IO file_v4.4_02.04.16_

Final TT Rule 2023 High Addition. 

CFR part 84, subpart C if the refrigerantcontaining appliance uses a refrigerant 

containing ODS and an HFC or HFC 

substitute with a GWP greater than 53. 

If an appliance uses a refrigerant that 

solely contains ODS (and meets the 

other applicability criteria), it is subject 

to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F leak repair 

requirements, but not the leak repair 

requirements under this final rule. 

Conversely, if an appliance solely 

contains an HFC or HFC substitute with 

a GWP greater than 53 (and meets the 

other applicability criteria) the owner 

will need to comply with the leak repair 

provisions in this final rule, but not the 

leak repair requirements in 40 CFR 

82.157. EPA is not aware of any 

widespread use of ODS/HFC blends. 

However, to the extent such blends are 

in use, requirements under the CAA 

title VI regulations and the CAA itself 

restrict use of ODS in new and existing 

equipment, thus further limiting the 

likelihood of one appliance being 

subject to the two sets of leak repair 

requirements. 

2. Appliances with what charge size are 

subject to the leak repair requirements? 

EPA is finalizing that, with certain 

exceptions, appliances with a charge 

size of 15 pounds or more of refrigerant 

that contains a regulated substance or a 

substitute for a regulated substance with 

a GWP greater than 53 are subject to the 

leak repair requirements under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act, for 

reasons discussed in the proposal and in 

this final rule. This establishes a lower 

threshold than in the regulations 

established under CAA section 608 

nearly 30 years ago. As discussed in the 

proposal, applying the leak repair 

requirements to more equipment will 

reduce the release of HFCs from 

equipment and increase the amount of 

HFCs that will be available for recovery 

and reclamation because of avoided 

releases of HFCs from leaks. The AIM 

Act provides a schedule for a 

phasedown of HFCs, as opposed to the 

phaseout of ODS under the CAA. 

Therefore, there may be continued 

introduction of HFC-containing 

appliances indefinitely, which is a 

notable difference from the restrictions 

on ODS under the CAA. As described 

more fully in section II.B of this 

preamble, subsection (h)(1) of the AIM 

Act tasks the Agency with promulgating 

‘‘regulations to control, where 

appropriate,’’ certain practices, 

processes, or activities for certain 

purposes, including minimizing the 

release of regulated substances from 

equipment and maximizing the 

reclamation of regulated substances. As 

described previously, the phrase ‘‘where 

appropriate’’ in subsection (h)(1) 

provides EPA with discretion to 

reasonably determine how the 

regulations under subsection (h)(1) will 

apply, including by making 

determinations about the charge size 

threshold of equipment that is subject to 

the leak repair requirements. In 

exercising its discretion under this 

provision, EPA has taken a number of 

considerations into account, such as: the 

text of subsection (h)(1) including the 

statutory purposes identified in that 

provision; the anticipated effectiveness 

of the requirements under consideration 

in serving those purposes; the intent of 

subsection (h), considering the overall 

context and structure of the AIM Act; 

and information and insight drawn from 

EPA’s past experience with the same or 

similar practices, processes, or 

activities, as well as sectors, subsectors, 

and markets, gained from implementing 

other programs, including under other 

provisions of the AIM Act and the CAA. 

In establishing the 15-pound threshold 

for leak repair requirements in this 

rulemaking, EPA considered both the 

purposes of minimizing the release of 

HFCs from equipment and maximizing 

reclamation, as well as other factors as 

discussed further in other responses to 

comments in this section. For example, 

EPA considered information regarding 

refrigerant-containing appliances where 

HFCs or their substitutes are currently 

being used and where they are expected 

to be used in the coming years; the 

universe of affected appliances subject 

to the leak repair requirements at 40 

CFR 82.157 and how the refrigerantcontaining appliances being used in the 

market and aftermarket has changed 

over time, including with respect to 

charge size; and design elements of 

different types refrigerant-containing 

appliances with different charge sizes 

and the propensity of that equipment to 

leak (e.g., whether the equipment is 

hermetically sealed), as well as whether 

it is typically repaired for continued 

use, or alternatively disposed of, if it is 

not functioning properly. Consideration 

of these factors informed EPA’s 

evaluation of the charge sizes of 

refrigerant-containing appliances for 

which leak repair is likely to be effective 

at minimizing releases of refrigerant 

from appliances and maximizing 

reclamation. EPA also considered the 

importance of proper refrigerant 

management for successful 

implementation of the phasedown and 

for supporting the existing installed 

base of appliances. Based on such 

considerations, and as discussed in 

greater detail below, EPA concludes it is 

appropriate to use a 15-pound threshold 

for the leak repair requirements under 

this rule and that this threshold will 

further serve the purposes identified in 

subsection (h)(1) of minimizing the 

release of HFCs from equipment and 

maximizing reclamation. 

By establishing an applicable charge 

size of 15 pounds or more of refrigerant, 

with certain exemptions, the universe of 

affected appliances covered by the leak 

repair requirements under subsection 

(h) is larger than the universe of 

appliances containing ODS refrigerants 

and subject to the leak repair provisions 

at 40 CFR 82.157. For example, the 

applicable charge size of 15 pounds or 

more of a refrigerant that contains an 

HFC or substitute refrigerant with a 

GWP above 53 is expected to cover 

certain appliances in the following 

subsectors: 

• Train air conditioning; 

• Passenger buses (e.g., school, coach, 

transit, and trolley buses); 57

• Refrigerated transport—rail; 

• Large retail food remote condensing 

units (e.g., cold rooms in supermarkets); 

and 

• Commercial unitary air 

conditioning (e.g., a system for a midsized office building). 

EPA is establishing a 15-pound 

refrigerant charge size threshold for 

refrigerant-containing appliances 

subject to the leak repair requirements 

in this final rule based in part on 

consideration of an analysis of 

refrigerant-containing appliances where 

HFCs or their substitutes are currently 

being used and where they are expected 

to be used in the coming years. EPA 

conducted an analysis 58 using the 

Vintaging Model to estimate the 

quantity of refrigerants used in 

equipment of varying charge sizes (also 

called the ‘‘installed stock’’). The 

Vintaging Model tracks the transition 

from ODS to substitutes including HFCs 

by modeling the total pieces of 

equipment and average charge sizes— 

which could vary over time based on 

vintage and the ODS or substitute 

used—in over 60 subsectors. Doing so 

allows us to analyze the pieces of 

equipment and total refrigerant in 

equipment by charge size. A current 

snapshot of the model’s estimates of the 

installed stock of HFC and HFC 

substitute refrigerants in 2025 shows 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82713 

that approximately 42 percent of 

refrigerants (on a weighted carbon 

dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis) are 

used in appliances with a charge size 

above 15 pounds. In evaluating where 

leak repair could be effective at 

reducing releases of refrigerant from 

appliances (e.g., trains and passenger 

busses), which may result in additional 

environmental benefits, as well as 

looking at changes in the RACHP market 

and aftermarket over the past few 

decades, EPA finds it appropriate to 

establish a charge size threshold of 15 

pounds for refrigerant-containing 

appliances to be subject to the leak 

repair requirements. As a general 

matter, appliances containing less than 

15 pounds of refrigerant are 

significantly more likely to be 

hermetically sealed (and thus less prone 

to leaking) and more likely to be 

replaced rather than be repaired. 

EPA considered the statutory 

purposes in subsection (h)(1) to 

maximize the reclaiming and minimize 

the release of regulated substances from 

equipment when setting the threshold 

for appliances covered for the leak 

repair requirements. These purposes 

guided EPA’s considerations in 

exploring different charge sizes, as did 

the Agency’s consideration of what 

regulations would be ‘‘appropriate’’ to 

control the relevant practices, processes, 

or activities to serve these purposes, 

consistent with subsection (h)(1). 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments supporting the 15-pound 

charge size threshold. One commenter 

expressed support of EPA’s proposed 

rule, stating that HFC emissions do not 

respect State boundaries and a Federal 

approach is critical to avoid piecemeal 

regulations and facilitate the 

implementation of industry-wide 

emissions reductions. Another 

commenter stated that it was reasonable 

for EPA to have a different charge size 

threshold than the ODS regulations to 

preserve the supply of HFC refrigerants. 

Several commenters in favor of the 

proposal recommended EPA consider a 

lower charge size threshold (e.g., five 

pounds) to avoid additional GHG 

emissions. One commenter suggested a 

charge threshold size between one and 

five pounds to include smaller 

appliances and achieve additional 

reductions to HFC emissions. Another 

commenter stated that lowering the 

charge size threshold decreases the 

incentive for owners and operators to 

replace one large system with smaller 

systems to skirt regulatory obligations. 

One commenter stated that EPA’s 

estimates (on a weighted CO2e basis) 

show that appliances below 15 pounds 

account for around 39 percent of total 

HFC refrigerants. The commenter 

suggested that lowering the threshold 

will close the gap on HFC management 

and build on existing recordkeeping 

requirements for technicians who 

evacuate refrigerant from appliances 

with a full charge between 5 and 50 

pounds. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the 15- 

pound charge size threshold as 

proposed. The Agency acknowledges 

the numerous supportive comments for 

the 15-pound charge size threshold. 

Since the 1990s, when EPA established 

the 50-pound charge size for ODS 

refrigerant-containing appliances, there 

have been changes in appliance design, 

use, and practices. In 2016, EPA 

updated the leak repair program under 

CAA section 608, partly in 

consideration of these changes. For the 

most part, the leak repair provisions for 

HFCs finalized in this action are 

consistent with that rule. However, EPA 

did not change the 50-pound threshold 

in the 2016 CAA Section 608 Rule, and 

thus the 15-pound threshold is different 

from the threshold under the CAA 

section 608 regulations at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F. Through this notice-andcomment rulemaking, the Agency 

provided notice of this lower threshold 

level and considered the public 

comments received. The Agency’s 

rationale for a 15-pound threshold is 

discussed in the proposal and in section 

IV.C.2 of this preamble. As discussed 

previously, applying the leak repair 

requirements to more refrigerantcontaining appliances will reduce the 

release of HFCs from said appliances 

and increase the amount of HFCs 

available to recover that would be 

otherwise lost because of leakage from 

appliances. Furthermore, the HFC 

phasedown will not eliminate the use of 

HFCs in the U.S. market, so there may 

be continued introduction of new HFCcontaining appliances; thus, proper 

management of these refrigerantcontaining appliances is necessary for 

the successful implementation of the 

HFC phasedown, and to ensure there is 

an adequate supply of reclaimed HFCs 

to support the existing installed base of 

HFC-containing appliances. The Agency 

also disagrees with one commenter’s 

statement that a lower threshold would 

disincentivize owners or operators from 

installing multiple smaller refrigerantcontaining appliances to skirt the leak 

repair requirements of this final rule. 

The 15-pound threshold is intended to 

be low enough to hinder efforts to avoid 

applicability of the leak repair 

requirements and ensures a sizeable 

proportion of refrigerant-containing 

appliances are subject to the leak repair 

requirements of the final rule. After 

further evaluation informed by 

consideration of these comments, EPA 

is finalizing a 15-pound charge size 

requirement for HFC and covered HFC 

substitute refrigerants. 

EPA took comment on, but is not 

finalizing, leak repair requirements for 

equipment with charges of less than 15 

pounds. One commenter stated that a 

lower threshold could bridge that gap 

on HFC emissions by capturing more 

refrigerant-containing appliances. While 

EPA agrees that there could be instances 

where this may reduce releases of 

refrigerants, we also note that many 

refrigerant-containing appliances with 

charge sizes under 15 pounds are 

typically hermetically sealed, which 

means they are less leak prone; these 

refrigerant-containing appliances are 

also normally disposed of once they 

stop functioning properly, rather than 

being repaired for further use. The 

commenter stated that lowering the 

threshold would build on existing 

requirements to recover refrigerants 

from small appliances (5 pounds or less) 

under 40 CFR 82.155, which apply to 

HFCs. However, as previously 

discussed, these types of refrigerantcontaining appliances are at low risk for 

leakage. Although the safe disposal 

requirements for small appliances under 

CAA section 608 do not address leaks, 

the provision ensures that the 

refrigerant within these appliances is 

not released at disposal. Further, EPA 

notes that refrigerant-containing 

appliances between 5 and 15 pounds are 

still subject to the venting prohibition 

under section CAA section 608(c) 

(codified in EPA’s regulations 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1), which prohibits the 

knowing venting or release of HFCs 

from refrigerant-containing appliances 

during the maintaining, servicing, 

repairing, or disposing of the appliance. 

While EPA agrees that there could be 

reasons to consider lowering the charge 

size threshold to five pounds or lower, 

the Agency would want to further 

evaluate various aspects of a lower 

threshold before proposing to establish 

one, such as the potential for such a 

threshold to serve the purposes 

identified in subsection (h)(1), whether 

there are particular considerations about 

what types of requirements might be 

appropriate for such appliances, 

including common design elements for 

these appliances, and any information 

available about the occurrence or cause 

of leaks in such appliances. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

opposed the 15-pound charge size 

threshold for leak repair and stated that 

the threshold is not cost-effective, may 

confuse owners and technicians, will 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82714 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

increase repair cost, and will double the 

regulatory responsibilities for industry 

as compared to CAA section 608 

regulations, without commensurate 

environmental benefits. Several 

commenters provided estimates for the 

number of refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to the leak repair 

requirements, which ranged from two to 

five times greater than the number of 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

would be subject to the leak repair 

provisions at a 50-pound threshold. 

Several commenters requested that EPA 

require leak repair for appliances with 

a full charge of 50 or more pounds as 

this is the current ODS threshold under 

CAA section 608 regulations. One 

commenter claimed that it could be 

difficult to effectively distinguish 

between units charged with HFCs, ODS, 

or a combination of both for purposes of 

compliance, and that it would be 

difficult for equipment owners and 

certified technicians to determine the 

applicability threshold for any 

particular refrigerant/appliance. The 

commenter asserted that EPA should 

maintain the 50-pound threshold for 

applicability to promote compliance, 

maintain consistency in operations, and 

avoid unjustified costs. Another 

commenter urged EPA to direct leak 

repair requirements to larger appliances 

with a charge size of 50 pounds or more, 

as technological advancements have 

allowed for smaller charge sizes in 

appliances and therefore have reduced 

the potential harm to the environment 

in the event of a leak. The commenter 

also asserted that the 15-pound 

threshold could discourage 

manufacturers from improving the 

efficiency of refrigeration appliances to 

reduce overall refrigerant usage. One 

commenter suggested EPA wait a period 

of time (e.g., five years) from the 

effective date of the final rule to see if 

there is a reduction in HFC use and 

their corresponding emissions. The 

commenter recommended that if 

substantial HFC use and emissions 

reductions are not observed, then EPA 

could evaluate and propose a new 

applicability threshold. Alternatively, 

the commenter suggested EPA could 

establish a charge size threshold at 40 

pounds, as there have been 

technological reductions in charge sizes 

due to the phaseout of ODS. A few 

commenters recommended that EPA 

increase the threshold from the 

proposed 15 pounds to 30, 40, or 50 

pounds to better align with CAA section 

608 regulations. One commenter 

claimed the 15-pound threshold does 

not provide enough environmental 

benefits to justify the cost increases to 

small business owners, local school 

systems, and mass transit operators. The 

commenter stated that while a 50-pound 

threshold is preferable, a 30-pound 

threshold would mitigate some of these 

costs and challenges. Another 

commenter stated that the 15-pound 

threshold was too low and would 

dramatically increase the number of 

affected appliances; suggesting that a 

30-pound threshold would be more 

appropriate and still expand upon the 

CAA regulations. 

Response: EPA disagrees with 

commenters that the 15-pound 

threshold will confuse technicians and 

facility owners. While this lower 

threshold will affect different sizes and 

types of refrigerant-containing 

appliances than the 50-pound threshold 

for ODS appliances, the leak repair 

activities are consistent with the subpart 

F requirements. Through this notice-and 

comment rulemaking the Agency 

informed stakeholders of this lower 

threshold level and explained the 

Agency’s rationale for a 15-pound 

threshold in section IV.C.2 of this 

preamble. EPA intends to provide 

information to the regulated community 

on its website and additional 

communication about the requirements 

to affected stakeholders. EPA also 

disagrees that owners or operators 

would have difficulty determining what 

refrigerants are being used within a 

refrigerant-containing appliance or that 

they would have difficulty determining 

the charge size of a refrigerantcontaining appliance. An owner or 

operator should be fully aware of the 

type of refrigerant that is being used in 

a refrigerant-containing appliance, and 

the determination of an appliance’s full 

charge (as described in section IV.A.2 of 

this preamble) is the same as its use 

under the CAA section 608 regulations. 

The Agency disagrees with a 

commenter’s claim that the 15-pound 

threshold would uniquely burden small 

businesses, schools, and mass transit 

operators. Small businesses and schools, 

depending on equipment type, may fall 

under the narrow leak repair exemption 

for residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps, easing 

some of their regulatory burden. The 

final rule’s leak repair provision may 

affect operators of air conditioning on 

mass transit (e.g., trains) and school 

buses, but the commenter did not 

provide specific evidence to support 

their claim that the leak repair 

requirements would increase costs to an 

extent that it unduly burdens these 

refrigerant-containing appliance owners. 

EPA disagrees with a commenter’s 

suggestion to pause the compliance date 

of the leak repair provisions to see if 

there is a substantial reduction in HFC 

use and emissions. The Agency notes 

that the HFC phasedown is substantially 

reducing the production and 

consumption of HFCs; thus, the overall 

use of virgin HFCs is going to be 

reduced as the phasedown progresses. 

However, as previously stated, the 

phasedown will not eliminate the 

production and consumption of HFCs, 

and specific measures are necessary to 

limit the impacts of HFCs on the 

environment and ensure that the supply 

of HFC refrigerants is available for use 

in existing systems. This action is 

focused on implementing subsection (h) 

of the AIM Act, which establishes 

distinct authorities focused on 

minimizing the release of HFCs and 

maximizing the recovery of HFCs for 

reclamation. The vast majority of HFCs 

are used in the RACHP sector and its 

subsectors; thus, leak repair 

requirements for this sector are vital to 

minimizing the release of HFCs and 

maximizing reclamation. Additionally, 

in the context of the HFC phasedown, 

not establishing requirements to limit 

the release of HFCs will create supply 

issues as the phasedown progresses. 

Therefore, the timing of the leak repair 

requirements in this final rule is vital to 

the implementation of the HFC 

phasedown and ensures that a supply of 

reclaimed HFCs is available for owners 

or operators to continue to use HFCs for 

their refrigerant-containing appliances. 

The Agency agrees that additional data 

may inform future decisions under 

subsection (h) and more broadly under 

the AIM Act. Such information could 

lead to a future notice-and-comment 

rulemaking that may consider a lower 

threshold for refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to leak repair 

requirements. However, based on the 

data available now, the Agency 

concludes that it is appropriate to 

proceed with the leak repair 

requirements for appliances with a full 

charge size of 15 pounds or more and 

with a compliance date of January 1, 

2026, as part of implementing 

subsection (h). 

The Agency also disagrees with some 

commenters’ assertions that the 15- 

pound threshold would increase the 

number of refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to leak repair by a 

factor of two to five times the number 

of affected appliances under CAA 

section 608. The final rule will include 

a substantial number of new appliances 

under the leak repair provision but not 

the extent claimed by the commenter. 

Vintaging Model estimates on the total 

number of refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to the leak repair 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82715 

59 Impacts of Refrigerant Charge on Air 

Conditioner and Heat Pump Performance’’ (2010). 

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Conference. Paper 1122. Available: http://docs.lib.

purdue.edu/iracc/1122. 

provisions of the final rule are estimated 

to affect 971,133 appliances with a 

charge size between 15 and 50 pounds 

and 580,653 appliances with a charge 

size above 50 pounds. As previously 

stated, EPA understands that the 15- 

pound threshold does increase the 

number of refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to leak repair. This 

decision was based on EPA’s evaluation 

of changes in the RACHP market and 

aftermarket (e.g., the overall reduction 

of refrigerant charge size). With these 

considerations, EPA determined that 

capturing refrigerant-containing 

appliances at charge sizes below 50 

pounds will further serve the purposes 

of minimizing the release of HFCs from 

equipment. Therefore, the Agency finds 

it appropriate to establish a charge size 

threshold of 15 pounds for refrigerantcontaining appliances to be subject to 

the leak repair requirements. 

For these reasons EPA also disagrees 

with one commenter’s claim that 

refrigerant-containing appliances below 

50 pounds should not be subject to the 

leak repair provision because their 

reduced charge size has mitigated their 

potential to harm the environment. The 

extension of the leak repair 

requirements to refrigerant-containing 

appliances below 50 pounds was found 

to be feasible because of the 

technological improvements to 

refrigerant charge size over decades. 

These changes in charge size in the 

RACHP sector informed EPA’s decision 

to capture appliances between 15 and 

50 pounds because those appliances 

still contain HFCs or covered substitutes 

that have a detrimental effect on the 

environment. The reduction in charge 

size does mitigate the total amount of 

refrigerant that is capable of being lost 

during a leak event, but it does not 

account for the proper management of 

refrigerant-containing appliances and 

fixing leaks within said appliances. EPA 

also disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that lowering the threshold to 

15 pounds will deter manufacturers 

from continuing to make technological 

advancements to appliance charge size. 

Manufacturers’ incentives to create 

smaller refrigerant-containing 

appliances are not solely based on the 

charge size threshold for leak repair in 

this final rule, nor was this the case in 

the context of the 50-pound threshold 

under the CAA section 608 regulations. 

The commenter did not provide 

additional information to sufficiently 

reason that this would be the case, and 

EPA notes that charge size reductions 

have occurred over decades because of 

improvements to appliance design and 

energy efficiency. 

EPA acknowledges commenters’ 

concerns regarding the costs and 

benefits associated with leak repair. 

Further discussion on the costs and 

benefits associated with this final rule 

and discussions on the draft RIA 

addendum and Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD can be found in section 

VI.B of this preamble. EPA is not relying 

on those analyses as a record basis for 

this rulemaking, and the Agency would 

reach the same conclusions on the 

suitability of a 15-pound charge size 

threshold without those analyses. 

However, the analyses in the TSD reflect 

that the leak repair requirements in this 

final rule will provide several benefits 

to owners or operators and EPA 

acknowledges that certain costs will be 

associated with the implementation of 

the leak repair provisions. First, the leak 

repair requirements of this rulemaking 

are likely to provide owners or operators 

information that leaks are occurring 

earlier than would have otherwise been 

known. Fixing those leaks will reduce 

the amount of refrigerant needed to be 

added to the system thereby reducing 

refrigerant costs for the owner/operator. 

Secondly, a system that is operating 

with less than the full charge of 

refrigerant is likely to consume more 

energy or not provide the desired 

cooling effect, both of which increase 

the owner’s operating costs. As an 

example, a unit cooler with 15 to 50 

pounds of refrigerant might be used for 

a large cold room. If that cooler is not 

providing the cooling needed, products 

could spoil, representing a potential 

large cost to the owner, in addition to 

the costs of the additional energy used 

to operate the off-specification 

equipment, which may be potentially 

avoided if the owner or operator 

performs the leak inspection and repair 

requirements of this rulemaking.59

Regarding the issue of cost-effectiveness 

of a 15-pound threshold raised by some 

commenters, the Agency refers the 

reader to section VI.B of the preamble. 

The Agency reiterates that this 

rulemaking is designed to serve the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1) 

of the AIM Act, including maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing the release 

of regulated substances from equipment. 

Comment: A commenter in opposition 

of the 15-pound threshold claimed that 

the reasoning for changing the charge 

size threshold appears to be arbitrary 

and capricious. The commenter claims 

the reduction is unmerited based on the 

availability of newer technologies using 

smaller charge sizes. They further assert 

the replacement of older appliances 

with new and more efficient appliances 

is one of the goalposts of the AIM Act. 

The commenter stated that applicability 

of the leak repair and detection 

requirements will act as a deterrent for 

replacing appliances and is unnecessary 

and unreasonable given reductions in 

available HFC stocks. The Agency also 

received a similar comment stating that 

the proposal did not provide clear 

justifications for lowering the charge 

size threshold below 50 pounds. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that 

the 15-pound threshold is arbitrary and 

capricious. Subsection (h)(1) of the AIM 

Act directs the Agency to promulgate 

‘‘regulations to control, where 

appropriate,’’ certain practices, 

processes, or activities, for certain 

purposes, including minimizing the 

release of regulated substances from 

equipment and maximizing their 

reclamation of regulated substances. As 

explained earlier in this preamble, the 

phrase ‘‘where appropriate’’ in 

subsection (h)(1) provides EPA with 

discretion to reasonably make 

determinations on how the regulations 

should apply including, among other 

things, to select an appropriate charge 

size threshold for refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to the leak repair 

provision. As previously stated, the 

Agency is applying leak repair 

requirements to more refrigerantcontaining appliances than under the 

CAA section 608 rules to reduce the 

release of HFCs from said appliances 

and increase the amount of HFCs 

available for recovery that would 

otherwise be lost because of leakage 

from such appliances. Given that the 

purposes identified for regulations 

under subsection (h)(1) include 

maximizing reclamation and 

minimizing release of HFCs from 

equipment, EPA interprets the intent of 

subsection (h)(1) to be that the 

regulations promulgated under it may 

apply as broadly as needed to serve 

those purposes, while also being 

mindful of the statutory text indicating 

that the controls should apply ‘‘where 

appropriate.’’ EPA finds it appropriate 

to apply the leak repair requirements to 

equipment with a charge size below 50 

pounds for several reasons. 

Technological advancements have 

lowered the charge sizes of many 

refrigerant-containing appliances, such 

that using a charge size threshold of 50 

pounds today would leave many such 

appliances unregulated. Refrigerantcontaining appliances between 15 and 

50 pounds still contain climateVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Oct 10, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM 11OCR2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82716 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

damaging HFCs or HFC substitutes that 

are appropriately addressed under 

subsection (h)(1). Such appliances can 

still leak, and if they are not repaired, 

could release refrigerant, which would 

not be available for reclamation once it 

had leaked. Thus, applying the leak 

repair requirements to this equipment is 

part of the regulatory design to better 

serve the purposes identified in 

subsection (h)(1) of maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing release of 

HFCs from equipment. With respect to 

the commenter’s reference to reductions 

in HFC stocks, EPA notes that the HFC 

phasedown will greatly reduce the 

overall consumption and production of 

HFCs but will not eliminate their use in 

the U.S. market. Therefore, continued 

introduction of HFC-containing 

appliances may still occur, and EPA 

concludes it is appropriate for theses 

appliances to be subject to these 

requirements for the reasons described 

earlier in this response. For these 

reasons, EPA finds the 15-pound 

threshold as appropriate for serving the 

purposes described in subsection (h). 

The Agency disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that the 15- 

pound threshold would deter the 

transition to newer, more efficient 

refrigerant-containing appliances, as in 

the Agency’s experience several factors 

inform the decision of whether to 

replace equipment and if so, what to 

replace it with (such as the age, 

functionality, and costs of operating the 

existing equipment, and the price of 

new equipment and costs of operating 

that equipment). EPA notes that the 

commenter did not provide additional 

information to support their assertion 

that such deterrence would actually 

occur. EPA is not clear on what the 

commenter is referring to when it says 

that one of the goal posts of the Act is 

the replacement of older equipment 

with newer and more efficient 

equipment. To the extent the comment 

is referring to the implementation of 

subsection (i) of the AIM Act, EPA 

clarifies that those provisions are out of 

the scope of this rulemaking and thus 

any comment addressing those requires 

no response. To the extent that the 

comment pertains to appliances subject 

to the leak repair requirements in this 

final rule the Agency notes the overall 

applicability of appliances is subject to 

whether or not they contain an HFC or 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53. The final 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule applies 

certain GWP-based restrictions on use of 

HFCs in new equipment in certain 

sectors or subsectors in which those 

HFCs are used. If an equipment owner 

were to decide to replace a refrigerantcontaining appliance above the 15- 

pound threshold with a new refrigerantcontaining appliance that is subject to 

under 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule, they would need to consider 

compliance with those requirements. If 

they also wish to avoid the applicability 

of leak repair requirements established 

in this rule to the new appliance, they 

may have options that would achieve 

that goal. For example, an owner or 

operator may be able to select an 

appliance that uses a refrigerant that 

does not contain an HFC or a substitute 

with a GWP greater than 53. However, 

if they are selecting a refrigerantcontaining appliance that uses HFCs, it 

would not serve the purposes identified 

in subsection (h)(1) of maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing release of 

HFCs from equipment to allow that 

refrigerant-containing appliance to 

avoid application of the leak repair 

requirements simply because it is new, 

even it is more efficient. Thus, their 

inclusion in the leak repair 

requirements at the 15-pound threshold 

is warranted. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

many food industry leaders are part of 

the GreenChill voluntary partnership 

that made charge size reduction a 

priority and challenged equipment 

manufacturers to lower the amount of 

refrigerant needed in the retail food 

industry. The commenter asserted that 

the current charge size threshold of 50 

pounds has served as a motivation to 

select lower-charge appliances, which 

leak less refrigerant in situations where 

catastrophic leaks occur and stated that 

the proposed threshold penalizes food 

retailers for the progress under the 

GreenChill partnership. The commenter 

asserts that the lower threshold would 

decrease any motivation for food 

retailers to purchase expensive 

appliances that operate at lower charge 

sizes below 50 pounds. The commenter 

also expressed concern that many 

smaller appliances would need to be 

added to a company’s recordkeeping, 

because appliances not previously 

covered under section 608 would not 

have had their full charge data captured. 

Another commenter indicated that the 

provision poses a significant challenge 

to a cost-conscious industry using 

centralized HFC systems which are 

reliable and remain cost-effective for 

years if well maintained. The 

commenter asserted that the leak repair 

requirements would force owners or 

operators who have recently 

transitioned to HFO systems to 

transition again or to cause smaller 

facilities to transition to fan systems 

which may paradoxically increase 

emissions from electricity generation. 

The commenter also stated that the rule 

disproportionately impacts owners or 

operators in States with higher heat 

indexes and limited alternative chilling 

methods. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that 

the final rule’s 15-pound threshold for 

leak repair unduly burdens the retail 

food industry. EPA acknowledges that 

these newer designs may use both less 

refrigerant overall and refrigerants with 

lower-GWPs but disagrees that the leak 

repair requirements penalize food 

retailers that have switched to such 

equipment because these requirements 

apply equally to equipment subject to 

the requirements. Furthermore, the 

Agency has previously stated that the 

overall reduction in charge size the 

RACHP sector is part of EPA’s rationale 

for lowering the charge size threshold to 

15 pounds. Refrigerant-containing 

appliances between 15 and 50 pounds 

still contain HFCs and covered 

substitutes which have a detrimental 

effect on the environment. The 

extension of the leak repair 

requirements to capture refrigerantcontaining appliances between 15 and 

50 pounds will ensure that less HFCs 

are emitted. The Agency responds that 

the GreenChill partnership is a 

voluntary partnership program and does 

not require the supermarket industry as 

a whole or the partnership to meet 

specific leak repair requirements. 

Advancements in refrigerant charge 

sizes cannot solely be attributed to the 

GreenChill partnership as appliance 

manufacturers and supermarket owners 

had incentives to lower the charge size 

of supermarket systems to save on 

refrigerant costs and improve energy 

efficiency. The Agency, however, does 

recognize that supermarkets in the 

GreenChill voluntary partnership are 

uniquely positioned to meet the leak 

repair requirements as partners have 

been able to consistently achieve lower 

leak rates by adopting newer system 

technologies, using newer refrigerants, 

applying best practices, and maintaining 

leak-tight systems to decrease refrigerant 

emissions. The Agency also disagrees 

with the commenters’ framing that the 

15-pound threshold would 

disincentivize owners or operators from 

investing in refrigerant-containing 

appliances at lower charge sizes. 

Owners and operators may decide to 

transition to refrigerant-containing 

appliances with smaller charge sizes to 

save money on refrigerant costs and 

mitigate the potential of leakage 

characterized by refrigerant-containing 

appliances at larger charge sizes. EPA 

does not find that owners or operators 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82717 

60The residential and light commercial air 

conditioning subsector includes equipment for 

cooling air in individual rooms, single-family 

homes, and small commercial buildings, including 

both self-contained and split systems. Selfcontained systems include some rooftop AC units 

(e.g., those ducted to supply conditioned air to 

multiple spaces) and many types of room ACs, 

including packaged terminal air conditioners 

(PTACs), some rooftop AC units, window AC units, 

portable room AC units, and wall-mounted selfcontained ACs, designed for use in a single room. 

Split systems include ducted and non-ducted minisplits (which might also be designed for use in a 

single room), multi-splits and variable refrigerant 

flow (VRF) systems, and ducted unitary splits. For 

additional information on the types of equipment, 

see EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/snap/ 

substitutes-residential-and-light-commercial-airconditioning-and-heat-pumps. 

61This subsector was previously characterized as 

‘‘household and light commercial air conditioning’’ 

(61 FR 4736, February 8, 1996). EPA later revised 

this subsector’s name because it was recognized the 

‘‘house’’ might be taken to exclude other types of 

dwellings, such as apartments. 

would solely transition to appliances 

with small charge sizes to avoid leak 

repair requirements. 

EPA also disagrees with one 

commenter’s assertion that owners or 

operators who have recently 

transitioned to HFO systems will need 

to transition again. This final rule is not 

regulating the transition of refrigerantcontaining appliances, rather, the final 

rule is establishing leak repair 

requirements for refrigerant-containing 

appliances with a charge size 15 pounds 

or greater which use an HFC or 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53. EPA did not propose 

and is not finalizing requirements for 

refrigerant-containing appliances to 

transition or be replaced (unless a 

refrigerant-containing appliance is not 

able to be repaired and is subject to the 

retrofit or retirement requirements 

described in section IV.C.3.f of this 

preamble). The Agency views the leak 

repair requirements of the final rule to 

provide numerous benefits to owners or 

operators (e.g., reduced costs to replace 

lost refrigerants due to leaks). As the 

commenter stated, HFC centralized 

systems if well maintained can be 

reliable and cost-effective for owners 

and operators and the leak repair 

requirements of the final rule ensure 

that these systems are well maintained. 

Further, owners or operators who are 

using HFOs or HFO blends are only 

subject to the leak repair requirements 

if the refrigerant used contains an HFC 

or has a GWP greater than 53. For these 

reasons, the Agency also disagrees that 

smaller facilities will transition to fan 

refrigeration systems in order to avoid 

the leak repair requirements of the final 

rule. EPA does not foresee fan systems 

as being a replacement to refrigerantcontaining appliances that use HFCs 

and notes that there are non-HFC 

alternatives available for certain 

refrigerant-containing appliances used 

by the retail food industry. 

EPA also disagrees that the leak repair 

requirements disproportionately impact 

owners or operators in States with 

higher heat indexes and limited 

alternatives. As stated previously, this 

rule is not requiring the transition to 

different alternatives or prohibiting the 

use of HFCs, rather, the rule is 

establishing requirements to ensure 

leaks in refrigerant-containing 

appliances containing HFCs or covered 

substitutes are repaired in a timely 

manner. The Agency understands that 

differences in ambient temperature will 

affect the need for RACHP appliances, 

however, the leak repair requirements 

apply equally to refrigerant-containing 

appliances regardless of geographic 

location. Furthermore, the prompt 

repair and management of refrigerantcontaining appliances in States with 

higher heat indexes where RACHP is 

utilized more, will help save owners 

and operators costs associated with 

leaky appliances. 

EPA is finalizing as proposed, the 

exemption of the residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pump subsector 60 from the leak repair 

provisions in the final rule. This 

subsector is categorized by refrigerantcontaining appliances that are used to 

cool individual rooms, single-family 

homes, and small commercial buildings. 

The Agency notes that the description of 

the subsector is consistent with the 

description used by the SNAP program 

since 2009,61 owners or operators 

should be familiar with the terminology 

and implementation under the SNAP 

program. EPA is not providing a 

regulatory definition of residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps and clarifies that we are 

using the terminology developed by 

SNAP to denote the types of refrigerantcontaining appliances that would be 

considered to fall under the subsector. 

The determination of whether or not a 

refrigerant-containing appliance is 

exempt from the leak repair provision is 

reliant on such appliances being 

considered to fall within the parameters 

of the terminology. As described in the 

proposal, the vast majority of 

refrigerant-containing appliances in the 

residential and light air conditioning 

subsector typically have a charge size of 

less than 15 pounds; however, EPA is 

providing an exemption in the case that 

an appliance is used within this 

subsector with a charge size of 15 

pounds or more. These refrigerantcontaining appliances are used in 

residences (but this subsector does not 

include larger centrally-cooled 

apartment/condominium buildings— 

where a chiller is likely used), and small 

retail and office buildings. The types of 

specific refrigerant-containing 

appliances used in this subsector could 

include but are not limited to: 

• Packaged terminal air conditioners 

(PTACs); 

• Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) 

appliances; 

• Unitary air conditioning; and 

• Some rooftop air conditioning. 

There are several reasons for this 

exemption. Since the majority of 

appliances in this subsector have a 

refrigerant charge below the 15-pound 

cutoff for leak repair requirements, 

enforcement of these appliances may be 

challenging due to the number of 

appliances that would be covered. 

Further, the number of refrigerantcontaining appliances in this subsector 

may cause additional strain on 

contractors and technicians who are 

necessary to complete the repair of 

leaking appliances. Therefore, EPA’s 

exemption of appliances in this 

subsector from the leak repair 

requirements is administratively more 

efficient and will facilitate compliance 

of affected appliances under the 

provision. 

Comment: EPA received generally 

positive comments on the exemption of 

residential and light commercial air 

conditioning with the majority of 

comments requesting clarity of what 

appliances are covered by the 

exemption. One commenter stated that 

codifying a definition for residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps would avoid confusion in 

the regulated community. Two 

commenters requested EPA consider 

codifying the industry definition of light 

commercial defined as having a cooling 

capacity below 65,000 BTU/h. One 

commenter urged EPA to clarify what it 

considers a ‘‘small commercial 

building.’’ One commenter stated that 

EPA should define residential and light 

commercial refrigeration to be 

consistent with how SNAP defines the 

residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pump subsector. 

The commenter stated that a definition 

of light commercial air conditioning 

consistent with SNAP would exclude 

chillers but include most other forms of 

household and commercial cooling. 

Another commenter requested 

clarification on whether air 

conditioning systems for supermarkets 

would be classified as light commercial 

and therefore exempt from leak repair 

requirements. The commenter added 

that if EPA were to clarify that 

supermarket air conditioning appliances 

do not fall under light commercial air 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82718 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

62SNAP Notice 23 (January 2, 2009; 74 FR 21). 

63The Technology Transitions Rule describes 

rooftop AC units as 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. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/ 

2023-22529/p-903. 

conditioning, the Agency would need to 

evaluate the significant cost burdens 

associated with the decision. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the leak 

repair exemption of residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pumps. The Agency acknowledges 

comments in support of the provision. 

In response to commenters’ request that 

EPA better define residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pumps the Agency has provided 

additional description and discussion in 

the preamble of this rule. EPA clarifies 

that it is not codifying a definition of the 

subsector nor is it adopting a 65,000 

BTU/h industry standard as one 

commenter suggested, because we find 

the additional clarification of the 

subsector included in the preamble to 

be sufficient in alleviating potential 

confusion with what refrigerantcontaining appliances are included in 

the residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps subsector. 

The Agency reiterates that the majority 

of appliances subject to this narrow 

exemption are below the final rule’s 15- 

pound charge size threshold for the leak 

repair provision. EPA notes that the 

terminology used for the residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps sector mirrors the 

terminology created and implemented 

under the SNAP program under the 

CAA, which has been used in that 

context since 2009. As used in the 

context of SNAP, this residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps end-use includes 

equipment that cools enclosed spaces in 

households and commercial premises 

(excluding chillers) which include room 

air conditioning such as window units, 

PTACs and heat pumps, and portable air 

conditioners; central air conditioners 

(i.e., ducted); non-ducted systems (both 

mini and multi splits); packaged rooftop 

units; water-source and ground-source 

heat pumps; and other products. 

Residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps are often 

distinguished from chillers by the fact 

that they condition the air directly, 

rather than cool (or heat) water that is 

then used to condition air.62 The 

Agency intends for the term as used in 

the context of this rulemaking under 

subsection (h) to have the same meaning 

as it has under the SNAP program, given 

the Agency’s experience in regulating 

this end-use under SNAP and its 

expectation that the regulated 

community is familiar with this term 

and its use under SNAP. 

The SNAP terminology is based, in 

part, on ASHRAE’s standard 15–2022 

which provides more clarity of what 

types of occupant spaces that fall into 

the category of what EPA refers to as 

residential and light commercial. For 

‘‘residential occupancy’’ some premises 

include but are not limited to 

dormitories, hotels, multiunit 

apartments, and private residences. For 

‘‘commercial occupancy’’ some 

premises include office and professional 

buildings, markets, and other work or 

storage areas. EPA notes that ASHRAE 

standards are primarily addressing 

issues with safety in relation to 

‘‘residential occupancy’’ or ‘‘commercial 

occupancy’’ whereas SNAP is 

addressing the safety and applicability 

of specific refrigerants which are 

determined as acceptable for use in 

specific end-uses. Further, while these 

descriptions of ‘‘residential occupancy’’ 

and ‘‘commercial occupancy’’ are 

helpful in the determination of the types 

of premises which may fall within the 

purview of residential and light 

commercial, the Agency clarifies that 

the exemption applies to the categories 

of refrigerant-containing appliances 

used at these premises. In this final rule, 

EPA is using the types of refrigerantcontaining appliances described under 

SNAP’s terminology for residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps to determine what 

refrigerant-containing appliances fall 

under the exemption. For example, a 

central air conditioner being used to 

provide cooling for occupants in a 

commercial setting that has the same 

shape, size, and cooling load as a 

refrigerant-containing appliance used in 

a residential setting would fall under 

this exemption. An air conditioning 

appliance at a light commercial building 

would most likely be a rooftop AC unit, 

which is one type of light commercial 

air conditioning.63 In addition to rooftop 

AC units, other types of air conditioners 

and heat pumps are part of the 

residential and light commercial AC and 

HP subsector and hence are exempt 

from the leak repair requirements, such 

as single packaged units, split system 

central air conditioners and heat pumps, 

window-mounted air conditioners, 

through-the-wall units, and portable air 

conditioners. EPA clarifies that the 

exemption does not apply to a chiller, 

a type of air conditioning system that is 

often used to provide comfort cooling to 

office buildings, malls, stadiums, 

arenas, hotels, convention centers, 

airport terminals, etc. 

In response to the question regarding 

supermarket air conditioning, the 

Agency clarifies that some but not all 

supermarket air conditioning systems 

would fall under the definition of 

residential and light commercial air 

conditioning based on the refrigerantcontaining appliance being used to cool 

occupants. However, if a supermarket 

refrigeration rack is providing comfort 

cooling as well as refrigeration for 

perishable foods, it would not be 

exempt from the leak repair 

requirements (unless it contained less 

than 15 pounds of a regulated HFC or 

HFC substitute with a GWP greater than 

53) because this type of refrigerantcontaining appliance does not fall under 

the terminology of residential and light 

commercial AC and HP. With regards to 

the assertion that there are significant 

costs if not all supermarket air 

conditioning systems were exempt from 

the leak repair requirements, EPA refers 

the reader to the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pump systems should not receive an 

exemption from leak repair 

requirements. Several commenters 

specifically called out the need to 

include VRF systems under the leak 

repair provision. One commenter 

highlighted that multi-split RACHP and 

VRF systems can contain large 

refrigerant charges, have many points of 

potential leakage, and may be more 

limited in regard to low-GWP 

alternatives. Another commenter 

requested that commercial rooftop 

systems with a charge size above five 

pounds be covered under the leak repair 

provision. The commenter agreed with 

the Agency’s decision to exclude 

residential systems but encouraged EPA 

to establish leak repair requirements for 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps. A separate commenter in 

support of the exemption suggested that 

the Agency could revisit the leak repair 

exemption for residential air 

conditioning and heat pump systems at 

a future date as leak detection solutions 

become available and cost-effective for 

these systems. 

Response: EPA disagrees with 

comments requesting that the 

exemption for residential and light 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82719 

64AHRI 2024; available at: https://

www.ahrinet.org/analytics/statistics/historicaldata/central-air-conditioners-and-air-source-heatpumps. 

65 ‘‘Bus’’ is defined at 40 CFR 1037.801 and 

means ‘‘a heavy-duty vehicle designed to carry 

more than 15 passengers. Buses may include coach 

buses, school buses, and urban transit buses.’’ 

66 Defined at 40 CFR 86.1803–01. 

67Chemours, FreonTM Refrigerant for Bus and 

Rail Air Conditioning; available at: https://

www.freon.com/en/industries/stationary-ac-heatpumps/public-transport-ac. 

68 ICF, 2016. Technical Support Document for 

Acceptability Listing of HFO–1234yf for Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning in Limited Heavy-Duty 

Applications. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0663-0007. 

69EPA, 2021. Basic Information about the 

Emission Standards Reference Guide for On-road 

and Nonroad Vehicles and Engines. Available at 

https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-referenceguide/basic-information-about-emission-standardsreference-guide-road. 

commercial air conditioning not be 

finalized. In the context of the 608 ODS 

regulations, residential and light 

commercial air conditioning were not 

anticipated to be affected by the leak 

repair provisions because of the 

regulation’s 50-pound charge size 

threshold. Under the authority of the 

AIM Act, EPA sought to align with the 

608 regulations where appropriate and 

to lower the charge size threshold to 15 

pounds for reasons as further discussed 

in section IV.C.1 of the preamble. In the 

proposed rule, EPA recognized that a 

lower leak repair charge size threshold 

might implicate appliances that are used 

in the residential and light commercial 

air conditioning subsector that were not 

previously subject to leak repair 

requirements. The Agency notes that the 

inclusion of refrigerant-containing 

appliances would greatly expand the 

number of refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to the leak repair 

requirements and may make the 

enforcement of the leak repair 

provisions inefficient. While a portion 

of the refrigerant-containing appliances 

used in the residential air conditioning 

subsector may have charge sizes above 

15 pounds, the Agency found it prudent 

to not require wide breadth of leak 

repair for this category of appliances in 

the final rule. The Agency also notes 

that the specific exclusion of residential 

air conditioning may ease 

implementation for this first rule under 

subsection (h). With a similar reasoning, 

the Agency notes similar concerns 

would arise from making appliances 

commonly used in light commercial air 

conditioning (e.g., central air 

conditioners, rooftop AC units, etc.) 

adhere to the leak repair requirements. 

For these reasons the Agency disagrees 

with one commenter’s recommendation 

to apply the leak repair requirements to 

light commercial rooftop systems with a 

charge size greater than five pounds. As 

one commenter indicated, leak 

detection could be less costly in the 

future. The Agency agrees it could, in a 

future notice-and-comment rulemaking, 

reconsider the leak repair exemption for 

residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps. 

While EPA agrees that VRF 

appliances could have higher refrigerant 

charge sizes, the Agency disagrees that 

VRF appliances should be excluded 

from the exemption for leak repair as 

VRF is a general term describing a type 

of appliance which is included in the 

description of the residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pumps subsector. VRF appliances are 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

can handle differentiated loads. EPA is 

using the SNAP terminology to 

determine the categories of refrigerantcontaining appliances that are exempt 

from the leak repair provision; VRF 

appliances have been considered to be 

part of that SNAP terminology. In the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule, VRF 

appliances above 65,000 BTU/h were 

split off from the residential and light 

commercial AC and HP subsector, and 

defined as its own subsector, in part 

because of the complexity of the design 

and installation of larger VRF systems. 

The additional year was given to ensure 

the effective transition to lower-GWP 

alternatives in the subsector. Further, 

annual industry estimates by AHRI 64

show that refrigerant-containing 

appliances with capacities of 65,000 

BTU/h or more constitute roughly three 

percent of all residential and light 

commercial refrigerant-containing 

appliances sold. VRF appliances of this 

size are a subset of this three percent. 

Additionally, EPA did not propose and 

is not finalizing to separate VRF 

appliances from the leak repair 

exemption for the residential and light 

commercial AC and HP subsector. EPA 

in a future notice-and-comment 

rulemaking may reconsider the 

inclusion of certain VRF appliances 

which currently are exempt from the 

leak repair requirements of this final 

rule. 

The Agency is requiring leak repair 

provisions for new and existing 

passenger buses,65 including school, 

coach, transit, and trolley buses with 

charge sizes at or above 15 pounds. The 

heavy-duty vehicle category 66

incorporates all motor vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 

pounds or greater. Air conditioning 

systems used to cool passenger 

compartments in these buses mainly use 

HFC–134a or R–407C,67 and are 

typically manufactured as a separate 

unit that is pre-charged with refrigerant 

and installed onto the vehicle in a 

separate enclosure (e.g., roof mounted). 

The refrigerant charge for these systems 

is larger than those for other MVAC 

systems (e.g., light-duty motor vehicles), 

typically ranging from 15 to 30 pounds. 

MVAC systems used to cool passenger 

compartments in light-duty, mediumduty, heavy-duty on-road and nonroad 

(off-road) vehicles are typically charged 

during vehicle manufacture and the 

main components are connected by 

flexible refrigerant lines. MVAC systems 

in these vehicles typically have charge 

sizes ranging from one to eight pounds 

depending on the manufacturer and cab 

size.68 69

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for EPA’s inclusion of MVAC 

systems with charge sizes over 15 

pounds in the leak repair provisions. 

The commenter asserted that these 

MVAC systems, such as those on buses 

and trains, may lose large amounts of 

refrigerant over time. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s support for this provision 

and is finalizing the requirement for 

MVAC and MVAC-like appliances. 

Comment: A commenter questioned 

the authority of EPA to regulate the 

commercial aviation sector, including 

refrigerant-containing appliances aboard 

aircraft and at airports and hangars. The 

commenter stated that the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) has the 

authority and responsibility to ensure 

such requirements do not adversely 

affect efficient operation and aircraft 

safety. The commenter asserted that 

EPA has not coordinated with the FAA 

regarding the potential application of 

the rule’s requirements. Additionally, 

the commenter stated that the proposed 

rule lacked clarity regarding how the 

rule would apply to the commercial 

aircraft sector and questioned why the 

rule did not exempt the commercial 

aviation sector from the leak repair and 

ALD requirements. Lastly, the 

commenter stated the proposed rule did 

not provide sufficient time for the sector 

to safely comply with the rule’s leak 

repair requirements and specified that 

EPA must extend the applicable leak 

repair compliance deadlines for 

commercial aircraft. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s broad assertion that EPA 

does not have the authority to issue 

regulations pertaining to aircraft and 

aircraft operations. While EPA agrees 

that the FAA has jurisdiction over 

matters related to aircraft safety and 

operations consistent with its 

Congressionally mandated authorities, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82720 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

70EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 84.3 define on 

board aerospace fire suppression to mean ‘‘use of 

a regulated substance in fire suppression equipment 

used on board commercial and general aviation 

aircraft, including commercial-derivative aircraft for 

military use; rotorcraft; and space vehicles. On 

board commercial aviation fire suppression systems 

are installed throughout mainline and regional 

passenger and freighter aircraft, including engine 

nacelles, auxiliary power units (APUs), lavatory 

trash receptacles, baggage/crew compartments, and 

handheld extinguishers.’’ 

71See memo titled EPA Questions to FAA, which 

is available in the docket for this rulemaking, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2022–0606. 

under CAA Title VI and the AIM Act, 

EPA has issued numerous regulations 

that concern the use of ODS and HFCs 

in many applications including onboard 

aviation and flight operations. With 

respect to this action, the AIM Act does 

not exclude aircraft or aircraft 

operations from the scope of 

implementing regulations. Notably, the 

inclusion in subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv) of 

the statute of ‘‘on board aerospace fire 

suppression’’ which includes aircraft,70

indicates that Congress did not intend to 

exempt aircraft and aircraft operations 

from the AIM Act. In addition, the 

commenter does not address the 

provisions of subsection (h) itself. None 

of the text of subsection (h) indicates 

that Congress contemplated that these 

provisions would not apply to 

equipment used in commercial aviation. 

Congress expressly addressed 

inapplicability of regulations under (h) 

in subsection (h)(4), in which it 

provided that regulations under 

subsection (h) shall not apply to HFCs 

or their substitutes contained in foams. 

If Congress had intended to exclude 

equipment used in commercial aviation 

from regulations promulgated under 

subsection (h), it would be reasonable to 

expect that the statute would include 

similar language creating that exclusion. 

Although the comments do not appear 

to base their objections on the text of 

subsection (h), to the extent they intend 

to claim that this rulemaking exceeds 

EPA’s authority under that provision, 

EPA notes that it is establishing the 

subsection (h) requirements in this final 

action to control practices, processes, or 

activities regarding the service, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves a regulated substance or a 

substitute for a regulated substance and 

to serve the statutory purposes 

identified in subsection (h). Thus, this 

final action is within the scope of EPA’s 

authority under subsection (h)(1), 

including as it pertains to equipment 

used in commercial aviation. 

With respect to the commenters’ 

assertions that finalizing the proposed 

rule would conflict with the Federal 

Aviation Act’s statutory purpose and 

scheme and that this statute reserves to 

the FAA jurisdiction over matters 

related to aircraft safety and operations 

and broadly preempts the field of 

regulation with respect to commercial 

aviation, aircraft operations, and aircraft 

safety, EPA responds that the 

information presented in the comment 

letter does not indicate that EPA is 

generally precluded from including 

requirements related to the commercial 

aviation sector in this rulemaking. The 

comment cites and quotes cases that 

speak to the pervasive nature of Federal 

regulation in this area and address the 

preemption of State and local 

regulations. However, preemption of 

State and local laws is not relevant to 

EPA’s authority to establish regulations 

under the AIM Act. 

In response to the commenter’s 

assertions that EPA did not consult with 

the FAA on these regulations, 

particularly for any leak repair 

requirements that may apply to the 

commercial aviation sector, the Agency 

notes that it reached out to FAA on 

certain topics in developing the draft 

final rule prior to interagency review.71

Further, FAA and other Federal 

agencies had an opportunity to review 

a draft of the final rule during 

interagency review. The Agency also 

notes that these leak repair provisions 

mostly align with the regulations under 

CAA section 608. For decades these 

rules have applied to the refrigeration 

and air conditioning appliances at 

airports and within aircraft hangers, and 

the Agency has considered commercial 

aircraft to be non-MVAC appliances 

covered under CAA section 608. The 

Agency also disagrees with the 

commenter’s argument that owners and 

operators in the commercial aviation 

sector do not have enough time to safely 

comply with the provision. EPA notes 

that the 30-day timeframe timeline for 

repairs is the same as in the CAA 

section 608 rules, which does not 

exempt the commercial aviation sector. 

The leak repair provisions also provide 

owners or operators the ability to submit 

extension requests if some unforeseen 

circumstances (e.g., necessary 

components to complete leak repair are 

unavailable during the 30-day leak 

repair timeframe) prohibit an owner or 

operator from completing leak repair 

within the normal 30-day timeframe. 

Moreover, the comment also did not 

provide substantive evidence as to why 

aircraft owners and operators would not 

be able to safely comply with the leak 

repair provisions, nor did the 

commenter identify any information 

that suggests that these requirements 

would adversely affect the proper 

functioning of aircraft air conditioning. 

Finally, EPA notes that the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule provided a 

temporary exclusion to onboard galley 

refrigeration on aircraft due to their 

unique operating environment and the 

fact that these units are subject to FAA’s 

design and installation requirements 

under 40 CFR 25.1365. The Agency 

clarified the intention to revisit this 

application through a notice-andcomment rulemaking no later than five 

years after the compliance date for retail 

food refrigeration-stand-alone units— 

i.e., no later than January 1, 2030. The 

temporary exclusion for this specific 

application was given in the context of 

subsection (i) and the transition of 

sectors and subsectors to lower-GWP 

alternatives. However as previously 

discussed elsewhere, the criteria and 

purposes of subsection (i) and (h) are 

different. This rulemaking is finalizing 

leak repair requirements for the 

purposes of minimizing the release of 

regulated substances from equipment 

and maximizing the reclamation of 

regulated substances. The repair of leaks 

does not have the same implications for 

the design and installation of 

refrigerant-containing appliances as 

restrictions on the use of higher-GWP 

HFC refrigerants. The Agency also notes 

that the exemption for onboard galley 

refrigeration does not extend to groundbased appliances used by the 

commercial aviation industry because 

maintenance and ground operations are 

not subject to the same FAA 

requirements as onboard galley 

refrigeration. Likewise, the repair of 

leaks in appliances used in ground and 

maintenance operations (e.g., aircraft 

hangers) are not exempt from the leak 

repair requirements in this final rule, 

nor are they out of the scope of EPA’s 

authority to regulate appliances at 

airports or aboard aircraft. With these 

considerations EPA finds it appropriate 

to apply the leak repair requirements to 

the commercial aviation sector. 

The Agency is finalizing a compliance 

date of January 1, 2026, for all 

appliances with charge sizes of 15 

pounds or more of a refrigerant 

containing an HFC or a substitute for an 

HFC with a GWP greater than 53, 

including for such appliances with a 

charge size of 50 pounds or more, which 

is a modification from the proposal. In 

the proposal, the Agency proposed a 

compliance date of 60 days from 

publication in the Federal Register for 

appliances with a charge size above 50 

pounds and a compliance date of one 

year from the final rule’s publication in 

the Federal Register for appliances with 

a charge size between 15 and 50 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82721 

pounds. EPA reasoned that the 

compliance date for appliances above 50 

pounds could be sooner because the 

leak repair provisions in the final rule 

are similar to those that have been in 

place, for some time, for ODScontaining appliances at or above a full 

charge size of 50 pounds. Further, prior 

to the rescission in 2020 (85 FR 14150, 

March 11, 2020), the final rulemaking 

under CAA section 608 in 2016 (81 FR 

82272, November 18, 2016) applied leak 

repair provisions for HFC-containing 

appliances with a charge size of 50 

pounds or greater. The 2016 CAA 

Section 608 Rule became effective on 

January 1, 2017, and the relevant leak 

repair requirements for HFCs and other 

ODS substitutes (now rescinded) 

applied as of January 1, 2019 (81 FR 

82272, 82356, November 18, 2016). 

Thus, the Agency reasoned that industry 

was, at a minimum, familiar with the 

leak repair provisions under CAA 

section 608, which are similar to the 

leak repair requirements established 

under subsection (h) in this action. In 

regard to refrigerant-containing 

appliances with a full charge that is at 

least 15 pounds but less than 50 

pounds, the proposal included a slightly 

longer compliance timeline, as EPA had 

not previously required leak repair for 

these appliances. The additional time 

was intended to allow the regulated 

community time to familiarize 

themselves with the requirements and 

make preparations to comply with them. 

Based on further consideration and 

information provided by commenters, 

EPA is finalizing a single compliance 

date, January 1, 2026, to provide owners 

and operators additional time to comply 

with the leak repair provisions in the 

final rule. EPA concludes that this 

additional time will allow parts of the 

regulated community that may not have 

previously had to comply with the leak 

repair requirements under CAA section 

608 time to familiarize themselves with 

the provisions. While EPA still finds, as 

at proposal, that parts of the regulated 

community are already familiar with the 

requirements based on their experience 

with similar requirements under CAA 

section 608, EPA concludes that they 

would also benefit from additional time 

to prepare for compliance. During the 

interim period before the leak repair 

requirements go into effect, owners or 

operators can begin determining which 

refrigerant-containing appliances within 

a facility will be subject to the leak 

repair requirements, including 

conducting inventories, determining the 

refrigerants used within said appliances, 

and determining the full charge of 

refrigerant-containing appliances in 

their ownership. EPA does not expect 

this process to take an exceptional 

amount of time; however, the extension 

to the compliance date is being 

provided to ensure owners and 

operators can complete the necessary 

steps to prepare for the leak repair 

requirements, consistent with this final 

rule. 

Comment: The Agency received 

mixed comments on the proposed 

compliance date for the leak repair 

provisions with the majority of 

comments asking EPA to re-evaluate the 

proposed timeline and provide 

additional time to comply with the leak 

repair requirements. Commenters 

suggested a longer period to allow 

manufacturers, facility owners and 

operators, and other stakeholders 

sufficient time to prepare for the 

regulations. Suggested compliance 

timelines ranged from an additional one 

to three years, with some commenters 

suggesting staggered compliance 

timelines based on charge size. One 

commenter stated that a compliance 

date after three years from the rule’s 

finalization would be needed for 

stakeholders to plan, procure, and 

implement the leak detection and repair 

requirements. Another commenter 

suggested a compliance date two years 

after finalization so that owners and 

operators of smaller equipment who 

may have not previously experienced 

leak repair requirements could design, 

procure, set up, and implement a 

refrigerant management program. 

One commenter in support of the 

proposed compliance date noted that 

California has had similar requirements 

for appliances using more than 50 

pounds of HFC refrigerants since 2011, 

highlighting that nationwide appliances 

using more than 50 pounds of ODS 

refrigerants have had similar rules for 

several years. Another commenter 

suggested both appliance categories (i.e., 

50 pounds and greater, and 15 to 50 

pounds) should have the same 

compliance date of one year after the 

date of the final rule. The commenter 

also asserted that appliances with a 

charge size of above 50 pounds that are 

using 100 percent substitute refrigerants 

will need additional time to conduct 

inventory, determine the applicability of 

appliances using substitute refrigerants, 

and determine the full charge of 

appliances. The commenter suggested 

that this strategy would avoid market 

confusion by having multiple 

compliance dates. One commenter, in 

general support of the leak repair 

provision, stated the proposal’s 

compliance timeline presumes that the 

regulated community is familiar with 

the leak repair provision promulgated 

under the CAA. The commenter stated 

that a number of new facility owners or 

operators have little to no experience 

with the CAA section 608 regulations 

and requirements. 

Response: Based on further 

consideration and informed by the 

comments, the Agency is finalizing a 

single compliance date, rather than two 

dates for the leak repair requirements 

for appliances with a charge size of 15 

pounds or more. The Agency is 

providing additional time from what 

was proposed in both instances for 

owners and operators to prepare to 

comply with the leak repair 

requirements. EPA disagrees that a 

staggered compliance date would cause 

market confusion, as the Agency has 

previously implemented staggered 

compliance dates for a number of 

reasons. For example, the ALD 

provision in this final rule has a 

staggered compliance date for new and 

existing IPR and commercial 

refrigeration systems with a full charge 

of 1,500 pounds or greater to ensure, 

among other considerations, that 

adequate supply is available for owners 

and operators to comply with this 

provision. 

The Agency agrees additional time 

may be necessary for the owners and 

operators to prepare to comply with the 

leak repair provisions in this final rule, 

specifically for owners or operators that 

may not have been subject to the CAA 

section 608 requirements during the 

three-year period described in this 

section. The Agency disagrees with one 

commenter’s claim that new facility 

owners would not be aware of the leak 

repair provisions under the CAA. Before 

the rescission of the CAA section 608 

requirements in 2020, facility owners 

using appliances containing ODS 

substitutes (e.g., HFCs) would have been 

subject to the leak repair requirements 

under the CAA for three years. The 

Agency also notes that not all portions 

of the 2016 CAA Section 608 Rule were 

rescinded in the 2020 rule. For example, 

owners and operators utilizing ODS 

substitutes, including HFCs, are subject 

to the venting prohibition (40 CFR 

82.154). Thus, owners or operators now 

subject to the leak repair provisions in 

this rule should be well acquainted with 

similar requirements under CAA part 

82, subpart F or at a minimum, 

generally aware of the leak repair 

requirements under CAA part 82, 

subpart F. While EPA generally 

disagrees that newer facility owners are 

not aware of previous requirements for 

HFCs or requirements for ODS, to the 

extent this is true, the Agency provided 

notice in the proposal with regards to 

the potential to finalize leak repair 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82722 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements for refrigerant-containing 

appliances containing HFCs and HFC 

substitutes with a GWP above 53 and is 

finalizing a later compliance date 

allowing more time for owners and 

operators to familiarize themselves with 

the requirements. 

The Agency disagrees that compliance 

dates beyond January 1, 2026 (e.g., 18 

months, two years, three years), are 

needed in order for owners or operators 

to comply with the leak repair 

provision. EPA determined that one 

year should be sufficient to prepare for 

the leak repair provision. As discussed 

previously, the leak repair requirements, 

aside from the charge size threshold and 

the limited ALD installation and use 

requirements, are mostly aligned with 

the leak repair requirements for ODS 

under the CAA. Further, the Agency 

finds the timing of the compliance date 

to be appropriate, considering the 

phasedown of HFCs, and does not find 

it appropriate to delay leak repair of 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

serve the purposes described in 

subsection (h)(1). Commenters stated 

that owners and operators need time to 

plan, procure, and implement the leak 

repair and detection requirements; 

however, the commenters did not 

provide analysis to show that owners 

and operators would not be able to 

comply with the leak repair provisions 

by January 1, 2026, or why any of the 

longer time frames suggested by 

commenters would be necessary for 

compliance. For similar reasons, EPA 

disagrees with commenters requesting 

additional time and staggered 

compliance dates based on charge size. 

The Agency understands that to some 

extent, owners and operators may need 

to conduct inventories of refrigerantcontaining appliances under their 

ownership and determine which 

appliances are subject to the leak repair 

provision (i.e., applicability of 

refrigerant-containing appliances in 

regard to charge size and refrigerant 

being used). The Agency does not view 

this process to take an exceptional 

amount of time, as owners or operators 

should be aware of the full charge and 

type of refrigerant contained in an 

appliance from previous service records 

or manufacturer specifications for the 

refrigerant-containing appliance. The 

Agency refers owners or operators to 

section IV.A.1 of this preamble, if they 

require guidance, for determining the 

full charge of refrigerant-containing 

appliances. The Agency also refers 

owners or operators to section IV.C.1 of 

this preamble, for further information, 

regarding the applicability of HFC 

substitutes to the leak repair 

requirements in this final rule. Owners 

or operators have over a year to 

determine which refrigerant-containing 

appliances are subject to the leak repair 

requirements and resolve any 

uncertainty concerning the applicability 

of the refrigerant-containing appliances 

in their ownership. 

3. What leak repair provisions is EPA 

establishing? 

EPA is finalizing the leak repair 

requirements under subsection (h) 

largely as proposed. The EPA has made 

some modifications to the proposed 

requirements to provide greater clarity 

or consistency among the provisions. 

These requirements are part of 

implementing subsection (h)(1) of the 

AIM Act, as these provisions control 

practices, processes, or activities 

regarding servicing or repair of 

refrigerant-containing appliances, which 

are a type of equipment, and involve a 

regulated substance or a substitute for a 

regulated substance with a GWP greater 

than 53. As described in section IV.C.2 

of this preamble, these leak repair 

requirements apply to refrigerantcontaining appliances with a charge size 

of 15 pounds or more where the 

refrigerant contains an HFC or a 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53. The leak repair 

provisions finalized in this rule will 

require action if such a refrigerantcontaining appliance has been 

determined to be leaking above the 

applicable leak rate threshold, pursuant 

to the regulations. While most of the 

actions required under the leak repair 

provisions are triggered by the 

determination that the refrigerantcontaining appliance has leaked above 

the applicable leak rate threshold, the 

leak rate calculations and certain 

recordkeeping requirements apply to 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

are not leaking above the threshold. 

While EPA is adopting the same 

applicable leak rates for the leak repair 

requirements under subsection (h) as 

applies under 40 CFR 82.157, as 

described in section IV.C.3.b of this 

preamble, EPA is also establishing 

certain provisions that are different from 

those included in 40 CFR 82.157, that 

support identifying and potentially 

repairing leaks sooner (see section 

IV.D.1 of this preamble for requirements 

for ALD systems). 

In the proposal, EPA reviewed the 

regulations promulgated under CAA 

section 608, as codified in 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F, addressing the same or 

similar practices, processes, or activities 

as addressed in this rulemaking to 

consider the extent appropriate to 

coordinate requirements in those 

regulations with those in this action. 

Specifically, EPA reviewed the leak 

repair requirements at 40 CFR 82.157, 

which do not apply to appliances 

containing HFCs or their substitutes. 

The leak repair provisions under CAA 

section 608 contain requirements for 

practices, processes, and activities 

related to identifying and repairing 

leaks in appliances that contain ODS. 

As discussed further in this section, 

EPA concludes that it is appropriate to 

apply these practices, processes, and 

activities to appliances containing HFCs 

and certain substitutes for HFCs under 

subsection (h). EPA notes that in many 

cases, the same types of appliances (e.g., 

chillers, rooftop air conditioning units, 

supermarket systems) are used, since 

HFCs are substitutes for ODS. EPA did 

not propose and is not finalizing new 

requirements in this action where the 

provisions in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F 

already apply to appliances containing 

HFCs and certain substitutes. 

The following subsections provide 

additional information on the leak 

repair requirements established by this 

final rule. Section IV.C.3.a of this 

preamble provides information on leak 

rate calculations, which are required 

whenever refrigerant is added to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance. The 

Agency allows owners or operators to 

use one of two leak rate calculation 

methodologies to determine the leak 

rate of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance and whether repair is 

required. Section IV.C.3.b of this 

preamble describes the timeline for leak 

repair, requests for leak repair 

extensions, and applicable leak rate 

thresholds for refrigerant-containing 

appliances. The exceedance of a 

refrigerant-containing appliance’s leak 

rate threshold triggers the leak repair 

requirements of this final rule. Section 

IV.C.3.c of this preamble provides 

information on verification testing, 

which is necessary to determine that the 

repair of a leaking refrigerant-containing 

appliance has not failed. Section 

IV.C.3.d of this preamble describes the 

timeline for quarterly and annual leak 

inspections for appliances that have 

passed the follow-up verification tests 

described in section IV.C.3. Leak 

inspections of recently repaired 

refrigerant-containing appliances ensure 

that repairs hold and assist in 

determining if further repair action is 

required in the event a repair fails. 

Section IV.C.3.e of this preamble 

provides information on chronically 

leaking appliances, which are subject to 

specific reporting requirements if a 

refrigerant-containing appliance 

expends more than 125 percent of its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82723 

full charge within a year. Section 

IV.C.3.f of this preamble describes the 

process of submitting retrofit or 

retirement plans to the Agency in the 

event a refrigerant-containing appliance 

cannot be repaired within the leak 

repair timeframe discussed in section 

IV.C.3. Finally, section IV.C.3.g of this 

preamble describes recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for owners or 

operators subject to the leak repair 

requirements of this final rule. 

Comment: Several commenters in 

support of the leak repair and detection 

requirements supported the Agency’s 

efforts to regulate HFCs, as these 

requirements broadly enhance activities 

and practices that further lifecycle 

refrigerant management (LRM). One of 

the commenters stated that leak 

prevention is a cornerstone of LRM and 

stated that the Agency has clear 

authority under the AIM Act to 

promulgate robust leak prevention 

regulations that support LRM. 

Response: EPA acknowledges 

commenters’ support for the leak repair 

and detection requirements in the final 

rule. While the Agency did not base this 

rule or its provisions on lifecycle 

management, EPA agrees that the leak 

repair and ALD requirements will 

reduce the severity of leak events, 

minimizing refrigerant lost. These 

requirements and other refrigeration 

management best practices as a part of 

larger refrigerant management 

frameworks are important to EPA’s 

implementation of this final rule to 

serve the purposes described in 

subsection (h)(1) of minimizing the 

release of regulated substances. The 

Agency also agrees that it has the 

authority under the AIM Act to regulate 

HFCs and limit their release through the 

leak repair and ALD requirements in 

this final rule. 

a. Leak Rate Calculations 

EPA is adopting the requirements for 

leak rate calculations under subsection 

(h) largely as proposed, with some 

modifications as discussed in this 

section. Thus, refrigerant-containing 

appliances with a charge size of 15 

pounds or more of a refrigerant that 

contains an HFC or a substitute for an 

HFC with a GWP greater than 53 are 

required to conduct a leak rate 

calculation if the appliance is found to 

be leaking. EPA is also requiring that the 

leak rate of covered appliances be 

calculated every time refrigerant is 

added to an appliance, unless the 

addition is made immediately following 

a retrofit, installation of a new 

appliance, or qualifies as a seasonal 

variance, as described in this and 

subsequent sections. EPA is not 

requiring the repair of all leaks; rather, 

EPA is requiring repair of leaks such 

that the appliance is below the 

applicable leak rate threshold consistent 

with the requirements at 40 CFR 82.157. 

The calculation of the leak rate is used 

to determine whether the appliance is 

leaking above the applicable threshold, 

which in turn determines whether 

further action (i.e., repair) is required. 

For example, if an appliance owner 

adds refrigerant to the appliance but 

does not calculate the leak rate, the 

owner would have no means of 

determining if the appliance’s leak rate 

was below the applicable leak rate 

threshold. Hence, the owner would not 

know if further action was warranted. 

Thus, the leak rate calculations are also 

used to determine compliance with the 

leak repair requirements. As stated in 

the proposal, this rulemaking’s 

approach can contribute to minimizing 

the releases of HFCs or their substitutes 

by requiring more thorough leak 

inspections and verified repairs sooner. 

In this final rule, the Agency is 

establishing two leak rate calculation 

methodologies: the annualizing method 

and the rolling average method. The 

utilization of leak rate calculation 

methodologies is analogous to their use 

under subpart F. The strength of the 

annualizing method is that it is future 

oriented and allows the owner or 

operator to ‘‘close out’’ each leak event 

so long as the requirements are followed 

and does not lump past leak events with 

the current leak event. It considers the 

amount of time since the last addition 

of refrigerant and then scales that up to 

provide a leak rate that projects the 

amount of refrigerant lost over a whole 

year if the leak is not fixed. As a result, 

this formula will yield a higher leak rate 

for smaller leaks if the amount of time 

since the last repair was shorter. The 

rolling average method also has its 

strengths. It accounts for all refrigerant 

additions over the past 365 days or 

since the last successful follow-up 

verification test showing that all 

identified leaks were successfully 

repaired (if less than 365 days). If an 

owner or operator verifies all identified 

leaks are repaired, this method allows 

an owner or operator to ‘‘close out’’ a 

leak event. If there is no follow-up 

verification test showing that all 

identified leaks were successfully 

repaired within the last year, the leak 

rate would be based completely on 

actual leaks in the past year. Owners 

and operators are provided the 

flexibility to choose which methodology 

is most advantageous to their 

operations. However, under this final 

rule once a methodology is chosen, the 

owner or operator must continue using 

the same methodology, so leak rate 

calculations remain consistent. Further, 

under this final rule, owners or 

operators are to use the same leak rate 

calculation methodologies for all 

affected appliances at a facility. The two 

methods use two different paradigms to 

determine leak rate—one is forwardlooking/predictive, while the other is 

backward-looking/retrospective. If an 

owner or operator were to switch 

between methods, they would not get an 

accurate calculation because the time 

frame being evaluated would be 

different for each method. In either 

methodology, EPA is establishing that 

when calculating the leak rate, any 

purged refrigerant that is destroyed is 

not counted towards the leak rate. To 

qualify for this exemption, the purged 

refrigerant must be destroyed at a 

verifiable destruction efficiency of 98 

percent or greater and the owner or 

operator must meet certain 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

amount of refrigerant sent for 

destruction. 

EPA is allowing a narrow exception 

for owners or operators to change their 

leak rate calculation method in the final 

rule. There may be some cases, such as 

change of ownership, where an owner 

or operator may need to change the leak 

rate calculation method so that all 

facilities under their ownership are 

using the same method. EPA views this 

alignment of the leak rate calculation 

methodologies across facilities as 

valuable to consistent management of 

refrigerant-containing appliances across 

multiple facilities. In order for an owner 

or operator to make this change in leak 

rate calculation, the owner or operator 

must meet certain conditions. First, the 

owner or operator must have recently 

purchased or otherwise acquired a new 

facility with a refrigerant-containing 

appliance that was using a different leak 

rate calculation method than the current 

leak rate calculation method used by the 

owner or operator. Second, the owner or 

operator must ensure the refrigerantcontaining appliances at the purchased 

facility are leaking below the applicable 

leak rate when the leak rate is calculated 

using both methodologies. Third, if the 

leak rate calculation is changed, the 

owner or operator is required to 

document why the change was made, 

the date the change was made, and that 

the new leak rate calculation 

methodology is used consistent with the 

record keeping requirements in 40 CFR 

84.106(l)(3). EPA clarifies that an owner 

or operator cannot change their leak rate 

calculation if it results in the avoidance 

of leak repair (e.g., if an appliance 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82724 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

would be over the leak rate threshold 

using one method and below the 

threshold using the other method). 

Lastly, EPA acknowledges that the 

leak rate calculation requires prior 

records in order to calculate the leak 

rate. Since owners or operators are not 

required to keep records of additions of 

refrigerants to an appliance prior to 

January 1, 2026, owners or operators 

may calculate leak rates for appliances 

containing an HFC or HFC substitute 

with a GWP greater than 53 as though 

there were no additions prior to that 

date. For example, if an owner or 

operator is using the annualizing 

method for the first addition of 

refrigerant in calendar year 2026, the 

second term would be 365/365 (or ‘‘1’’). 

For subsequent additions the second 

term would be 365 divided by the 

shorter of the number of days since 

refrigerant was last added or 365. 

Alternatively, if an owner or operator is 

using the rolling average method, for the 

first addition of refrigerant in calendar 

year 2026, the numerator would be the 

pounds of refrigerant added since the 

shorter of January 1, 2026, or the last 

successful follow-up verification test, if 

one was conducted in 2026. For 

subsequent additions the numerator 

would be the pounds of refrigerant 

added since the shorter of 365 days or 

the last successful follow-up verification 

test. The Agency clarifies that this 

method of calculating the leak rate is 

only allowed when previous records are 

absent. After the effective date of this 

provision and the first calculation of an 

appliance’s leak rate, the owner or 

operator must use the shorter number of 

days since refrigerant is added or 365 

days for subsequent leak rate 

calculations. 

Comment: The Agency received 

comments in support of the proposed 

requirements and its alignment with the 

leak rate calculations under 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F. One of the commenters 

requested that the Agency allow a 

facility to move from the annualizing 

method to the rolling average method 

for appliances regulated under 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F, and 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart C, which is what EPA assumes 

the commenter intended to cite. The 

commenter claims that facility owners 

that had been using the annualizing 

method prior to the 2016 CAA Section 

608 Rule continued to use that method 

due to the lack of compliance assistance 

and unknowns regarding technicians’ 

ability to consistently document leak 

inspections. The commenter suggests 

that EPA could allow an appliance that 

has not experienced a leak event in over 

a year to move to a different leak 

calculation method. 

Response: The Agency acknowledges 

comments in support of the provision. 

In response to one commenter’s request 

to allow facility owners to change their 

leak rate calculation methodology for 

appliances regulated under 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F, and 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart C, EPA notes that comments 

related to requirements under 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking and thus require no 

response. To the extent that the 

comment pertains to appliances subject 

to requirements to calculate leak rates 

under this action, the Agency requires 

that once a leak rate calculation has 

been chosen, a facility owner cannot 

switch to the other method. The leak 

rate calculation methods use different 

paradigms to calculate a leak rate, and 

switching between the two methods 

would not provide the facility owner 

with an accurate leak rate calculation. 

Furthermore, allowing an owner or 

operator to freely switch between leak 

calculation methods incentivizes noncompliance with the leak repair 

requirements in this final rule. As 

discussed in this section, the two leak 

rate calculation methodologies are using 

different time frames (i.e., the 

annualizing method is prospective, and 

the rolling average method is 

retrospective) so switching between the 

two methods would create 

inconsistencies. 

The Agency is providing a narrow 

exception for owners or operators to 

switch their leak rate calculation 

method in the event of a change in 

ownership if three conditions are met. 

First, an owner or operator must have 

recently purchased or otherwise acquire 

a separate facility that was using a 

different leak rate calculation method 

than the method currently used by the 

purchaser. Second, the owner or 

operator must ensure that all refrigerantcontaining appliances at their facilities 

are leaking below the applicable leak 

rate thresholds for said appliances when 

the leak rate is calculated using both 

methods. For example, if one 

supermarket were to purchase another 

supermarket that was using a different 

leak rate calculation than the purchaser, 

the owner or operator may change the 

leak rate calculation method to ensure 

that all appliances at their facilities are 

using the same leak rate calculation. 

The owner or operator must ensure that 

refrigerant-containing appliances at both 

facilities are leaking below the 

applicable leak rate threshold when 

calculating the leak rate using both 

methods (i.e., that there is no 

exceedance of the leak rate threshold 

under either method) and must 

document and keep a record of this 

change. Third, records of this change 

must be kept in accordance with 40 CFR 

84.106(l)(3). EPA clarifies that an owner 

or operator may not change their leak 

rate calculation if it results in the 

avoidance of leak repair (e.g., if an 

appliance would be over the leak rate 

threshold using one method and below 

it using the other method). 

Comment: One commenter did not 

support the leak rate methodologies in 

the proposed rule. One commenter 

stated the methodologies were unduly 

complicated and resource-intensive and 

pose significant challenges for 

companies that have multiple sites with 

appliances subject to these 

requirements. The commenter’s 

perspective on the rule led them to 

believe that each leak must be 

documented separately, with its own 

verification test. The commenter further 

asserted that it would be impossible to 

know how much refrigerant was lost for 

each leak and that finalizing the 

proposed methods would thus be 

arbitrary and capricious. This 

commenter suggested that EPA could 

greatly simplify compliance by allowing 

owners and operators to calculate leak 

rates (and by setting compliance 

obligation triggers) based upon the 

percentage of total full charge that an 

appliance has leaked, cumulatively, 

during a calendar year. The commenter 

incorrectly stated that this calculation 

would mirror the process that owners or 

operators use to calculate whether an 

appliance is above the 125 percent 

threshold for chronically leaking 

appliances. The commenter also 

requested clarification on the leak 

calculation if there are two 

simultaneous leaks. 

Response: EPA is finalizing use of the 

methodologies for leak rate calculations 

as proposed. The Agency notes that the 

later compliance date as compared with 

the proposal should provide time for 

owners and operators that were not 

subject to the ODS requirements to 

familiarize themselves with the leak 

calculation methods. The Agency 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the methodologies are 

overly burdensome or complicated. The 

leak rate calculation methodologies are 

identical to the requirements in the 

CAA section 608 regulations that have 

been successfully used for nearly 30 

years (see 1995 CAA Section 608 Rule; 

60 FR 40420, August 9, 1995). EPA is 

providing owners and operators 

flexibility by allowing them to use 

either methodology for a facility, and 

therefore, the owner and operator can 

select whichever they judge optimal for 

their specific appliances. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82725 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

recommended leak calculation method 

because the annual calculation of a leak 

rate would allow for refrigerant to be 

added throughout the year without the 

determination of a leak rate. The final 

rule’s basis for leak repair is the 

determination of whether a leaking 

appliance has exceeded its applicable 

leak rate when refrigerant has been 

added to the appliance, as described in 

section IV.C.3.b of this preamble. The 

commenter’s proposed method would 

allow for the unmitigated release of 

refrigerant in between leak rate 

calculations and would not achieve the 

final rule’s purpose of minimizing the 

release of refrigerants from appliances. 

Further, EPA clarifies that the separate 

provision for chronically leaking 

appliances does not mirror the leak 

calculation provision and does not serve 

the purpose of ensuring appliances 

leaking above the applicable leak rate 

threshold are repaired. As further 

explained in section IV.C.3.e of this 

preamble, owners and operators of a 

chronically leaking appliance (an 

appliance that leaks more than 125 

percent of its full charge in one year) are 

required to submit an annual report 

describing the efforts to identify leaks 

and repair the chronically leaking 

appliance. This provision is intended to 

provide information to EPA and further 

support efforts to minimize releases 

from chronically leaking appliances, not 

to determine when appliance repair is 

required. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that the final 

rule’s leak rate calculation 

methodologies are arbitrary and 

capricious. This comment appears to be 

based on a misunderstanding of how the 

leak rate calculation applies, as the 

commenter states that it would be 

impossible to know how much 

refrigerant was leaked from each 

individual leak. The Agency clarifies 

that the leak rate calculation is required 

when refrigerant is added to an 

appliance. The leak repair requirements 

of the final rule are triggered when an 

appliance reaches a leak rate above the 

applicable leak rate thresholds 

described in section IV.C.2.b of this 

preamble. EPA is not requiring the 

mandatory repair of all leaks discovered 

by an appliance owner. The Agency is 

requiring leak repair for appliances 

above the applicable leak rate and 

requiring the appliance owner to 

conduct leak repairs so that the 

appliance is leaking below that 

threshold. While certain documentation 

is required for individual leaks, that 

does not mean that the leak rate 

calculation needs to be applied to each 

leak individually. The commenter also 

asked for clarity of the leak rate 

calculation in the event of multiple 

simultaneous leaks. EPA responds that 

simultaneous leaks on the same 

appliance identified at the same time 

(e.g., during the same inspection or 

servicing event) would require just one 

leak rate calculation. The addition of 

refrigerant to an appliance triggers the 

leak rate calculation for the appliance. 

If the appliance is leaking above the 

applicable leak rate threshold, the 

owner or operator must comply with the 

leak repair requirement and as part of 

that process may uncover several leaks 

within an appliance that may require 

repair in order to bring the appliance 

under the applicable leak rate threshold. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that EPA consider 

allowing leak rate calculations from 

indirect ALD systems if acceptable 

accuracy can be demonstrated at least 

85 percent of the time. The commenter 

claims their manufactured indirect ALD, 

with reliable data, has the ability to 

calculate leak rates (in pounds per day) 

with a margin of error of +/¥25 percent. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

suggestion on how indirect ALD could 

be further used to manage leaks but 

disagrees that it is an acceptable or 

viable alternative to the leak rate 

calculations required by this final rule. 

Performing a leak rate calculation using 

one of the methods in the final rule will 

provide a facility owner with an 

accurate leak rate to determine if further 

leak repair action is necessary every 

time. An approach that need only be 

demonstrated to be accurate 85 percent 

of the time, as commenter requested, 

could result in the failure to identify 

and address leaks that exceed the leak 

rate threshold and that this rule intends 

to address. Additionally, while an 

indirect ALD system can calculate daily 

leak rates, the margin of error would 

cause the leak rate calculation to be 

inaccurate. The leak rate methodologies 

provide an accurate snapshot of an 

appliance’s leak rate when refrigerant is 

added and provides an owner or 

operator with an immediate 

determination of whether an appliance 

needs to be repaired. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification on whether the addition of 

certain components to existing 

appliances where refrigerant is added 

would require a leak rate calculation, 

using the example of an installation of 

a new refrigerated case in an existing 

supermarket system. The commenter 

indicated the addition would 

necessitate a charge size adjustment and 

the addition of new refrigerant to meet 

the appliances’ new BTU/h load. The 

commenter further stated that in this 

scenario the refrigerant added to an 

existing appliance was not to replace 

leaked refrigerant and that EPA should 

provide an exception to the leak rate 

calculation provision in these specific 

cases. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the 

immediate addition of refrigerant 

following a retrofit, installation of a new 

appliance, or seasonal variance does not 

require a leak rate calculation. The 

Agency agrees that the addition of 

refrigerant immediately after additional 

components are added to an existing 

appliance does not reflect a leak within 

the appliances, and thus does not 

necessitate a leak rate calculation. 

However, EPA clarifies that a full charge 

calculation, as outlined in section 

IV.A.1 of this preamble, must be 

conducted to determine the change in 

charge size when additional appliances 

are added to an existing system. The 

determination of an appliance’s full 

charge is necessary for subsequent leak 

rate calculations. 

b. Requirement To Repair Leaks, 

Timing, and Applicable Leak Rates 

EPA is finalizing several leak repair 

requirements related to determining 

when a leak needs to be repaired, the 

extent of the repair required, and the 

timing of such repairs as proposed. EPA 

is requiring the repair of leaks in 

refrigerant-containing appliances with a 

charge size of 15 pounds or more with 

a refrigerant that contains an HFC or a 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53. Under this rulemaking, 

owners or operators are required to 

repair an appliance within 30 days (or 

120 days if an industrial process 

shutdown is required) of refrigerant 

being added to an appliance, if the 

appliance is leaking above the 

applicable leak rate. Leaks must be 

repaired such that the leak rate of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance is 

brought below the applicable leak rate. 

Depending on the nature of the leaks, it 

may be necessary to repair or replace 

multiple components or parts of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance to 

comply with this requirement. These 

requirements are consistent with the 

requirements found at 40 CFR 82.157(d) 

to repair leaks for ODS-containing 

equipment. Repairing leaks in a timely 

manner helps serve the purposes 

identified in subsection (h)(1). For 

example, timely repair is critical to 

reducing the emissions of refrigerants 

from leaking appliances, and thus to 

minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment. In addition, by repairing 

leaks in a timely manner, additional 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82726 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

HFC refrigerant will be subsequently 

available for reclamation, which 

supports maximizing reclaiming of 

HFCs. 

In some unforeseen circumstances, 

repair of leaks may require additional 

time beyond that of the 30-day 

timeframe. EPA is finalizing specific 

extensions that may be available for 

owners or operators to repair leaks if 

certain conditions are met. Among these 

conditions, EPA is requiring that one or 

more must be met to qualify for 

additional time. Extensions for the leak 

repair requirements are available if the 

appliance is located in an area subject 

to radiological contamination or if 

shutting down the appliance will 

directly lead to radiological 

contamination. Additional time is 

permitted to the extent necessary to 

allow the completion of the repairs in a 

safe working environment. Extensions 

are also available to owners or operators 

if the requirements of any other Federal, 

State, local, or tribal regulations make a 

repair within 30 days (or 120 days if an 

industrial process shutdown is required) 

impossible. Additional time is 

permitted to the extent needed to 

comply with the applicable regulations. 

EPA is also finalizing extensions for 

when needed components that must be 

replaced as a part of the leak repair are 

not available within the leak repair 

timeframe of 30 days (or 120 days if an 

industrial process shutdown is 

required). In this case, additional time is 

permitted of up to 30 days after 

receiving the needed component, with 

the total extension not to exceed 180 

days (or 270 days if an industrial 

process shutdown is required) from the 

date that the appliance exceeded the 

applicable leak rate. In all cases of 

potential extensions to the leak repair 

timeframe, an owner or operator is still 

required to repair leaks that the 

technician has identified as significantly 

contributing to the exceedance of the 

applicable leak rate and that do not 

require additional time and to verify 

those repairs within the initial 30 days 

(or 120 days if an industrial process 

shutdown is required). Owners or 

operators availing themselves of this 

flexibility are also required to document 

all repair efforts and provide a reason 

for the inability to repair the leak within 

the initial 30-day (or 120-day if an 

industrial process shutdown is required) 

time period. All extension requests must 

be submitted electronically using the 

Agency’s applicable reporting platform 

and include pertinent information as 

described in the regulatory text at 40 

CFR 84.106. 

In the final rule, a leak is presumed 

to be repaired if there is no further 

addition of refrigerant to the equipment 

for 12 months after the date of repair as 

demonstrated by a successful follow-up 

verification test or if there are no leaks 

identified by either the required 

periodic leak inspection(s) or an ALD 

system, where applicable. Further 

information on the requirements for 

ALD systems are described in section 

IV.D.1 of this preamble. While EPA is 

requiring ALD systems for certain 

refrigerant-containing appliances, there 

may be some cases where an owner or 

operator chooses to use ALD systems for 

equipment where it is not required. 

Whether use of the ALD system is due 

to requirements in section IV.D.1 of this 

preamble or used as a compliance 

option in lieu of leak inspections (see 

section IV.C.3.d of this preamble) for a 

specific appliance, if the ALD system 

detects a leak in the 12-month period 

after the date of repair as demonstrated 

by a successful follow-up verification 

test, the leak repair would be presumed 

to have subsequently failed, unless the 

owner or operator can document that 

the ALD system leak detection was due 

to a new leak that is unrelated to the 

previously repaired leak. Such 

documentation includes, but is not 

limited to, the records required to be 

kept under 40 CFR 84.108(i). Additional 

information on leak inspections is 

described in section IV.C.3.d of this 

preamble. If an appliance is mothballed, 

the timeframes for repair, inspections, 

and verification tests are temporarily 

suspended and will resume when 

additional refrigerant is added to the 

appliance (or component of an 

appliance if the leaking component was 

isolated). 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments related to the leak repair 

timeline in the proposed rule. One 

comment, in support of the leak repair 

provision, appreciated the clear timeline 

for leak repair and ability to extend the 

timeline for repairing leaks to account 

for delays in component shipments and 

arrivals. Some commenters requested 

EPA lower the number of days to repair 

after initial detection. One commenter 

suggested the Agency align its leak 

repair timeline with CARB, requiring 

leaks to be repaired within 14 days after 

initial detection to provide additional 

emissions reductions and reduce 

refrigerant costs to appliance owners 

and operators. The commenter shared 

that between 2020 and 2022, 99 percent 

of leak repairs under CARB’s refrigerant 

management program were completed 

within the 14-day window. The 

commenter preferred EPA set the time 

extension to 45 days from the date of 

leak detection for situations where 

certified technicians or necessary 

components are not available and when 

an industrial process shutdown is 

required. The commenter did not 

support any extension more than 180 

days. Another commenter did not 

support leak repair extensions for 

appliances with smaller refrigerant 

charge sizes. 

Response: The Agency acknowledges 

the comments in support of the 

provision. The Agency is finalizing the 

requirements for the timely repair of 

leaks as proposed, recognizing that 

these timelines and the potential 

extensions are consistent with the 

longstanding requirements under 40 

CFR part 82, subpart F. EPA is not 

finalizing a shorter leak repair timeline 

in the final rule, as one commenter 

suggested. The Agency recognizes that 

leaks often can be adequately repaired 

in under 30 days, including, as the 

commenter stated, in as little as 14 days. 

However, EPA finds it prudent to keep 

the existing leak repair timeline and 

extensions in part because EPA 

anticipates that applying a time frame 

that is consistent with the leak repair 

timeline under part 82, subpart F, will 

facilitate compliance with both regimes 

and reduce the potential for confusion. 

The Agency encourages owners or 

operators to strive to repair leaks as 

soon as practicable and in less than the 

required timeframes when possible, so 

as to, for example, reduce emissions, 

improve system efficiencies, and avoid 

spoilage of perishable goods. However, 

in other circumstances the full 30 days 

may be needed to adequately complete 

the repairs, so the final rule’s leak repair 

timeline provides owners or operators 

with sufficient time and flexibility to 

repair leaks correctly. The final rule also 

provides owners or operators an 

opportunity to extend the leak repair 

time up to 180 days (270 in the event 

of an industrial process shutdown) if 

sufficient reasoning is provided. 

Additionally, EPA notes that the final 

rule’s leak repair extension provisions 

encourage the proper repair of an 

appliance where additional time is 

needed. In EPA’s view, such repairs 

may include the replacement of major 

components, if necessary, rather than 

simply patching those components, an 

approach that may not be successful in 

the longer term. Furthermore, some 

owners or operators may prefer to 

replace a faulty component before they 

are required to retrofit or retire an entire 

appliance and believe this could, in 

many instances, be an equally effective 

means to address needed repairs. This 

extension should also reduce the 

potentially large burden upon owners or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82727 

operators of requiring a large-scale 

retrofit or retirement when replacing the 

leaking component might satisfactorily 

repair the appliance. For these reasons, 

EPA disagrees with one commenter’s 

recommendation that the Agency adopt 

a shorter leak repair timeline (i.e., 14 

days) or not allow timeline extensions 

beyond 180 days. 

EPA is also not differentiating the leak 

repair timeline based on charge sizes as 

one commenter recommended. This 

final rule lowered the applicable charge 

size threshold for leak repair to 15 

pounds, extending leak repair 

requirements to refrigerant-containing 

appliances not previously subject to the 

leak repair provisions under part 82, 

subpart F. In this action, the leak repair 

timeline for all appliances is the same 

regardless of charge sizes. Although 

appliances at lower charge sizes may be 

less complex and easier to repair in a 

timeframe lower than 30 days, the 

Agency reiterates the final rule’s repair 

timeline is intended to provide 

sufficient time to correctly repair 

appliances below their applicable leak 

rate thresholds. EPA also notes that 

smaller refrigerant-containing 

appliances are not precluded from 

submitting extension requests as long as 

the owner/operator has provided 

sufficient reasoning. The only narrow 

differentiation in the timing of leak 

repair in the final rule is for IPR systems 

in the event of an industrial process 

shutdown due to the complexity of 

adequately repairing these refrigerantcontaining appliances. Additionally, the 

Agency views this change as 

unnecessary because the addition of 

variable leak repair timelines based on 

charge size may introduce additional 

complexity and reduce compliance with 

the provision. As discussed previously, 

the leak repair timeline under this final 

rule is consistent with the leak repair 

timeline under part 82, subpart F, as a 

means of facilitating compliance with 

both regimes and reducing confusion for 

owners or operators. 

Comment: A few commenters 

requested the compliance timelines for 

leak repair be extended. Two of the 

commenters emphasized that the 

complexity and size of supermarket and 

IPR systems, the current shortage of 

technicians, the long lead time for 

obtaining replacement equipment, and 

potential operational disruptions will 

make the leak repair timeline 

unfeasible. One commenter requested 

that the timeline extension should not 

be limited to a maximum of 180 or 270 

days because the process to identify and 

repair a leak in IPR appliances is likely 

to exceed the applicable timeframes. 

Another commenter suggested that all 

but de minimis leaks be identified and 

repaired ‘‘promptly’’ without a specified 

deadline. The commenter stated that 

EPA could require an owner/operator to 

report the progress of leak repair 

without an arbitrary mandatory 

deadline. Alternatively, the commenter 

suggested EPA should not start the leak 

repair ‘‘clock’’ when a leak is detected 

but rather when the exact location of a 

leak is determined, further claiming this 

would allow technicians time to 

implement mitigation measures and 

therefore reduce any incentive for 

owners and operators to delay repairs. 

Another commenter suggested EPA 

could consider an exception process to 

grant additional time and temporarily or 

permanently extend the leak repair 

timeline for situations with technician 

and component shortages, supply chain 

disruptions, and other reasonable 

circumstances. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s recommendation that leak 

repairs should not have a set timeline 

for completion or that EPA should 

consider an exception process. Timely 

repair of leaks contributes to reducing 

emissions. As stated in responses to 

other similar comments, the Agency 

understands that repairs often happen 

faster than the designated timelines. 

Regarding IPR appliances, the Agency is 

aware, as the commenter stated, that IPR 

appliances are large and complex and 

may require additional time or 

operational shutdowns to determine the 

leak location. The regulation includes a 

longer timeline for repairs to IPR, which 

EPA considers appropriate in light of 

the differences between IPR and other 

appliances. Similarly, although 

supermarket systems and commercial 

refrigeration systems may be complex, 

owners or operators should typically be 

able to repair appliance leaks under the 

applicable threshold within the final 

rule’s allotted timeframe. For example, 

the final rule allots up to 180 days for 

commercial refrigeration appliances 

(e.g., supermarket systems) to complete 

repairs in the event necessary 

components or replacement equipment 

are not readily available (noting that the 

owner/operator would need to complete 

the repair within 30 days of receiving 

the missing component or replacement 

equipment). 

EPA disagrees that owners or 

operators would be unable to determine 

the location of a leak and repair the leak 

within 30 days (120 days for an 

industrial process shutdown). As 

experience with the CAA section 608 

programs shows these have been 

reasonable timelines, including for IPR 

and commercial refrigeration appliances 

with charge sizes of 50 pounds or 

higher. The Agency also notes that 

extension requests function similarly as 

they did under the CAA, providing a 

process for an owner/operator to extend 

the timeline in the event of technician 

shortages, component supply issues, 

and industrial process shutdowns. If an 

extension is not available and the leak 

repair requirements cannot be met in 

the final rule’s timeframe (e.g., due to 

the severity of the leak or condition of 

the appliance), the owner or operator 

would need to create a retrofit or 

retirement plan as described in section 

IV.C.3.f of this preamble. Allowing for 

an unlimited time to repair leaks would 

not provide any incentive for an owner 

or operator to repair the leak, which 

would release more refrigerant from the 

equipment and thus make less HFCs 

available for recovery from the 

appliance and reclamation. 

EPA also disagrees with one 

commenter’s assertion that the 30-day 

leak repair timeline is arbitrary. The 

authority granted to EPA under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act directs the 

Agency to establish certain regulations 

for purposes including minimizing the 

release of regulated substances from 

equipment and maximizing the 

reclamation of regulated substances. 

The Agency concludes that the final 

rule’s leak repair timeline is an 

important component of the leak repair 

requirements serving these statutory 

purposes while also providing owners 

and operators with the flexibility to 

repair leaks in a timely and efficient 

manner. The Agency reiterates that the 

same leak repair timeline has been in 

effect under the CAA section 608 

regulations for decades. For similar 

reasons, the Agency disagrees with one 

commenter’s suggestion to not start the 

leak repair ‘‘clock’’ until the exact 

location of the leak is detected. EPA 

disagrees that this method of leak repair 

timing would reduce incentive for 

owners or operators to delay the repair 

of leaks. The Agency views the 

commenter’s suggestion as providing an 

indeterminate amount of time to repair 

leaks, which in turn incentivizes owners 

or operators to delay finding and 

repairing leaks, as the timeline for repair 

is subject to the discovery of a leak 

location, not based on the appliance 

leaking above the applicable leak rate 

threshold. The final rule provides ample 

time for owners or operators to 

determine the source of an appliance’s 

leak and provides additional flexibility 

to extend the leak repair timeline if 

certain conditions are met. Thus, the 

Agency finds the commenter’s suggested 

approach flawed with regard to 

repairing leaks in a timely manner. The 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82728 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

72 Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0453 

73For further information, please see the 

discussion in the 2016 CAA Section 608 Rule at 81 

FR 82272, 82317 and the technical support 

document, Analysis of the Economic Impact and 

Benefits of Final Revisions to the National 

Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, 

available in the docket for the 2016 CAA Section 

608 Rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0453) 

74EPA held stakeholder meetings for public input 

on November 9, 2022, and March 16, 2023, and also 

solicited feedback through a webinar for EPA’s 

GreenChill Partnership program on April 12, 2023. 

Agency also disagrees with the 

commenter’s request that EPA require 

all but de minimis leaks to be repaired. 

In the context of the prohibition on 

venting or otherwise releasing into the 

environment any refrigerant under CAA 

section 608 (40 CFR 82.154), the term 

‘‘de minimis’’ refers to releases 

associated with good faith attempts to 

recycle and recover refrigerants, noting 

that such releases are not subject to the 

prohibition. In other words, were EPA 

to require all but de minimis leaks to be 

repaired, and to interpret the term 

consistently with how it has been 

interpreted under CAA section 608, the 

Agency would be finalizing repair of 

nearly all leaks, not repairs to below a 

threshold. That would be a significant 

change that the Agency did not propose 

and is not finalizing in this rulemaking. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA should also consider a 

condition that the refrigerant must be 

removed to trigger the proposed leak 

validation exclusion for mothballed 

equipment. 

Response: EPA is unclear as to what 

the commenter refers to as a ‘‘leak 

validation exclusion’’; however, we 

clarify that mothballed appliances must 

have their refrigerant evacuated before 

the leak repair timeline is suspended. 

The definition of ‘‘mothball’’ is 

available at 40 CFR 84.104, which is 

being finalized in this action, and reads: 

Mothball, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means to evacuate 

refrigerant from an appliance, or the 

affected isolated section or component 

of an appliance, to at least atmospheric 

pressure, and to temporarily shut down 

that appliance. 

EPA is finalizing the applicable leak 

rate thresholds for refrigerant-containing 

appliances with a charge size of 15 

pounds or more with a refrigerant that 

contains an HFC or a substitute for an 

HFC with a GWP above 53 as follows: 

20 percent leak rate for commercial 

refrigeration equipment; 30 percent leak 

rate for IPR equipment; and 10 percent 

leak rate for comfort cooling appliances, 

refrigerated transport appliances, or 

other refrigerant-containing appliances 

not covered as commercial or industrial 

process refrigeration appliances. The 

leak rate thresholds are used to 

determine whether repair is needed for 

an appliance that is leaking, as the leak 

repair requirements are triggered if the 

appliance exceeds the leak rate 

threshold. See 40 CFR 84.106(c)(2). EPA 

is applying applicable leak rates that 

mirror those currently in effect for ODScontaining appliances under the 2016 

CAA Section 608 Rule. See 40 CFR 

82.157(c) (d). These rates were in effect 

for appliances containing 50 pounds or 

more of HFCs for a period of time. After 

reviewing the information and analysis 

that supported application of these leak 

rates to those HFC appliances and 

considering the provisions of subsection 

(h) and the comments offered on the 

proposal to extend these thresholds to 

the equipment subject to the leak repair 

requirements under this rule, EPA has 

determined it is appropriate to finalize 

them, as proposed, in this action. 

As discussed in section IV.C.2 of this 

preamble, EPA is finalizing, as 

proposed, the application of leak repair 

requirements to appliances using an 

HFC and/or a substitute for HFCs with 

a GWP greater than 53, as a refrigerant 

(neat or in blends) based on a charge 

size threshold of 15 pounds or greater, 

with certain exceptions. EPA is 

requiring the use of the same leak rate 

threshold across categories of 

equipment for all covered appliances. In 

other words, a 20 percent leak trigger 

rate applies for commercial refrigeration 

equipment with a full charge size of 15 

pounds or more, and a 10 percent trigger 

leak rate applies for comfort cooling 

appliances with a full charge size of 15 

pounds or more. For refrigerantcontaining appliances in certain 

subsectors and applications that have 

not been previously covered under 40 

CFR 82.157, EPA is finalizing 

determinations for the applicable leak 

rates listed in 40 CFR 84.106(c)(2)(iii). 

For example, for refrigerated transport— 

rail, EPA is finalizing that this 

application is considered under the 

comfort cooling and other appliances 

category and has an applicable leak rate 

of 10 percent. 

As noted in the proposal, EPA views 

these applicable leak rates per the type 

of appliance as appropriate for the leak 

repair provisions in this action under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act. This 

rulemaking draws on EPA’s experience 

implementing similar requirements 

under CAA section 608, where these 

thresholds have provided a practical 

and effective method for determining 

when leaks must be repaired. In the 

proposal, the Agency considered 

whether a lower percent leak rate for 

some or all of the categories of 

appliances would be more appropriate 

for appliances that contain HFCs and/or 

substitutes for HFCs. EPA reviewed the 

docket for the 2016 CAA Section 608 

Rule, which lowered the applicable leak 

rates for each of the appliance 

categories.72 73 EPA also evaluated leak 

rate data of appliances in each of the 

applicable categories to determine the 

appropriate applicable leak rates and 

reviewed information from stakeholders 

shared during public meetings held in 

the development of this rulemaking.74

EPA did not propose and is not 

finalizing changes to the applicable leak 

rates for categories of appliances 

containing HFCs and covered 

substitutes. However, the Agency notes 

that we could revisit the applicable leak 

rates as appropriate to support the 

overall purposes of subsection (h) in the 

future. 

Comment: EPA received mixed 

support for the applicable leak rates for 

commercial refrigeration, IPR, and 

comfort cooling. Some commenters 

stated that EPA could go lower for some 

of the appliance sectors, and others 

suggested that EPA increase the leak 

rate thresholds for certain subsectors. 

One commenter, in support of the 

provision, stated that leak rate 

thresholds aligned with the CAA section 

608 regulations are appropriate and 

should not be further adjusted. Another 

commenter echoed that the leak rate 

thresholds did not need to be changed 

because the final rule would already 

subject a large group of appliances to 

mandatory time-limited repairs, 

reporting, and in some cases, retrofit or 

retirement. The same commenter stated 

that lowering the leak rate threshold 

would make appliances impossible to 

manage due to the number of appliances 

affected by the leak repair provisions in 

the final rule. 

Two commenters did not support the 

proposed leak rates, citing difficulty to 

manage, the number of systems it would 

affect from the outset, and 

impracticality and burden of the 

requirements. One commenter stated 

that small chillers used in the 

semiconductor industry are not 

applicable to the provision because 

leaking chillers are normally removed 

from service. The commenter requested 

clarity on whether equipment removed 

from service is exempt from the leak 

repair requirement. One of the 

commenters stated that typical food 

retail refrigeration appliances have an 

estimated 25 percent annual leak rate 

and the rule would force the average 

supermarket system into immediate 

repair, verification, and potential retrofit 

or retirement. The commenter also 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82729 

suggested EPA eliminate the leak rate 

thresholds altogether and allow 

operators to perform a calendar year 

leak rate calculation each time the 

operator adds refrigerant, as owners or 

operators are incentivized to repair 

leaks to avoid high refrigerant costs and 

store operations. 

Several commenters did not support 

EPA’s proposed leak rate threshold of 20 

percent for commercial refrigeration 

appliances and suggested lower targets 

to ensure climate and economic 

benefits. Commenters recommended 

EPA lower the applicable leak rate to 15 

percent. One commenter incorrectly 

stated that the GreenChill voluntary 

program requires a maximum 15 percent 

leak rate for stores and 5 percent for the 

platinum standard, which over half of 

certified stores in this program have 

achieved. 

EPA received similar comments 

regarding the 30 percent leak rate 

threshold for IPR. Several commenters 

recommended EPA lower the applicable 

leak rate for IPR to 20 percent. The 

commenters also stated that the 20 

percent threshold would align with 

CARB’s refrigerant management 

program and push more facilities to 

require mandatory repairs. One 

commenter stated that an IPR system 

can leak a quarter of its full charge 

without triggering any leak repair 

requirements. The commenter asserted 

that a facility leaking 25 percent of its 

refrigerant annually will leak out five 

times as much refrigerant over the 

course of its life as will be available to 

recover when it is eventually retired. 

The commenter also stated that trigger 

leak rates create a perverse incentive for 

underreporting and repairing leaks and 

suggested the Agency revisit these 

thresholds in the future. Another 

commenter suggested EPA instate a 10 

percent leak rate for IPR chillers 

specifically because they are compact, 

sealed appliances with a similar design 

to comfort cooling appliances that have 

a 10 percent leak rate threshold. 

Another commenter suggested the IPR 

and comfort cooling leak rates should 

align with Washington State’s 

requirements of 24 percent and 8 

percent, respectively. The commenter 

also urged EPA to consider setting a 

time frame to revisit reducing these leak 

thresholds to provide greater climate 

benefits and guarantee that leak 

detection systems meet minimum 

standards. 

Response: The Agency is finalizing 

the leak rate thresholds as proposed. 

When developing the proposed rule, the 

Agency considered a number of options 

for the appropriate leak rate thresholds 

for commercial refrigeration, IPR, and 

comfort cooling and decided on 

proposed requirements that were 

consistent with the trigger rates that 

were finalized in the 2016 CAA Section 

608 Rule. Under the 2016 CAA Section 

608 Rule, EPA determined that lowering 

the leak rate thresholds was reasonable 

when considering the compliance costs, 

savings, environmental benefits and 

fewer emissions of both ODS and, at the 

time, non-exempt substitute refrigerants 

(e.g., HFCs). The Agency found it 

prudent to align the leak rate thresholds 

in this final rule with CAA section 608 

based on similar factors. Further, the 

alignment of this provision with leak 

rate thresholds under CAA section 608 

should assist in facilitating compliance 

with the provision, as owner/operators 

should be familiar with the similar 

requirements under CAA section 608. 

EPA also notes that this rulemaking 

extends the leak repair requirements to 

a larger group of appliances that were 

previously not subject to the leak repair 

requirements under CAA section 608. 

The Agency wants to ensure that all 

appliances subject to the leak repair 

requirements are able to meet the 

standards in the provision, and lowering 

the leak rates at this time may further 

limit compliance with the provisions of 

this final rule. Commenters’ views 

include those expressing support for 

consistency and those suggesting more 

or less stringent trigger rates. None of 

these commenters provided sufficient 

information to conclude that a more or 

less stringent trigger rate is appropriate. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing, as 

proposed, trigger rates that generally 

align with 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, in 

agreement with commenters indicating 

a preference for consistency. EPA notes 

that we may revisit the leak rate 

thresholds in the future through a 

separate notice-and-comment 

rulemaking if the Agency finds that the 

alternate thresholds suggested by 

commenters are warranted. 

Furthermore, the Agency disagrees with 

one commenter’s argument that leak rate 

thresholds create perverse incentives to 

underreport leaks and avoid repair of 

appliances. Leak rate thresholds have 

been utilized as a method of compliance 

for leak repair for nearly 30 years under 

the rationale that fixing all leaks in an 

appliance may hamper compliance and 

force appliances into early retrofit or 

retirement before the end of their useful 

life. EPA acknowledges that, for 

example, small pin hole leaks in a 

complex IPR system may be hard to find 

and repair and ultimately have a low 

leak rate compared to larger leak events 

that push a refrigerant-containing 

appliance above the applicable leak rate 

threshold. As stated previously in the 

preamble, when the applicable leak rate 

is exceeded, repairing those leaks is 

warranted to minimize the release of 

refrigerants from equipment. 

EPA disagrees with commenters’ 

assertions that the leak rate thresholds 

would be unduly burdensome. While 

there are more affected appliances 

under this final rule given the lower 

charge size threshold compared to ODS 

appliances, the Agency notes that on the 

whole, commenters supported that 15- 

pound threshold. Moreover, there have 

been changes to the appliance design 

since the Agency first established leak 

repair requirements for ODS refrigerantcontaining appliances. The Agency does 

not view applying the leak repair 

provisions in this final rule, specifically 

the applicable leak rate threshold, to 

appliances with a charge size between 

15 and 50 pounds as unduly 

burdensome. Many of the appliances 

with a charge size under 50 pounds 

have an applicable leak rate of 10 

percent (e.g., appliances that are not IPR 

or commercial refrigeration); however, 

refrigerant-containing appliances at this 

charge size are at a relatively low risk 

of leaking compared to larger 

appliances. Additionally, appliances 

closer to a charge size of 15 pounds are 

also more likely to be hermetically 

sealed and thus have a low leak 

potential. Furthermore, as detailed in 

IV.C.2 of this preamble, EPA has 

provided a narrow exemption from the 

leak repair provision for residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps, which will further limit the 

number of refrigerant-containing 

appliance subject to the leak repair 

requirements. 

Further, given that HFCs are being 

phased down as compared to ODS, 

which are being phased out, HFCs and 

HFC substitute refrigerants with a GWP 

greater than 53 can be used indefinitely. 

Given that there is no date by which 

HFCs can longer be charged into 

appliances, it is paramount that EPA 

take steps to prevent leaks, reduce 

emissions, and maximize reclamation. 

Additionally, because the HFC 

phasedown will greatly limit the supply 

of virgin HFCs available to service 

appliances, the timely repair of leaks is 

required to limit the emissions of HFCs. 

The leak rate thresholds, in the final 

rule, facilitate the timely repair of 

leaking appliances, which will mitigate 

the amount of refrigerant lost and 

needed to service an appliance. Leak 

rate thresholds ensure owners and 

operators will take appropriate action to 

repair leaks so that their appliances are 

below the applicable leak rate threshold. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82730 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

In regard to chillers used in the 

semiconductor industry, the commenter 

stated that small semiconductor chillers 

are typically removed from service if 

they begin leaking. EPA understands 

that these chillers are distinct, 

hermetically sealed devices that are 

removed when in need of servicing, and 

that such servicing is performed at a 

separate location, including at locations 

outside of the United States. If the 

chiller contains less than 15 pounds of 

refrigerant, as would be the case with 

many in this industry, the leak repair 

requirements do not apply. For chillers 

with 15 pounds of refrigerant or more, 

the Agency clarifies that appliances 

removed from service, that have their 

full charge evacuated and recovered, are 

not subject to the full suite of the leak 

repair requirements. An owner/operator 

may do this to conduct further repairs, 

to mothball the appliance for future 

repairs, or due to a retrofit or retirement 

plan (see section IV.C.3.f of this 

preamble). In the specific case of these 

semiconductor chillers, once the 

determination has been made that the 

appliance is leaking above the threshold 

rate and needs to be taken out of service, 

the owner/operator would need to 

evacuate and recover all refrigerant from 

the appliance in a way similar to how 

an owner/operator would mothball an 

appliance. Once repairs are made and 

the appliance is recharged for service, it 

is required to meet all of the 

requirements in the final rule’s leak 

repair provision. 

EPA also disagrees with one 

commenter’s suggestion to forgo leak 

rate thresholds in favor of allowing 

calendar year leak rate calculations each 

time the owner or operator adds 

refrigerant because owners and 

operators should already be using some 

methodology for calculating their leak 

rate after adding refrigerant into an 

appliance. The Agency clarifies that 

leak inspections and the calculation of 

a leak rate does not equate to leak 

repair. Under the provisions finalized in 

this action, if an appliance is leaking 

above the applicable leak rate threshold, 

the owner or operator must repair any 

leaks to ensure the appliance’s leak rate 

is brought below said threshold. 

Without a leak rate threshold there 

would not be a clear metric for 

determining when the leak repair 

requirements were triggered or when the 

appliance had been sufficiently 

repaired. The Agency also disagrees that 

appliance owners would repair leaks in 

a timely manner based on the incentive 

to save on refrigerant costs or to avoid 

operational disruptions alone. While 

EPA agrees that the leak repair 

provisions in this final rule are 

anticipated to have the effect of 

avoiding additional refrigerant costs and 

operational disruptions in many 

situations, financial motivations to 

conduct leak repair do not always align 

with the rule’s purpose of minimizing 

the release of HFCs and their covered 

substitutes. For example, an owner/ 

operator, in some cases, may find it 

more financially optimal to continually 

add refrigerant to an appliance instead 

of repairing it, or an owner/operator 

may not have adequate information 

about the costs associated with failure to 

repair leaks in making decisions about 

whether to voluntarily repair leaks. In 

EPA’s view, the leak rate thresholds are 

an important part of the regulatory 

design of the leak repair requirements 

and help ensure that they serve the 

statutory purposes identified for 

regulations under subsection (h) to 

minimize the release of regulated 

substances from equipment and 

maximize reclamation. 

The commenter also stated that the 

average annual leak rates for 

supermarkets is 25 percent and that the 

rule would require immediate repair of 

supermarket systems. The Agency 

responds that the purpose of the final 

rule is to minimize the release of 

regulated substances from appliances. If 

a supermarket system is leaking at a rate 

higher than 20 percent, the owner/ 

operator would be required to repair 

leaks to the extent and within the 

timeframe specified in the final rule. 

Furthermore, the Agency disagrees with 

the commenter’s assertion that the final 

rule would force supermarket owner/ 

operators to repair and potentially 

retrofit or retire systems immediately, 

once the leak repair provisions go into 

effect, because the average supermarket 

has an annual leak rate of 25 percent. 

EPA reiterates that the leak repair 

provisions of this final rule are 

relatively consistent with the 

requirements for ODS refrigerants that 

have been and continue to be in use in 

supermarkets throughout the United 

States. EPA has also extended the 

compliance date for the leak repair 

provision by more than one year to 

further accommodate owner/operators’ 

compliance with the provision. 

Moreover, the Agency notes that the 25 

percent leak rate average that FMI cites 

for supermarkets is nearly double the 

less than 15 percent average leak rate 

GreenChill partners voluntarily report to 

EPA on an annual basis. Many 

GreenChill partners have been able to 

consistently achieve lower leak rates by 

adopting newer system technologies, 

using newer refrigerants, applying best 

practices, and maintaining leak-tight 

systems to decrease refrigerant 

emissions. The GreenChill voluntary 

partnership has also hosted webinars 

discussing these topics, which are 

available to the public. The purpose of 

this rule is to minimize the release of 

regulated substances from appliances. If 

any commercial refrigeration system is 

leaking above the applicable leak rate of 

20 percent, an owner or operator is 

required to take the necessary steps to 

repair their appliance to the extent 

required within the timeframe specified 

in this final rule. 

In response to one commenter’s 

characterization of leak rates reported 

under the GreenChill voluntary 

partnership, the Agency clarifies that 

GreenChill does not have any 

requirements for specific leak rates in 

order to be a member. The leak rate 

thresholds cited by the commenter are 

award thresholds used by the Agency to 

recognize lower leak rates reported to 

EPA. The partnership represents over a 

third of U.S. supermarkets; however, the 

Agency does not know if supermarkets 

not in the GreenChill voluntary 

partnership are doing better or worse 

than the voluntary members. As 

previously stated, the Agency may 

reconsider the leak rate thresholds in a 

future notice-and-comment rulemaking 

but cannot justify changes to those 

thresholds solely on the basis of 

voluntary reporting under the 

GreenChill voluntary partnership. 

c. Verification Testing 

EPA is finalizing its requirements for 

initial and follow-up verification tests as 

proposed. The Agency is requiring 

initial and follow-up verification for 

refrigerant-containing appliances with a 

charge size of 15 pounds or more of a 

refrigerant that contains an HFC or a 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53 as a part of the leak 

repair provisions under subsection (h). 

These requirements are analogous to 

similar provisions for affected ODScontaining appliances under CAA 

section 608 under 40 CFR 82.157(e). The 

final rule requires owners or operators 

to conduct initial and follow-up 

verification tests within specified 

timeframes for each leak that is 

repaired. The initial verification test is 

required to be performed within 30 days 

(or 120 days if an industrial process 

shutdown is required) of an appliance 

exceeding the applicable leak rate and 

must demonstrate that leaks are 

repaired, where a repair attempt was 

made. The initial verification test 

verifies that the leak has been repaired 

prior to adding refrigerant back into the 

appliance, and the follow-up 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82731 

75ASHRAE Standard 15–2022 defines releasable 

charge as a portion of the system refrigerant charge 

that can be released into a space as a result of a 

single point failure. 

verification test confirms that the repair 

held after refrigerant has been added 

and the appliance has been brought 

back to normal operating characteristics. 

The follow-up verification test is 

required to be conducted within 10 days 

of a successful initial verification test or 

10 days after the appliance has returned 

to normal operating conditions (if the 

appliance or isolated component of the 

appliance was evacuated to perform 

repairs). The follow-up verification test 

is necessary to confirm that the leak 

repair has held after the refrigerantcontaining appliance has been 

recharged, pressurized, and returned to 

normal operating conditions. If the 

initial or follow-up verification tests 

indicates that a leak repair was not 

successful, the owner or operator may 

conduct as many additional repairs and 

initial or follow-up verification tests as 

needed to achieve a successful leak 

repair within the applicable time 

period. 

EPA notes that in some cases, a 

follow-up verification test may be 

impossible; for example, when it would 

be unsafe to be present when the system 

is at normal operating characteristics 

and conditions. Where it is unsafe to be 

present or otherwise impossible to 

conduct a follow-up verification test 

when the system is at normal operating 

characteristics and conditions, the 

Agency is requiring that where 

practicable, the follow-up verification 

test be conducted prior to the system 

returning to normal operating 

characteristics and conditions. In such 

situations, the owner or operator has the 

burden of showing that it was unsafe to 

be present when the system is at normal 

operating characteristics and conditions. 

As discussed in the proposal, 

verification testing involves important 

practices, processes, and activities 

regarding the repair and servicing of 

equipment. The tests are performed 

shortly after an appliance has been 

repaired to confirm that the leak has 

been successfully repaired. Without the 

verification tests, it may take additional 

time for the owner or operator to realize 

that the repair has been unsuccessful 

and during that time refrigerant could 

continue to leak from the appliance. The 

provision is designed to help ensure 

that leaks are repaired successfully and 

that the repair holds, so that repair has 

the intended effect of limiting 

refrigerant emissions from the 

appliance. EPA is finalizing 

requirements that the verification tests 

must be performed for all leak repairs to 

ensure that the leak repair is done 

correctly the first time, holds, and has 

its intended effect, which will help 

minimize releases of HFCs from the 

appliance, and also help maximize 

HFCs available for eventual reclamation 

by limiting such releases. 

Comment: A commenter stated that a 

properly commissioned system should 

not require an additional verification 

step in later weeks or follow-up leak 

requirements. They asserted that 

properly commissioned maintenance 

work, as required by UL 60335–2–40 

and UL 60335–2–89, or another 

appropriate standard should be 

sufficient. The commenter 

recommended EPA restrict this 

requirement to systems with very large 

charge sizes, perhaps above 500 pounds, 

to be consistent with other thresholds 

set in the rule. The commenter also 

suggested EPA should require reporting 

if a leak is repaired in a system that has 

to be recharged again within six months. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the 

verification test provision as proposed. 

The Agency disagrees that properly 

commissioned maintenance work does 

not need to go through the leak repair 

verification process. The standards 

required by UL 60335–2–40 and UL 

60335–2–89 are industry standards, 

developed by consensus and concerned 

with appliance design and manufacture. 

The standards do not speak to the 

operations of an appliance over multiple 

years. Instead, UL standardizes leak 

prevention requirements in the 

appliance’s design, standardizes leak 

detection through sensors or other 

mechanisms, and provides standards to 

mitigate the release of refrigerants via 

releasable charge considerations.75

Moreover, the leak repair requirements 

and thus the need for verification tests 

begin when an appliance exceeds its 

applicable leak rate. If an appliance is 

well designed and follows practices 

consistent with the requirements of the 

standard, perhaps there will not be an 

occurrence of leaks that result in an 

exceedance of the applicable leak rate 

and thus the owner/operator would not 

need to proceed with the final rule’s 

leak repair process. 

The Agency also disagrees that the 

verification requirement be restricted to 

appliances with very large charge sizes 

because the purpose of the provision is 

to ensure that leaks are properly 

repaired and that those repairs hold, 

such that the repair has its intended 

effect and emissions are minimized. We 

also disagree with the suggestion that 

EPA require reporting if an appliance is 

recharged within six months of a leak 

repair, as this is not a reasonable 

substitute for verification tests or leak 

inspections of repaired appliances. EPA 

clarifies that a leak is considered 

repaired if refrigerant is not added 

within 12 months of the previous leak 

repair or if there are no leaks identified 

by either the required periodic leak 

inspection(s) or an ALD system, where 

applicable. Verification tests ensure 

repairs hold and leak inspections verify 

that the repaired leak has not failed over 

a 12-month period; both are warranted 

portions of the leak repair process and 

support meeting the purposes identified 

in subsection (h)(1), including 

minimizing the release of regulated 

substances from equipment. 

d. Leak Inspections 

The Agency is finalizing leak 

inspection requirements as proposed for 

refrigerant-containing appliances with a 

charge size of 15 pounds or more of a 

refrigerant that contains an HFC or 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53 that are found to be 

leaking above the applicable leak rate 

threshold. As discussed in the proposal, 

the leak inspection requirements 

involve processes, practices, and 

activities regarding the repair of 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

are designed to ensure the long-term 

effectiveness of a successful leak repair. 

Thus, the requirements will help 

minimize any releases of HFCs from 

equipment over time and also help 

maximize HFCs available for eventual 

reclamation by limiting such releases. 

The owner or operator is responsible for 

ensuring that the leak inspections are 

conducted consistent with the 

applicable requirements in 84.106. 

Leak inspection frequency is 

dependent on the type of appliance and 

the size of the appliance (by refrigerant 

charge size). For commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances that 

have a charge size of 500 pounds or 

more of a refrigerant that contains an 

HFC or a substitute for an HFC with a 

GWP greater than 53, EPA is requiring 

leak inspections to be performed every 

three months after the date of repair as 

demonstrated by a successful follow-up 

verification test until the owner or 

operator can demonstrate that the 

appliance has not exceeded the 

applicable leak rate for four consecutive 

quarters. For commercial refrigeration 

and IPR appliances that have a charge 

size between 15 and 500 pounds of a 

refrigerant that contains an HFC or a 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53, EPA is requiring that 

leak inspections be performed once per 

year after the date of repair 

demonstrated by a successful follow-up 

verification test until the owner or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82732 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

operator can demonstrate that the 

refrigerant-containing appliance has not 

exceeded the applicable leak rate for 

one year (i.e., 12 months). For comfort 

cooling and other appliances that have 

a charge size of 15 pounds or above of 

a refrigerant that contains an HFC or a 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP above 

53, EPA is requiring that leak 

inspections be performed once per year 

after the date of repair demonstrated by 

a successful follow-up verification test 

until the owner or operator can 

demonstrate that the equipment has not 

exceeded the applicable leak rate for 

one year (i.e., 12 months). In each case, 

to demonstrate an appliance has not 

exceeded the applicable leak rate, the 

leak rate is calculated during a leak 

inspection as described in section 

IV.C.3.a of this preamble. EPA is 

establishing that it is appropriate to 

require more frequent leak inspections 

for larger commercial refrigeration and 

IPR appliances (i.e., charge sizes at or 

above 500 pounds), as the larger charge 

size means that potential emissions 

from the appliance are greater if a leak 

is not properly repaired. 

EPA is also finalizing the use of ALD 

systems as a compliance option in lieu 

of quarterly or annual leak inspections. 

Owners or operators voluntarily using 

an ALD system to monitor leaks in a 

refrigerant-containing appliance that are 

not subject to the ALD requirements in 

the final rule (see section IV.D.1 of this 

preamble) are not required to conduct 

periodic leak inspections unless an 

applicable leak rate threshold has been 

exceeded. Once the applicable threshold 

has been exceeded the owner or 

operator is required to perform leak 

inspections on any portions of the 

appliance where the ALD system is not 

monitoring for leaks. Owners or 

operators choosing to install an ALD 

system, in lieu of the required leak 

inspections, must meet the requirements 

for ALD systems (including annual ALD 

system audit and calibration 

requirements). The Agency is also 

finalizing separate requirements for the 

use of ALD systems for commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances that 

have a charge size of 1,500 pounds or 

more of refrigerant that contains an HFC 

or a substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53. That is, the leak 

inspections that are being codified at 40 

CFR 84.106(g) and the requirements 

related to ALD systems that are being 

codified at 40 CFR 84.108 are separate 

provisions that apply in different 

circumstances. For further information 

and requirements related to ALD 

systems in this action, refer to section 

IV.D.1 of this preamble. 

Comment: EPA received mostly 

supportive comments on the proposed 

rule’s leak inspection provisions. One 

commenter supported the option to use 

ALD in lieu of quarterly or annual leak 

inspections Another commenter 

supported the provision to require 

periodic manual leak inspections for 

portions of the appliance that are not 

being monitored by an ALD system. The 

commenter suggested that EPA require 

quarterly inspections for portions of an 

appliance with a charge size of 1,500 

pounds or more that are not covered by 

an ALD system regardless of whether 

the appliance is leaking above its 

applicable leak rate. Another 

commenter in support of the varying 

leak inspection requirements in the final 

rule encouraged EPA to adopt routine 

leak inspections regardless of whether 

the refrigerant-containing appliances are 

found to be leaking or not. The 

commenter stated that routine leak 

inspections are a good way to catch 

leaks early and prevent high-volume 

leakage. One commenter requested 

clarification on whether EPA intended 

for leak inspections to be performed 

‘‘once per year’’ or ‘‘within 365 days of 

the repair.’’ The commenter suggested 

the ‘‘within 365 days of the repair’’ 

interpretation would align with 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the leak 

inspection requirements as proposed. 

We acknowledge the comments in 

support of the provision. EPA 

acknowledges one commenter’s support 

for the use of ALD as a compliance 

option. This decision was based on 

considerations of previous utilization of 

ALD systems under CAA section 608 

where the Agency provided additional 

flexibility to facility owners to opt into 

ALD. The Agency agrees that routine 

leak inspections are helpful in 

preventing high-volume leakage from 

appliances and generally recommends 

periodic leak inspections as a best 

practice, even for well-maintained 

appliances. EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing the repair of all leaks or 

more frequent leak inspections; 

however, the Agency encourages owners 

or operators to adopt strategies to ensure 

their refrigerated-containing appliances 

are operating with minimal leaks. EPA 

clarifies that leak inspections are not 

tied to the discovery of a leak, but rather 

to the determination that an appliance 

is leaking above the applicable 

threshold and occur on a set timeline 

based on charge size (except for 

appliances where all portions of the 

appliance are monitored by ALD). EPA 

also clarifies that quarterly or annual 

leak inspections are required for 

portions of an appliance that are not 

being monitored by an ALD system 

when an appliance has exceeded its leak 

rate threshold. The Agency reiterates 

that the final rule is requiring the repair 

of leaks so that the appliance is under 

the applicable leak rate threshold, not 

the repair of all leaks. The addition of 

periodic inspections not related to the 

final rule’s leak repair timeline would 

add additional burden to owner/ 

operators and dampen the flexibilities 

in the leak repair provision. The Agency 

may reevaluate the frequency of leak 

inspections in a future notice-andcomment rulemaking but is not 

finalizing additional periodic leak 

inspections in this rulemaking. 

The Agency disagrees with one 

commenter’s suggestion to require 

periodic inspections of portions of an 

appliance not covered by an ALD 

system. EPA views the continuous 

monitoring of an appliance as serving 

the function of monitoring for leaks. 

Thus, a requirement for performing 

periodic leak inspections on those 

portions of the appliance is unneeded. 

The final rule does require leak 

inspections for portions of the appliance 

not monitored by ALD when the 

appliance is leaking above the 

applicable leak rate; however, this 

requirement is needed to ensure the 

repairs of leaks have not failed. Leak 

inspections serve as a method of 

determining whether repairs of 

refrigerant-containing appliances are 

adequate and if further action is needed. 

The Agency clarifies that quarterly 

and annual leak inspections are to be 

conducted within 365 days from the 

date of repair, demonstrated by a 

successful follow-up verification test. 

For example, an owner or operator of a 

500-pound IPR appliance that was 

found to be leaking above the applicable 

threshold would need to repair the leaks 

in the appliance (and conduct 

verification tests) so that the appliance 

is below the applicable threshold. The 

owner or operator, starting from the 

completion of repair, as demonstrated 

by a of a successful follow-up 

verification test, must then conduct 

quarterly leak inspections for a year and 

demonstrate that any leaks from the 

appliance are under the applicable 

threshold. Leak inspections would then 

cease until the next leak event above the 

applicable threshold occurs. The 

Agency also clarifies that the use of the 

term ‘‘calendar year’’ in the proposal’s 

preamble was intended to mean ‘‘365 

days’’ in the context of the timing of 

leak inspections. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

EPA implementing more frequent 

inspections than currently existing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82733 

requirements under 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F. Specifically, the commenter 

stated EPA should not require more 

frequent inspections than annually for 

systems between 15 and 500 pounds, 

and asserted that owners and operators 

would experience significant burden 

from more frequent inspections given 

the increase in appliances covered by 

the 15-pound threshold, the process for 

sniffing, and the additional work 

required if a leak is found. While the 

comment was less clear on this point, it 

also stated the view that it is not 

necessary to increase the frequency of 

leak inspections to be more than annual 

for equipment with a charge of 500 

pounds or more. 

Response: The Agency clarifies that 

the final rule’s leak inspection 

requirements mirror the frequency of 

similar requirements under 40 CFR part 

82.157(g). The Agency disagrees with 

the commenter’s recommendation to 

only require annual leak inspections for 

all charge sizes. EPA is requiring 

quarterly inspections of appliances with 

charge sizes above 500 pounds given the 

risk of additional leaking (e.g., that the 

leak could recur) once an appliance has 

exceeded the leak rate threshold and 

given that such large systems could 

release more refrigerant than smaller 

systems if additional leaking occurs. 

With these considerations, it is critical 

to ensure larger appliances are more 

frequently monitored for leaks. 

Quarterly leak inspections for large 

refrigerant-containing appliances ensure 

that the leak repair requirements operate 

as intended to minimize releases of 

HFCs from equipment, consistent with 

the purposes identified in subsection 

(h). 

e. Chronically Leaking Appliances 

As part of the leak repair provisions 

under subsection (h), EPA is finalizing 

specific requirements for refrigerantcontaining appliances with a charge size 

of 15 pounds or more of a refrigerant 

that contains an HFC or a substitute for 

an HFC with a GWP greater than 53 that 

meet the criteria for a chronically 

leaking appliance. The requirements are 

designed to gather information and 

support efforts to address such chronic 

leaks, which have the effect of further 

minimizing emissions from equipment. 

A refrigerant-containing appliance is 

considered a chronically leaking 

appliance if it leaks 125 percent or more 

of its full charge within a calendar year. 

The requirements for chronically 

leaking appliances are similar, but not 

identical to, analogous requirements 

under 40 CFR 82.157(j). In the final rule, 

EPA is requiring reporting for covered 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

meet the criteria to be considered 

chronically leaking. Submitted reports 

must describe the efforts taken to 

identify leaks and repair the appliance. 

To better serve the purposes of 

minimizing releases of regulated 

substances and allow EPA to verify the 

information being reported more easily, 

EPA is standardizing the reporting 

format for chronically leaking 

appliances. EPA is requiring that the 

reports must be submitted no later than 

March 1 of the following calendar year 

of the ≥125 percent leak. EPA is 

requiring that these reports cover basic 

identification information (i.e., owner 

name, facility name, facility address 

where appliance is located, and 

appliance ID or description), appliance 

type (comfort cooling, IPR, or 

commercial refrigeration), refrigerant 

type, full charge of appliance (pounds), 

annual percent refrigerant loss, dates of 

refrigerant addition, amounts of 

refrigerant added, date of last successful 

follow-up verification test, explanation 

of cause of refrigerant losses, repair 

actions taken, a signature from an 

authorized company official, and 

whether a retrofit or retirement plan has 

been developed for the appliance, and, 

if so, the anticipated date of retrofit or 

retirement. EPA proposed and is 

finalizing that these reports be 

submitted electronically using the 

Agency’s applicable reporting platform. 

The information in these reports would 

either be contained in the records EPA 

is establishing that owner or operators 

are required to maintain or is the type 

of information that is on hand during 

the ordinary course of business. Because 

of the amount of refrigerant emitted, 

chronically leaking appliances warrant 

special attention. These reporting 

requirements for chronically leaking 

equipment are designed to help ensure 

that owners or operators are complying 

with the leak repair provisions and that 

they have taken appropriate steps to 

identify the leaks and correct the root 

cause of those leaks. These reports will 

allow EPA to evaluate compliance with 

the regulatory requirements and to 

identify entities that may benefit from 

compliance assistance and other 

outreach efforts. These reports will also 

allow EPA to assess common root 

causes for appliances that chronically 

leak, which would facilitate 

consideration of approaches to mitigate 

these leaks and minimize the releases of 

HFCs from such equipment. EPA 

discusses whether this information is 

entitled to confidential treatment in 

section V.A.1 of this preamble. 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that EPA should require 

reporting when system leak rates exceed 

110 percent per year rather than the 

proposed 125 percent value. One 

commenter indicated that this lower 

threshold would support close 

monitoring of systems that experience a 

loss of full charge so that unrepaired 

faults are repaired. One commenter 

suggested that EPA should set a quicker 

timeline for required leak repairs for 

chronically leaking appliances. 

Response: The Agency is finalizing 

the chronically leaking appliances 

provision as proposed. EPA 

acknowledges the comments suggesting 

that it should lower the chronic leak 

rate but finds the 125 percent threshold 

more appropriate, as the Agency intends 

to focus on gathering information from 

chronically leaking appliances and to 

avoid capture of refrigerant-containing 

appliances affected by unavoidable 

losses that do not reflect a chronic issue. 

The 125 percent threshold allows the 

Agency to focus on chronic leakers, as 

systems would have to lose their full 

charge and then a significant quantity 

more to trigger the requirements. The 

Agency also notes that the 125 percent 

threshold aligns with the chronic leak 

rate established in the CAA section 608 

regulations which may allow the 

Agency to compare or combine 

information obtained under this 

program with that obtained under CAA 

section 608 and develop a better 

understanding of the issues that lead to 

chronic leaking across a broader group 

of appliances. In response to the 

commenter’s view that a chronic leak 

rate of 110 percent would support closer 

monitoring of appliances, especially 

appliances with large charge sizes, the 

Agency notes that a chronic leak rate of 

110 percent may still capture appliances 

affected by unavoidable losses and thus 

dilute focus on the target group of 

appliances. One commenter requested 

that chronically leaking appliances be 

required to repair leaks on a quicker 

timeline. EPA responds that the 

timeline for repair of a chronically 

leaking appliance is the same as for any 

other appliance that triggers the leak 

repair requirements. The Agency further 

notes that some chronically leaking 

appliances would be subject to the 

retrofit or retirement provisions in the 

final rule, for example, if they continue 

to leak above the applicable leak rate 

after having conducted the required 

repairs and verification tests. 

Comment: Another commenter 

suggested an alternative to EPA’s 

proposal to require reporting when 

system leak rates exceed 125 percent in 

one year. The commenter suggested the 

annual leak rate percentage to require 

reporting should be 100 percent plus the 

allowed annual leak rate percentage for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82734 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

an equipment category plus five 

percent. Alternatively, the commenter 

suggested that EPA could choose a 

lower percentage and allow an 

exception for a single catastrophic leak. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s suggested approach. The 

commenter’s suggestion would allow 

certain appliances (i.e., IPR) to leak 135 

percent in one year before becoming 

subject to the chronic leaker provision. 

Thus, for some appliances, the 

commenter’s suggested approach would 

prevent EPA from obtaining information 

about certain appliances that may 

chronically leak but not at such a high 

rate, and thus might limit the Agency’s 

understanding of the issues that may 

lead to chronic leaking at the 125 

percent threshold. This approach would 

also differ from the approach under the 

CAA section 608 regulations, which 

may limit the Agency’s ability to 

compare or combine the information 

obtained under this program with that 

obtained under CAA section 608. For 

the same reason, EPA is not adopting a 

lower percentage together with an 

exception for a single catastrophic leak 

event because EPA is not persuaded that 

this approach would allow us to obtain 

information focused on the appliances 

of most interest under this requirement. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

if EPA lowers the leak repair threshold 

to appliances with a charge size of 15 

pounds, there will be a large number of 

reportable, chronically leaking 

appliances with full charge sizes 

between 15 and 49 pounds. The 

commenter stated that appliances with 

small charge sizes tend to lose their 

entire charge size before anyone realizes 

there is a leak, and therefore any 

appliance with more than one leak in a 

calendar year will be reportable to EPA. 

The commenter further claimed that the 

amount of refrigerant added to these 

small appliances does not necessarily 

reflect the amount of refrigerant leaked 

out of them, and that technicians tend 

to put whole cylinders worth of 

refrigerant into appliances whether the 

appliance requires it or not, because 

technicians do not like carrying 

partially empty cylinders on their 

trucks. The commenter asserted that this 

would lead to a larger number of 

chronically leaking appliances, not 

because these appliances are in fact 

leaking chronically, but rather because 

of the nature and size of the appliances 

that would be regulated under the 

proposed rule. 

Response: EPA views the chronic leak 

reports as necessary to supporting the 

Agency’s efforts to reduce emissions of 

refrigerants from appliances. EPA does 

not view an increase in chronic leak 

reporting for appliances below 50 

pounds negatively because the Agency 

wants to ascertain issues with 

refrigerant-containing appliances and 

better understand why such appliances 

at all charge sizes are chronically 

leaking. For example, as the commenter 

stated some appliances with small 

charge sizes lose their full charge very 

quickly, and the Agency wants to know 

why these appliances are leaking at 

such a high rate and what owners or 

operators are doing to repair the leaks to 

ensure that the appliances are no longer 

chronically leaking. The Agency 

disagrees that these appliances would 

not be considered chronically leaking 

because of their size or the way they are 

serviced. EPA also notes that the 

commenter’s description of servicing a 

small appliance is concerning because 

the overcharging of an appliance may 

lead to additional issues with leaks. It 

is unclear from the commenter’s 

description why a technician would 

potentially overcharge a system simply 

to avoid having to carry partial 

cylinders. Regardless of the 

commenter’s example, any appliance 

leaking more than 125 percent of its full 

charge in one year is subject to the final 

rule’s chronic leak reporting. 

f. Retrofit and Retirement Plans 

EPA is finalizing aspects of the 

proposed retrofit and retirement plan 

provision, with modifications after 

consideration of the comments and 

information received on the proposed 

rule. EPA is requiring the development 

of retrofit and retirement plans for 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

contain HFCs and certain substitutes for 

HFCs, where leaks cannot be repaired, 

or when an owner or operator chooses 

to retrofit or retire an appliance rather 

than repair a leak. As further discussed 

in section IV.A.2 of this preamble, EPA 

is not finalizing the aspect of the 

proposed definition of retrofit that 

would require that a retrofit be to a 

lower-GWP alternative than the original 

refrigerant; thus, the final rule allows 

the retrofit of refrigerant-containing 

appliances to a refrigerant that does not 

have a lower-GWP than the original 

refrigerant. This determination is based 

on consideration of the potential 

compliance burden of requiring retrofits 

to lower-GWP refrigerants for certain 

appliances subject to the leak repair 

provision. However, the Agency 

encourages owner/operators to choose 

lower-GWP options when considering 

retrofits. 

The final rule provides the details on 

the timing for creating a retrofit or 

retirement plan for covered refrigerantcontaining appliances, and what must 

be contained in a retrofit or retirement 

plan. EPA is requiring that a retrofit or 

retirement plan be created within 30 

days of certain scenarios. The Agency 

understands this timing is sufficient for 

an owner or operator to either attempt 

to repair the leak with all the necessary 

requirements as described in section 

IV.C.3.b of this preamble or make a 

business decision to directly begin the 

retrofit or retirement process. It is 

necessary to cap this timing requirement 

to minimize emissions from leaks in the 

case where an owner or operator fails to 

take any action after finding that their 

applicable refrigerant-containing 

appliance is leaking above the 

applicable leak threshold. After 30 days, 

the owner or operator must begin 

developing a retrofit or retirement plan. 

The following scenarios describe when 

a retrofit or retirement plan must be 

developed: 

• A refrigerant-containing appliance 

is leaking above the applicable leak rate, 

and the owner or operator intends to 

retrofit or retire the appliance rather 

than repair the leak; 

• A refrigerant-containing appliance 

is leaking above the applicable leak rate, 

and the owner or operator fails to take 

action to identify or repair the leak; or 

• A refrigerant-containing appliance 

is continuing to leak above the 

applicable leak rate after an attempted 

leak repair and verification testing. 

EPA is requiring that the retrofit or 

retirement plan include information 

regarding the location of the appliance, 

characteristics of the appliance, a 

procedure for how the appliance will be 

converted to accommodate a different 

refrigerant (if the appliance is being 

retrofitted), plans for the disposition of 

any recovered refrigerant and the 

appliance (if the appliance is being 

retired), and a schedule for the 

completion of the appliance retrofit or 

retirement. Characteristics of the 

appliance that will be retrofitted or 

retired include the type and full charge 

of the refrigerant used in the appliance, 

and for retrofitting, the type and full 

charge of the refrigerant to which the 

appliance will be retrofitted. In 

describing how the appliance will be 

retrofitted, the owner or operator must 

include an itemized procedure for 

converting the appliance to a different 

refrigerant, including changes required 

for compatibility. This also includes any 

changes for compatibility that relate to 

safety considerations to ensure the 

safety of technicians and consumers 

when converting an appliance to a 

different refrigerant, which further 

serves one of the purposes identified in 

subsection (h)(1). EPA is also requiring 

that the retrofit or retirement plan must 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82735 

include information on how any 

recovered refrigerant is being 

dispositioned. In the case of retiring an 

appliance, the retirement plan needs to 

include how the appliance is being 

disposed of. EPA is establishing that the 

retrofit or retirement plan must include 

a schedule for completion of the retrofit 

or retirement and, unless additional 

time is granted, that the schedule may 

not exceed one year of the plan’s date 

(not to exceed 12 months from when the 

plan was finalized). Owners or operators 

may request relief from the provisions of 

a retrofit or retirement plan if they are 

able to prove that an appliance is no 

longer leaking above the applicable leak 

rate within 180 days of creating the plan 

and they agree to repair all identified 

leaks within one year of the plan’s date. 

The owner or operator is required to 

submit specified information to EPA, 

including information regarding leaks in 

the appliance, descriptions of the work 

completed/to be completed, and more, 

per 40 CFR 84.106(h)(5)(ii). 

For IPR equipment, extension 

requests are allowed in cases where 

requirements or other applicable 

Federal, State, local, or tribal regulations 

make it impossible to complete the 

retrofit or retirement within one year. In 

this case, owners or operators could be 

permitted additional time to the extent 

needed to comply with the applicable 

regulations. EPA is also establishing a 

provision that allows for extensions to 

be requested for IPR equipment if the 

equipment is custom-built and the 

supplier of the appliance or one of its 

components has quoted a delivery time 

of more than 30 weeks. In such cases, 

the appliance or component must be 

installed within 120 days of receipt. If 

additional time is needed, the owner or 

operator would need to submit a request 

for the additional time to EPA. Further, 

extensions can be requested to complete 

a retrofit or retirement if the IPR 

equipment is located in an area subject 

to radiological contamination or if 

shutting down the appliance will 

directly lead to radiological 

contamination. In this case, EPA is 

allowing additional time to the extent 

necessary to complete the retrofit in a 

safe working environment. EPA did not 

propose and is not finalizing extensions 

specifically applicable to federally 

owned equipment (see, e.g., the 

provisions at 40 CFR 82.157(i)(3)). EPA 

discussed in the proposal that these 

circumstances can be addressed under 

the other extension provisions. 

As noted in the proposal, these 

requirements reduce emissions by 

capping the amount of time an 

appliance can remain in operation when 

it is known to be leaking above the leak 

rate threshold. Developing the retrofit or 

retirement plan is a key process in 

ensuring that each step of the plan is 

successfully performed such that 

releases of HFCs are minimized and the 

reclaiming of the HFCs can be 

maximized. Owners or operators may 

choose to retrofit or retire a leaking 

appliance rather than repair a leak, or, 

in some situations, may be required to 

retrofit or retire the appliance if 

successful leak repair cannot be 

achieved and verified. The requirements 

also further serve the purposes of 

minimizing releases and maximizing the 

reclaiming of HFCs, as proper retrofit or 

retirement of a leaking appliance helps 

ensure that further HFC emissions from 

such equipment are mitigated. 

Additionally, in the process of 

retrofitting or retiring an appliance, the 

refrigerant that was remaining in the 

leaking appliance must be recovered 

and could then subsequently be 

reclaimed. 

Comment: Several commenters 

provided recommendations for EPA’s 

proposal regarding retrofit and 

retirement plans. Two commenters 

requested that retrofit and retirement 

plans include a provision to retrofit an 

appliance with a lower-GWP refrigerant. 

Another commenter suggested EPA 

allow for a repair plan for IPR 

appliances to ensure continued 

operation of industrial manufacturing 

processes that rely on IPR systems to 

continue to operate while the owner or 

operator pursues repair of the appliance. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

it is unfeasible to retrofit IPR appliances 

with evaporator temperatures below 

¥50 °C (¥58 °F) because lowtemperature appliances are typically not 

retrofitted and have limited lower-GWP 

options, as demonstrated by the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule exclusion 

of these systems. The commenter stated 

that the design and replacement of these 

systems may take several years, and a 

repair plan should allow the facility to 

continue operations while taking the 

necessary steps to address the leaks. 

Response: EPA is finalizing aspects of 

the proposed retrofit and retirement 

plan provision, with modifications after 

consideration of the comments and 

information received on the proposed 

rule. In the final rule, the Agency is not 

requiring that retrofit plans must 

transition to lower-GWP refrigerants 

(see section IV.A.2 of this preamble). 

The decision of what type of retrofit is 

appropriate when a refrigerantcontaining appliance cannot be repaired 

is the decision of the owner/operator; 

however, EPA encourages owners or 

operators to retrofit appliances to lowerGWP refrigerants. It is also up to the 

discretion of the owner or operator to 

decide if an appliance can be retrofitted 

or retired and replaced when an owner 

or operator cannot repair a leak below 

the applicable threshold within the final 

rule’s provided leak repair timeframe. 

While some commenters suggest the 

Agency should require retrofitted 

appliances to use lower-GWP 

refrigerants, EPA has determined that 

requiring the use of lower-GWP 

refrigerants may pose a compliance 

issue with the provision. For certain 

appliances with limited lower-GWP 

alternatives, the proposal’s definition of 

retrofit would have limited said 

appliances from having the option to 

retrofit. As previously discussed in this 

section, the retrofit and retirement 

provision reduces emissions of HFCs 

and covered substitutes by capping the 

amount of time an appliance can remain 

in operation when it is known to be 

leaking above the applicable leak rate 

threshold. Limiting certain appliance 

owners to one method of compliance 

(i.e., retirement) would not further the 

purpose of this rule to reduce emissions 

from equipment and may increase noncompliance with the provision in 

certain instances (e.g., an owner or 

operator is unable to retrofit an 

appliance with a lower-GWP 

refrigerant). EPA notes that not all 

appliances are fit to be retrofitted; 

however, the proposal’s definition of 

retrofit may have been too restrictive in 

how appliances could be retrofitted to 

comply with the leak repair provisions 

in the final rule. 

EPA disagrees with one commenter’s 

request to allow for a repair plan for 

appliances incapable of repairing leaks 

in the final rule’s specified timeframe. 

The continuous operation of an 

appliance that is leaking above its 

applicable leak rate threshold is directly 

opposed to reducing emissions and 

further serving the purposes outlined in 

subsection (h)(1). The commenter’s 

suggested repair plan would not 

adequately address leaks in a timely 

manner in order to minimize the release 

of refrigerants. and continued operation 

of the appliance would necessitate the 

addition of more refrigerant that would 

also be at risk of being emitted. The 

final rule provides 12 months from the 

approval of a retrofit or retirement plan 

to retrofit or replace a system. There is 

also the ability to extend the 

implementation of an owner or 

operator’s retrofit or retirement plan by 

one year if certain conditions are met. 

The Agency finds this timing to be 

sufficient and notes that the commenter 

did not provide sufficient evidence to 

prove that these specific IPR systems 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82736 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

take an exceptionally long time to 

replace. In regard to the commenter’s 

concerns on retrofitting not typically 

being an option for certain lowtemperature IPR systems due to limited 

lower-GWP options, EPA reiterates that 

changes to the definition of retrofit 

should permit the retrofit of these 

appliances. This change should provide 

owners and operators with the option to 

retrofit or retire an appliance, even 

under the circumstances described by 

the commenter. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

30 days is inadequate to develop a 

retrofit and retirement plan for complex 

appliances like supermarket systems. 

The commenter claimed that multiple 

repair attempts may be necessary to 

effectuate a repair and stated that 

owners or operators would not have the 

opportunity to conduct multiple repair 

attempts and would therefore be pushed 

into developing a retrofit and retirement 

plan. Further, the commenter asserted 

that there is uncertainty on the 

timeframe to complete retrofit or 

retirement plans because the approval of 

extension requests is at EPA’s 

discretion. For these reasons, the 

commenter suggested EPA extend the 

time to create a retrofit and retirement 

plan to 90 days to allow for sufficient 

development of the plan. Additionally, 

the commenter suggested EPA could 

adopt retrofit or retirement planning if 

an appliance has two or more leaks 

during which a certain percentage of the 

full charge is lost in a calendar year. The 

commenter also proposed an alternative 

relief provision if the owner or operator 

has a zero percent leak rate for the first 

180 days of the following calendar year. 

The commenter also asserted that the 

rule exceeds EPA’s authority under the 

AIM Act because it would undermine 

key flexibilities intended by Congress in 

phasing down HFCs. The commenter 

asserted that the AIM Act does not 

confer limitless authority to EPA to 

impose the expansive and unnecessarily 

burdensome leak detection and repair 

requirements set forth in the proposed 

rule. The commenter also claimed that 

subsection (h) does not authorize the 

Agency to compel retrofit of existing 

refrigeration appliances with lowerGWP refrigerants or to require system 

retrofit or retirement in situations where 

leaks cannot be addressed under the 

narrow leak repair timeline in the final 

rule. The commenter further stated that 

finalizing these requirements would 

contravene the congressional intent that 

EPA establish a market-based 

mechanism to phase down HFCs in an 

economically efficient way and that 

existing systems be exempt from 

technology-forcing regulations, which 

are only authorized under subsection (i). 

Response: The Agency disagrees that 

30 days is not enough time to prepare 

a retrofit or retirement plan. Owners or 

operators will typically know during the 

leak repair process whether they will 

retrofit or retire an appliance. Some 

owners or operators might also prefer to 

opt into a retrofit or retirement plan in 

lieu of attempting a leak repair or if the 

appliance is continuing to leak above 

the applicable leak rate after an 

attempted leak repair(s) and verification 

testing. The Agency clarifies that the 

leak repair provision does not bar 

owners or operators from conducting 

multiple repair attempts and 

verification tests within the leak repair 

timeline described in section IV.C.3.b of 

this preamble, contrary to the 

commenter’s claim. If the owner or 

operation intends to repair the leaks and 

a repair is attempted, the retrofit or 

retirement requirement in this final rule 

does not begin until the required repairs 

and verification tests have been 

completed but the appliance has not 

been brought below the applicable leak 

rate threshold in the allotted leak repair 

timeframe (see 40 CFR 84.106(h)(1)(iii)). 

If the initial verification test indicates 

that the repairs have not been 

successful, the owner or operator may 

conduct as many additional repairs and 

initial verification tests as needed 

within the applicable time period (see 

40 CFR 84.106(e)(1)(iii)) and may also 

request an extension if the applicable 

requirements under 40 CFR 84.106(f) are 

met; such requests are considered 

approved unless EPA notifies the 

owners or operators otherwise. 

Additionally, the required information 

(40 CFR 84.106(h)(2)) for retrofit or 

retirement plans should be readily 

available to the owner or operator. EPA 

clarifies that retrofit or retirement plans 

are not required to be submitted to the 

Agency; the plans must be retained as 

record on the site of the refrigerantcontaining appliance that can be made 

readily available for inspection by EPA. 

Therefore, there is no uncertainty with 

whether the Agency would accept a 

retrofit or retirement plan, because it is 

not required to be reported to the 

Agency unless the owner or operator is 

requesting relief from a retrofit or 

retirement plan or the owner or operator 

is requesting an extension in time to 

complete the retrofit or retirement of an 

appliance. Further, the Agency is 

providing clarity in the final rule that a 

retrofit or retirement plan is necessary 

when: 

• A refrigerant-containing appliance 

is leaking above the applicable leak rate, 

and the owner or operator intends to 

retrofit or retire the appliance rather 

than repair the leak; 

• A refrigerant-containing appliance 

is leaking above the applicable leak rate, 

and the owner or operator fails to take 

action to identify or repair the leak; or 

• A refrigerant-containing appliance 

is continuing to leak above the 

applicable leak rate, even after 

attempted leak repair(s) and verification 

testing. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s suggested alternative 

approaches to a retrofit or retirement 

plan because they would inadequately 

address emissions from appliances that 

are leaking above the applicable leak 

rate threshold compared to the 

requirements EPA proposed and is 

finalizing in this rulemaking. Providing 

90 days as the default period to develop 

a retrofit or retirement plan would delay 

planning for and implementation of 

certain measures to address such 

appliances, including in situations 

where the owner or operator could 

comply with the 30-day timeframe for 

the plan. Similarly, waiting for an endof-year calculation to determine 

whether an appliance requires retrofit or 

retirement would lead to an 

indeterminant amount of refrigerant 

being emitted during the year. Thus, the 

commenter’s proposals would not 

promptly address emissions from 

refrigerant-containing appliances and 

would further delay the process for 

retrofitting or retiring a refrigerantcontaining appliance that continues to 

leak above the applicable leak rate 

threshold, including in situations where 

the leaks cannot be repaired; those 

appliances would be expected to 

continue to leak above the applicable 

threshold during that delay, thus 

leading to additional emissions from 

these appliances. For these reasons, the 

commenter’s proposals would not be a 

well-suited approach compared to the 

provisions for retrofit and retirement 

plans that EPA proposed and is 

finalizing to minimize releases from 

equipment and maximize reclamation. 

Additionally, the commenter’s 

alternative to the relief provision is not 

reasonable, as having a zero percent leak 

rate in the first 180 days of the following 

calendar year could cause the relief 

provision to fall well outside the 

timeframe for retrofit and retirement 

plans. The Agency clarifies that retrofit 

and retirement plans are to be 

completed within 12 months of 

submitting the retrofit and retirement 

plan, unless an extension as outlined in 

40 CFR 84.106(i) applies. The provision 

is not based on the calendar year; rather, 

the timeframe is based on the owner or 

operator not repairing leaks below the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82737 

applicable threshold within the allotted 

time for leak repair and thus needing to 

develop a retrofit or retirement plan. 

Specifically, the timeframe for 

completion of a retrofit or retirement 

plan begins when an owner or operator 

submits their retrofit or retirement plan 

to the Agency. Owners or operators can 

apply for relief from their retrofit or 

retirement plan within 180 days of the 

plan’s date if, among other things, they 

can establish the appliance is repaired 

and no longer leaking above the 

applicable leak rate. EPA also clarifies 

that the Agency is not requiring 

appliances to have a zero percent leak 

rate, because this may be unreasonable 

for certain appliances at certain charge 

sizes. Owners or operators must simply 

ensure that an appliance is leaking 

below an appliance’s applicable leak 

rate threshold and meet the other 

requirements listed in 40 CFR 

84.106(h)(5)(ii) to apply for relief from 

their retrofit or retirement plans. 

With respect to the comments on 

EPA’s legal authority, EPA notes that it 

is not further addressing the comments 

on whether it has legal authority to 

require that retrofits use a lower-GWP 

refrigerant because it is not finalizing 

such a requirement in this action. EPA 

disagrees with the comments that 

subsection (h) does not authorize the 

Agency to require system retrofit or 

retirement in situations where leaks 

cannot be addressed under the narrow 

leak repair timeline, and with those that 

claim the requirement contravenes 

congressional intent. EPA interprets its 

regulatory authority under subsection 

(h)(1) to include authority to establish 

requirements related to the prevention 

and repair of leaks for equipment 

containing HFCs or substitutes for 

HFCs, as such requirements control 

practices, processes, and activities 

regarding the servicing, repair, disposal, 

or installation of equipment. These 

requirements also implement the 

purposes identified in subsection (h) of 

minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment and maximizing reclamation. 

The leak detection and repair 

requirements finalized in this rule, 

including the retrofit or retirement 

requirements, fit squarely within this 

grant of authority. The retrofit or 

retirement requirements apply when the 

leak has not been repaired consistent 

with the regulatory requirements and 

are designed to ensure that additional 

action is taken to address such leaks and 

limit the ongoing release of the 

refrigerant to the environment, thus 

serving the purposes identified in 

subsection (h) of maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing release of 

HFCs from equipment. The types of 

activities taken as part of retrofit or 

retirement—such as modifications to the 

appliance needed to convert it to a new 

refrigerant, switching the refrigerant 

from the old to the new refrigerant, and 

repairing all identified leaks for a 

retrofit, or actions to retire and dispose 

of the appliance in the case of a 

retirement—are typical examples of the 

kinds activities related to the servicing, 

repair, installation, or disposal of 

equipment that Congress authorized 

EPA to control through regulations 

under subsection (h). 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s characterization of 

Congressional intent, as that 

characterization ignores the role of 

subsection (h) in the overall statutory 

scheme. The AIM Act contains a variety 

of provisions that are targeted at 

addressing different aspects of regulated 

substances. This rule does not address 

the Act’s phasedown provisions, nor 

does it address the technology transition 

provisions; thus, comments directed at 

those provisions are beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking and require no further 

response. However, to the extent that 

the comment suggests that these aspects 

of the AIM Act preclude EPA from 

issuing regulations that subsection (h) 

directs it to issue, EPA disagrees. 

Rather, EPA views the Act as providing 

separate and distinct regulatory 

authorities, which can be implemented 

in ways that reinforce and complement 

one another. EPA also disagrees with 

the commenter’s implication that 

technology-forcing regulations are only 

authorized under subsection (i) of the 

Act. The plain text of the Act includes 

no such limitation. Interpreting the Act 

to include one would limit EPA’s ability 

to fulfill the direction and achieve the 

purposes stated in subsection (h). While 

EPA acknowledges that subsection 

(i)(7)(B), entitled ‘‘Applicability of 

Rules,’’ includes the limitation that a 

‘‘rule promulgated under this subsection 

shall not apply . . . except for a retrofit 

application, equipment in existence in a 

sector or subsector before December 27, 

2020,’’ that restriction expressly applies 

only to rules issued under subsection 

(i); it does not apply to rules 

promulgated under subsection (h), such 

as this rule. In fact, subsection (h) 

includes its own provision addressing 

inapplicability for regulations under (h) 

at (subsection (h)(4) entitled 

‘‘Inapplicability’’). That provision does 

not mention any limitation on 

application of the rules to existing 

equipment. If Congress had intended for 

such a limitation to apply under 

subsection (h), it is reasonable to expect 

that legislators would have explicitly 

included it in this provision, as they did 

in subsection (i)(7)(B). 

Regarding the commenter’s assertion 

that the AIM Act does not confer 

limitless authority to EPA to impose the 

proposed ‘‘expansive’’ and 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ leak 

detection and repair requirements, the 

Agency does not view the AIM Act as 

conferring limitless authority. Instead, 

EPA concludes that in this rule the 

requirements that are being finalized are 

well within the scope of authority 

provided by the AIM Act and are 

consistent with subsection (h), for the 

reasons described previously in this 

response and elsewhere in this final 

rule. EPA disagrees with the 

characterization of this rule as 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ for the 

reasons described in section IV.C.2 of 

this preamble. Further, the Agency has 

explained why these requirements are 

appropriate for serving the purposes 

under subsection (h) as described 

throughout this section of the preamble. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that EPA align the 

requirements for retrofit or retirement 

plans with the CAA section 608 

regulations to reduce uncertainty and 

compliance costs. The commenter also 

suggested that EPA consider merging 

the entire leak detection and repair 

programs under CAA section 608 and 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act into one 

regulation to help streamline the 

respective requirements and avoid 

confusion in compliance on the part of 

owners and operators. 

Response: EPA clarifies that this 

specific provision and many other leak 

repair provisions in the final rule largely 

aligned with regulations under CAA 

section 608. When creating this final 

rule, EPA looked to align the provisions 

with the CAA while also building on the 

CAA regulations where appropriate 

(e.g., changing the charge size threshold 

to 15 pounds for leak repair). 

Additionally, EPA notes that the leak 

repair rules under the CAA and this 

final rule were promulgated under two 

separate statutory authorities, and that 

the Agency did not propose to reopen 

the requirements under the CAA as part 

of this rulemaking. Thus, the Agency is 

not merging the requirements in the way 

the commenter suggest in this action. 

However, as previously stated we have 

evaluated how to make the leak repair 

provisions under the CAA and AIM Act 

streamlined and understandable. EPA 

disagrees that this final rule will cause 

confusion for owners and operators. As 

stated previously, this final rule is 

largely aligned with the leak repair 

requirements under CAA section 608. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82738 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

g. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

EPA is requiring recordkeeping 

requirements for refrigerant-containing 

appliances with a charge size of 15 

pounds or more of a refrigerant 

containing an HFC or a substitute for an 

HFC with a GWP above 53 under 

subsection (h) that are similar to those 

at 40 CFR 82.157(l). Where EPA is 

establishing requirements for 

recordkeeping, the record must be 

maintained for three years in either 

paper or electronic format. An owner or 

operator may contract out the record 

generation responsibilities but retains 

ultimate liability for compliance and 

must be able to access these records 

electronically or in hard copy from the 

facility where the appliance is located. 

All recordkeeping requirements can be 

found in 40 CFR 84.106(l). These 

records are the primary means for the 

facility to demonstrate compliance with 

the leak repair requirements, and EPA 

will review them when evaluating 

compliance. EPA will access these 

records in various ways, including, but 

not limited to, on-site review of the 

records or requesting them via an 

information request. In general, EPA is 

establishing the following 

recordkeeping requirements for owners 

and operators under subsection (h): 

• Maintain records documenting the 

full charge of appliances; 

• Maintain records, such as invoices 

or other documentation showing when 

refrigerant is added or removed from an 

appliance, when a leak inspection is 

performed, when a verification test is 

conducted, and when service or 

maintenance is performed; 

• Maintain retrofit and/or retirement 

plans; 

• Maintain retrofit and/or extension 

requests submitted to EPA; 

• If a system is mothballed to 

suspend a deadline, maintain records 

documenting when the system was 

mothballed and when it was brought 

back on-line (i.e., when refrigerant was 

added back into the appliance or 

isolated component of the appliance); 

• Maintain records of purged and 

destroyed refrigerant if excluding such 

refrigerant from the leak rate; 

• Maintain records to demonstrate a 

seasonal variance; and 

• Maintain copies of any reports 

submitted to EPA under the reporting 

requirements in this action. 

EPA is also requiring reporting and 

recordkeeping for refrigerant-containing 

appliances with a charge size of 15 

pounds or more of a refrigerant 

containing an HFC or a substitute for an 

HFC with a GWP above 53 under 

subsection (h) that are similar to those 

at 40 CFR 82.157(m). The reporting 

requirements include notifications to 

EPA that include specified information 

when: 

• The owner or operator is seeking an 

extension to complete repairs; 

• The owner or operator is seeking an 

extension to complete a retrofit or 

retirement plan; 

• The owner or operator is seeking 

relief from the obligation to retrofit or 

retire an appliance; 

• An appliance leaks 125 percent or 

more of the full charge in a calendar 

year; 

• The owner or operator is excluding 

purged refrigerants that are destroyed 

from annual leak rate calculations for 

the first time. 

Additional detail on these 

recordkeeping requirements is available 

at 40 CFR 84.106(l). The recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in this 

action for ALD systems are described in 

section IV.D.2 of this preamble. 

As discussed in the proposal, the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements support compliance with 

the leak repair provisions under the 

final rule for applicable refrigerantcontaining appliances that contain HFCs 

or certain substitutes for HFCs as a 

refrigerant. For example, the 

requirements will control recordkeeping 

and reporting practices, processes, or 

activities for servicing and repair that 

involves HFCs or a substitute for an 

HFC. As discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble, EPA’s authority to require 

recordkeeping and reporting under the 

AIM Act is also supported by section 

114 of the CAA, which applies to the 

AIM Act and rules promulgated under 

it as provided in subsection (k)(1)(C) of 

the AIM Act. The recordkeeping and 

requirements related to the leak repair 

requirements under this rulemaking are 

applicable to the full range of 

appliances that are subject to the leak 

repair provisions, including those 

containing at least 15 pounds of 

refrigerant with limited exemptions, as 

described in section IV.C.2.b of this 

preamble for certain appliances. The 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements provide critical 

information about whether required 

actions were taken and are part of the 

suite of compliance tools included in 

this rule. Compliance with the overall 

leak repair requirements is intended to 

minimize the release of refrigerants, and 

the Agency considers these 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements necessary to readily assess 

compliance. Records that demonstrate 

noncompliance or are incomplete may 

be used for enforcement purposes. The 

requirements are informed in part by 

EPA’s consideration of its experience 

implementing similar regulations under 

CAA section 608 at 40 CFR 82.157 and 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that have been used to 

ensure compliance with those 

provisions. 

Furthermore, EPA notes that there are 

existing recordkeeping requirements at 

40 CFR 82.156(a)(3) for technicians 

evacuating refrigerant from appliances 

with a full charge of more than 5 and 

less than 50 pounds of refrigerant for 

purposes of disposal of that appliance. 

These records are used to assess 

technicians’ compliance with the 

disposal requirements for appliances 

between 5 to 50 pounds under 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F and are not related to 

the owner/operator’s compliance with 

the leak repair requirements. 

Additionally, EPA notes that the bulk of 

the appliances covered by the 

recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 

82.156(a)(3) are residential air 

conditioning appliances, which are 

exempt from the leak repair provisions 

in this action. EPA did not reopen any 

of the provisions in 40 CFR part 82 

through this notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, and thus the Agency did 

not propose any changes to the 

referenced recordkeeping requirements. 

The Agency does not view these 

recordkeeping requirements as being in 

conflict with the leak repair 

requirements in this final rule, nor does 

the Agency view them as redundant. 

Comment: A commenter requested 

clarification on the effective date of leak 

repair requirements as it relates to 

recordkeeping, considering the leak rate 

calculation methodologies would 

require existing records in order to 

determine the leak rate. The commenter 

stated that some facilities with 

appliances with a charge size greater 

than 50 pounds may not have records 

because of the lack of existing leak 

repair requirements. The commenter 

requests clarity on what owners or 

operators should do if records are 

unavailable to determine the leak rate 

and determine if repairs are required. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s concerns about accurately 

calculating the leak rate of appliances 

without previously available records. As 

discussed in section IV.C.3.a of this 

preamble, because no records are 

required for addition of refrigerants to 

an appliance prior to January 1, 2026, 

owners or operators may calculate leak 

rates for appliances containing an HFC 

or HFC substitute with a GWP greater 

than 53 as though there were no 

additions prior to that date. For 

example, if an owner or operator is 

using the annualizing method for the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82739 

first addition of refrigerant in calendar 

year 2026, the second term would be 

365/365 (or ‘‘1’’). For subsequent 

additions the second term would be 365 

divided by the shorter of the number of 

days since refrigerant was last added or 

365. Alternatively, if an owner or 

operator is using the rolling average 

method for the first addition of 

refrigerant in calendar year 2026, the 

numerator would be the pounds of 

refrigerant added since the shorter of 

January 1, 2026, or the last successful 

follow-up verification test, if one was 

conducted in 2026. For subsequent 

additions the numerator is the pounds 

of refrigerant added since the shorter of 

365 days or the last successful followup verification test. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

the Agency clearly state in the 

regulatory text how and where required 

information is submitted electronically 

so the regulated community knows 

where and how to transmit the required 

information. 

Response: EPA is creating a webbased platform for owners or operators 

to submit requests for extensions, 

chronic leak reports, and other 

reportable materials to the Agency. The 

Agency intends to provide additional 

information and guidance on reporting 

at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcsreduction/managing-use-and-reusehfcs-and-substitutes. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements should not apply to 

residences, families, and landlords 

unless a threshold of several owned 

units is surpassed. 

Response: As previously discussed in 

section IV.C.2 of this preamble, EPA is 

exempting appliances in the residential 

and light commercial air conditioning 

and heat pump subsector from the leak 

repair provisions of the final rule and 

those appliances are not subject to 

recordkeeping and reporting. EPA did 

not propose and is not finalizing any 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for homeowners or 

landlords using air conditioning 

appliances in this subsector. 

D. How is EPA establishing 

requirements for the installation of 

automatic leak detection systems? 

EPA is finalizing aspects of the 

proposed ALD requirements, with 

modifications after consideration of the 

comments and information received on 

the proposed rule. EPA is finalizing that 

ALD systems must be installed and used 

for new and certain existing refrigerantcontaining appliances in the IPR and 

commercial refrigeration subsectors 

with a charge size of 1,500 pounds or 

more. This provision applies to those 

refrigerant-containing appliances in the 

IPR or commercial refrigeration 

subsector that contain an HFC or a 

substitute for an HFC with a GWP 

greater than 53. In the proposal, new 

refrigerant-containing appliances 

installed after 60 days of the publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register 

were required to install and use an ALD 

within 30 days of appliance installation. 

EPA proposed that existing refrigerantcontaining appliances installed before 

60 days after the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register 

were required to install and use an ALD 

system by one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. EPA is finalizing that 

beginning January 1, 2026, new 

refrigerant-containing appliances with a 

full charge of 1,500-pounds or greater in 

the IPR and commercial refrigeration 

subsectors are required to install an 

ALD system as a part of the overall 

appliance installation, either during the 

installation of the new appliance or 

within 30 days from when the new 

appliance is installed. Generally 

depending on the type of ALD system, 

it may be more practicable to install an 

ALD system during the appliance 

installation. The compliance date for the 

installation and use of ALD systems is 

over one year later than proposed to 

provide additional time for new 

appliance owners to procure and install 

ALD systems because additional time 

may be needed to secure a contractor or 

technician to install the ALD system, or 

there may be unforeseen delays in 

acquiring an ALD system. For existing 

IPR and commercial refrigeration 

appliances installed on or after January 

1, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, EPA 

is requiring that ALD systems be 

installed and used by January 1, 2027. 

The change to the compliance date and 

applicability for existing IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances 

with a full charge of 1,500 pounds or 

greater was informed by commenters 

and further considerations by EPA to 

ease potential supply issues and 

facilitate compliance with this 

provision. For these appliances, the 

compliance date has been extended by 

one year (i.e., to January 1, 2027) to 

allow additional time for existing 

appliances to comply with the 

provision, and the applicability of 

appliances affected by this provision 

has been altered to ensure that a proper 

supply of ALD systems is available to 

owners and operators. Further 

discussion of this change can be found 

later in this section. 

As discussed in the proposal, ALD 

systems serve the purposes described in 

subsection (h)(1) to control any practice, 

process, or activity regarding servicing, 

repair, or installation of such 

appliances, that involves a regulated 

substance or a substitute for a regulated 

substance. When an ALD system detects 

a leak in a refrigerant-containing 

appliance covered by this rule, an 

owner or operator of the appliance is 

required to either perform practices, 

processes, and/or activities to determine 

whether service or repair of the 

appliance is necessary (i.e., calculating 

a leak rate and assessing it compared to 

the applicable leak rate for the type of 

appliance) or, alternatively, 

preemptively repair the leak (i.e., before 

adding refrigerant and calculating the 

leak rate). The Agency is explicitly 

encouraging preemptive repair of a leak 

as a compliance option to avoid the 

need to add refrigerant to an appliance 

with a known leak (which would 

otherwise generally be necessary to 

calculate the leak rate and determine if 

the applicable leak rate is exceeded). If 

the preemptive repair is being used as 

a compliance option, it must occur 

within 30 days (or 120 days where an 

industrial process shutdown is 

necessary) of the alert. Taken together, 

these requirements are expected to 

facilitate prompt repair of leaks, which 

further helps minimize releases of 

regulated substances from equipment 

and maximize the amounts of regulated 

substances remaining in the equipment 

for eventual recovery and reclamation. 

In the case of preemptive repair, this 

compliance option provides the 

opportunity to repair an appliance that 

is known to be leaking prior to the 

addition of refrigerant. When refrigerant 

is added to an appliance that underwent 

preemptive repair, a leak rate 

calculation is still required after the 

addition of refrigerant. Owners or 

operators choosing to preemptively 

repair identified leaks per 40 CFR 

84.108(h)(2) are not required to conduct 

an initial or follow-up verification test 

at the time of leak repair, unless the 

calculated leak rate performed after 

refrigerant is added is above the 

applicable leak rate. If the refrigerantcontaining appliance is found to be 

leaking above the applicable leak rate 

threshold after preemptive repair the 

full suite of leak repair requirements 

(e.g., initial and follow-up verification 

tests) will still apply. EPA clarifies that 

owners or operators using the rolling 

average method must continue to use 

the date of the last successful follow-up 

verification test or 365 days, whichever 

is shorter, to calculate the leak rate. If 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82740 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

76ASHRAE Standard 34–2022 assigns a safety 

group classification for each refrigerant which 

consists of two alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2 or 

B1). The capital letter indicates the toxicity class 

(‘‘A’’ for lower toxicity) and the numeral denotes 

the flammability. ASHRAE recognizes three 

classifications and one subclass for refrigerant 

flammability. The three main flammability 

classifications are Class 1, for refrigerants that do 

not propagate a flame when tested as per the 

ASHRAE 34 standard, ‘‘Designation and Safety 

Classification of Refrigerants;’’ Class 2, for 

refrigerants of lower flammability; and Class 3, for 

highly flammable refrigerants, such as the 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. ASHRAE recently 

updated the safety classification matrix to include 

a new flammability subclass 2L, for flammability 

Class 2 refrigerants that burn very slowly. 

77UL. 2019. ‘‘Understanding UL 60335–2–40 

Refrigerant Detector Requirements.’’ https://

www.ul.com/insights/updated-requirementsrefrigerant-detection-systems. 

78UL 60335–2–40, 2019. Household And Similar 

Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2–40: 

Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps, 

Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. Third Edition. 

November 1, 2019. 

multiple preemptive repairs (and 

associated refrigerant additions) are 

conducted within a time frame since the 

shorter of the last successful follow-up 

verification test or 365 days, the 

cumulative pounds of refrigerant added 

since the last successful follow-up 

verification test, or 365 days should be 

used to calculate the leak rate. For 

example, over a period of six months an 

owner or operator’s ALD alerts them of 

a leak three times. The owner or 

operator, each time the ALD alarm alerts 

them, preemptively repairs a refrigerantcontaining appliance and calculates the 

leak rate using the rolling average 

method. For the first refrigerant 

addition, the owner or operator uses the 

number of pounds added since the 

shorter of 365 days or the last successful 

follow-up verification test. For 

subsequent leaks detected by an ALD 

system, the owner or operator would 

use the cumulative amount of 

refrigerant added since the shorter of 

365 days or the last successful followup verification test. If the cumulative 

amount of refrigerant added causes the 

refrigerant-containing appliance to 

exceed its applicable leak rate, then the 

owner or operator must follow through 

with the full suite of leak repair 

requirements. 

The preemptive repair actions can be 

considered in determining whether the 

suite of leak repair requirements 

triggered by the exceedance of the 

applicable leak threshold have been 

satisfied, but the owner or operator of 

the appliance would still need to ensure 

that the leaks had been repaired 

according to the definition of repair and 

that the other requirements in 40 CFR 

84.106 (e.g., initial and follow-up 

verification tests, leak inspections 

(where applicable) and related 

recordkeeping) had been met. The 

timing of the leak repair requirements is 

the same as described in section 

IV.C.3.b of this preamble. If an owner or 

operator finds that the leak rate for a 

refrigerant-containing appliance is 

above the applicable leak rate threshold, 

the owner or operator must conduct an 

initial verification test in the 30-day 

timeframe for preemptive repair. A 

follow-up verification test must be 

conducted within 10 days of the 

successful initial verification tests, and 

leak inspections for portions of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance not 

monitored by an ALD system would 

begin after the date of a successful 

follow-up verification test. 

As previously discussed in section 

IV.C.3.d of this preamble, EPA considers 

the leak inspections that are being 

codified at 40 CFR 84.106(g) and the 

requirements related to ALD systems 

that are being codified at 40 CFR 84.108 

to be separate. However, in certain 

circumstances the use of ALD systems 

that meet certain requirements under 

the 40 CFR 84.108 is a compliance 

option that may be used in lieu of 

quarterly or annual leak inspections. 

Further, the regulations under CAA 

section 608 include provisions where an 

owner or operator of a covered 

appliance with ODS refrigerants may 

choose to use an ALD system in place 

of performing regular leak inspections 

as part of the leak repair provisions at 

40 CFR 82.157. Nothing in this final rule 

changes the requirements related to 

ALD systems under CAA section 608 for 

equipment containing only ODS 

refrigerants. In other words, an owner or 

operator of an appliance that uses ODScontaining refrigerants will continue to 

be required to meet any and all 

requirements under 40 CFR 82.157 for 

that appliance, including if they choose 

to use an ALD system to comply with 

requirements under 40 CFR 82.157. 

EPA understands that for reasons 

other than this rule, ALD systems are 

already in use to a certain extent. For 

example, some owners or operators may 

already use ALD systems to serve as an 

early warning system for detecting and 

repairing leaks. Some owners or 

operators may choose to install ALD 

systems from an economic perspective 

as early detection and repair of leaks 

can avoid costs of replacing the released 

refrigerant and operating equipment at 

suboptimal levels and/or the loss of 

perishable products due to failure to 

maintain required cooling. Further, the 

Agency is aware of safety standards that 

apply when using certain HFCs and/or 

substitutes for HFCs that have been 

classified as lower flammability. Lower 

flammability refrigerants in this context 

are those that are classified by ASHRAE 

as A2L refrigerants.76 UL Standard 

60335–2–40 currently requires the use 

of leak detectors for electrical heat 

pumps, air conditioners and 

dehumidifiers containing A2L 

refrigerants.77 78 Under that standard, 

leak detectors that detect pressure loss 

are required in cases where the 

prescribed A2L charge limit is exceeded 

(which is typically around four pounds 

for permanently installed applications). 

That standard also prescribes that 

refrigerant leak detectors be installed at 

the factory for applicable appliances 

and have factory-established set points 

for detection to avoid potential buildup 

of concentrations of flammable 

refrigerants. 

Comment: EPA received overall 

support for the proposed ALD 

provision. One commenter stated that 

they strongly support any measures that 

will strengthen leak management 

practices. The commenter indicated that 

the greater stringency under the 

proposal, as compared to a similar leak 

repair provision in CAA section 608 and 

the requirements for ALD systems, will 

help detect leaks early and thereby 

mitigate environmental and financials 

risks associated with high-volume 

refrigerant leakage. The commenter also 

stated the ALD requirements will 

strengthen the State refrigerant 

management program requirements in 

California and Washington. Another 

commenter similarly expressed support 

for the provision stating that ALD 

systems leverage technology to mitigate 

leakage and strengthen refrigerant 

management programs. Two 

commenters supported EPA’s efforts to 

implement leak detection and repair 

requirements through the AIM Act. One 

of the commenters shared that their 

refrigerant managers have found ALD 

systems useful for reducing fugitive 

refrigerant emissions and maximizing 

equipment performance and energy 

efficiency. Another commenter in 

support emphasized their shared goal to 

reduce leakage of HFCs and measurably 

reduce GHG emissions in the United 

States. Two commenters expressed 

support for the use of ALD systems for 

commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances with a charge size of 1,500 

pounds or more of HFC-containing 

appliances. One of the commenters 

asked that EPA examine any comments 

from manufacturers of equipment and 

ALD systems to ensure compliance 

timelines can be met without delaying 

the installation of new equipment or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82741 

79The commenter also indicated that the 

requirements that applied to certain substitute 

refrigerants under CAA section 608 were ‘‘vacated.’’ 

While actions under CAA section 608 are outside 

the scope of this rulemaking, the Agency notes for 

purposes of clarity and to avoid confusion that as 

discussed in greater detail in section III.C.1., EPA 

issued a rule in 2020 under section 608 which 

rescinded the 2016 extension of the leak repair 

requirements to appliances using HFCs and other 

non-exempt substitute refrigerants (85 FR 14150, 

March 11, 2020). Thus, it was a rulemaking by EPA 

that resulted in the leak repair requirements in 40 

CFR 82.157 no longer applying to appliances that 

use substitute refrigerants. While petitions for 

judicial review were filed on the 2020 rule, the case 

is currently in abeyance and the court has not 

issued any final decision nor has it vacated those 

requirements. 

implementation of ALD systems on 

existing equipment. 

Several commenters in support of the 

ALD requirements discussed how the 

provision would provide additional 

benefits and/or support existing efforts 

for refrigerant management. One 

commenter stated that ALD systems 

align with their commitment to 

environmental stewardship while 

maintaining the highest standards of 

service quality. Another commenter in 

support of the leak repair and ALD 

requirements stated the provisions 

would minimize releases from 

equipment and significantly reduce 

costs for businesses. The commenter 

provided information that estimated 

each supermarket in the United States 

leaks roughly 875 pounds of HFCs per 

year at a rate of two parts per million 

(ppm) to 182 ppm, and all supermarkets 

in the United States leak emissions 

equivalent to burning 49 billion pounds 

of coal. As discussed in section IV.C.3, 

several commenters supported the ALD 

provisions as the provisions further 

apply a LRM approach to HFC 

management. 

Conversely, one commenter stated the 

proposed ALD requirements are not 

consistent with part 82 ODS 

requirements, where ALD systems are a 

compliance option, and should be 

amended to align with those 

requirements. As further discussed in 

section IV.C.3.f of this preamble, 

another commenter asserted that the 

AIM Act does not confer limitless 

authority to EPA to impose the 

expansive and unnecessarily 

burdensome leak detection and repair 

requirements set forth in the proposed 

rule. 

Response: EPA is finalizing required 

use of ALD systems for a specific set of 

IPR and commercial refrigeration 

appliances with a charge size of 1,500 

pounds or more. The Agency 

acknowledges comments in support of 

the ALD provision and agrees with 

commenters on the environmental 

benefits, reduction of financial risks, 

and fugitive emissions associated with 

ALD requirements. EPA also agrees with 

commenters that the ALD provision will 

strengthen refrigerant management 

programs in States that require ALD. 

EPA acknowledges the analysis of the 

amount of emissions avoided by the 

ALD provision. The Agency also agrees 

with one commenter’s statement that 

this provision expands on requirements 

that previously applied to HFCs under 

CAA section 608 and will provide 

additional benefits from reconsidering 

the requirements under the AIM Act.79

EPA acknowledges these comments and 

other comments in support of the 

provision. 

The Agency acknowledges comments 

in support of the use of ALD in IPR and 

commercial refrigeration with a full 

charge of 1,500 pounds or greater. The 

applicability and charge size threshold 

of the provisions are discussed in 

further depth later in section IV.D.1. 

The Agency did review comments from 

ALD system manufacturers, per the 

commenter’s suggestion, and has 

responded accordingly throughout 

section IV.D. 

The Agency disagrees with one 

commenter’s suggestion that the Agency 

realign the ALD provision with 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F and leave the 

utilization of ALD systems solely as a 

compliance option. The rules in 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F are based on CAA 

section 608 which is based on a 

different statutory provision. While EPA 

concluded that it is appropriate to align 

many aspects of the leak repair 

requirements in this rule with those 

under CAA section 608, for certain 

requirements, such as this one, the 

conclusion to finalize a provision that is 

different from the requirement under 

CAA section 608 is also appropriate. In 

the time since EPA finalized that 

requirement in 2016, ALD systems of 

many types, direct and indirect, are now 

more widely available and the Agency 

has developed a better understanding of 

how these various kinds of ALD systems 

could be used to achieve the purposes 

of subsection (h). As discussed 

previously in this section, the Agency is 

aware of widespread use of ALD 

systems used to comply with safety 

standards. The same or similar ALD 

systems can be utilized for the purposes 

of leak detection to support the ALD 

requirements. Moreover, ALD systems 

have been used by those seeking to 

monitor their systems for various 

reasons besides compliance with 

regulations ranging from meeting 

environmental stewardship goals to 

reducing costs of refrigerant by 

detecting and subsequently repairing 

leaks. EPA views leaky refrigerantcontaining appliances with high charges 

as appliances where the utilization of 

ALD systems is particularly valuable, 

given that it may take some time for an 

owner or operator to become aware of a 

leak through other methods and given 

the amount of refrigerant that could leak 

from the system while a leak is 

undetected. The requirements in the 

final rule for commercial refrigeration 

and IPR appliances with a charge size of 

1,500 pounds or greater to install and 

use ALD systems will help owners or 

operators identify leaks in such 

equipment earlier so that they can take 

corrective action to limit the release of 

refrigerant from the leak. Detection of 

leaks in equipment is a critical step in 

minimizing the release of HFCs from 

that equipment. Thus, requiring use of 

ALD in systems with charges of this 

magnitude is one way that the 

regulations work to achieve the purpose 

identified in subsection (h)(1) of 

minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment. Because the HFCs that 

remain in the equipment can later be 

recovered and reclaimed, this 

requirement also helps serve the 

purpose of maximizing reclamation, 

also identified in subsection (h)(1). 

EPA addresses the comments on legal 

authority in section IV.C.3.f of this 

preamble. 

Comment: Several commenters 

opposed the compliance dates for new 

appliances. One commenter expressed 

concerns that the 30-day timeline for 

installation would be unfeasible due to 

current inventories, supply chain 

constraints, and labor shortages. The 

commenter suggested allowing at least a 

one-year compliance period for systems 

installed within one year of publication 

of the final rule. Another commenter 

echoed the need for an additional year 

after publication of the final rule and 

stated that installation projects are often 

planned months to years in advance. 

Both commenters stated that additional 

time would allow for the preparation of 

operating procedures and training of 

personnel to operate and maintain 

equipment. One commenter stated the 

proposal’s compliance dates were 

unclear and inadequate given the 

anticipated demand created by the 

rule’s provisions. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2026, for 

new IPR and commercial refrigeration 

systems with a full charge of 1,500 

pounds or greater. In the proposal, the 

compliance date for new appliances was 

tied to the final rule’s publication in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82742 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal Register and would have 

required the installation of an ALD 

system within 30 days of appliance 

installation. In the final rule the 

requirement for newly installed 

equipment will begin January 1, 2026, 

though EPA is retaining the requirement 

to install and use ALD systems within 

30 days of appliance installation. The 

additional year should address some 

commenters’ concerns with 

procurement, planning, and training of 

personnel. The new compliance date 

also allows owners or operators who 

may be in the process of planning an 

appliance installation project additional 

time to comply with the ALD 

requirements. Furthermore, the 

compliance dates for both new and 

existing systems are more clearly 

defined which provides owners or 

operators additional clarity for when 

they will need to install and use an ALD 

system. 

The Agency is finalizing that an ALD 

system must be installed and used by 

January 1, 2027, if the existing 

refrigerant-containing appliance was 

installed on or after January 1, 2017, and 

before January 1, 2026. EPA narrowed 

the refrigerant-containing appliances 

subject to this provision to those that 

were installed approximately 10 years 

ago or less because appliances in the 

two categories covered in the final rule 

(i.e., commercial refrigeration and IPR), 

have very long useful lifetimes. The 

final rule’s applicability cutoff date for 

existing systems is set to January 1, 

2017, because the Agency considers 

existing appliances installed within that 

timeframe to still have a majority of 

their useful life to operate. For example, 

IPR systems generally have a useful life 

of 20–25 years. Thus, an IPR system 

installed on January 1, 2017, might have 

an additional 10–15 years of life before 

the appliance would need to be 

replaced. Commercial refrigeration 

appliances at charge sizes at 1,500 

pounds or greater have a similar useful 

life of about 18 years. EPA recognizes 

that the provision in the final rule does 

not have the same breadth of emissions 

benefits as the provision in the 

proposed rule, but the Agency estimates 

that a significant portion of existing 

appliances are covered by the final 

rule’s provisions. While the Agency 

proposed to include all existing 

appliances in these categories, in this 

final rule, the Agency has determined to 

include a subset of appliances (i.e., 

those installed since January 1, 2017) 

rather than all appliances and to include 

two of three categories of refrigerantcontaining appliances (i.e., IPR and 

commercial refrigeration) thus 

narrowing the number of affected 

appliances. Limiting the number of 

affected refrigerant-containing 

appliances should also ease concerns 

pertaining to the supply of ALD systems 

as only approximately 44 percent of 

existing appliances would be subject to 

the ALD installation and use 

requirements compared to the proposal. 

Comment: Various commenters 

shared concerns about the compliance 

date for existing IPR and commercial 

refrigeration appliances and the supply 

of ALD systems. One commenter 

claimed that the complexity of 

integrating new ALD systems into an 

existing facility’s processes necessitates 

more than a year to develop and 

construct an ALD project. The 

commenter stated that the compliance 

date would result in a single, peakdemand year; thus, EPA should allow 

for a three-year compliance window for 

existing appliances. The commenter 

also claimed that EPA has no statutory 

obligation to require compliance within 

a shorter time period. Another 

commenter echoed similar concerns on 

technician and supply chain shortages 

regarding supermarket systems, stating 

that it would be impractical for industry 

to comply on time under the proposal 

and that compliance costs will likely be 

significantly higher than what EPA 

projects due to demand for ALD 

systems. The commenter stated that 

supermarket refrigeration systems can 

have 30 to 50 cases, each with an 

evaporator, and a large number of 

components which would require 

sensors adding to the amount of time to 

implement an ALD system. The 

commenter also stated that ‘‘off-theshelf’’ ALD systems may require 

significant modification and thus 

require more time to implement. For 

these reasons the commenter requested 

the compliance date for new systems be 

no earlier than January 1, 2029. Another 

commenter suggested the compliance 

date for existing systems be at least two 

years after publication to ensure owners 

and operators have the needed lead time 

to design, procure, install, and validate 

ALD systems for their operations. The 

commenter stated that EPA may be 

underestimating demand in its ALD 

analysis and that increased demand 

could drive up the costs of ALD systems 

and slow down delivery and installation 

time if existing ALD manufacturers do 

not have the capacity to meet demand. 

Another commenter recommended EPA 

consider an exemption for commercial 

system operators from the proposed 

ALD requirements if they can prove 

they would transition to an ultra-lowGWP refrigerant before January 1, 2027. 

Response: The Agency is finalizing a 

compliance timeline for existing 

systems later than proposed with the 

caveat that not all existing IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances are 

subject to the final rule’s ALD 

provisions. The final rule exempts any 

appliance installed before January 1, 

2017, from being required to install an 

ALD system. EPA estimates that 

approximately 56 percent of total 

existing appliances would be excluded 

from the ALD provision as proposed. 

Additionally, EPA estimates that around 

25,000 existing refrigerant-containing 

appliances would be subject to the ALD 

requirements in the final rule, which is 

significantly lower than the number of 

refrigerant-containing appliances 

subject to the ALD provision in the 

proposal. Owners or operators with 

existing refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to this provision will 

have over two years to install an ALD 

system. This change will reduce the 

immediate demand of ALD systems and 

provide additional lead time for owners 

or operators to procure, design, and 

install ALD systems for their operations. 

The Agency notes that commenters did 

not provide sufficient evidence on how 

the state of the ALD or technician 

market would affect an owner or 

operator’s ability to install an ALD 

system. However, as stated previously, 

the changes to the compliance date and 

applicability should ease concerns 

related to market shortages. 

Furthermore, the additional time for 

existing refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to the ALD 

requirements will reduce costs 

associated with the demand for ALD 

systems, as one commenter stated. 

Further discussion on the costs and 

benefits of the ALD provision can be 

found in section IV.B.2. 

Regarding one commenter’s 

statements on the implementation of 

ALD systems in supermarkets, the 

Agency disagrees that additional time 

beyond January 1, 2027, will be 

necessary. EPA understands that 

supermarket systems may be custom 

built or have additional complexities; 

however existing ALD systems can be 

applied to such systems even if they are 

considered to be ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ as the 

commenter describes. The commenter 

also did not provide specific 

information on how existing ALD 

systems would be inadequate in 

providing leak monitoring for their 

supermarket systems or why existing 

ALD systems would require significant 

modifications in order to be 

implemented. The Agency also 

disagrees that additional time would be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82743 

needed because multiple cases and 

components would need to have 

sensors, as the Agency is not prescribing 

the type of ALD system used by an 

owner or operator. To clarify, EPA is 

requiring an owner or operator to use 

either a direct or indirect ALD system to 

comply with the ALD requirements in 

this final rule. It is up to the owner or 

operator’s discretion to decide which 

type of ALD system, that meets the 

standards described in 40 CFR 84.108, 

best suits their refrigerant-containing 

appliance. Although the Agency 

disagrees that either type of ALD system 

will be difficult to install, if the 

commenter finds direct ALD systems as 

too onerous to implement, they have the 

option to install an indirect ALD system 

to comply with the provision. 

Additionally, CARB’s refrigerant 

management program has required the 

use of ALD for refrigeration systems 

above 2,000 pounds since 2011. Certain 

supermarket systems are captured by 

this regulation and have been required 

to use ALD for over a decade. As 

previously stated, EPA views the 

implementation of ALD for certain 

appliances with large charge sizes as 

important to serve the purposes 

described in subsection (h) to minimize 

the release of regulated substances. For 

these reasons, EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s suggested compliance date 

of January 1, 2029. 

With respect to the comment 

requesting a three-year compliance 

timeframe for existing operations and 

further stating that EPA has no statutory 

obligation to require compliance within 

a shorter time frame, EPA responds that 

it recognizes that the AIM Act does not 

expressly establish a specific timeframe 

for when regulated entities need to 

comply with regulations under 

subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act, leaving 

EPA discretion to determine what time 

period is appropriate in the context of 

the specific regulations promulgated. 

Congress identified three purposes for 

regulations under subsection (h)(1): 

maximizing reclamation, minimizing 

releases of HFCs from equipment, and 

ensuring the safety of technicians and 

consumers. Congress’s use of the terms 

such as ‘‘maximize’’ and ‘‘minimize’’ in 

this context indicate that it intended for 

the regulations authorized under 

subsection (h)(1) to have a substantive 

and meaningful effect, taking into 

account the other statutory 

considerations such as whether the 

controls are appropriate. Because the 

compliance date could affect the 

amount of HFC emissions that occur 

from equipment or the amount of HFCs 

available for reclamation, these terms 

inform EPA’s consideration when it is 

determining whether to establish a later 

compliance date for regulations under 

subsection (h)(1), and if so, what 

compliance date is appropriate. Thus, in 

establishing the compliance date for the 

requirements to use and install ALD 

systems under the final rule, EPA’s 

objective is to allow sufficient time—but 

not more time than is needed—to 

facilitate compliance and achieve the 

regulatory objectives. For example, if 

EPA were to establish an unnecessarily 

long compliance date for installation 

and operation of ALD systems, that 

could result in emissions for HFCs from 

equipment that could have been 

prevented through an earlier 

compliance date. By the same token, 

establishing a compliance date that does 

not provide sufficient time for 

compliance could also have a 

deleterious effect on the regulations’ 

ability to achieve these purposes if the 

result is that entities fail to properly 

comply. 

The Agency acknowledges one 

commenter’s suggestion to provide a 

narrow exemption for owners or 

operators who could prove they would 

transition to a lower-GWP refrigerantcontaining appliance. The Agency 

responds that it is not finalizing the 

exemption that the commenter describes 

because owners or operators who 

transition to a lower-GWP refrigerant are 

not necessarily exempt from the ALD 

and broader leak repair requirements in 

this final rule. The overarching 

applicability for refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to these requirements 

in the final rule is whether or not the 

refrigerant-containing appliance uses an 

HFC or substitute for an HFC with a 

GWP greater than 53. For example, an 

owner or operator at the end of a 

refrigerant-containing appliance’s useful 

life may transition to a lower-GWP 

refrigerant that contains an HFC or 

substitute with a GWP greater than 53 

and would thus still be required to 

install and use an ALD system. In some 

cases, an owner or operator will 

transition to a refrigerant that does not 

contain an HFC or does not have a GWP 

greater than 53 (e.g., R–477) and is not 

required to install an ALD system. 

Comment: The Agency also received 

general comments regarding the 

compliance dates for the final rule’s 

ALD provisions. One commenter, 

acknowledging the need for proper leak 

detection, expressed concern that the 

proposal’s timelines were too aggressive 

and that many of the requirements and 

leak detection methods needed further 

clarification. Another commenter who 

generally supported the ALD provision 

opposed any compliance date less than 

three years from publication of the final 

rule, on grounds that it will take 

manufacturers and appliance owners 

considerable time to plan, procure, and 

install ALD systems. One commenter 

proposed that EPA could consider 

making the compliance date earlier. 

Another commenter asserted that 

technicians would need to be trained 

and re-certified to handle HFCs and 

work with ALD equipment. They claim 

ALD systems were not broadly used for 

any of the ODS-substitutes when the 40 

CFR part 82 rules for HFC management 

under the CAA were in effect. The 

commenter requested EPA finalize a 

compliance date at least 180 days after 

publication of the final rule. 

Another commenter claimed the 

proposed rule’s compliance dates were 

impractical for large aviation and 

defense manufacturers. The commenter 

stated that manufacturing military, 

aerospace, and space end-use products 

is often subject to significant oversight 

or control by other Federal entities such 

as the U.S. Department of Defense and 

the FAA, which can include scrutiny of 

manufacturing processes. Further, the 

commenter claimed that some 

refrigerant-containing appliances used 

for IPR are uniquely designed and may 

not be compatible with ‘‘off-the-shelf 

ALD’’ systems; thus, engineering design 

modifications or re-engineering could be 

necessary to ensure functionality of both 

the IPR equipment and the ALD system. 

The commenter requested EPA extend 

the compliance deadlines until 2027 for 

these reasons and also stated that the 

extension would be consistent with 

EPA’s extension of the IPR transition 

date in the 2023 Technology Transitions 

final rule. 

Response: The Agency is finalizing a 

new compliance date for new and 

existing refrigerant-containing 

appliances subject to the ALD 

provisions. New IPR and commercial 

refrigeration appliances that contain an 

HFC or HFC substitute with a GWP 

greater than 53 are required to install 

and use an ALD system starting January 

1, 2026. EPA expects that the 

installation of an ALD system will be a 

part of the overall refrigerant-containing 

appliance installation; however, owners 

or operators have 30 days after the 

installation of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance to install and use an ALD 

system. For existing refrigerantcontaining appliances installed on or 

after January 1, 2017, owners or 

operators are required to install and use 

an ALD system by January 1, 2027. The 

changes to the compliance date should 

address commenter’s concerns and 

requests for additional time (e.g., 180 

days, two years). The Agency has also 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82744 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

80The Agency has provided exceptions for 

military equipment used in deployable and 

expeditionary applications, as well as space 

vehicles. 

provided more information on the leak 

detection requirements in this section 

and additional clarity on direct and 

indirect ALD systems in section IV.D.1, 

as requested by one commenter. EPA 

disagrees that the compliance timeline 

should be extended to at least three 

years after the final rule’s publication. 

Both new and existing IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances 

have been given additional time to 

comply with the ALD requirements 

which will allow owners or operators 

the necessary time to plan, procure, and 

install an ALD system. Further, the 

applicability for existing IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances has 

been changed to ensure the supply of 

ALD systems is available and further 

facilitate compliance with the 

requirements. Existing IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances 

have over two years to install an ALD 

system. Furthermore, the Agency is not 

merging the overall compliance dates 

for the ALD requirements because new 

IPR and commercial refrigeration 

appliances will be able to readily 

integrate ALD systems. As previously 

stated, EPA views the ALD requirements 

for certain appliances with large charge 

sizes as important to serve the purposes 

described in subsection (h) to minimize 

the release of regulated substances. For 

these reasons, EPA finds the compliance 

dates in this final rule to be appropriate 

and disagree with the commenter’s 

request for three years to comply with 

these requirements. 

EPA acknowledges one commenter’s 

proposition that the Agency could 

hasten the compliance date for existing 

equipment, However, EPA is not 

finalizing an earlier compliance date. 

The Agency does not agree that an 

earlier date can be met by all regulated 

entities for many of the reasons stated 

throughout this section and offered by 

other commenters. However, a regulated 

entity could choose to install an ALD 

system ahead of the compliance date, 

and there may be a variety of benefits 

to the regulated entity in doing so, 

including reduced refrigerant emissions 

and associated costs. 

The Agency responds to one 

commenter’s points that ALD systems 

were not broadly used for any of the 

ODS-substitutes when the part 82, 

subpart F rules for HFC management 

were in effect. The State of California 

has mandated the use of ALD for HFCcontaining appliances with a charge size 

above 2,000 pounds since 2011. The 

commenter’s insinuation that ALD use 

has historically been minimal is not 

accurate. Moreover, ALD systems have 

been used for those seeking to monitor 

their systems for various reasons besides 

compliance with regulations ranging 

from meeting environmental 

stewardship goals to reducing costs of 

refrigerant by detecting and 

subsequently repairing leaks. EPA also 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that technicians need training 

and re-certification to handle ALD 

systems. To the extent that this 

comment relates to technician 

certification requirements under CAA 

section 608, the Agency did not reopen 

CAA section 608 regulations through 

this action under subsection (h) of the 

AIM Act, including the technician 

certification requirements. Accordingly, 

the Agency is not addressing comments 

related to requirements under CAA 

section 608 in this final rule, as they are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking and 

require no further response. For 

purposes of public information, the 

Agency notes that it periodically 

updates its test bank of questions to 

become a certified technician under 

CAA section 608 to reflect regulatory 

and market changes. The Agency took 

advanced comments on technician 

certification. The information the 

Agency received may be used to inform 

a future rulemaking. The Agency notes 

that CAA section 608 technician 

certification is not intended to replace 

all technician education and training 

and anticipates that the same would be 

true for any future AIM Act certification 

program. The Agency understands that 

employers may provide additional 

onsite training and that industry 

organizations provide information on 

regulatory updates and market changes. 

EPA recognizes that other Federal 

agencies have various roles and 

responsibilities defined by different 

statutes. The Agency disagrees, 

however, that the ALD provisions being 

finalized in this action will spur 

significant oversight and scrutiny, as 

one commenter asserted. The final rule 

requires a specific portion of IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances 

(i.e., with charge sizes of 1,500 pounds 

or more) to install and use ALD systems. 

These appliances may be used by the 

military (e.g., commissary) or at airports, 

for example, but these uses are not 

functionally different from the uses of 

other appliances in these same 

subsectors at other locations.80 The 

Agency’s longstanding CAA section 608 

regulations already includes leak repair 

requirements for the same equipment. 

The Agency acknowledges that 

subsection (h)(3) of the AIM Act 

provides that EPA ‘‘may coordinate’’ 

with certain other EPA regulations that 

involve ‘‘the same or a similar practice, 

process, or activity regarding the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment’’ or 

reclaiming, and EPA has coordinated 

many aspects of this final rule. The 

commenter also asserted that moving 

the compliance date to 2027 would 

align the ALD requirements in the final 

rule with the IPR transition in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule. EPA has 

extended the compliance date to 

January 1, 2027, for existing refrigerantcontaining appliances but clarifies that 

the decision was not based on an 

alignment with the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule. The Agency finds 

such an alignment in this instance to be 

unfounded. The 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule covers new equipment 

and setting GWP limits. This provision 

under subsection (h)(1) is focused on 

the management of HFCs and in this 

case in refrigerant-containing 

appliances. 

1. Automatic Leak Detection 

Requirements 

In the final rule, refrigerantcontaining appliances in the 

commercial refrigeration and IPR 

subsectors with a charge size of 1,500 

pounds or more with a refrigerant that 

contains an HFC or a substitute for an 

HFC that has a GWP above 53 are 

required to use ALD systems. The 

refrigerants covered are the same as for 

the leak repair provisions, but the full 

charge size cutoff for using ALD systems 

(i.e., 1,500 pounds) is greater than that 

of the other leak repair provisions in 

this rulemaking (i.e., 15 pounds). EPA 

acknowledges that using ALD systems 

for refrigerant-containing appliances 

that have lower refrigerant charge sizes 

(i.e., below 1,500 pounds) may be an 

option an owner or operator could take 

so they are alerted to leaks sooner. 

Additionally, owners or operators may 

choose to install and use ALD systems 

in lieu of quarterly and annual leak 

inspections as previously discussed in 

section IV.C.3.d. As discussed in the 

proposal, EPA considered several 

potential options of the threshold for 

requiring ALD systems (e.g., 15 pounds, 

50 pounds, 500 pounds) and other 

thresholds used internationally and by 

certain States (i.e., California and 

Washington). However, EPA is not 

requiring use of ALD systems for 

refrigerant-containing appliances with 

less than 1,500 pounds. As discussed 

later in this section, EPA also 

considered the supply of ALD systems 

when determining the applicability of 

appliances because adequate supply of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82745 

81See comment ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606– 

0138 in the docket for this rulemaking, available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQOAR-2022-0606-0138. 

ALD systems is required to facilitate 

compliance with this provision. Larger 

refrigeration appliances have potential 

to leak greater amounts of refrigerant, 

such that owners or operators use of an 

ALD system to quickly detect leaks 

further supports the statutory purposes 

in subsection (h) of minimizing releases 

of HFCs from equipment and maximize 

the amount of HFC that is available for 

reclaiming. Moreover, EPA understands 

that owners or operators of appliances 

with larger charge sizes (i.e., at or above 

1,500 pounds) may be more likely to 

have in place refrigerant management 

plans, routine equipment inspections, or 

other formal or even informal 

mechanisms aimed at reducing 

refrigerant losses for which ALD will 

provide additional support. 

Comment: The Agency received many 

comments in support of the charge size 

threshold. One commenter expressed 

support for the proposed threshold 

given the cost burden associated with 

the installation of some ALD systems. 

Another commenter expressed support 

for the charge size threshold and stated 

that the requirements will help reduce 

emissions from large appliances at 

greater risk of leaks. One commenter in 

support of the provision stated that ALD 

systems are widely available and 

quickly becoming best practice for leak 

reduction, even for smaller systems. 

Conversely, one commenter stated 

that EPA should change the charge size 

threshold to 2,000 pounds or more and 

asserted that the proposed ALD 

installation requirements would be 

unduly burdensome for retailers with 

large refrigeration systems, particularly 

in the retail food sector. The commenter 

stated that significant costs would be 

imposed because of equipment costs 

and technician fees. One commenter 

suggested the Agency lower the ALD 

charge size threshold to 100 pounds per 

refrigerant circuit. Alternatively, the 

commenter suggested the ALD provision 

may be better suited if it was based on 

annual leak rates instead of charge size. 

For example, if an owner or operator 

had equipment designed to contain 

more than 250 pounds of refrigerant that 

had leaked more than 20 percent for two 

years, ALD would be required to be 

installed within six months. This would 

target problematic systems and avoid 

unnecessary added cost for non-leaky 

systems. Another commenter felt the 

inclusion of ALD for systems at or above 

1,500 pounds was superfluous because 

the flammability of certain refrigerants 

below a GWP of 150 at high charge sizes 

would already necessitate ALD to 

comply with building safety codes. The 

commenter suggested that EPA defer to 

State and local building codes and make 

adjustments to determine if the 

requirement is necessary. 

Another commenter provided a case 

study of a leak survey on a university 

campus analyzing appliances with a 

charge size at or below 50 pounds. The 

commenter maintained that small-tomedium-sized appliances contributed 

an unexpectedly large portion of their 

refrigerant emissions and that without a 

lower ALD charge size threshold, 

facility mangers would likely not 

allocate sufficient resources to reducing 

leaks from smaller equipment. The 

commenter stated that ALD systems are 

commercially available for mediumsized cooling appliances that have a 

charge size much lower than 1,500 

pounds. 

Response: The Agency is finalizing 

the ALD charge size threshold of 1,500 

pounds for IPR and commercial 

refrigeration appliances that contain an 

HFC or HFC substitute above a GWP of 

53. The 1,500-pounds threshold applies 

to a large group of commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances that 

have a high potential to leak large 

amounts of refrigerant. EPA considered 

various options in the proposal and 

informed by the comments finds the 

1,500-pound charge size threshold to be 

appropriate. The Agency acknowledges 

numerous comments in support of the 

provision. 

The Agency disagrees with the 

comment that the ALD charge size 

threshold will be overly burdensome for 

supermarket refrigeration systems. 

Supermarket systems will uniquely 

benefit from the inclusion of ALD as a 

large majority of supermarkets utilize 

commercial refrigeration appliances 

with a charge size at or above 1,500 

pounds and that, as this commenter 

noted and is discussed in section 

IV.C.3.b, have a high average leak rate 

of 25 percent.81 Early identification and 

repair of leaks may save owners and 

operators money on the costs of 

refrigerant, which would have otherwise 

been lost until an owner or operator 

noticed a decline in performance and 

added refrigerant. Early detection of 

refrigerant leaks may also lead to some 

other savings that are not accounted for 

in the analysis presented in the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD, 

such as prolonged life of equipment and 

reduced spoilage of food or other 

temperature-sensitive items contained 

in or processed by refrigerant-containing 

appliances. EPA notes that the 

commenter did not provide adequate 

data to suggest that the retail food 

industry would be significantly 

burdened by the provision. EPA 

recognizes that there are compliance 

costs and benefits associated with the 

ALD provision, including from 

detecting and repairing leaks early. EPA 

also acknowledges that supermarkets 

are moving to smaller charge sizes. By 

including only appliances installed on 

or after January 1, 2017, the Agency is 

finalizing an approach that excludes 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

are closer to said appliance’s EOL, 

providing owners or operators 

additional flexibility. EPA also disagrees 

with one commenter’s suggestion to 

require ALD based on high annual leak 

rates. The commenter claims that this 

would accurately target leak-prone 

appliances and reduce the burden on 

non-leaky equipment. EPA disagrees 

that this approach would function better 

than the final rule’s inclusion of IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances 

with a charge size at or above 1,500 

pounds. The commenter’s approach is 

an interesting alternative that would use 

a triggering event to denote which 

appliances are to be subject to the 

requirements. However, as mentioned in 

the response to comments on the 

supermarket sector, the referenced 25 

percent average leak rate would mean 

on average the supermarket sector 

typically would exceed the triggering 

event suggested by this commenter. 

While a triggering event could be 

considered in the future, in particular if 

EPA were to consider subsectors with 

lower typical charge sizes, in this 

instance EPA did not receive sufficient 

information to support this approach. 

The Agency also disagrees with one 

commenter’s assertion that the inclusion 

of ALD is unnecessary due to the State 

and local building codes requiring ALD 

for flammable refrigerants. If there are 

State and local requirements to install 

ALD systems that will detect refrigerant 

emissions, these requirements are 

complementary to EPA’s intent. 

However, these State or local 

requirements do not supplant the 

Agency’s requirements or their intent. 

Many appliances not using a flammable 

refrigerant will be affected by the final 

rule’s ALD provisions, but the 

requirements are applicable to all 

refrigerants, not just the flammable 

refrigerants. Furthermore, the Agency 

has previously acknowledged that UL 

Standards for A2L refrigerants requires 

the use of leak detection elsewhere in 

this section. The standards related to 

A2L refrigerants and State and local 

building codes do not nullify the 

authority of EPA to regulate the use of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82746 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

82Average annual leak rates by appliance type 

and charge size are provided in the Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD. 

ALD systems to minimize the release of 

regulated substances. 

With regard to the commenter that 

advocated for the use of ALD of 

medium-sized appliances because of 

their findings of substantial leaks from 

small and medium-sized appliances on 

a university campus, the Agency 

recognizes that smaller systems under 

1,500 pounds may still be prone to leaks 

and thus the Agency is also finalizing 

the separate leak repair requirements for 

refrigerant-containing appliances with 

15 pounds or more of refrigerant. EPA 

agrees with the two commenters who 

stated that ALD systems are 

commercially available for mediumsized appliances and are becoming the 

best practice for refrigerant 

management. While EPA is not 

finalizing a lower threshold at this time, 

EPA may consider a lower charge size 

threshold in a future notice-andcomment rulemaking. The Agency 

encourages consideration of using ALD 

systems by the owners and operators of 

refrigerant-containing appliances with 

charge sizes of less than 1,500 pounds 

of refrigerant. 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments regarding the applicability of 

the proposed ALD provision. Two 

commenters suggested adding comfort 

cooling. One of the commenters 

specifically asked the Agency to 

consider including all new and existing 

RACHP appliances, IPR, commercial 

refrigeration, and comfort cooling 

systems with charge sizes at or above 

200 pounds. The commenter stated that 

200 pounds was a point of inflection for 

proposed GWP limits under the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule and would 

promote an enhanced approach over 

European Union standards, expediting 

emissions reductions in the heating, 

ventilation, air conditioning, and 

refrigeration (HVACR) industry. The 

commenter also expressed concerns that 

the 1,500-pound threshold may 

incentivize design modifications aimed 

at installing appliances that are exempt 

from the ALD requirements. They 

further asserted that owners or operators 

may install multiple smaller appliances 

with lower charge sizes. Another 

commenter similarly claimed that the 

rule’s charge size threshold and 

applicability of appliances would 

exempt a high percentage of commercial 

facilities from the ALD requirements 

and undermine the intent of the rule. 

The commenter suggested that EPA 

could consider the total cumulative 

mass of refrigerant being used by 

commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances at a facility location, rather 

than the mass of refrigerant being used 

by individual appliances. Alternatively, 

the commenter suggested EPA could 

lower the charge size threshold to 1,000 

pounds per facility and lower the 

threshold to 500 pounds of refrigerant in 

an individual appliance. 

Response: EPA is finalizing as 

proposed that the ALD requirements 

only apply to IPR and commercial 

refrigeration appliances with a charge 

size of 1,500 pounds or more. EPA 

considered and is not establishing 

requiring ALD systems for all 

refrigerant-containing appliances above 

a certain charge size. Instead, after 

considering the opportunities to reduce 

leaks and thus minimize emissions, EPA 

decided to limit this requirement to 

commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances. EPA is not establishing 

requirements for using ALD systems for 

appliances used for comfort cooling. 

The Agency understands that 

refrigerant-containing appliances used 

for comfort cooling typically do not leak 

to the same degree as appliances in the 

commercial refrigeration and IPR 

subsectors. Medium (charge size of 200 

to 2,000 pounds of refrigerant) and large 

(charge size 2,000 pounds or greater of 

refrigerant) comfort cooling appliances 

average annual leak rates of around 10 

percent, while medium and large 

commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances have average leak rates that 

are around two to three times greater.82

This is consistent with EPA’s 

requirements for leak inspections, such 

that appliances used for comfort cooling 

would not have more frequent required 

leak inspections as a part of the leak 

repair provisions (see section IV.C.3.d). 

EPA previously acknowledged in the 

2016 CAA section 608 Rule (81 FR 

82272, November 16, 2016) that larger 

commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances tend to have larger annual 

average leak rates than comfort cooling 

appliances. Further, larger commercial 

refrigeration and IPR appliances would 

have a greater amount of refrigerant lost 

compared to comfort cooling appliances 

even if the leak rates were the same 

since these larger appliances typically 

have significantly larger refrigerant 

charge sizes. Thus, the primary benefit 

of early leak detection from an ALD 

system would not be as useful for 

appliances solely used for comfort 

cooling. However, if an appliance has a 

dual function (e.g., IPR and comfort 

cooling), an ALD system would be 

required. For example, if the refrigerant 

coming off the evaporator in an 

industrial process were cool enough, it 

could be directed towards co-located 

offices or break rooms to provide air 

conditioning, before being routed back 

to the compressor(s). Such a system 

would provide both IPR and comfort 

cooling, and for purposes of this rule, an 

ALD system would be required. 

Similarly, EPA disagrees with one 

commenter’s suggestion to include all 

RACHP refrigerant-containing 

appliances with a charge size above 200 

pounds. As discussed previously in this 

section, the Agency has changed the 

applicability of existing IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances to 

ensure the supply of ALD systems can 

meet the demand created by this final 

rule’s requirements. Lowering the 

charge size threshold to 200 pounds (or 

any other threshold below 1,500 

pounds) may create additional market 

disruptions and hamper the uptake of 

ALD systems for larger IPR and 

commercial refrigeration appliances, 

which this rule is specifically capturing, 

and thus diminish the potential 

emissions reductions for larger 

refrigerant-containing appliances. While 

the Agency encourages the use of ALD 

systems at any charge size, EPA does 

not intend to require such installation in 

this rulemaking. The Agency may 

reconsider the applicability of certain 

refrigerant-containing appliances at a 

specific charge size in a future noticeand-comment rulemaking. 

EPA responds to the commenter’s 

scenario that owners or operators may 

circumvent the final rule’s ALD 

provision by installing multiple smaller 

appliances. The Agency acknowledges it 

is possible that refrigerant-containing 

appliances that previously used 1,500 or 

more pounds of refrigerant could be 

designed to use 1,450 or less pounds of 

refrigerant. While EPA maintains its 

authority to take action if an entity 

violates this final rule’s provisions, 

redesigning refrigerant-containing 

appliances to use less refrigerant does 

not violate the rule’s requirements; it is 

instead a means to avoid becoming 

subject to the current requirements for 

the installation and use of ALD systems. 

Furthermore, using less refrigerant will 

also result in minimizing emissions, so 

if an owner or operator is able to install 

or redesign a refrigerant-containing 

appliance to use less refrigerant that 

will serve the purposes described in 

subsection (h)(1) to minimize the release 

of refrigerants from equipment. The 

Agency disagrees with the request to 

consider the total cumulative mass of 

refrigerants at a facility location, as 

suggested by the commenter, as such an 

approach may further complicate the 

ALD provision and implicate systems 

that are below the 1,500-pound charge 

size threshold. As previously stated, the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82747 

83EPA describes each type (i.e., direct and 

indirect) of ALD system later in this section and in 

detail in the TSD titled American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020—Subsection (h): 

Automatic Leak Detection Systems available in the 

docket for this final rule. 

Agency is concerned with ensuring that 

the supply of ALD systems can meet the 

demand for ALD systems. The Agency 

did not propose and is not finalizing the 

charge size threshold to operate in the 

manner suggested by the commenter. 

As a consideration in setting the 

threshold, EPA accounted for the extent 

to which ALD systems may already be 

in use and the types of equipment to 

which they are marketed. For example, 

many larger refrigeration appliances 

(e.g., a charge size of 1,500 to 2,000 

pounds or more) may already use ALD 

systems per certain State requirements 

or to reduce negative economic impacts 

associated with replacing leaking 

refrigerant. EPA also considered the 

availability of ALD systems for 

refrigeration appliances in the United 

States. In the TSD titled American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 

2020—Subsection (h): Automatic Leak 

Detection Systems in the docket for this 

rulemaking, EPA assessed the market 

presence and number of manufacturers 

of ALD systems that sell to the U.S. 

market. EPA notes that most 

manufacturers make direct ALD 

systems, while indirect ALD systems are 

newer technologies on the market.83

Since ALD systems have generally only 

been required for larger refrigeration 

appliances per certain State 

requirements, or are likely used in 

refrigeration appliances with larger 

charge sizes to avoid potential economic 

burden associated with replacing 

refrigerant that has leaked, EPA 

anticipates that the current market 

presence of ALD system manufacturing 

is generally aligned to demand for ALD 

systems for larger IPR and commercial 

refrigeration appliances. The threshold 

and the change in compliance dates and 

applicability for this provision, accounts 

for the potential increase in demand for 

ALD systems, where manufacturers of 

such systems might not be prepared for 

increased demand if EPA were to 

finalize a lower charge size, opening the 

requirement for ALD systems to a larger 

inventory of refrigeration appliances. 

Taking into account existing and 

pending State requirements, the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, and a 

likely degree of voluntary adoption of 

ALD systems, EPA estimates that the 

requirement will impact approximately 

25,000 appliances between 2025 and 

2027, and an average of 150 refrigerantcontaining appliances per year in 

subsequent years. The Agency has 

provided these updated estimates, 

which differ from those in the proposal 

(i.e., 50,000 appliances over the year 

2025 and 6,500 for subsequent years) 

because EPA has adjusted the 

applicability of existing appliances as 

discussed in section IV.D and in 

consideration that the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule has been promulgated. 

The updated estimates also account for 

new IPR and commercial refrigeration 

appliances transitioning to refrigerants 

that do not contain an HFC or substitute 

for an HFC with a GWP greater than 53. 

In response to the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, EPA anticipates that 

many IPR and commercial refrigeration 

appliances will transition to alternatives 

with a GWP less than or equal to 53 and 

thus those refrigerant-containing 

appliances will not be subject to the 

ALD requirements described in this 

section. EPA has identified 17 

manufacturers of ALD systems in the 

United States. There are 14 

manufacturers making direct ALD 

systems and four manufacturers making 

indirect ALD systems (one manufacturer 

was identified as making both types of 

ALD systems). The majority of installed 

systems are likely direct ALD systems. 

EPA estimates that one of the largest 

manufacturers of direct ALD in the 

United States makes between 6,500 and 

7,000 direct ALD systems per year. For 

additional information and details on 

the estimated emissions reductions and 

costs related to ALD systems, see the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD 

available in the docket for this action. 

Comment: The Agency received 

several comments concerned with the 

supply of ALD systems. A few 

commenters stated there would be 

serious challenges to obtaining enough 

ALD systems within the proposal’s 

compliance timeline. Commenters cited 

inadequate lead times to procure ALD 

systems and supply chain issues. One 

commenter claimed that they have been 

notified by manufacturers and suppliers 

of the need for extended lead times 

when ordering new equipment as all 

parts of the supply chain are facing 

challenges, such as manufacturing, 

delivery, and installation. Another 

commenter stated there are existing 

methods and technologies for leak 

detection in outdoor areas that would 

serve as suitable alternatives to an ALD 

system, considering the challenges of 

the proposal’s timeline. One commenter 

claimed that the manufacturing capacity 

for both direct and indirect ALD 

systems would likely make industry 

unable to meet the demand during the 

one year allotted for existing systems 

under the proposal. They requested that 

EPA conduct a more thorough analysis 

of the capabilities and capacities of ALD 

system manufacturers to meet the oneyear peak demand caused by the 

proposal. The commenter also requested 

that EPA consider the feasibility and 

cost of its proposal based on that 

information before finalizing. 

One commenter, an ALD 

manufacturer requested that EPA extend 

the compliance timeline for the 

installation of ALD to two years based 

on their understanding of the ALD 

market and manufacturers’ ability to 

meet demand. The commenter stated 

that in point detection systems, each 

point can be considered as an 

individual system, which is likely why 

EPA projects a need for 50,000 systems 

within the first year. However, the 

commenter claimed, in an aspirated 

low-level detection setup, a facility may 

have 16 zones with multiple sampling 

points in each zone all incorporated into 

one system. For this reason, the 

commenter expected market demand for 

low-level aspirated systems (which the 

commenter suggested will serve as 

primary direct detection technology 

used to meet AIM Act requirements) to 

be approximately 3,100 units annually. 

The commenter claims that they are the 

only ALD manufacturer with existing 

production volume levels demonstrating 

the capability of meeting demand of this 

magnitude. 

Lastly, one commenter stated that 

indirect ALD systems, which they 

manufacture, can be deployed across 

thousands of sites more quickly and 

cost-effectively than solutions that 

require onsite hardware and site visits, 

in addition to providing industry more 

flexibility. The commenter also 

explained that the largest bottleneck for 

the implementation of indirect ALD 

systems are corporate IT security 

processes, which can take weeks to 

months. Once the IT approvals are 

completed, the installation of indirect 

ALD is prompt. The commenter is 

confident that they, and other ALD 

manufacturers identified by EPA, have 

the ability to meet the large surge in 

ALD system deployments that would be 

required under the proposed rule. 

Response: In the final rule, EPA has 

extended the compliance date of new 

applicable refrigerant-containing 

appliances to January 1, 2026, has 

changed the applicability of existing IPR 

and commercial refrigeration appliances 

to those installed on or after January 1, 

2027, and has extended the compliance 

date to 2027. For new refrigerantcontaining appliances subject to this 

provision, the Agency has provided an 

additional year to install an ALD 

system. Existing refrigerant-containing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82748 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

appliances subject to this provision 

have more than two years to install an 

ALD system. With these changes the 

Agency estimates that approximately 

25,000 refrigerant-containing appliances 

will be required to install and use an 

ALD system between 2025 and 2027, 

which will greatly reduce the demand 

for such systems, limit potential supply 

chain issues, and further limit demandrelated costs increases. EPA has 

provided owners or operators with 

additional time to plan, procure, and 

install an ALD system that meets the 

requirements described in 40 CFR 

84.108, even when considering lead 

times that may be associated with 

ordering ALD systems. Additionally, as 

reflected in comments from ALD 

manufacturers, the supply of ALD 

systems is adequate to meet the demand 

for ALD systems caused by this final 

rule’s provision. The Agency has also 

provided additional time, as one of the 

manufacturers requested, to ensure the 

ALD suppliers can manufacture and 

supply ALD systems to owners and 

operators subject to the ALD installation 

and use requirements. The additional 

time will also provide owners or 

operators time to work through 

corporate IT processes so they can 

quickly implement indirect ALD 

systems. For these reasons, the Agency 

disagrees with one commenter’s 

perspective that ALD manufacturers 

would not be able to meet the demand 

for ALD systems. EPA with additional 

consideration, informed by comments 

finds the supply of ALD systems to be 

adequate to meet the compliance dates 

established in this final rule. 

The Agency disagrees with one 

commenter’s claim that there are 

existing methods and technologies for 

detecting leaks in outdoor areas which 

are suitable alternatives to ALD. The 

commenter did not provide any 

additional information on what these 

methods or technologies would include, 

nor did they specify how such 

technologies would continuously 

monitor refrigerant-containing 

appliances. The Agency is aware that 

direct ALD systems cannot detect 

refrigerant outdoors; however, the final 

rule specifically requires the use of 

direct ALD systems to monitor leakprone components within an enclosed 

space. Furthermore, leak inspections 

following a successful follow-up 

verification test are required for all 

portions of an appliance not monitored 

by a direct ALD system. Additionally, 

indirect ALD systems are capable of 

monitoring the entire refrigerantcontaining appliance. For these reasons, 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

views that there are available techniques 

or technology that can supplant the 

need for ALD systems. 

Direct refrigerant leak detection 

systems are fixed hardware that 

continuously monitor the concentration 

of refrigerants in the air. Continuous 

monitoring of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance can also include direct ALD 

systems, which directly monitor said 

appliance through cycling. For direct 

ALD systems, it is essential that gas 

sensors be located at all leak-prone 

components of a refrigeration system; 

otherwise, some leaks may go 

undetected. The benefits of direct ALD 

systems include being able to pinpoint 

the location and severity of a leak. 

Direct ALD systems are commissioned 

to send an ‘‘alarm’’ to maintenance and/ 

or operations staff if the programmed 

leak level threshold is exceeded. EPA is 

not establishing a definition of direct 

ALD systems in this rulemaking and 

clarifies that any direct ALD system 

which meets the criteria described in 40 

CFR 84.108(f)(1)(2)(3) (e.g., accurately 

detects a concentration of 10 ppm of 

vapor) is acceptable to use. Some types 

of acceptable direct ALD systems 

include but are not limited to: 

• Point gas detection systems; 

• Aspirated (or pumped) detection 

systems. 

EPA is requiring owners or operators 

using direct ALD systems to comply 

with the provisions to detect and repair 

refrigerant leaks in appliances. Leak 

detection sensors must be capable of 

accurately detecting a concentration 

level of 10 ppm of the vapor of the 

specified refrigerant and must alert an 

owner/operator if refrigerant 

concentrations exceed 100 ppm. As 

discussed in the proposal, the technical 

feasibility of the 100 ppm threshold is 

well established. This has been the 

threshold used by CARB and is also the 

standard in provisions at 40 CFR 

82.157(g)(4)(i) for ALD systems that are 

used as a compliance option in lieu of 

quarterly or annual leak inspections, as 

part of the leak repair requirements 

under CAA section 608. If a leak is 

detected above the 100 ppm threshold, 

the owner or operator is required to 

either perform a leak rate calculation to 

determine if the leak rate threshold has 

been exceeded, or alternatively they 

may preemptively repair the leak before 

adding refrigerant and calculating the 

leak rate. In order to calculate the leak 

rate, EPA refers the reader to section 

IV.C.3.a of this preamble. EPA is 

requiring that a leak rate calculation 

must be performed within 30 days (or 

120 days where an industrial process 

shutdown is necessary) of the alarm 

where a direct ALD system is used for 

required equipment. If the calculated 

leak rate is above the applicable leak 

rate, as discussed in section IV.C.3.a of 

this preamble, all of the leak repair 

requirements in this action (including 

the repair requirements, inspections, 

verification tests, and recordkeeping 

and reporting) will apply. 

Alternatively, if the owner or operator 

chooses to preemptively repair the 

detected leak, a leak rate calculation 

must be performed after the preemptive 

repair; however, the leak rate 

calculation must still be performed 

within 30 days (or 120 days where an 

industrial process shutdown is 

necessary) of the alarm where a direct 

ALD system is used for applicable 

appliances, and accordingly the 

preemptive repair will also need to 

occur in that time frame. If the leak rate 

calculation (performed after the 

addition of refrigerant pursuant to the 

follow-up verification test) conducted 

after the preemptive repair reveals that 

the appliance had leaked above the 

applicable leak threshold, the suite of 

leak repair requirements would apply. 

The preemptive repair actions can be 

considered in determining whether the 

suite of leak repair requirements 

triggered by the exceedance of the 

applicable leak threshold have been 

satisfied, but the owner or operator of 

the appliance must still ensure that the 

leaks are repaired according to the 

definition of repair and that the other 

requirements in 40 CFR 84.106 (e.g., 

initial and follow-up verification tests, 

leak inspections (where applicable), and 

related recordkeeping) had been met. By 

allowing a leak detected by an ALD 

system to be preemptively repaired 

before the addition of refrigerant and 

calculation of the leak rate, EPA 

anticipates this will avoid requiring 

owners and operators to add refrigerant 

to a system with a known leak, thereby 

saving the cost of refrigerant that might 

subsequently leak prior to the repair, as 

well as prevent unnecessary emissions 

of refrigerant. Additionally, preemptive 

repair of leaks allows owners or 

operators to have a ‘‘head start’’ on 

repairing leaks if it is later found that 

the applicable leak rate threshold has 

been exceeded when the leak rate 

calculation is performed. 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments on direct ALD systems. One 

commenter expressed concern with the 

proposed language, ‘‘for direct ALD 

systems, it is essential that gas sensors 

are located at all leak-prone components 

of a refrigeration system.’’ The 

commenter views this framing as 

providing too much flexibility that 

could lead to unintended outcomes (i.e., 

ineffective implementation of ALD that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82749 

does not lower refrigerant leak rates as 

desired). The commenter claimed that 

in California, many facilities mount 

single-point (passive diffusion) gas 

detectors on the wall of the mechanical 

room to comply with CARB regulations. 

The commenter stated that this method 

is technically compliant with ALD 

requirements but is only partially 

effective at detecting leaks in the 

mechanical room (due to its distance 

from most refrigeration components in 

the mechanical room), and it is 

completely ineffective at detecting leaks 

in other parts of the facility outside of 

the mechanical room. The commenter 

recommended adding clarifying 

language to ensure that gas sensors are 

located within six feet of all leak-prone 

components of a refrigeration system. 

The commenter also recommended 

defining ‘‘leak-prone components of a 

refrigeration system’’ as ‘‘all 

components of a refrigeration system 

that contain liquid or gas except for 

straight runs of piping, inclusive of 

compressors, evaporators, valves, 

condensers, headers, receivers, oil 

separators, oil traps, accumulators, other 

pressure vessels, etc.’’ 

Another commenter provided 

information on the applications of 

different types of direct ALD systems in 

the HVACR industry. The commenter 

stated that point detectors serve a 

primary purpose of enabling compliance 

with operational safety guidelines for 

personnel. The commenter asserted that 

the devices are typically wall-mounted 

within an occupied space, and 

sometimes cannot detect a leak due to 

dilution and air exchange in the greater 

space which can cause the room to 

remain below the 500–900 ppm alarm 

level set for personnel safety. For these 

reasons, the commenter stated that these 

detection systems are used for occupant 

safety and not as a targeted solution for 

emissions reduction. The commenter 

also claimed that the proposed rule 

could be read to preclude aspirated 

detection systems (e.g., requiring 

‘‘continuous’’ monitoring and 

placement of the ‘‘sensor’’). Therefore, 

the commenter proposed modifying the 

language to replace ‘‘continuously 

monitor’’ with ‘‘actively monitoring.’’ 

Alternatively, the commenter proposed 

that ‘‘continuously monitor’’ could be 

defined to include devices that actively 

or directly monitor via cycling. The 

commenter stated that without one of 

these edits, the proposed rule would not 

allow for low-level leak detection 

equipment that is designed to identify 

leaks for environmental purposes and 

requires an established cycle time to 

sample multiple points, rather than 

‘‘continuously monitor’’ one specific 

point. The commenter also suggested 

that EPA remove ‘‘condenser’’ from its 

examples of what components a direct 

ALD system should monitor. 

Response: EPA acknowledges 

commenters’ concerns with the 

implementation of direct ALD systems. 

EPA disagrees that the description of 

ALD in the preamble provides too much 

flexibility to owners or operators which 

will result in ineffective leak detection. 

The Agency clarifies that direct ALD 

sensors must be placed on or near leakprone components (e.g., compressor, 

evaporator, condenser) or along points 

of the entire refrigerant circuit if it is 

entirely enclosed within a building or 

structure. EPA is not specifying a set 

distance for gas sensors as the 

commenter suggests but strongly 

encourages owners or operators to 

install gas sensors as close to 

components as possible. EPA agrees that 

a single, wall-mounted point detection 

system in a mechanical room is 

ineffective at detecting leaks. The 

Agency reiterates that direct ALD gas 

sensors will need to be placed on or 

near leak-prone components so that an 

appliance is adequately monitored for 

leaks. EPA is not prescribing a set 

number of sensors because the 

refrigerant-containing appliances 

subject to these requirements are varied 

in design; however, the Agency clarifies 

that multiple gas sensors may be 

required to meet the standards for direct 

ALD systems. The Agency is not 

finalizing the commenter’s proposed 

definition of ‘‘leak-prone components of 

a refrigeration system’’ because the 

Agency has already finalized a 

definition for component: ‘‘as it relates 

to a refrigerant-containing appliance, 

means a part of the refrigerant circuit 

within an appliance including, but not 

limited to, compressors, condensers, 

evaporators, receivers, and all of its 

connections and subassemblies.’’ The 

leak-prone components where gas 

sensors are to be placed for direct ALD 

systems fall under that definition. The 

Agency agrees that direct ALD systems 

are not effective for portions of an 

appliance that are outside of an 

enclosed space; however, for portions 

that are located within an enclosed 

space that have a high chance for 

leakage EPA finds it appropriate to use 

direct ALD systems. When a leak is 

detected and a refrigerant-containing 

appliance is found to be above the 

applicable leak rate, an owner or 

operator is required to inspect all 

portions of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance not monitored by an ALD 

system as discussed in section IV.C.3.d. 

In response to one commenter’s 

request to modify the description of 

direct ALD systems in the rule, EPA has 

provided additional detail on what 

types of direct ALD systems are 

acceptable to use. As discussed in this 

preamble, the Agency is not establishing 

a definition of direct ALD systems in 

this rule; however, EPA clarifies that 

any direct ALD systems that meet the 

criteria described in 40 CFR 

84.108(f)(1)(2)(3) are acceptable to use 

for the purposes of leak detection. This 

includes the use of point detection 

systems, aspirated detection systems, or 

any other existing or future direct ALD 

technologies that can accurately detect a 

concentration level of 10 ppm of vapor 

of the specific refrigerant(s) used in an 

appliance, alerts the owner or operator 

of when a refrigerant concentration of 

100 ppm is reached, and is able to have 

sensors or intakes that continuously 

monitor the refrigerant concentrations 

in air in proximity to leak-prone 

components. EPA is not changing the 

term ‘‘continuously monitoring’’ 

however the Agency further clarifies 

that the term does not preclude the use 

of direct ALD systems that actively or 

directly monitor an appliance via zonal 

cycling. EPA views direct ALD systems 

that actively monitor portions of a 

refrigerant-containing appliance as 

falling under the term ‘‘continuously 

monitor.’’ EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s claims that point detection 

systems cannot adequately provide leak 

detection monitoring for the purposes of 

leak reduction. While it is true that 

point detection systems are utilized to 

comply with occupational safety 

standards, point detection systems that 

meet the standards of the final rule are 

also able to provide adequate leak 

detection and monitoring for a 

refrigerant-containing appliance. EPA 

reiterates that a single, wall-mounted 

point detection sensor would not 

provide adequate coverage for an 

appliance; thus, multiple sensors are 

needed to cover leak-prone components 

on an appliance. EPA is also not 

preventing the use of any direct ALD 

system that meets the rule’s standards 

because the Agency does not want to 

further limit the supply of direct ALD 

systems for owners or operators. The 

Agency’s standards for direct ALD serve 

the purpose of minimizing the release of 

refrigerants from appliances while also 

providing enough flexibility in direct 

ALD technologies so that owners or 

operators are able to comply with the 

rule’s ALD provision within the 

provision’s compliance timeframe. 

Comment: The Agency received 

numerous comments on the alarm 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82750 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

threshold for direct ALD systems. The 

majority of commenters requested EPA 

that reconsider the proposed 100 ppm 

threshold and finalize at a lower 

threshold, either 50 ppm or 10 ppm. 

One commenter suggested using a <10 

ppm threshold to achieve full emissions 

reduction potential. The commenter 

cited their report on refrigerant leaks at 

major supermarket stores demonstrating 

that many commercial refrigeration 

leaks are under 10 ppm. Of all the leaks 

the commenter detected across dozens 

of stores, less than 5 percent were at a 

concentration greater than 100 ppm, 

however, 29 percent ranged from 10-to100 ppm on the sales floor. The 

remaining 67 percent of leaks were 

found to have concentrations less than 

10 ppm. Thus, the commenter 

advocated that EPA use an alarm 

threshold lower than 10 ppm because 

small concentrations of refrigerant can 

be indicative of large leaks within an 

appliance. Another commenter 

recommended the alarm threshold be 

lowered to 10 ppm because of 

improvements in sensor technology. 

Finally, one commenter stated the 100 

ppm threshold may need to be lowered 

if EPA is seeking ALD from flanges in 

a central location. The commenter 

further suggested that EPA consult with 

CARB or others to verify the efficacy of 

the 100 ppm threshold. 

One commenter recommended an 

alarm threshold of 50 ppm for direct 

ALD systems while maintaining an 

accurate detection down to 10 ppm of 

the vapor of the specified refrigerant 

because small leaks under 100 ppm can 

result in substantial or complete loss of 

a refrigeration system over time. The 

commenter stated that aspirated ALD 

systems can detect refrigerant vapor at 

a resolution of 1 ppm and are capable 

of alerting an owner or operator at an 

alarm threshold of 10 or 25 ppm. 

However, the commenter suggested that 

a 50 ppm alarm threshold would be 

more appropriate because small leaks 

could be more readily detected and 

reduce nuisance alarms that may 

happen more frequently at lower alarm 

thresholds. The commenter clarified 

that nuisance alarms are not the result 

of noise rather they occur because the 

aspirated ALD systems can detect leaks 

that would have been otherwise 

unknown to an owner or operator prior 

to installation of the ALD system. The 

commenter also recommended that EPA 

not grandfather in any direct ALD 

systems with alarm levels above 50 ppm 

as existing direct ALD systems set to 

100 ppm are solely meeting safety 

requirements and are not equipped to 

minimize release of refrigerant. 

Another commenter claimed that 

long-term ppm limits may not be the 

best approach to regulate ALD systems 

because ppm metrics are specific to the 

sensor and do not directly correlate with 

the ability to detect a leak rate over a 

given time. The commenter also stated 

that they are aware of only one sensor 

on the market that can detect to a 10 

ppm resolution. The commenter 

provided several examples of existing 

direct ALD systems and provided 

suggested specific levels of detection 

that are appropriate for the type of 

direct ALD system. For aspirated 

systems, the commenter suggested a 

threshold of 10 ppm would be 

appropriate. For single-zone diffusion 

(point detection) systems, the 

commenter suggested a threshold of 200 

ppm would be more appropriate. 

Finally, for appliance-level sensors, 

primarily used to comply with UL 

60335–2–89 for the use of flammable 

refrigerants, the commenter suggested a 

minimum threshold of 500 ppm. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the alarm 

threshold for direct ALD systems as 

proposed. The Agency finds the alarm 

threshold appropriate to detect leaks 

from refrigerant-containing appliances 

faster while preventing false alarms that 

may occur at lower ppm thresholds. 

EPA also finds it appropriate to remain 

consistent with existing alarm criteria 

under the CAA and State refrigerant 

management programs. EPA disagrees 

with one commenter requesting that the 

Agency not grandfather in existing ALD 

systems with alarm thresholds above 50 

ppm. While a portion of ALD systems 

currently in use were installed to meet 

safety standards many other ALD 

systems were installed by owners or 

operators for the purposes of leak 

detection. The Agency is not requiring 

owners or operators with existing ALD 

systems that meet the standards in 40 

CFR 84.108(f)(1)(2)(3) to install new 

ALD systems. Owners or operators with 

existing ALD systems will need to 

ensure their current ALD systems meet 

the rule’s standards and are providing 

adequate monitoring of leak-prone 

components of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance. Additionally, the Agency 

does not want to deny existing ALD 

systems that meet the standards of this 

rule because doing so could exacerbate 

potential ALD supply issues and reduce 

overall compliance with the provision. 

EPA acknowledges the information 

one commenter provided on leaks 

detected at supermarkets and agrees that 

small amounts of refrigerant detected 

can be indicative of larger leaks within 

a refrigerant-containing appliance. 

However, EPA does not find the 100 

ppm threshold to be incongruous with 

the discovery of large leaks and the 

timely repair of refrigerant-containing 

appliances that are leaking above the 

applicable leak rate threshold. EPA 

reiterates that this rule is not requiring 

the repair of all leaks, rather, this rule 

is requiring that leaks be repaired to the 

extent that a refrigerant-containing 

appliance is leaking below the 

applicable leak rate threshold. In the 

context of the appliances subject to this 

provision the leak repair provisions 

would begin once the leak rate has 

exceeded 30 percent for IPR and 20 

percent for commercial refrigeration 

appliances. Setting the threshold to <10 

ppm, 25 ppm, 50 ppm, or any other 

threshold below 100 would in fact alert 

an owner or operator to the presence of 

more leaks. However, these discovered 

leaks would most likely not cause the 

refrigerant-containing appliance to 

exceed its applicable leak rate 

threshold. For example, if EPA were to 

set the alarm threshold at 10 ppm a 

pinhole leak on a component near a 

sensor may alert an owner or operator 

to a relatively small leak. The ALD 

provision of this final rule is intended 

to find larger leaks faster in refrigerantcontaining appliances that can emit 

large amounts of refrigerant from one 

leak event. When a larger leak is 

detected by an ALD system, the owner 

or operator has 30 days to conduct a 

leak rate calculation or attempt to 

preemptively repair the leak. Since EPA 

is not requiring the repair of all leaks, 

setting the alarm criteria below 100 ppm 

could create a situation where an alarm 

is continually alerting an owner or 

operator of a leak that has been found 

not to be causing the refrigerantcontaining appliance to leak above the 

applicable threshold. Nuisance or false 

alarms from ALD systems may decrease 

compliance with the leak repair 

provisions of the final rule because 

owners or operators may begin to ignore 

alerts for the ALD system. Thus, the 100 

ppm alarm threshold reduces the risk of 

false alarms while ensuring that larger 

leaks from refrigerant-containing 

appliances are detected and alert 

owners or operators to take further 

action. 

Regarding one comment asserting that 

ppm may not be the best approach to 

regulate ALD systems because ppm does 

not correlate to the ability to detect a 

leak rate, EPA clarifies that the purpose 

of the ALD provision is to detect leaks 

sooner, not calculate the leak rate of a 

refrigerant-containing appliance. As 

previously discussed in section IV.C.3.a, 

the final rule’s leak rate calculation 

methodologies are the only appropriate 

way to calculate a refrigerant-containing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82751 

appliance’s leak rate. The comment is 

correct that ppm values of a refrigerant 

cannot denote how much refrigerant has 

leaked from a refrigerant-containing 

appliance; however, it does alert an 

owner or operator to the presence and 

potential severity of a leak that must be 

addressed if the refrigerant-containing 

appliance is leaking above the 

applicable leak rate. EPA also disagrees 

with the commenter’s suggestion to base 

ppm thresholds on the type of direct 

ALD system, as this may add additional 

complexity and confusion to the ALD 

requirements and may diminish 

compliance with the provision. The 

Agency reiterates that direct ALD 

systems that meet the standards in 40 

CFR 84.108(f)(1)(2)(3) are acceptable to 

use. If a direct ALD system cannot meet 

those standards, then it is not 

appropriate to use for this rule’s ALD 

requirements. 

Comment: The Agency also received 

comments in opposition to lowering the 

alarm thresholds for ALD systems. One 

commenter did not support lowering the 

alarm thresholds below what EPA 

proposed because lower thresholds 

could result in more frequent alarms, 

potentially leading to operational 

disruptions and false alarms. Another 

commenter claimed the proposed 

conditions of use for ALD systems are 

arbitrary and capricious because they 

will cause numerous false alarms. The 

commenter stated the proposed 100 

ppm alarm rate for direct ALD systems 

and the 50 pound or 10 percent loss of 

charge for indirect ALD systems are 

based on ALD system manufacturer 

recommendations, and not an actual 

correlation with leak rates. The 

commenter asserted that it is 

unreasonable for EPA to adopt 

regulatory trigger rates, unless EPA has 

studied a correlation of the alarm levels 

with a statistical leak rate or probability 

of leaks. In the commenter’s members’ 

experience with ALD systems neither of 

the alarm thresholds are indicative of 

leaks. They recommend the Agency not 

mandate any alarm threshold below 100 

ppm and not require mandatory 

inspection unless alarms recur over a 

several-day period if the provision is 

finalized as proposed. One commenter 

stated the Agency should allow for 

flexibility requests for unforeseen 

circumstances. The commenter claimed 

that EPA would be inundated with 

nuisance reporting every time an ALD 

triggers. The commenter suggested that 

EPA should consider limiting alerts to 

above a CO2eq limit if they proceed with 

the requirement. 

Response: The Agency is finalizing 

the 100 ppm alarm threshold as 

proposed. EPA disagrees with the 

comments asserting that the alarm 

criteria are entirely based on 

manufacturer specifications, will lead to 

numerous false alarms, and is 

unreasonable or arbitrary and 

capricious. If EPA were to base the 

alarm criteria of this final rule solely on 

manufacturer’s specification, the final 

threshold would be much lower. For 

example, one ALD manufacturer 

submitted public comments on the 

proposed rule requesting that the 

Agency reduce the alarm threshold 

based on their sensor specifications 

being capable of detecting refrigerant 

vapor well below 100 ppm. EPA is 

finalizing the 100 ppm threshold based 

on several considerations. For instance, 

the Agency considered the use of 100 

ppm as one of the criteria for a direct 

ALD system that is used in lieu of 

quarterly or annual leak inspections 

under EPA’s regulations under section 

608 of the CAA, at 40 CFR 

82.157(g)(4)(i). The alarm threshold of 

100 ppm for ALD systems is also 

consistent with some States’ refrigerant 

management programs and 

consideration of information from 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15–2022 

Safety Standards for Refrigeration 

Systems, among other factors. Based on 

consideration of this information, as 

well as comments on the proposed rule, 

EPA concludes that this threshold is 

technically feasible and should be 

familiar to some stakeholders from their 

experience under other regulatory 

programs, thus facilitating 

implementation of these requirements. 

Further, if the alarm threshold is set too 

high, the system may miss some leaks 

that should be addressed and thus 

would fail to serve its intended purpose. 

EPA understands that a 100 ppm 

threshold will minimize the risk of false 

alarms. However, to the extent that 

commenters are concerned about false 

alarms, under the final rule, they may 

elect to perform a leak rate calculation 

in response to an alarm, and if that 

calculation indicates that the equipment 

is not leaking above the applicable leak 

rate threshold, no further action will be 

required. 

The Agency also disagrees with the 

commenter’s position that establishing a 

regulatory trigger rate for the ALD 

equipment would need to be based on 

a statistical evaluation of leak rates or 

the probability of leaks. The Agency 

clarifies that the ALD requirements 

serve the purpose of detecting leaks 

within a refrigerant-containing 

appliance earlier but are not intended to 

substitute for the calculation or 

evaluation of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance’s leak rate. The alarm criteria 

for direct ALD systems are a 

specification for such systems to alert 

owners or operators to a potential leak 

and are not used to determine a 

refrigerant-containing appliance’s leak 

rate or the actual severity of a leak, only 

the presence of a leak. EPA finds the 

100 ppm alarm threshold appropriate to 

serve the purpose of alerting the owner 

or operator of a leak that may 

potentially cause a refrigerantcontaining appliance to leak above the 

applicable leak rate threshold. The 

Agency has provided information in 

section IV.C.3.a on the leak rate 

calculation methodologies and when 

leak rate calculations must be 

completed. As noted previously, 

requiring use of ALD systems is 

consistent with the authority under in 

subsection (h)(1) to promulgate 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, any practice, process, or 

activity regarding servicing, repair, or 

installation of such appliances, which 

involves a regulated substance or 

substitute for a regulated substance. 

When an ALD system provides an alarm 

in a refrigerant-containing appliance 

covered by this provision, the owner/ 

operator must perform practices, 

processes, and/or activities to determine 

whether the equipment is leaking above 

the applicable leak-rate threshold and 

whether service or repair of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance is 

needed. The ALD requirements help to 

minimize releases of regulated 

substances from equipment and 

maximize the amounts of refrigerants 

remaining in equipment for eventual 

recovery and reclamation. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

experience that the final rule’s alarm 

thresholds are not indicative of leaks 

and disagrees that ALD system alarms 

should not be addressed until alarms 

recur over a period of several days. The 

final rule allots 30 days (120 in the 

event of an industrial process 

shutdown) to calculate the leak rate or 

attempt to preemptively repair a 

refrigerant-containing appliance. The 

leak repair provisions of this final rule 

apply once the owner or operator has 

determined the leak rate has exceeded 

the applicable leak rate threshold. EPA 

clarifies that the 30-day timeframe for 

calculating the leak rate begins once the 

owner or operator has received an alarm 

from their ALD system. This should 

provide ample time for an owner or 

operator to address an alert from an 

ALD system. The Agency is not 

claiming that false alarms will never 

happen; however, as previously 

mentioned the alarm threshold for ALD 

systems has been set to mitigate the risk 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82752 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

of false alarms and operational 

disruptions. If an owner or operator is 

continually having issues with false 

alarms from their ALD system, they may 

consider performing additional 

calibration or audits to ensure the ALD 

system is functioning properly. 

For similar reasons, EPA disagrees 

with a separate commenter asserting 

that more time or flexibility would be 

needed to address ALD system alerts 

due to unforeseen circumstances. The 

commenter incorrectly stated that the 

owners or operators would need to 

report alarms from ALD systems to the 

Agency. EPA clarifies that owners or 

operators are required to keep records of 

each date that an ALD alarm is triggered 

(see 40 CFR 84.108(i)) and are not 

required to report each ALD system alert 

to EPA. Additionally, the Agency 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

suggestion to base the alarm criteria on 

the exceedance of a CO2eq thresholds. 

As previously stated, EPA is finalizing 

the alarm criteria for ALD systems to 

help detect leaks early, so that if there 

are leaks that exceed the leak rate 

threshold, they can be addressed in a 

timely fashion. A CO2eq threshold 

would not further this purpose. Further, 

EPA is unaware of any ALD system that 

can provide accurate alarms based on a 

CO2eq threshold as direct systems are 

detecting the presence of refrigerant 

vapor in the air and indirect systems are 

detecting volumes of refrigerant lost via 

data metrics. The final rule sets an 

appropriate threshold for owners and 

operators to address detected leaks in a 

timely manner and reduce the emissions 

of refrigerant from refrigerant-containing 

appliances. 

Comment: The Agency received a few 

comments regarding the preemptive 

repair provision in the final rule. One 

commenter stated that setting a 

requirement for direct ALD systems to 

alarm at 100 ppm but allowing no action 

to be taken if the leak rate thresholds are 

not exceeded, does not further the 

objective of minimizing release of 

refrigerant. The commenter also stated 

that the ALD system will continue to 

alert an owner or operator of the leak if 

left unrepaired. The commenter 

suggested de-coupling the requirement 

of a leak rate calculation before fixing a 

leak identified by an ALD system and 

asserted the rule may be confusing for 

industry and interpreted as 

undermining the need for ALD. The 

commenter further claimed that the best 

route for leak mitigation is to find and 

fix all leaks over the applicable 

threshold and that preemptive repair 

should be the only recommended 

solution for leak resolution because the 

addition of refrigerant to a leaking 

appliance will result in the loss of the 

added refrigerant. The commenter 

asserted that the leak rate calculation 

can occur after the repair of the leaking 

appliance. 

Another commenter requested 

clarification on whether an owner or 

operator needs to calculate a leak rate 

after preemptive repair is conducted. 

The commenter stated that the rule 

appears to offer two compliance options 

when an ALD system detects a leak; 

calculate a leak rate and assess whether 

the appliance is leaking above the 

applicable leak rate threshold or 

preemptively repair the leak. The 

commenter asserted that the 

requirement of a leak rate calculation 

seems to be in conflict with EPA’s 

rationale for preemptive repair 

discussed in the preamble: ‘‘to avoid the 

need to add refrigerant to an appliance 

with a known leak (which would 

otherwise generally be necessary to 

calculate the leak rate and determine if 

the applicable leak rate is exceeded).’’ 

The commenter further claimed that the 

requirement to conduct a leak rate 

calculation will cause owners or 

operators to incur additional costs to 

add refrigerant to a fully functional 

system for the sole purpose of a leak rate 

calculation. As currently written, the 

commenter stated that the provision 

may be economically burdensome and 

could add to system downtime. Thus, 

the commenter suggested the Agency 

clarify the regulatory text to not require 

a leak rate calculation if an appliance is 

preemptively repaired. 

Response: EPA acknowledges one 

commenter’s recommendation that the 

leak rate calculation be decoupled from 

the final rule’s preemptive repair 

provision for leaks detected by an ALD 

system and clarifies that these are 

separate requirements. EPA does not 

view the leak rate calculation and ALD 

requirements as incongruous nor does 

the Agency find that having both 

requirements will cause confusion as 

the commenter suggested. Rather, where 

both apply, they are separate parts of an 

overall approach to addressing leaks 

from refrigerant-containing appliances. 

The required installation and use of 

ALD systems for IPR and commercial 

refrigeration at or above 1,500 pounds 

and the option to preemptively repair a 

leak in a refrigerant-containing 

appliance is not intended to replace the 

need to calculate the leak rate and to 

repair leaks so a refrigerant-containing 

appliance is below the applicable leak 

rate threshold. As noted previously, 

EPA is not requiring the repair of all 

leaks; however, the Agency encourages 

owners or operators to preemptively 

repair leaks detected by an ALD system. 

The determination of a leak rate for a 

leaking refrigerant-containing appliance 

is vital to ascertain if a refrigerantcontaining appliance must be repaired. 

EPA is providing some flexibility to 

owners or operators who have been 

alerted of a leak to either preemptively 

repair the refrigerant-containing 

appliance or calculate the leak rate of 

said appliance to determine if the owner 

or operator must proceed with the leak 

repair process. The commenter asserted 

that preemptive repair should be the 

only recommended solution for leak 

resolution; however, if a refrigerantcontaining appliance is found to have 

been leaking above the applicable leak 

rate threshold after the completion of a 

preemptive repair, the owner or 

operator of the refrigerant-containing 

appliance would still be required to 

follow through with the rest of the leak 

repair process (e.g., verification tests, 

leak inspections, etc.). Furthermore, the 

Agency reiterates that the final rule is 

not requiring the repair of all leaks; 

rather, this final rule requires that leaks 

be repaired to the extent that they bring 

the refrigerant-containing appliance 

below the applicable leak rate threshold. 

There may be some scenarios where an 

owner or operator may decide to 

calculate the leak rate as soon as 

possible to determine the severity of a 

leak and determine if further action is 

needed. Additionally, records of leak 

alerts from an ALD system that do not 

push the refrigerant-containing 

appliance above the leak rate threshold 

at the time of the alarm will inform an 

owner operator if their refrigerantcontaining appliance is having issues 

with smaller leaks (e.g., pinhole leaks). 

Regarding one commenter’s questions 

on the requirement of a leak rate 

calculation after the preemptive repair 

of a refrigerant-containing appliance, 

the Agency notes that the option to 

preemptively repair a refrigerantcontaining appliance does not remove 

the necessity to conduct a leak rate 

calculation. As previously discussed, 

the option to preemptively repair a 

refrigerant-containing appliance and the 

calculation of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance’s leak rate are separate parts 

of an overall approach to addressing 

leaks from refrigerant-containing 

appliances. The commenter is correct 

that the Agency is providing two 

compliance pathways when a leak is 

detected by an ALD system; however, 

EPA clarifies that its rationale for the 

preemptive repair provision is intended 

to reduce the emissions of refrigerant 

from an appliance that is known to be 

leaking. EPA encourages owners and 

operators to preemptively repair a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82753 

refrigerant-containing appliance for this 

reason but is not requiring an owner or 

operator to do so. In both compliance 

scenarios the owner or operator will 

need to conduct a leak rate calculation 

to determine if the refrigerantcontaining appliance was leaking above 

the applicable leak rate which requires 

the owner or operator to conduct the 

rest of the leak repair process, even if 

the leak(s) were preemptively repaired. 

Preemptive repair gives owners or 

operators a ‘‘head start’’ to the leak 

repair process and is not a replacement 

for the leak rate calculation of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance. The 

Agency disagrees with the framing of 

the commenter’s claims on additional 

economic or operational burden to 

owners and operators associated with 

the calculation of the leak rate after 

preemptive repair. A refrigerantcontaining appliance may be considered 

‘‘fully functional’’ after preemptive 

repair, but a leak rate calculation is still 

required in order to determine if the 

appliance at the time of the ALD system 

alarm was leaking above the applicable 

threshold. If the refrigerant-containing 

appliance was leaking above the 

threshold, it is required that the 

preemptive repair be verified and 

inspected per the leak repair provisions 

of this final rule to ensure the repair 

holds. EPA reiterates that the 

preemptive repair of an appliance is not 

a substitute for the calculation of a leak 

rate. Additionally, similar costs would 

be incurred if the owner or operator 

decided to not preemptively repair a 

refrigerant-containing appliance and 

just calculated the leak rate of said 

appliance. If that appliance was then 

found to be leaking above the applicable 

leak rate the full suite of the leak repair 

provision would apply. Thus, the 

Agency disagrees with the commenter’s 

suggestion to remove the leak rate 

calculation if a refrigerant-containing 

appliance is preemptively repaired. 

EPA is requiring owners or operators 

using an indirect ALD system to comply 

with the provisions to detect and repair 

leaks in appliances. The indirect ALD 

system must be calibrated to provide an 

alarm when the system has provided 

measurements that indicate that 50 

pounds of refrigerant or 10 percent of 

the full charge of refrigerant, whichever 

is less, has leaked. EPA acknowledges 

that commercial refrigeration and IPR 

appliances would exceed the alarm 

threshold if 50 pounds of refrigerant had 

leaked from an appliance. Therefore, 

owners and operators subject to the ALD 

installation and use requirements in this 

final rule that are using indirect ALD 

systems would be alerted when a leak 

surpassed 50 pounds of refrigerant. EPA 

understands that owners and operators 

not subject to the ALD installation and 

use requirements that are utilizing an 

indirect ALD system would receive an 

alert at 10 percent of full charge lost 

depending on the charge size of their 

refrigerant-containing appliance. For 

example, an appliance with a charge 

size of 200 pounds would alarm when 

20 pounds of refrigerant is lost because 

the appliance has leaked 10 percent of 

its full charge. Once that alarm 

threshold has been surpassed, EPA is 

requiring the owner or operator to 

perform a leak rate calculation, or 

alternatively they may preemptively 

repair the leak before adding refrigerant 

and calculating the leak rate. The same 

requirements, as described elsewhere in 

this section, where an owner or operator 

chooses to perform preemptive leak 

repair when using a direct ALD system 

apply in the scenario where preemptive 

leak repair is performed when using an 

indirect ALD system. Similarly, EPA is 

requiring that a leak rate calculation be 

performed within 30 days (or 120 days 

where an industrial process shutdown is 

necessary) of the alarm where an 

indirect ALD system is used for 

refrigerant-containing appliances 

subject to this provision. If the 

calculated leak rate is above the 

applicable leak trigger rate (as discussed 

in section IV.C.3.a of this preamble), all 

of the leak repair requirements in this 

action (including the repair 

requirements, inspections, verification 

tests and recordkeeping and reporting) 

would then apply. 

As described in the proposal, indirect 

ALD systems rely on data analytics to 

detect leaks rather than the direct 

detection of refrigerant gas. Indirect 

ALD systems monitor the operation of a 

refrigerant-based system to infer 

whether a leak is present. This method 

is typically conducted using existing 

sensors and hardware that are already 

located on site, and it relies on 

algorithms to evaluate existing 

conditions, such as liquid levels, 

temperatures, and ambient conditions to 

indicate whether a leak is occurring. 

EPA understands that indirect systems 

can be calibrated to provide an alarm 

when a specified predicted refrigerant 

leak rate has occurred. The Agency is 

not establishing a definition of indirect 

ALD systems in this rulemaking and 

clarifies that any indirect ALD system 

that meets the criteria described in 40 

CFR 84.108(g) is acceptable to use. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring that 

indirect ALD systems monitor at least 

two ‘‘measurements’’ to determine 

whether a refrigerant-containing 

appliance is leaking above the final 

rule’s alarm criteria. Some examples of 

appropriate measurements include but 

are not limited to temperature, liquid 

levels, pressure, and flow rate. Multiple 

measurements are required to ensure 

that an indirect ALD system is operating 

as intended and providing owners or 

operators with accurate data on the 

condition of their refrigerant-containing 

appliance. 

The Agency clarifies that a 10 percent 

loss of full charge does not directly 

correspond to the leak rate threshold of 

20 percent for commercial refrigeration 

and 30 percent for IPR. The 10 percent 

of total charge lost when an indirect 

ALD system alarms may equate to less 

than or greater than an annualized leak 

rate of 20 or 30 percent depending on 

the timeframe over which the leak 

occurred (see section IV.C.3.a for more 

information on calculating the 

annualized leak rate). In any event, this 

difference is reasonable because the 

primary purpose of the ALD system is 

to allow the owner or operator to obtain 

knowledge of the leak earlier (e.g., 

before operations are impacted) and to 

facilitate earlier repair, whether through 

preemptive repair before the leak rate 

threshold is exceeded or through 

required repairs after the leak rate 

threshold is exceeded. The technical 

feasibility of the ‘‘50 pounds of 

refrigerant or 10 percent of the full 

charge, whichever is less’’ standard is 

well established. This has been the 

threshold used by both CARB and is 

also the standard in provisions at 40 

CFR 82.157(g)(4)(ii) for ALD systems 

that are used in lieu of quarterly or 

annual leak inspections, as part of the 

leak repair requirements under CAA 

section 608. 

Comment: The Agency received 

mixed comments on the inclusion of 

indirect ALD in the proposal. One 

commenter supported the inclusion of 

indirect ALD systems in the proposed 

rule. Another commenter asserted that 

EPA should not allow indirect ALD 

systems as an alternative to direct ALD 

systems because indirect ALD systems 

are newer technologies that are 

unproven to satisfy the objectives of this 

rule. The commenter suggested that the 

final rule could include indirect 

detection as a helpful supplement to 

direct detection systems but should not 

replace or be permitted as an alternative 

to direct ALD. The commenter also 

stated that no indirect detection system 

currently complies with safety 

standards for occupied spaces and that 

an additional layer of direct ALD is 

required to comply with ASHRAE and 

other guidance that governs personnel 

safety. If indirect ALD systems are going 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82754 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

to be considered as an alternative or 

substitute of direct detection, the 

commenter asserted that more 

prescriptive requirements need to be 

determined to equate the action levels 

with direct ALD systems and that EPA 

must provide clearer description of 

indirect systems. 

Similarly, another commenter 

recommended that EPA require indirect 

ALD systems to use multiple data points 

to determine whether a leak is present. 

The commenter stated that many ALD 

systems registered under their 

refrigerant management program are 

indirect ALD systems that only use 

room temperature to determine whether 

a leak is present or not; however, newer 

indirect ALD systems generally use 

multiple data points working in tandem, 

such as temperature, pressure, liquid 

levels, etc., to help identify potential 

leaks. The commenter further stated that 

indirect ALD systems utilizing only a 

single data point (e.g., temperature) are 

reactive to conditions that have 

occurred after a potential leak as 

opposed to indicating a leak when it 

first occurs, thus indirect ALD systems 

using multiple data points are more 

accurate at identifying and repairing 

leaks. 

Response: EPA acknowledges 

comments in support of the final rule’s 

indirect ALD requirements. As 

described in 40 CFR 84.108(g) indirect 

ALD systems must alarm when 

‘‘measurements’’ indicate a loss of 50 

pounds of refrigerant or 10 percent of 

full charge, whichever is less. EPA 

clarifies that it intends indirect ALD 

systems to use multiple parameters in 

order to make determinations of 

refrigerant loss. EPA agrees that a single 

parameter being measured by an 

indirect ALD system may not be 

sufficient to accurately detect leaks and 

may be subject to external forces that 

may result in a false alarm or no alarm 

at all. Thus, the Agency is clarifying that 

at least two measurements be used by an 

indirect ALD system to determine if an 

appliance has leaked above the alarm 

threshold. Some measurements include 

but are not limited to temperature, 

pressure, and flow rate. This 

clarification of indirect ALD systems 

using multiple parameters to accurately 

determine the presence and severity of 

a leak above the alarm threshold should 

ease commenters’ concerns on the 

viability of indirect ALD systems. 

EPA disagrees with one commenter’s 

assertion that indirect ALD systems are 

not an alternative to direct ALD 

systems. The Agency agrees that 

indirect ALD can be used in tandem 

with direct ALD for additional benefits. 

However, EPA finds any indirect ALD 

system that meets the standards 

outlined in 40 CFR 84.108(g) as 

acceptable to use because the indirect 

ALD systems are capable of alerting 

owners or operators of leaks just as 

direct systems can. The Agency 

disagrees with the framing of the 

commenters statement that indirect ALD 

systems are not able to comply with 

ASHRAE standards for personnel safety. 

In the context of this final rule, the ALD 

requirements are designed to alert 

owners or operators of a leak earlier so 

that repairs of leaks above the 

applicable threshold can be made faster 

and thus, minimize the release of 

refrigerants from refrigerant-containing 

appliances. The Agency did not propose 

and is not finalizing that ALD be used 

to ensure technician safety. As 

previously discussed in the preamble of 

this section, EPA is aware of ASHRAE 

safety standards for A2L refrigerants and 

UL Standard 60335 2–40 requirements 

for the use of leak detectors for certain 

appliances. 

Additionally, EPA finds that there are 

strengths and weaknesses of both leak 

detection technologies. For example, 

direct ALD can accurately detect the 

location of leaks if positioned well on or 

near an appliance; however, direct ALD 

cannot function well outdoors where 

ambient conditions can diminish the 

presence of refrigerant. Indirect ALD 

can monitor an entire appliance, 

including portions of an appliance that 

may be located behind walls or 

outdoors, and use metrics to determine 

whether a leak has occurred. As the 

commenter stated, one issue with 

indirect ALD is its inability to 

definitively detect the precise location 

of a leak. EPA is not prescribing which 

ALD system owners or operators must 

use; instead, the Agency is requiring the 

use of an ALD system that meets the 

standards of this rulemaking and detect 

leaks early to minimize the release of 

refrigerants from equipment. Further, 

EPA understands that one type of ALD 

may suit the needs of an owner or 

operator better than the other. Allowing 

flexible options for ALD will facilitate 

compliance with this provision and 

ensure there is an adequate supply of 

ALD systems for owners or operators. If 

EPA were to limit the use of ALD to one 

system over the other, owners or 

operators may have difficulty installing 

ALD systems within the timeframe 

required by the final rule. 

Comment: The Agency received a few 

comments concerning the alarm 

threshold for indirect ALD systems. One 

commenter stated that indirect ALD 

systems have the capability to detect a 

leak with as little as one percent of full 

charge lost when data is reliable and 

available. However, to minimize the risk 

of false alarms at lower percentages 

(e.g., ≤ five percent), the commenter 

recommends that EPA finalize the 

proposed alarm criteria for indirect ALD 

systems. The commenter stated that the 

proposed alarm criteria would allow 

their manufactured systems to send leak 

alarm notifications with high 

confidence and reduce the risk of false 

positives, which degrade customer 

confidence in leak alarm notifications. 

Alternatively, one commenter stated 

that they were unaware of any standard 

or industry accepted procedure to verify 

the indirect ALD system is operating in 

a manner to detect 50 pounds or 10 

percent of full charge. The commenter 

asserted that it was unclear how this 

requirement would be consistently 

applied and enforced, and that the 

Agency should better define the process 

of verification. Another commenter 

asserted that the alarm criteria for 

indirect systems are not equivalent to 

the alarm criteria for direct systems. The 

commenter claimed that indirect 

systems are not equipped to quantify the 

severity of the leak or pinpoint its 

precise location because indirect 

systems rely on data analytics and have 

not been developed for the purpose of 

retaining refrigerant in an appliance. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the alarm 

criteria for indirect ALD systems as 

proposed. EPA acknowledges comments 

in support of the provision. EPA 

disagrees that there are no standards or 

industry accepted procedures to ensure 

indirect ALD systems are properly 

verified and calibrated to perform the 

function of leak detection. The alarm 

criteria for indirect ALD systems have 

been utilized by CARB since 2011. The 

alarm criteria under CARB’s refrigerant 

management program for both direct 

and indirect ALD systems were based 

on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15–2001, 

Safety Standards for Refrigeration 

Systems. These alarm criteria were 

adopted by EPA in the 2016 Section 608 

Rule for owners or operators who sought 

to implement ALD as a compliance 

option in lieu of quarterly or annual 

leak inspections. For these reasons, EPA 

finds it appropriate to adopt the same 

alarm criteria in this final rule. 

Additionally, the Agency clarifies that 

an owner or operator would need to 

follow the manufacturer’s specifications 

for an indirect ALD system to ensure it 

is properly calibrated to the appliance 

and that it is monitoring and performing 

the function of alerting an owner or 

operator when a leak is detected above 

the lesser of 50 pounds or 10 percent of 

full charge. The final rule requires that 

indirect ALD systems be audited and 

calibrated annually and requires records 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82755 

to be kept detailing these annual audits 

and calibrations. Regarding the 

commenter’s question to how this 

provision would be enforced, EPA notes 

that the recordkeeping for ALD systems 

in 40 CFR 84.108(i) would be used to 

determine if an owner or operator has 

been non-compliant and whether 

further enforcement action is necessary. 

EPA also disagrees that the alarm 

criteria for indirect and direct ALD 

systems are not equivalent because 

indirect and direct ALD systems are 

using different parameters to determine 

the existence of a leak; thus, the alarm 

criteria for both technologies will never 

be one-to-one. EPA clarifies that direct 

ALD cannot determine the severity of a 

leak based on ppm detection alone 

either, as the detection of ppm vapor of 

a refrigerant is not exactly correlative 

with how much refrigerant has leaked 

from an appliance. The only way to 

confirm the severity of a leak is via a 

leak rate calculation, which is required 

within 30 days of an alarm for both 

direct and indirect systems. As 

discussed previously, direct and 

indirect ALD systems have strengths 

and weaknesses; however, indirect ALD 

systems, inability to determine the exact 

location of a leak does not preclude the 

technology from serving the purpose of 

alerting an owner or operator of a leak. 

Additionally, in the context of the 

appliances that are subject to the ALD 

requirements in the final rule (i.e., IPR 

and commercial appliances with a 

charge size of 1,500 pounds or more), 50 

pounds of refrigerant loss is a relatively 

small proportion of the appliance’s full 

charge. Direct ALD systems that alarm at 

100 ppm of detected refrigerant 

concentrations may have leaked a 

comparable amount of refrigerant before 

alerting an owner or operator. 

2. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

EPA is finalizing, as proposed, 

specific reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for ALD systems in this 

action. Where ALD systems are 

required, EPA is requiring that owners 

or operators maintain records regarding 

the annual calibration or audit of the 

system. EPA is also requiring that 

records be maintained each time an 

ALD system triggers an alert, whether 

that be based on the applicable ppm 

threshold for a direct ALD system or the 

indicated loss of refrigerant measured in 

an indirect ALD system. When an ALD 

system alerts the owner or operator of a 

leak, EPA is requiring that the owner or 

operator maintain a record of the date of 

the ALD system alert and the location of 

the leak. EPA is also establishing 

recordkeeping requirements in the case 

where an owner or operator chooses to 

use an ALD system, where not required, 

as a compliance option in lieu of 

periodic inspections for an appliance 

that has exceeded an applicable leak 

rate. The recordkeeping requirements 

related to when a leak rate calculation 

must be conducted are described in 

section IV.C.3.g of this action. As 

discussed in section II.B, EPA’s 

authority to require recordkeeping and 

reporting under the AIM Act is also 

supported by section 114 of the CAA, 

which applies to the AIM Act and rules 

promulgated under it as provided in 

subsection (k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act. 

EPA is requiring that these records 

related to ALD systems, where required, 

be maintained for three years. Where 

ALD systems are being voluntarily used 

(i.e., appliances with a full charge below 

1,500 pounds or using a substitute for 

HFCs with a GWP of 53 or below), no 

recordkeeping is required. However, if 

an appliance using an ALD system is 

found to be leaking above the applicable 

leak rate and the owner or operator 

chooses to use the ALD system in lieu 

of periodic inspections, they are 

required to follow all requirements 

associated with this compliance option, 

including annual audits or calibration 

and all necessary recordkeeping 

requirements. The recordkeeping 

requirements in this action do not 

change any recordkeeping requirements 

where an owner or operator chooses to 

use an ALD system per 40 CFR 

82.157(g)(4) for appliances containing 

ODS refrigerants. 

Comment: EPA received a few 

comments on the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for its ALD 

provisions. One commenter supported 

the reduced recordkeeping requirements 

for facilities that opt into ALD in lieu of 

quarterly or annual inspections. The 

same commenter was supportive of 

recordkeeping requirements that 

demonstrate facility owners are 

performing the necessary calibration 

and maintenance of ALD systems. 

However, the commenter stated that the 

prescriptive installation and calibration 

may work against manufacturer 

specifications, which should be 

followed to achieve optimal results. 

Another commenter supported EPA’s 

proposed approach of not requiring ALD 

system alerts to be reported to the 

Agency and would oppose including 

any such reporting requirement in the 

final rule. If the Agency has the need to 

review these records, the commenter 

said they can always be requested from 

a facility rather than imposing an 

additional administrative burden on 

owners or operators and on EPA by 

requiring a report of every ALD alert. 

Lastly, one commenter reinforced the 

need for digital recordkeeping and 

recommended that digital records 

directly tied to the detection system be 

encouraged where possible. 

Response: EPA is finalizing 

recordkeeping requirements for ALD 

systems as proposed. EPA acknowledges 

one commenter’s request that ALD alerts 

not be reported to the Agency. Records 

of ALD alerts are required, but EPA did 

not propose and is not finalizing that 

ALD alarms be reported to the Agency. 

The Agency agrees with one 

commenter’s emphasis on digital 

recordkeeping and agrees that, where 

appropriate, digital recordkeeping is 

appropriate for filing the information 

required under this provision. EPA 

clarifies that recordkeeping in a paper 

format is still acceptable as long as 

records are kept in the manner defined 

in 40 CFR 84.108(i). The Agency 

disagrees with one commenter’s claim 

that annual calibration of ALD systems 

may go against manufacturers 

specifications. EPA is unaware of any 

manufacturer specifications that would 

make annual calibration and verification 

that an ALD system is functioning 

properly impossible or non-optimal. 

While owners or operators should rely 

on manufacturer specifications as it 

relates to the installation and operation 

of equipment, the Agency does not view 

the annual calibration and audits of 

ALD systems as out of sync with 

manufacturer specifications. ALD 

installations and their subsequent use 

should largely align with manufacturer 

specifications, but owners or operators 

must ensure that all leak-prone 

components are monitored by an ALD 

system. 

E. How is EPA establishing requirements 

for recovered and reclaimed HFCs? 

EPA is finalizing requirements for 

recovered and reclaimed HFCs with 

modifications after consideration of the 

comments and information received on 

the proposed rule. EPA is requiring 

reclaimed refrigerants that contain HFCs 

to contain no more than 15 percent, by 

weight, virgin HFCs. The reclamation 

standard will apply as of January 1, 

2026, and the provision includes certain 

recordkeeping, labeling, and 

certification requirements. EPA is also 

finalizing requirements for the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment to be done with reclaimed 

HFCs in the supermarket systems, 

refrigerated transport, and automatic 

commercial ice makers subsectors. EPA 

also proposed to require reclaimed 

HFCs in the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in the 

stand-alone refrigeration subsector, but 

is not finalizing that requirement in this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82756 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

84 Draft Report—Analysis of the U.S. 

Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation Market: 

Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices, October 2022. 

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ 

documents/2022-10/Draft_HFC-ReclamationReport_10-13-22%20sxf%20v3.pdf. 

85Stakeholder meeting for input on an upcoming 

regulatory action under subsection (h) of the AIM 

Act, November 2022. Available at: https://

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-11/ 

AIM%20Act%20Stakeholder%20Meeting_

HFC%20Management_11-9-2022.pdf. 86Comments submitted to response of NODA 

published on October 17, 2022 (87 FR 62843) are 

available in the docket for this rulemaking at 

https://www.regulations.gov. 87Stakeholder meeting on HFC reclamation under 

the AIM Act, March 2023. Available at: https://

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/ 

HFC%20Management_

Reclaimer%20Stakeholder%20Mtg_Final%203-15- 

23.pdf. 

88Webinar—Subsection (h) Under the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act, April 2023. 

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

webinar-subsection-h-under-american-innovationand-manufacturing-act. 

89EPA further discusses MVAC servicing and 

recovered and reprocessed HFC refrigerants in 

section IV.I. 

90EPA has made a few modifications to the 

regulatory text as finalized at section 84.104(a) to 

ensure consistency with the definition of reclaim in 

40 CFR 84.3, in accordance with the intent for this 

provision. 

action. EPA is delaying the compliance 

date for these finalized requirements by 

one year from January 1, 2028, to 

January 1, 2029. EPA is also establishing 

a discrete reporting requirement, as 

described in section IV.E.2. Lastly, at 

this time, EPA is not finalizing 

requirements for the initial fill of 

refrigerant-containing equipment to be 

done with reclaimed HFCs. 

As described in the proposed rule, 

subsection (h) provides EPA authority 

to, where appropriate, establish 

regulations to control such practices, 

processes, or activities that are intended 

to increase reclamation of HFCs, as well 

as substitutes for HFCs, that are used as 

refrigerants. EPA understands this 

delegation of authority to give the 

Agency flexibility to promulgate 

regulations that could include those that 

are designed to increase market demand 

for reclaimed HFCs with a goal of 

increasing the amount of HFCs that are 

reclaimed, which would further serve 

the purpose of maximizing the 

reclamation of regulated substances. 

Accordingly, EPA is establishing 

requirements for what constitutes 

reclaimed HFCs and for the servicing 

and/or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment to be done with 

reclaimed HFCs. In this rulemaking, 

EPA is not establishing requirements for 

reclaimed HFC substitutes; however, the 

Agency interprets the authority under 

subsection (h) to include establishing 

such regulations. Consistent with the 

proposal, EPA determined it would be 

prudent to focus the requirements 

finalized in this action on HFCs, given 

that the HFC consumption and 

production phasedown will create 

scarcity for virgin HFCs and such 

demand can partly be addressed by 

increased use of reclaimed HFCs where 

possible. 

EPA published a Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) on October 17, 

2022 (87 FR 62843), to alert 

stakeholders of information regarding 

the U.S. HFC reclamation market, 

available through a draft report, 

Analysis of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon 

Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, 

Drivers, and Practices.84 EPA solicited 

stakeholder feedback and held a public 

stakeholder meeting shortly after the 

NODA was published on November 9, 

2022.85 EPA received comments 86 from 

various entities in response to the 

published NODA and from the 

stakeholder meeting, including 

comments from reclaimers, industry 

organizations, environmental nongovernment organizations, OEMs, and a 

private citizen. EPA held an additional 

public stakeholder meeting on March 

16, 2023, and a webinar through EPA’s 

GreenChill Partnership Program on 

April 12, 2023, and heard many similar 

comments to those received on the 

NODA.87 88 Interested parties may view 

the draft report, the materials for the 

public meetings, and the comments the 

Agency received in response to the 

NODA in the docket for this action. 

EPA is providing a final version of the 

report, titled Analysis of the U.S. 

Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation Market: 

Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices, 

that is also available in the docket of 

this action. EPA has incorporated 

information provided from commenters 

to this rulemaking (as further discussed 

and responded to in sections IV.E.1 and 

IV.E.2), including oral comments 

provided at the public hearing on 

November 2, 2023. 

1. Reclamation Standard 

EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that 

HFC refrigerant sold as reclaimed can 

contain no more than 15 percent virgin 

HFC refrigerant, by weight. EPA is 

clarifying in this final rule and in the 

regulatory text at 40 CFR 84.112(a) that 

this requirement begins on January 1, 

2026, as intended to match the 

compliance date of the relevant labeling 

and recordkeeping requirements 

described in this section. This applies 

only to the HFC portion of reclaimed 

refrigerants, in the case of refrigerant 

blends with HFCs and a non-HFC 

component (e.g., an HFC/HFO blend). 

EPA is also prohibiting, as proposed, the 

sale, distribution, or transfer to a new 

owner, or the offer for sale, distribution, 

or transfer to a new owner, of any 

regulated substance used as a refrigerant 

in stationary refrigerant-containing 

equipment (i.e., not an MVAC or an 

MVAC-like appliance) 89 consisting in 

whole or in part of recovered regulated 

substances. This prohibition does not 

apply where the recovered regulated 

substances are reclaimed by an EPAcertified reclaimer (as described in 40 

CFR 82.164) and have been reclaimed 

consistent with the definition of reclaim 

in 40 CFR 84.3 (including to the 

required purity standard and with the 

appropriate verification),90 or if the 

recovered regulated substance is being 

sold, distributed, or transferred to a new 

owner, or offered for sale, distribution, 

or transfer to a new owner solely for the 

purposes of being reclaimed or 

destroyed. Further, for clarity, EPA 

notes that recovered refrigerant that is 

used by the same owner is regulated 

under 40 CFR 82.154(d). This 

rulemaking does not alter those 

requirements and does not prevent an 

equipment owner or operator from using 

refrigerant recovered from a piece of 

equipment they own to be used in that 

same piece of equipment or another 

piece of equipment they own. 

EPA is also establishing labeling and 

recordkeeping requirements, as 

proposed, and prohibiting the sale, 

identification, or reporting of refrigerant 

as being reclaimed if the HFC 

component of the resulting refrigerant 

contains more than 15 percent, by 

weight, of virgin HFC. EPA proposed 

and is requiring that certified reclaimers 

affix this label to reclaimed HFCs being 

sold or distributed or offered for sale or 

distribution beginning January 1, 2026. 

The label is required to include the 

specifications as described in the 

regulatory text at 40 CFR 84.112(d). 

Additionally, EPA proposed and is 

requiring that certified reclaimers create 

and maintain a record related to the 

reclaimed HFCs filled in containers. 

EPA is requiring such records be 

generated beginning January 1, 2026, be 

maintained by reclaimers for three 

years, and include the following 

information: 

• The name, address, contact person, 

email address, and phone number of the 

certified reclaimer; 

• The date the container was filled 

with reclaimed HFC(s); 

• The amount and name of the HFC(s) 

in the container; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82757 

• Certification that the contents of the 

container are from a batch where the 

amount of virgin HFCs does not exceed 

15 percent, by weight, of the total HFCs; 

• The unique serial number of the 

container(s) filled from the batch; 

• Identification of the batch of 

reclaimed HFCs used to fill the 

container(s); and 

• The percentage, by weight, of virgin 

HFC(s) in the batch used to fill the 

container(s). 

Consistent with the proposal, EPA is 

not requiring that each individual 

container or cylinder be rationed out to 

meet the allowable limit of 15 percent, 

by weight, of virgin HFCs. Rather, EPA 

is requiring, at the batch level, that the 

reclaimed HFCs not exceed 15 percent, 

by weight, of virgin HFCs. As discussed 

in section IV.A.2, EPA proposed a 

definition of ‘‘virgin regulated 

substances’’ that would have included 

the heels removed from containers. 

However, EPA is finalizing a 

modification of that definition to mean 

‘‘any regulated substance that has not 

had any bona fide use in equipment’’ 

but omitting the portion of the proposed 

definition that would have included 

heels. As a part of implementing this 

provision, EPA is also establishing that 

HFCs that are removed from the heels of 

containers do not contribute towards the 

limit of 15 percent, by weight, of virgin 

HFCs. EPA recognizes the value in the 

removed heels and, while the heels may 

be regulated substances that have not 

had bona fide use in refrigerantcontaining equipment, EPA understands 

from comments on the proposed rule 

that some reclaimers may still reprocess 

removed heels to ensure the material 

will meet the applicable purity 

standards. EPA understands that, in the 

distribution chain, heels may be 

recovered into a common recovery 

cylinder along with refrigerant that has 

been recovered after a bona fide use in 

equipment. 

EPA is finalizing these requirements 

to implement the statutory requirement 

in subsection (h)(2)(B) of the AIM Act, 

which provides that any regulated 

substance used as a refrigerant that is 

recovered shall be reclaimed before 

being sold or transferred to a new 

owner, except where the recovered 

regulated substance is sold or 

transferred to a new owner solely for the 

purposes of being reclaimed or 

destroyed. This will be particularly 

relevant to the refrigerant-containing 

equipment for which EPA is 

establishing requirements the servicing 

and/or repair be done with reclaimed 

HFCs, as described in section IV.E.2. 

These provisions are also intended to 

support the implementation of the 

statutory provision for stationary 

refrigerant-containing equipment in the 

context of other requirements 

established in this rulemaking, 

including by outlining more specific 

requirements for the reclamation that 

would need to occur before sale or any 

of the other listed activities for such 

regulated substances, as well as 

incorporating the statutory exception for 

situations where such recovered 

regulated substances are sold or 

transferred solely for the purposes of 

being reclaimed or destroyed. EPA 

further discusses its approach for 

recovered regulated substances used as 

refrigerants in MVAC equipment in 

section IV.I. 

EPA is finalizing a standard for the 

amount of virgin HFC refrigerant that 

can be included in any reclaimed 

refrigerant containing HFCs to support 

consistent implementation of the 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of certain equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in addition to 

establishing consistency on the amount 

of virgin HFCs in reclaimed refrigerant 

when that refrigerant is sold, identified, 

or reported as reclaimed for use in the 

installation, servicing, and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment. These 

requirements are being established as 

part of implementing subsection (h)(1) 

of the AIM Act, as these provisions 

control practices, processes, or activities 

regarding the installation, servicing, or 

repair of equipment and involve a 

regulated substance or the reclaiming of 

a regulated substance used as a 

refrigerant. As the HFC phasedown 

progresses, the overall quantity of virgin 

HFCs available, including to facilitate 

reclamation through blending or 

rebalancing, will decrease. In addition, 

the Agency considers that limiting the 

extent to which the purity standard for 

reclamation is achieved through 

combining with virgin refrigerant 

(besides what the Agency understands 

to be the necessary rebalancing, 

particularly of certain blends) in this 

rulemaking supports the purpose of 

maximizing reclamation, and 

additionally bolsters the available 

supply of reclaimed HFCs in the market. 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported the 15 percent limit, by 

weight, on virgin refrigerant in 

reclaimed material. One commenter 

deferred to EPA regarding the amount of 

virgin material necessary to meet purity 

standards. Another commenter stated 

that it would be counterproductive to 

allow the use of more than 15 percent 

of virgin material given the proposed 

rule’s rationale to boost the U.S. 

reclamation industry. Another 

commenter stated that the 15 percent 

threshold allows sufficient flexibility to 

reclaim refrigerants and further stated 

that higher virgin-to-reclaimed content 

ratios could constitute ‘‘greenwashing’’ 

thereby deceiving consumers on the 

environmental benefit of using a 

reclaimed refrigerant. One commenter, 

although generally supportive of the 15 

percent virgin content limit, questioned 

whether the 15 percent limit applied to 

single-component refrigerants where 

blending is not necessary. Likewise, 

another commenter expressed support 

for the proposed limit of no more than 

15 percent newly produced HFCs in 

multi-component refrigerant blends to 

qualify as a reclaimed blend, but also 

recommended that EPA require single 

component refrigerants to use 100 

percent reclaimed material. One 

commenter supported the proposed 15 

percent virgin HFC limit, claiming it is 

reasonable and ‘‘ensures the continued 

existence of smaller reclaimers who 

must sometimes bulk up reclaimed 

gases to meet AHRI 700 purity 

standards.’’ The commenter further 

recommended ramping down the 

acceptable proportion of virgin gas over 

time to incentivize better reclamation 

technology. 

Several commenters supported a 

lower limit on the virgin content in 

reclaimed refrigerant. One of the 

commenters suggested the use of a 

virgin content limit for reclaimed 

material but encouraged EPA to tighten 

the requirement to send a clear message 

to the industry to invest in advanced 

reclamation technologies. The 

commenter noted that the 15 percent 

limit used by CARB was based on a 

term-limited program for a single State, 

while EPA’s proposed use requirements 

for reclaimed HFCs will apply 

nationally and are not term limited; 

thus, the requirements would send clear 

signals for investment in advanced 

reclamation technology. Another 

commenter similarly supported a 

maximum HFC virgin content in 

reclaimed HFCs, noting the importance 

of preventing large quantities of virgin 

HFCs from being blended with smaller 

reclaimed HFC quantities and 

considered reclaimed (which would not 

create a sustainable supply of reclaimed 

materials as the supply of virgin HFCs 

continues to decrease, and would 

disincentivize investment in fractional 

distillation capacity), and encouraged 

EPA to further tighten this requirement 

because the 15 percent limit was 

established in the California context. 

The commenter further stated that a 

stronger limit may be feasible on a 

nationwide basis while also supporting 

the smaller reclaimers in continuing to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82758 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

expand and develop their capacity for 

advanced reclamation of HFCs. Another 

commenter expressed concern that 

setting an allowance (e.g., 15 percent) 

for inclusion of newly produced 

refrigerant to be incorporated into 

reclaimed refrigerant is not a credible 

structure and will result in 

greenwashing claims, arguing that only 

recovered refrigerant should be 

considered reclaimed. The commenter 

further claimed that setting such a limit 

for newly produced refrigerant could 

thwart the goal to maximize reclamation 

and narrow uses away from clever 

solutions like a ‘‘service gas’’ with an 

increasing percentage of reclaimed 

refrigerant as more reclaimed refrigerant 

becomes available over time. 

Another commenter stated that they 

supported the definition of reclaimed 

refrigerant as containing no more than 

15 percent virgin material but would 

also support a lower or much lower 

limit because only a few larger 

reclaimers who were also importers, 

blenders, and distributors received 

substantial HFC allowances. The 

commenter further stated that many 

reclaimers received small or no 

allowances, and that allowances 

provided to reclaimers are being 

reduced as reclamation expectations are 

being raised. The commenter concluded 

that that most reclaimers would not be 

able to access 15 percent virgin material 

for a blend even if they wanted or 

needed to. The commenter further noted 

they did not support the concept that 

reclaimed refrigerant could be any 

percentage and treated as a blended 

component in a larger lot of refrigerants, 

arguing that this concept is not 

reflective of how reclaimed refrigerant is 

produced today and opens the door to 

non-reclaimers to find creative solutions 

to dilute the value of reclaimed 

refrigerant. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

commenters’ support and requests for 

potentially tightening the limit for 

virgin HFCs in reclaimed HFC 

refrigerant. The Agency understands 

that a portion of virgin HFCs is often 

necessary for rebalancing particular 

refrigerant multi-component blends, 

and, in contrast, EPA understands that 

single-component HFCs that are 

reclaimed would not require additional 

high-purity (e.g., virgin) HFCs for the 

purposes of rebalancing. EPA also 

understands that different reclaimers 

deploy different practices (e.g., not all 

reclaimers use fractional distillation), 

and may see different needs for using 

the maximum allowable percentage of 

15 percent, by weight virgin HFCs. For 

example, some reclaimers may have 

capabilities and technologies to reclaim 

particular multi-component blends from 

difficult-to-separate mixed recovered 

refrigerants and may not need to use the 

full 15 percent limit, by weight, of 

virgin HFCs. Other reclaimers may have 

limited access to these technologies and 

might routinely meet the maximum 

allowable amount of virgin HFCs in 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants they process 

and sell. With these considerations, the 

Agency views the 15 percent limit, by 

weight, on virgin HFCs as appropriate 

and disagrees that it is appropriate at 

this time to establish a lower limit on 

virgin HFCs or that reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants may only constitute 

recovered materials. However, the 

Agency notes that it may revisit this 

requirement in the future, for example 

by evaluating whether a reclamation 

standard with a higher or lower 

percentage, by weight, for the maximum 

amount of virgin HFCs is appropriate at 

that time. 

Further, the Agency does not agree 

with the need to and is not establishing 

different standards for different 

reclaimers based on technology used to 

achieve the required purity standards 

for reclaimed refrigerants. EPA is 

establishing a single reclamation 

standard to ensure that reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants sold or marketed contain a 

consistent amount of virgin HFCs (i.e., 

no more than 15 percent, by weight). 

Establishing a varying standard might 

produce unintended effects for 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants placed on 

the market such that reclaimed HFCs of 

varying amounts of virgin content may 

be valued differently by purchasers. The 

reclamation standard of 15 percent 

virgin HFCs, by weight, allows for some 

virgin HFCs to be used to rebalance HFC 

blends, if needed. Further, this 

consistent standard will also avoid 

scenarios where HFC refrigerants are 

sold or marketed as reclaimed but may 

consist of only a small amount of 

recovered and reclaimed material and 

the balance being virgin HFCs. Such a 

case could lead to confusion for 

refrigerant purchasers, including those 

in subsectors subject to the 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs. This 

final rule, as described in this section, 

also includes provisions for 

recordkeeping and labeling based on 

this standard, which are intended to 

support identification of those HFC 

refrigerants that meet the reclamation 

standard, including by those purchasing 

reclaimed HFC refrigerant, by those 

servicing and/or repairing refrigerantcontaining equipment, and by EPA. 

Moreover, for these reasons, EPA 

concludes that establishing a consistent 

limit of 15 percent, by weight, of virgin 

HFCs in reclaimed HFC refrigerant is 

appropriate, in consideration of the 

purpose identified in subsection (h)(1) 

the AIM Act to maximize reclamation. 

EPA acknowledges that the program 

established by CARB was term-limited, 

with applicability only for a single 

State. The Agency agrees that applying 

a reclamation standard on a broader 

scope (i.e., nationally) may provide 

signals to spur additional reclamation 

and advancements in technology. 

However, unlike the CARB program, 

EPA is not applying the reclamation 

standard to only a single refrigerant 

blend in this rulemaking, noting that the 

standard applies to the HFC portion of 

refrigerants that contain HFCs (whether 

neat or in a blend), nor is the Agency 

establishing a term-limited program for 

the reclamation standard. As noted 

earlier in this response, the reclamation 

standard established in this rule is 

based on consideration of the purpose 

identified in subsection (h)(1) to 

maximize reclamation. Thus, the 

Agency is not tightening the standard, at 

this time, for reasons described earlier 

in this response and since the 

reclamation standard in this final rule 

applies more broadly than that of the 

CARB program. 

EPA acknowledges concerns related 

to ‘‘greenwashing’’ and improperly 

claiming benefits associated with 

reclaimed refrigerants. The Agency’s 

view is that the established limit of 15 

percent, by weight, for virgin HFCs in 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants is 

appropriate at this time, as explained 

earlier in this response. EPA considers 

the required label and other 

requirements established in this rule as 

one means of countering false claims of 

benefits related to refrigerants that 

contain a higher proportion than 

permitted of virgin HFCs. To the extent 

that one of the commenters claims that 

allowing any virgin HFCs in reclaimed 

refrigerant would lead to greenwashing 

claims, EPA disagrees. The 

requirements established in this rule 

provided clarity about the extent to 

which reclaimed refrigerant can contain 

virgin HFCs and are designed to ensure 

that all reclaimed refrigerant meets the 

same minimum standards. The Agency 

will monitor the marketing of 

refrigerants and may consider revising 

or adding to these requirements in the 

future if warranted. 

EPA acknowledges that some, but not 

all, reclaimers are allowance holders. 

EPA does not view a lack of allowances 

as a barrier to reclamation. To the extent 

that reclaimers use high-purity 

refrigerants in their reclamation process 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82759 

91As an illustrative example, if a refrigerant blend 

is composed of 50 percent HFC and 50 percent nonHFC and one is seeking to reclaim 100 pounds of 

this refrigerant, the 15 percent limit on virgin HFCs 

would apply only to the weight of the HFC portion, 

or 7.5 pounds (i.e., 15 percent of 50 pounds). 

92As an additional illustrative example, suppose 

100 pounds of a refrigerant to be reclaimed contains 

20 percent of HFC A, 30 percent of HFC B, and 50 

percent of a non-HFC component. The 15 percent 

limit on virgin HFCs would apply only to the 

weight of the sum of the HFC components. In this 

example, the total weight of HFCs is 50 pounds and 

the allowable weight of virgin HFCs would be 7.5 

pounds (i.e., 15 percent of 50 pounds). The limit on 

virgin HFCs may be made up of a combination of 

weights of virgin HFC A and HFC B that total 7.5 

pounds (e.g., 7.5 pounds of virgin HFC A and zero 

pounds of virgin HFC B; 3.5 pounds of virgin HFC 

A and 4 pounds of virgin HFC B; etc.). 

(e.g., for rebalancing blends), even if 

they do not have allowances, they could 

purchase virgin HFCs in the domestic 

market or other high purity (e.g., 

previously reclaimed) refrigerant, which 

may or may not go through some degree 

of reprocessing, until the final product 

meets the purity specifications to be 

considered reclaimed. Further, 

reclaimers may obtain allowances 

through transfers from existing 

allowance holders, and the transferred 

allowances can then be used to import 

HFCs. EPA is unclear as to how nonreclaimers would dilute the reclamation 

market based on the comment; however, 

EPA responds to concerns with the 

potential for a non-reclaimer to market 

refrigerant as reclaimed by noting that 

the requirements finalized in this 

action, including the labeling and 

recordkeeping requirements, apply to 

any refrigerant that is sold as reclaimed. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the 15 percent virgin allowance for 

reclamation but sought clarification on 

the calculation of this value. The 

commenter was unclear how the 

calculation for reclaimed refrigerant 

would be performed, especially when 

the reclaimed material includes nonHFC refrigerants. The commenter was 

uncertain whether the non-HFC 

substances would be included in the 

weight of the reclaimed refrigerant batch 

and recommended not including nonHFC components towards the minimum 

85 percent by weight of reclaimed HFCs. 

The commenter additionally suggested a 

tolerance limit for the measurement or 

calculation of the 15 percent or 85 

percent. 

Response: Consistent with the 

proposal, EPA is clarifying that in the 

case of reclamation of a refrigerant 

blend that contains an HFC and a nonHFC component (e.g., an HFO) that is 

being reclaimed, the 15 percent limit for 

virgin materials only applies to the HFC 

component of the blend. When 

calculating the amount of virgin HFCs 

that will be allowed, the 15 percent 

limit, by weight, applies to the weight 

of the HFC component(s), not the total 

weight of the reclaimed refrigerant.91

EPA further clarifies that the 15 percent 

limit on virgin HFCs does not apply per 

HFC where a reclaimed refrigerant 

blend contains more than one HFC 

component. Rather, the 15 percent limit 

on virgin HFCs should be calculated as 

15 percent of the weight of the total HFC 

components in the blend.92 EPA notes 

that subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act 

provides authority to promulgate 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, practices, processes, or 

activities related to the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves the reclaiming of a 

substitute for a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant. EPA interprets this 

provision to provide it authority that 

includes establishing requirements for 

how practices, processes, or activities 

related to the servicing, repair, disposal, 

or installation of equipment are 

conducted, including requiring those 

practices, processes, or activities be 

done with reclaimed HFCs or reclaimed 

HFC substitutes. However, at this time, 

the Agency is not establishing a 

requirement for the non-HFC 

component of a blend to be reclaimed 

and thus is not establishing a standard 

limiting the amount of virgin material 

for reclaimed substitutes for HFCs. 

While EPA acknowledges that there is 

some degree of random and systematic 

error associated with measurement 

devices, EPA is not implementing a 

tolerance range for this provision at this 

time and does not agree that one is 

necessary. It is EPA’s view that the 

institution of a 15 percent limit, by 

weight, on virgin HFCs allows 

reclaimers a range of compliance 

options, as they can use any amount of 

virgin HFCs between 0 and 15 percent, 

by weight, and still meet the standard. 

Implementing a tolerance range in 

addition to the range that is already 

inherent in the standard would lessen 

the standard’s effectiveness in serving 

the purposes identified in subsection 

(h), including maximizing reclamation. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the 15 percent, by weight, virgin 

allowance for reclamation but proposed 

basing the reclaimed content on CO2

equivalency values to allow the market 

under the Allowances and Technology 

Transitions programs to better move to 

low-GWP refrigerants in a cost-effective 

and environmentally positive manner. 

The commenter recommended allowing 

the destruction or repurposing of one 

refrigerant to be credited with a carbon 

allowance and to allow an equivalent 

quantity of another refrigerant to be 

placed on the market as reclaimed, 

minus a 10 percent offset for a net 

reduction in CO2 equivalents, to create 

a new market outlet for high-GWP 

substances and ensure that leaks are 

minimized. The commenter provided 

examples where a smaller mass of highGWP substances could be reclaimed and 

a larger mass of low-GWP substances 

placed on the market as reclaimed 

material by relying on the substances’ 

CO2 equivalents. 

The commenter stated that HFC–32 

and HFC–152a use in blends is vital to 

the survivability of the industry as it 

phases down HFCs under the Allocation 

rulemakings and goes through the 

transition required by the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule. The 

commenter stated that if EPA adopts a 

strict weight (mass) basis, industry will 

face an extreme burden sourcing HFC– 

32 and HFC–152a. The commenter 

noted that all formulations of viable 

heat pump solutions are based on some 

content of HFC–32, and that the vast 

majority of HFC–32 in the current 

marketplace is in the form of R–410A. 

The commenter stated that it is correct 

to assume that material will be used to 

service that market and HFC–32 will not 

become available for use in R–454B 

service or in commercial refrigeration 

service/initial fill. Further, the 

commenter mentioned that the fact that 

HFC–32 and HFC–125 make an 

azeotrope at a composition not too far 

from R–410A makes the separation of 

HFC–32 from HFC–125 non-trivial to 

recover the HFC–32 via distillation. The 

commenter stated that the viable 

solution is to slightly reconstitute and 

return ‘‘certified reclaimed material’’ to 

the market for service of existing 

equipment aging out of the marketplace. 

Response: EPA did not propose and is 

not establishing an offset or GWP-based 

program as the commenter suggests. The 

Agency recognizes that the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule uses GWP 

thresholds and that the Agency issues 

allowances based on exchange values. 

However, for the purposes of 

establishing an ER&R program, and 

more specifically for establishing 

provisions for the upper limit on virgin 

HFCs used in reclaimed HFCs, the 

Agency does not agree with the asserted 

need for an offset or GWP-based 

approach. In establishing this and other 

requirements related to reclaimed 

refrigerants in this rulemaking, the 

Agency seeks to require actions that 

would help meet the purposes described 

in subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act, 

including maximizing the reclamation 

of HFCs. Thus, the destruction or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82760 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

93Additionality is the criterion used to 

demonstrate that the activity or project generating 

offsets or credits would not have happened anyway 

(e.g., if it were required by regulation). 

94HFC Data Hub, available: https://www.epa.gov/ 

climate-hfcs-reduction/hfc-data-hub. 

repurposing without reclaiming of any 

HFCs, including high-GWP HFCs that 

can be properly reclaimed, would be 

counter to this goal. Further, other 

provisions of the AIM Act prescribe a 

phasedown, and not a phaseout for 

regulated substances. Even after the 

phasedown reaches its final step, virgin 

HFCs will continue to be produced and 

consumed. Any destruction-based 

program to provide offsets or credits 

would need to fully assess and address 

additionality.93 While such programs 

and considerations are beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking, EPA is uncertain 

whether additionality could be 

addressed in these types of programs. 

The Agency also does not agree with a 

GWP-weighting approach for virgin 

HFCs allowed in reclaimed HFCs. The 

Agency proposed and is finalizing a 

requirement that is based on percentage, 

by weight. The Agency understands that 

for servicing equipment, it is important 

to maintain adequate supply of the same 

refrigerants used in that equipment 

when it was initially charged. So, unlike 

the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule 

facilitating transition to next-generation 

technologies through sector-based 

restrictions on HFCs, this rule concerns 

the goals of maximizing reclamation and 

minimizing releases from equipment. 

Availability of refrigerants of all types, 

increasingly from reclamation, is central 

to meeting the goals of this rule, and an 

approach that applies to all HFCs would 

continue to promote reclamation. An 

approach that is GWP-based may have 

a counter effect of promoting only 

reclamation of certain higher-GWP HFC 

refrigerants. Further, such a GWPweighted approach would likely require 

additional compliance measures such as 

labeling or recordkeeping and reporting 

to ensure a specified overall CO2

equivalency is met. 

The Agency recognizes the use of 

HFC–32 and HFC–152a neat and in 

blends. The Agency further understands 

that as the market evolves, the sourcing 

of HFCs to be reclaimed may require 

separating HFCs and then using those 

separated HFCs in new blends. EPA is 

aware that a number of reclaimers have 

invested in and currently operate 

advanced reclamation technologies to 

effectively reclaim refrigerants, 

including separating and reclaiming 

HFC–32 from R–410A. For additional 

discussion on supply of reclaimed 

HFCs, please refer to comments and 

responses in section IV.E.2. 

Comment: Another commenter, as 

part of their suggestion that EPA replace 

the reclaim mandates for initial fill and 

servicing with a requirement that 

refrigerant supplied for servicing 

include a specified percentage of 

reclaimed material on a CO2e basis, 

proposed that this requirement should 

be met on a net basis, allowing for 

certified reclaimed refrigerant to be 

blended with virgin refrigerant in any 

ratio so long as the final ratio of material 

placed into the market in every 

reporting year meets the ratio as 

determined by the Administrator. The 

commenter asserted that this flexible 

requirement would allow a supplier to 

provide 100 percent virgin R–410A, but 

100 percent reclaimed R–404A, HFC– 

134a, or other refrigerant types, so long 

as the net CO2e is met. 

Response: The Agency does not agree 

with the commenters suggestion to base 

the 15 percent on an annual basis. The 

reclamation standard established in this 

final rule is such that reclaimed 

refrigerants are available for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in certain 

subsectors, and it is not applied at the 

supplier level. Reclaimers must meet 

the reclamation standard of no more 

than 15 percent virgin HFCs, by weight, 

on a batch basis and certify that the 

reclaimed refrigerant does not exceed 

the limit. Basing the reclamation 

standard on an annual basis may create 

scenarios in which materials exceeding 

the reclamation standard of no more 

than 15 percent virgin HFCs, by weight, 

is sold or marketed as reclaimed 

material. This would be counter 

effective to the goal of maximizing 

reclamation and could potentially put 

those servicing and/or repairing 

refrigerant-containing equipment in the 

covered subsectors in non-compliance. 

The Agency further discusses elsewhere 

in this section that it is applying the 

requirement on a batch basis. 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments that opposed the 15 percent, 

by weight, limit for virgin HFCs in 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants. Two 

commenters stated the requirement 

should be removed. One such 

commenter opposed any cap on virgin 

HFC refrigerants and specifically 

opposed the 15 percent blanket cap 

which they stated was arbitrary and 

capricious. The commenter claimed that 

similar provisions at a State level (i.e., 

CARB regulations) were established 

after industry input for R–410A, EPA 

did not solicit detailed technical input 

before the 15 percent proposal, and 

CARB’s 15 percent limit cannot be 

assumed to correlate for other 

multicomponent HFC blends. The 

commenter claimed that the limit could 

cause certain equipment to be 

prematurely obsolete if it uses HFCs for 

which the 15 percent limit is 

unworkable, and that EPA did not 

consider technical factors in tandem 

with the HFC phasedown. The 

commenter stated that EPA must 

demonstrate that the limit is uniformly 

technically achievable based on 

limitations of reclaimers and across the 

spectrum of HFC blends currently in the 

market and will result in increased 

reclamation beyond regulatory and 

market factors already identified by EPA 

to meet its mandate under subsection 

(h). The commenter claimed that small 

reclaimers cannot separate mixed or 

out-of-ratio refrigerants, resulting in the 

destruction of many refrigerants. The 

commenter stated that greater 

reclamation could be realized if small 

reclaimers could use virgin refrigerant at 

their discretion to meet purity standards 

while not yielding more reclaimed 

refrigerant than they received. The 

commenter disagreed that a virgin HFC 

limit was necessary given the decreasing 

pool of virgin HFC. 

Another commenter claimed that the 

15 percent virgin material limit for 

reclaimed material effectively removed 

blending as an option for creating 

certified refrigerants from mixed HFCs. 

The commenter stated that fractional 

distillation is not realistic for small 

businesses due to its cost and time 

required, and that new technologies to 

address mixed HFCs are still nascent. 

The commenter contended that 

reclaimers receive many mixed HFCs 

and that the 15 percent limit would 

remove any benefit of blending. 

One commenter stated that the 15 

percent, by weight, virgin HFC 

requirement would require an 

unattainable amount of material in 

2028. The commenter provided an 

example using R–410A, based the 

consumption of HFC–32 as provided on 

EPA’s HFC Data Hub 94 and certain 

assumptions, including that 

consumption corresponds to demand 

and usage and the 50% of HFC–32 

consumption is used to produce virgin 

R–410A. The commenter estimated that 

only four percent of the total demand 

for R–410A could have been met in 

2022 based on the 15 percent virgin 

requirement. The commenter also stated 

that, frequently, a small amount of 

reclaimed mixed refrigerant is added to 

virgin refrigerant to blend out mixed 

gas, not the other way around. Using a 

very high reclaim to virgin ratio as the 

standard for reclaimed gas will reduce 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82761 

reclaimer’s ability to process more 

mixed gas into salable product. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments related to the limit on virgin 

HFCs in reclaimed HFC refrigerants. 

The Agency concludes that such a limit 

is necessary for helping to achieve the 

purpose identified in subsection (h) of 

the AIM Act to maximize the 

reclamation of HFCs because without 

such a limit, refrigerant could be 

marketed as reclaimed even if it 

contained minimal recovered HFCs. 

Reclaim and reclamation are defined in 

subsection (b)(9) of the AIM Act to mean 

the reprocessing of a recovered HFC to 

a particular purity standard and the 

verification of the purity of that HFC 

using at a minimum a specified 

analytical methodology. Establishing a 

limit on virgin HFCs helps to ensure 

that reclaimed HFCs effectively make 

use of recovered HFCs and also helps 

promote more recovery of used HFCs 

from equipment that can then be 

reclaimed. This is an important part of 

maximizing reclamation of HFCs 

because those recovered HFCs are a key 

component of reclaimed refrigerants. 

Accordingly, EPA disagrees with the 

assertion that greater reclamation would 

result from an approach that allows 

reclaimers to use as much virgin HFC as 

they wished in producing reclaimed 

HFCs. 

EPA also disagrees that a decreasing 

pool of virgin HFCs would cause the 

reclamation standard to be unnecessary. 

Although the phasedown mandated by 

the AIM Act will lead to transition to 

alternatives as well as likely increased 

use of reclaimed HFCs, that is not equal 

to fulfilling Congress’s direction in 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act, namely 

maximizing the reclamation of HFCs 

that the requirements in this final rule 

are designed to achieve. Further, the 

provisions finalized in this rule provide 

consistency for what is considered 

reclaimed HFCs, and the accompanying 

labeling provisions provide 

transparency for those purchasing 

reclaimed HFCs. For example, it would 

not provide assurances to those who 

service, repair, or install refrigerantcontaining equipment that HFC 

refrigerants sold or marketed as 

reclaimed meet consistent standards, 

including with respect to the virgin 

content. Further, EPA explains in this 

response how the reclamation standard 

supports the purposes under subsection 

(h), notably, maximizing the 

reclamation of HFCs. Reclaimed HFCs 

currently are used in equipment and 

will continue to be a significant source 

of HFCs to support equipment that use 

HFCs, including in particular, the 

servicing and/or repair of existing 

equipment so that these pieces of 

equipment can reach their full useful 

life. However, EPA does not expect that 

such use on a voluntary basis would 

maximize the reclamation of HFCs, as 

Congress instructed. For example, EPA’s 

multi-decade experience with 

regulations under CAA section 608 

where there are no similar requirements 

for reclaimed ODS or ODS substitutes 

provides insight related to reclamation. 

Reclamation trends of ODS has been 

fairly steady, only driven by market 

demand, with no requirements for a 

limit of virgin material or requirements 

for servicing or repairing equipment 

with reclaimed ODS. In earlier years of 

reported HFC reclamation (i.e., 2017– 

2021), a similar steady trend can be 

observed. While there was no statutory 

direction to maximize reclamation of 

ODS under CAA section 608, as there is 

under subsection(h) of the AIM Act, the 

flat trend of ODS reclamation could 

represent that increasing trend could 

have been observed with additional 

regulatory drivers. As EPA discusses in 

other responses in IV.E.2, reclamation of 

HFCs has more recently (i.e., in 2022 

and 2023) seen an increasing trend. As 

noted at the start of this paragraph, 

while the phasedown of HFCs under the 

AIM Act may have an effect on the 

increasing trend, notably during years 

near a phasedown step, EPA has 

determined that that alone is not enough 

to maximize reclamation, as the Agency 

was instructed to do by Congress. The 

provisions in this rule are necessary to 

ensure this trend continues and 

reclamation of HFCs is maximized. 

Further, as EPA has noted, the 

production and consumption of HFCs 

are being phased down, not phased out. 

As such, there will still likely be 

demand for HFCs after the phasedown 

concludes, and reclaimed HFCs will 

play in important part of meeting that 

demand. Thus, EPA concludes that it is 

appropriate to establish reclamation 

requirements in this rule. 

EPA does not agree with the 

comments asserting that the Agency 

must demonstrate that the limit is 

uniformly technically achievable for 

current reclaimers and across the 

spectrum of HFC blends in the market 

and will result in increased reclamation 

beyond regulatory and market factors to 

meet its mandate under subsection (h). 

From information provided in 

comments to the NODA and based on 

EPA’s understanding, HFC reclamation 

can be complex and require advanced 

separation technologies. EPA 

understands that reclaimers have access 

to varying degrees of these technologies 

for the reclamation of HFC refrigerants. 

Based on information provided to the 

Agency in comments to the NODA, in 

public meetings, and in comments for 

this rulemaking, EPA is aware that 

reclaimers are currently using 

technologies that can meet the 

provisions of this rulemaking. The 

statutory text of subsection (h) does not 

include requirements for uniform 

technical achievability, and EPA 

interprets the references in subsection 

(h)(1) to maximizing reclamation to 

include authority to establish provisions 

that require reclaimers to go beyond 

their current practices to achieve that 

goal, when such requirements are 

otherwise consistent with the direction 

in subsection (h)(1). EPA also interprets 

subsection (h)(1) as authorizing 

regulations that help ensure that the 

reclamation that may be anticipated 

based on other regulatory or market 

factors, such as a decreasing pool of 

virgin HFCs, actually occurs and meets 

a uniform standard. In EPA’s view, such 

regulations can be part of the overall 

effort to maximize reclamation, 

consistent with subsection (h)(1). 

The Agency disagrees with the 

commenter stating that the reclamation 

standard would lead to certain types of 

equipment becoming prematurely 

obsolete. Reclaimed refrigerant is 

required to meet applicable purity 

standards, which must also be verified 

by specified analytic methodology. 

Further, under the Allocation 

Framework Rule, virgin refrigerant is 

required to meet the same purity 

standards. Thus, reclaimed refrigerants 

would serve the same function in 

refrigerant-containing equipment as 

virgin refrigerant. As such, EPA 

disagrees the reclamation standard 

would be unworkable and cause 

premature obsolescence for equipment 

as it relates to using reclaimed 

refrigerants meeting the reclamation 

standard. Related to the availability of 

reclaimed refrigerants for the servicing 

and/or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment, EPA discusses 

supply and estimated demand in section 

IV.E.2. Further, EPA is not finalizing, at 

this time, either the proposed 

requirement for servicing and/or repair 

with reclaimed HFCs in a fourth 

subsector or the proposed requirement 

for the initial fill of refrigerantcontaining equipment to be done with 

reclaimed HFCs (see comment 

responses in section IV.E.2 for 

additional discussion). 

EPA also disagrees that the 

reclamation standard placing a limit on 

the amount of virgin HFCs would cause 

additional destruction by small 

reclaimers. While some small reclaimers 

may choose to destroy recovered 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82762 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

material they receive, others may 

identify the value in the recovered 

material and send it to a larger reclaimer 

with more sophisticated technology to 

separate the components. EPA 

understands that this is a current 

practice and, ultimately, the fate of the 

recovered materials in this scenario may 

be a business decision by the small 

reclaimers. 

Further, establishing such a standard 

helps to ensure that reclaimed HFCs are 

a consistent product on the market. The 

Agency understands that reclaimers 

have varying types of reclamation 

technology; however, the Agency does 

not agree that reclamation primarily by 

blending is an effective method to 

achieve the purposes identified in 

subsection (h) and in particular 

maximizing reclamation. As noted by 

some comments, such a practice can 

result in refrigerants that contain 

relatively small amounts of reclaimed 

material being sold or marketed as 

reclaimed. Moreover, the Agency is not 

precluding the practice of blending 

itself, such that the 15 percent limit, by 

weight, of virgin HFCs is not exceeded. 

Highly pure reclaimed HFCs and up to 

15 percent virgin HFCs can be used for 

such purposes. The definition of 

reclaim/reclamation in subsection (b)(9) 

of the AIM Act states that reclamation 

involves the ‘‘reprocessing of a 

recovered regulated substance.’’ 

Consistent with this definition, 

recovered regulated substances must 

undergo some degree of reprocessing to 

be reclaimed, and the Agency does not 

view achieving the required purity 

standards by solely blending with virgin 

HFCs to constitute reprocessing the 

recovered materials. Thus, blending 

with virgin HFCs would be a practice 

performed together with other measures 

to reprocess recovered HFCs to achieve 

the required purity standards. 

Furthermore, placing a limit on the 

maximum allowable virgin HFCs in 

reclaimed HFCs ensures a consistent 

understanding among the regulated 

community of what reclaimed HFCs are. 

EPA acknowledges that it referenced 

the Refrigerant Recovery, Reclaim, and 

Reuse Requirements (CARB Program) or 

R4 Program while proposing a limit on 

virgin HFCs in reclaimed HFCs, as well 

as other applicable information. As the 

commenters state, the limit on virgin 

HFCs established by CARB for 

California were developed after 

consultation with industry. EPA 

proposed, requested comment on, and is 

finalizing a broader program that was 

informed, in part, by the experience in 

California. EPA recognizes that the R4 

Program in California was more limited 

in scope to focus on reclaimed R–410A, 

and that industry input on the State 

program was largely focused on this. 

The Agency is finalizing the 

requirement for a limit on virgin HFCs 

for all reclaimed refrigerants that 

contain HFCs. This requirement is being 

established to drive and promote 

reclamation as consistent with the 

purpose in subsection (h)(1) of 

maximizing of reclamation of HFCs. In 

response to the comment that EPA did 

not solicit technical input before the 15 

percent proposal, EPA notes that the 

Agency solicited comment on 

establishing different percentages for a 

limit on virgin HFCs (e.g., if a lower 

percentage could be used). Commenters 

had the opportunity to provide 

technical information during the public 

comment period for this rulemaking, 

many commenters did so, and EPA has 

considered those comments in finalizing 

this requirement. 

EPA disagrees with the comment 

stating that the 15 percent limit would 

require an unattainable amount of 

material in 2028 and disagrees with the 

commenter’s provided assessment for 

the estimated amount of reclaimed R– 

410A at four percent relative to the 

commenter’s estimated demand in 2022. 

EPA understands that the commenter 

made certain assumptions for the 

demand of R–410A based on the 

consumption of HFC–32; however, the 

Agency states that the term 

‘‘consumption’’ is a specifically defined 

term under the AIM Act and the 

Allocation Framework Rule that 

captures production plus imports minus 

exports. Thus, the commenter’s 

assumption consumption corresponds 

to domestic demand and usage does not 

appear to account for exports. However, 

it is not clear how that might affect the 

analysis, given the commenter also 

acknowledged that HFC–32 may be used 

in other applications assumed that 

demand of R–410A was based on half of 

the total consumption of HFC–32. 

Furthermore, EPA does not find this 

analysis relevant to the provisions in 

this final rule, as the analysis is based 

on comparing reclamation totals to 

estimated demand of R–410A in 2022. 

EPA is finalizing requirements for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment to be done with 

reclaimed HFCs in the supermarket 

systems, refrigerated transport, and 

automatic commercial ice makers 

subsectors beginning on January 1, 

2029. In a comment response in section 

IV.E.2, EPA discusses estimated demand 

of reclaimed HFCs for servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in these subsectors and 

provides additional details in the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD in 

the docket of this rulemaking. As noted 

in that comment response, EPA 

anticipates that the supply of reclaimed 

HFCs will increase in the coming years 

and be sufficient to meet the demand 

associated with the provisions in this 

rule. EPA estimates the total demand of 

R–410A for servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment at 

approximately 134,000 pounds (61,000 

kg). This is well below the total R–410A 

reclaimed in 2022, even when 

considering the reclamation standard to 

limit the amount of virgin HFCs in 

reclaimed refrigerants at 15 percent, by 

weight. As explained in other comment 

responses in section IV.E.2, EPA 

anticipates that recovered or reclaimed 

R–410A can be a useful source for 

reclaimed HFC–32 and HFC–125 (i.e., 

the components that make up the blend 

R–410A). 

Comment: Another commenter stated 

that EPA failed to consider areas where 

the proposed regulations duplicate 

existing regulations or less burdensome 

and costly alternatives, claimed that 

there are less costly and less 

burdensome regulatory alternatives for 

EPA to continue to implement 

Congressional directives under the AIM 

Act, and claimed that EPA’s cited 

objectives in the proposed rule have 

already been achieved by an aggressive 

HFC phasedown schedule. The 

commenter stated that EPA estimates 

the overall compliance costs of the 

proposed rule to be well in excess of $3 

billion, and stated that under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA), before promulgating any rule 

that may result in expenditures, in the 

aggregate, of $100 million or more, an 

agency must ‘‘identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and from those alternatives 

select the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule.’’ 

The commenter further asserted that 

EPA has not shown that it considered 

the current market dynamics, let alone 

any less burdensome and less costly 

alternatives, before proposing onerous 

new requirements applicable to 

reclaimers, and claimed that EPA’s 

proposed rule goes too far and is not 

tailored to achieve the goals of 

subsection (h) in the least costly, most 

cost-effective, or least burdensome 

manner, as required under UMRA. The 

commenter also claimed that EPA has 

not presented any evidence to show that 

proposed reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements will increase 

opportunities for reclamation beyond 

what will occur from market dynamics. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82763 

The commenter stated that in short, if 

there is a less burdensome alternative 

that will accomplish EPA’s stated 

objectives, then the Agency is obligated 

to consider and adopt it unless another 

alternative exists that is even less costly 

or burdensome. The commenter further 

stated that it was not apparent that the 

type of scenarios they listed or the 

associated costs were considered by 

EPA in developing its cost estimates, 

and that EPA failed to consider how 

existing regulations, policies and 

practices, and alternative approaches to 

address concerns regarding 

mischaracterization of reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants would be more effective, 

less costly, and less burdensome. The 

commenter provides one such approach 

that the Agency should use existing 

reporting requirements under the AIM 

Act and clarify that a reclaimer cannot 

yield more reclaimed refrigerant than 

the quantity of recovered refrigerant 

input. The commenter also asserted that 

the proposed 15 percent limit on virgin 

HFC refrigerants in reclaimed 

refrigerants is a sharp departure from 

past interpretations and will result in 

significant costs without adequate 

technical or legal justification, and that 

many small reclaimers do not have 

capabilities to separate mixed or out-ofratio refrigerants, meaning that the 15 

percent limit will be difficult or 

impossible to meet for some small 

reclaimers. The commenter stated that 

the result could be that many used 

refrigerants will be destroyed, which the 

commenter stated would undermine the 

AIM Act’s directive to maximize 

reclamation and will also result in 

significantly greater costs to the 

regulated community which EPA has 

not considered. The commenter asserted 

that the proposed cap will impose 

unjustified costs and burdens on all 

reclaimers and their customers that do 

not appear to have been fully 

considered by EPA. The commenter 

claimed that for EPA to meet its legal 

burden in proposing this rule, it must 

demonstrate that its proposed limit is 

uniformly technically achievable; that 

adoption of this limit will result in 

increased reclamation beyond the 

regulatory and market factors EPA has 

already identified, to meet its mandate 

under subsection (h); and that EPA must 

also demonstrate under UMRA that this 

is the least costly, most cost-effective, 

and least burdensome option. The 

commenter further claimed that EPA 

provided no evidence that container 

tracking, marking, and certification will 

serve to maximize reclamation, 

minimize releases, or protect 

technicians and consumers beyond 

what is accomplished by existing 

requirements, nor has the Agency 

demonstrated that its proposed 

requirements are the least costly and 

burdensome options. The commenter 

stated that small business grant 

programs, which could help, have yet to 

be established and are subject to 

appropriations availability. 

Response: EPA disagrees with these 

commenters’ assertions as described in 

this response. EPA extensively 

considered the legal and technical basis 

of formulating a reclamation standard 

provision under subsection (h), as 

described in the proposed rule and in 

this final action. As previously stated, 

EPA consulted with stakeholders before 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), through the opportunities for 

public comment on the NPRM, and 

anticipates continuing engagement after 

the rule is finalized. Notably, in October 

2021, EPA released a draft report 

‘‘Analysis of the U.S. 

Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation Market: 

Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices,’’ 

accompanying a NODA (87 FR 62843, 

October 17, 2022). EPA solicited 

stakeholder feedback and held a public 

stakeholder meeting shortly after the 

NODA was published on November 9, 

2022. EPA received 11 comments in 

response to the NODA as detailed 

above. EPA does not agree that the 15 

percent limit on virgin HFCs is not 

technically achievable and discusses in 

the prior response in this section and in 

section IV.E.2 the technical capabilities 

of reclaimers and the available 

technologies that are current in use. 

EPA also discusses in another response 

in this section that the Agency disagrees 

that the reclamation standard would 

lead to additional destruction by small 

reclaimers. Further, EPA received 

comments to the NODA stating the use 

of these technologies (e.g., fractional 

distillation) is feasible, and the Agency 

is aware of reclaimers expanding 

capacity of these technologies to process 

increased volumes of reclaimed HFCs. 

Thus, there are technologies available 

(e.g., fractional distillation) that can be 

used and are currently in use to reclaim 

HFCs while meeting the 15 percent, by 

weight, limit on virgin HFCs in 

reclaimed material. With these 

considerations, EPA determined that a 

15 percent limit on virgin material is 

technically feasible and received 

comments agreeing with that 

conclusion. As described in the prior 

comment response, EPA received 

multiple comments disagreeing with the 

reclamation standard of no more than 15 

percent virgin HFCs, by weight, and the 

Agency discusses these comments in 

that response. 

EPA considered alternatives to the 

reclamation standard, including 

soliciting comment in the NPRM on a 

lower limit and on not requiring a limit 

at all. After considering these 

alternatives and the comments on the 

reclamation standard, EPA concludes 

that the 15 percent limit is a technically 

appropriate way to ensure a consistent 

understanding among the regulated 

community of reclaimed material. 

Further, from both a technical and a 

legal perspective, the Agency concludes 

that the reclamation standard is an 

important part of ensuring that the 

reclaimed HFCs that are used to comply 

with the requirements for servicing and/ 

or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs are in fact chiefly constituted of 

reclaimed material, thus helping to 

ensure that these requirements serve the 

intended objective of maximizing 

reclamation, consistent with the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1). 

To the extent the comment suggests that 

EPA must provide evidence that the 

reclaim requirements will substantially 

increase opportunities for reclamation 

beyond what would occur from market 

dynamics or that they be uniformly 

technically achievable, EPA does not 

agree that subsection (h) requires such 

evidence as a prerequisite to regulation, 

for the reasons discussed in the prior 

response to comment. In response to the 

commenters’ statement that the 15 

percent limit on virgin HFCs differs 

from past interpretations, EPA notes 

that this is the first rulemaking under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act and as 

such, there are no past interpretations 

under this authority by which to 

compare. Thus, the Agency is 

addressing questions related to the 

implementation and interpretation of 

this provision for this first time in this 

rulemaking. Further, title VI of the CAA 

does not contain the same or similar 

language regarding reclamation as is 

included in subsection (h) of the AIM 

Act, and thus past interpretations under 

the CAA were based on different 

statutory text and context. In response 

to the comment regarding reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, EPA 

explains that there are recordkeeping 

and labeling requirements finalized in 

this rule to support compliance with the 

requirements for reclaimed HFCs 

established in this rule. For example, 

some of the recordkeeping and labeling 

requirements help to ensure that 

refrigerant that is sold or marketed as 

reclaimed meets the reclamation 

standard. This in turn helps ensure that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82764 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

95See section IV.H.3 for discussion of speculative 

accumulation requirements per the RCRA 

alternative standards. 

a person servicing and/or repairing 

refrigerant-containing equipment in 

certain RACHP subsectors can identify 

that the reclaimed HFCs meet the 

reclamation standard, and that they can 

service and/or repair refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs that meet the reclamation 

standard. As such, these recordkeeping 

and labeling requirements support 

provisions to help to maximize 

reclamation but are not designed to 

independently increase opportunities 

for reclamation. 

Further, in response to the comment 

regarding the duplication of existing 

regulations, EPA responds that it 

disagrees that the requirements for 

labeling and recordkeeping duplicate 

the existing regulations cited by the 

commenter. The commenter alludes to 

regulations under 40 CFR part 84 

subpart A, which require certain 

recordkeeping and reporting for 

information from reclaimers on the 

quantities of recovered refrigerant they 

receive, quantities they reclaim, and the 

quantity of waste that is disposed of. 

The regulations in 40 CFR part 84 

subpart A also require recordkeeping for 

results of analyses, by batch, that verify 

that purity standards for reclaimed 

HFCs are met, specified contact 

information from whom they receive 

recovered material, and the quantity of 

material, by HFC, that they receive. The 

recordkeeping and labeling provisions 

finalized in this rule do not duplicate 

these requirements because they include 

different requirements than those 

included in the subpart A rules and are 

designed to provide information related 

to the requirements of this final rule. 

For example, this final rule establishes 

recordkeeping and labeling 

requirements for reclaimers to retain 

information and provide a label that 

certifies that the reclaimed HFCs they 

sell or distribute, or offer for sale or 

distribution, meet the reclamation 

standard and contain no more than 15 

percent virgin HFCs, by weight. 

In response to the alternative 

approach offered by one of the 

commenters to address the potential 

mischaracterization of virgin HFCs sold 

as reclaimed HFCs, EPA notes that this 

approach would not fully capture the 

information needed to support 

compliance with this rule. This 

approach would provide EPA with a 

snapshot to assess the amount of 

reclaimed HFCs compared to the 

amount reclaimers receive as recovered 

HFCs each year. However, as EPA 

understands, reclaimers may not 

reclaim all the HFCs they receive in a 

single reporting year.95 They may 

reserve recovered HFCs until a time that 

is more opportune to reclaim the HFCs, 

based for example, on market 

considerations or other factors. EPA 

notes that the commenter is correct that 

current reporting requirements under 40 

CFR part 84 subpart A provides useful 

data, including inventory reports 

submitted annually. EPA could use this 

information to assess reported totals of 

HFC reclamation as compared to the 

total HFCs received by reclaimers and 

the amount of waste reported. The 

labeling requirements in this rule are 

designed so that the regulated entities 

servicing or repairing refrigerantcontaining equipment in the covered 

subsectors can confirm they are doing so 

with reclaimed HFCs. There may be 

cases where the person (i.e., a certified 

technician) servicing a piece of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in the 

covered RACHP subsectors is not the 

same person that is purchasing the 

reclaimed HFCs that will be required to 

service that piece of equipment. Thus, 

the labeling requirements in this rule 

provide certainty to the technicians that 

they are in compliance with the reclaim 

requirements when they service and/or 

repair refrigerant-containing equipment 

in the covered subsectors. 

With respect to UMRA, the Agency’s 

proposed action complied with the 

requirements under UMRA that applied 

at proposal. Because the requirements 

finalized in this rule are narrower in 

some respects than those evaluated in 

the proposal, as well as the estimated 

impacts of the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule in reducing the amount 

of projected future stocks of refrigerantcontaining appliances using an HFC or 

HFC substitute with a GWP greater than 

53, the estimated compliance costs of 

the final rule are significantly lower 

than what the proposed rule’s estimated 

compliance costs were. As noted 

elsewhere in this preamble, this final 

action does not contain an unfunded 

mandate of $100 million or more as 

described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Thus, the requirements related to the 

adoption of the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that meets the objectives of 

the rule under UMRA do not apply to 

this final action. To the extent that the 

comments on the proposed 

requirements for recordkeeping and 

reporting and other comments on EPA 

not evaluating scenarios and associated 

costs estimates are related to the 

proposed container tracking 

requirements, EPA responds that those 

provisions are not being finalized in this 

rule, and the Agency is not addressing 

such comments. 

Given the importance of the 15 

percent cap in helping to achieve the 

regulatory objective of maximizing 

reclamation, EPA does not agree that 

any costs or burdens that may be 

experienced by reclaimers or customers 

are unjustified. While only some aspects 

of EPA’s analysis regarding projected 

impacts of the rule were considered in 

developing this final rule, EPA notes 

that its analysis of the impacts of this 

provision is discussed in the Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD. EPA disagrees 

with the commenter’s assertion that the 

objectives of this rule—which addresses 

requirements under subsection (h) of the 

AIM Act—would already be achieved by 

previously established regulations 

pertaining to separate statutory 

requirements of the AIM Act. As noted 

above, the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements under other regulations 

under the AIM Act would not achieve 

the same purposes as required in this 

rulemaking. The requirements under 40 

CFR part 84 subpart A cited by the 

commenter provide information on 

reclamation totals and provide insight 

on reclamation trends. They do not 

provide information for compliance 

with the reclamation standard, nor 

would they provide information about 

reclaimed HFCs to those regulated 

entities servicing and/or repairing 

refrigerant-containing equipment. As 

detailed in the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD, EPA evaluated multiple 

scenarios regarding incremental impacts 

of this rule relative to actions that 

industry may or may not undertake in 

the baseline. EPA has presented results 

of the more conservative of these 

scenarios in this preamble. The Agency 

has taken into consideration, in this 

rule, requirements for reclaimed HFCs 

and expects these regulations will 

provide market signals that will support 

increased recovery of HFC refrigerants 

becoming available for reclamation, and 

will support reclaimers increasing the 

amount of reclaimed refrigerants 

available to meet the increased demand. 

The Economic Impact and Benefits TSD 

does not include increased recovery in 

the base case for this rule based on the 

assumptions for that scenario; however, 

EPA did consider an alternate scenario 

with increased recovery and anticipates 

that the reclamation provisions could 

support increased recovery during 

servicing or disposal where the 

refrigerant may otherwise have been 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82765 

vented or released. EPA also notes that 

estimated compliances costs resulting 

from the final rule are significantly 

lower than those assessed for the 

proposed rule, because the requirements 

finalized in this rule are narrower in 

some respects than those evaluated in 

the proposal. EPA reiterates that this 

rulemaking is designed to serve the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1) 

of the AIM Act of maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing the release 

of regulated substances. While, as noted 

previously in this preamble, EPA has 

included estimates of the costs and 

benefits of this rulemaking in analyses 

that are available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, including in the Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD, to provide the 

public with information on the relevant 

costs and benefits of this action and to 

comply with Executive Orders, nothing 

in the AIM Act requires EPA to consider 

costs or identifies any particular costbased metric or analytical approach for 

use in evaluating and establishing 

regulations to implement subsection (h). 

The commenter correctly stated that 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act does 

include a small business grant program 

that is subject to appropriation 

availability. Subsection (h)(5) provides 

this program for the purchase of new 

specialized equipment for the recycling, 

recovery, or reclamation of a substitute 

for a regulated substance, including the 

purchase of approved refrigerant 

recycling equipment for recycling, 

recovery, or reclamation in the service 

or repair of MVAC systems. Funds have 

not been appropriated for this grant 

program and the establishment of this 

program is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

why contractors seem to de-select 

reclaimed refrigerants, noting the 

differences between the AHRI 700 

standard and new refrigerants supplied 

with 99.99 percent purity and precision 

blending. The commenter suggested 

EPA consider upgrading the 

specification to match the current 

supply of virgin refrigerants. 

Response: In response to the 

commenter’s question regarding use of 

reclaimed refrigerants in the RACHP 

sector, EPA notes that certain ODS may 

only be available as reclaimed for use in 

particular applications with the ODS 

phaseout. For example, since 2020, only 

reclaimed HCFC–22 can be used to 

service appliances in the RACHP sector. 

The same is true for appliances using 

CFCs since the 1990s. The Agency is not 

aware of any concerns from the RACHP 

servicing industry stemming from these 

requirements. The Agency considers 

this example and the broader ODS 

reliance on reclaimed ODS as 

informative in the context of this 

rulemaking. 

EPA acknowledges that both 

reclaimed and virgin HFCs are required 

to meet the AHRI 700 purity standard 

and that even with compliance with the 

AHRI 700 purity standard, there may be 

minor differences between reclaimed 

and virgin refrigerant (such as moisture 

content). However, these minor 

differences do not impact the 

functionality of the reclaimed 

refrigerants in equipment nor do they 

suggest marked differences between 

reclaimed and virgin refrigerants as both 

are required to reach, at a minimum, 

AHRI 700 levels of purity. These 

differences should not impact the 

equipment that uses these refrigerants. 

Accordingly, EPA is not making any 

change to the applicable specifications 

to match the current supply of virgin 

refrigerants in this final action. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA acknowledge the unique 

challenges of returning diverse blends to 

ASHRAE specifications without 

blending a significant amount of virgin 

content. The commenter cited five- and 

three-component refrigerant blends that 

may be challenging to return to their 

nominal composition, require more than 

15 percent virgin refrigerant, or use an 

HFC that is rarely used and therefore 

not recovered in sufficient quantities. 

The commenter provided an example of 

a newer blend, R–471A, which is a 

three-component blend that consists of 

two HFO components and HFC–227ea. 

The commenter further states that HFC– 

227ea is rarely used as a refrigerant 

today, and it would be difficult to 

produce reclaimed R–471A based on 

this. The commenter recommended 

increasing the permissible virgin 

percent composition to avoid 

eliminating ASHRAE A1 refrigerants 

that comply with the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule. Another commenter 

opposed the 15 percent limit and stated 

that the standard may be feasible for 

limited use of the two-component 

blend, R–410A, as was done in CARB’s 

program. The commenter further stated 

that the standard could not be used to 

correlate to three, four, and five 

component blends that have varying 

physical properties and would require 

varying cost-effective technical options 

to bring the material to appropriate 

standards. 

Another commenter supported EPA’s 

15 percent virgin content standard for 

refrigerant blends with fewer than three 

components but recommended 65 

percent reclaimed content and 35 

percent virgin HFCs for blends with 

three or more components to account for 

minor additions in certain products and 

issues with leak fractionation. Two 

commenters recommended phasing in 

the virgin refrigerant limit over several 

years. One of the commenters 

recommended starting with a 90 percent 

virgin product in 2028 and progressing 

to the 15 percent limit. The commenter 

noted this would enable the market to 

adjust. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments on multi-component blends. 

EPA is not establishing varying 

percentage limits for virgin HFC 

refrigerant based on the number of 

components in a refrigerant blend or a 

phase in approach by percentage. As 

explained in prior responses, the 

Agency is establishing an upper limit 

for virgin HFCs in reclaimed HFCs of 15 

percent by weight. EPA acknowledges 

the reclamation challenges in working 

with blends, and in particular with 

three or more component blends. The 

Agency notes that there are technologies 

available to effectively reclaim such 

blends and reclaimers with the 

technical capability to do so. Further, 

EPA notes that many blends with three 

or more components are currently being 

reclaimed. The Agency provides an 

assessment of the anticipated demand of 

some of these blends related to the 

requirements in this rule for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs in three RACHP subsectors in its 

Analysis of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon 

Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, 

Drivers, and Practices. Among these 

blends are R–404A, R–407A, R–407C, 

and R–452A. With the exception of R– 

452A (which is composed of two HFCs 

and an HFO), each of these blends have 

HFCs as all three components. EPA 

discusses supply of reclaimed HFCs in 

comment responses in section IV.E.2, 

and the Agency further notes that it is 

likely that components of blends will be 

reclaimed and reconstituted. For 

example, R–410A is the most commonly 

reclaimed HFC blend, and it is expected 

to be a significant source of its 

components (HFC–32 and HFC–125) as 

reclaimed. It is possible that these 

reclaimed components from R–410A 

may be used in these three-component 

blends to meet the estimated demand. In 

the case of R–452A, EPA notes that the 

reclamation standard finalized in this 

rule only applies to the HFC 

components of the blend and not the 

HFO portion (which is a substitute for 

an HFC). 

In the case of multi-component blends 

with more than three components, EPA 

notes that there is estimated demand, as 

presented in the Analysis of the U.S. 

Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation Market: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82766 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices, for 

two such blends: R–448A and R–449A. 

R–448A is a five-component blend 

composed of three HFCs and two HFOs, 

while R–449A is a four-component 

blend, composed of three HFCs and one 

HFO. As noted and described in this 

preamble, the reclamation standard 

finalized in this rule does not apply to 

substitutes for HFCs, which in the case 

of these blends would be the HFO 

portions. The reclamation standard 

finalized in this rule only applies to the 

HFC portions of these blends, and as 

EPA has noted, could be met by the 

reclamation of the individual 

components and reconstituted to a 

blend. Single-component refrigerants 

and two-component blends are 

currently the most commonly reclaimed 

substances, and they are also the most 

common in installed equipment. 

However, per data reported under 

regulations under section 608 of the 

CAA, blends with three or more 

components, including R–448A and R– 

449A, are also currently being 

reclaimed. EPA anticipates that with 

increased significance on reclaimed 

HFCs as the phasedown progresses and 

as these three or more component 

blends continue to be used in 

equipment, the reclamation of these 

blends will also increase. Given the 

availability of such technologies and for 

reasons explained elsewhere in this 

preamble and responses to other 

comments, EPA considers the 15 

percent upper limit for virgin HFCs to 

be technically feasible commensurate 

with the compliance date. 

EPA also considers a 15 percent limit 

to better serve the purpose identified in 

subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act of 

maximizing reclamation than using a 

higher percentage would. Further, the 

compliance date provides time for the 

reclaimers and the market to adjust. 

Therefore, EPA is not establishing a 

phased-in approach. Lastly, EPA 

acknowledges there are some blends 

that rely on HFCs that are not as 

commonly used as refrigerants, 

including newer blends such as R–471A 

and certain ASHRAE A1 refrigerant 

blends that are compliant with certain 

restrictions under the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule. EPA notes that HFC– 

227ea is more commonly used in the 

fire suppression sector and only to a far 

lesser extent used in refrigerant blends. 

The Agency notes, however, that HFC– 

227ea is currently being reclaimed and 

reported to EPA under the regulations 

under CAA section 608. Further, EPA 

clarifies that the provisions finalized in 

section 84.112(b) state that recovered 

regulated substances must have had 

bona fide use in equipment but does not 

specify that the recovered substance 

needed to be used a refrigerant and then 

recovered. The Agency also states that it 

is only establishing requirements for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment to be done with 

reclaimed HFCs in three RACHP 

subsectors, that will primarily require 

reclaimed HFCs and blends that use 

components that have been common for 

many years (and in some cases, even 

decades). As noted in the Analysis of 

the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon 

Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, 

Drivers, and Practices, R–410A, HFC– 

134a, and R–404A are the most common 

HFCs/HFC blends in the current stock of 

installed equipment, by mass. The 

Agency also reiterates that the limit on 

virgin materials only covers the HFC 

portion of a blend and refers to a 

previous response on calculating the 

allowable mass of virgin HFCs in a 

previous response as it relates to blends 

that contain an HFC and non-HFC 

component or more than one HFC 

component. 

EPA acknowledges that multicomponent blends may have different 

challenges in relation to their 

reclamation as compared to the 

reclamation of single-component 

refrigerants or two-component blends. 

However, as stated previously, EPA 

notes that many multi-component 

blends are currently being reclaimed, as 

are the components that make up these 

blends. As a general matter, the 

increased introduction and use of multicomponent blends over the past five to 

ten years has meant that manufacturers 

of equipment and the servicing sector 

have had to adapt to using these 

blended refrigerants. As the commenter 

did not specify which types of varying 

cost-effective technical options might be 

considered for the reclamation of multicomponent blends, EPA anticipates the 

commenter may be referring to how 

reclaimers consider if more 

sophisticated technologies (e.g. 

fractional distillation) are needed as 

compared to blending or rebalancing 

with virgin material. EPA understands 

these considerations may vary 

depending on the technical capabilities 

of a reclaimer and other market 

dynamics. Further, as described in 

section IV.E.2, EPA is finalizing a 

discrete reporting requirement to 

evaluate the availability of reclaimed 

HFCs intended for servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in the covered RACHP 

subsectors, which will also be useful in 

assessing the degree by which these 

multi-component blends are reclaimed. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding ‘‘and HFC 

substitutes’’ to proposed reclaim 

requirements to avoid replicating past 

regulatory gaps that led to 

environmental consequences and to 

provide for comprehensive refrigerant 

management. The commenter stated that 

the addition of substitutes would avoid 

disparities and possible 

misinterpretation. The commenter 

stated that, if HFC substitutes are not 

held to the same standard, concerns 

about mishandling, venting, and 

ownership will be likely. Another 

commenter advocated for a mandatory 

reclamation of all refrigerants in the 

United States, excluding hydrocarbons. 

The commenter noted that many HFC 

substitutes are HFCs themselves and 

cited the AIM Act’s requirement that 

EPA maximize reclamation and 

minimize release of HFCs and their 

substitutes. The commenter anticipated 

that transitioning to HCFOs or other 

chemicals could pose environmental 

concerns without sufficient life cycle 

management plans, including limiting 

releases, and suggested that all 

refrigerants be collected and transported 

to an EPA-certified reclaimer. 

Response: EPA is clarifying the 

Agency is defining the term ‘‘substitute 

for a regulated substance’’ to explicitly 

establish for purposes of the regulations 

established in this rulemaking under 40 

CFR part 84, subpart C that substitutes 

for HFCs are substances that are not 

HFCs. EPA recognizes that in the 

context of other rulemakings under the 

AIM Act (e.g., 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule), substitutes may be 

used to refer to a lower-GWP substance 

that may or may not include HFCs or 

blends containing HFCs. In this context 

of this rulemaking, EPA is using a 

different definition to help distinguish 

between those requirements that apply 

to HFCs and those that apply to 

substitutes for HFCs. EPA is finalizing, 

as was proposed, to not require limits 

on the amount of virgin substitutes for 

HFCs in reclaimed refrigerant, whether 

neat or in blends. This exception is not 

a blanket exception from all aspects of 

this rule or other related regulations. For 

example, all regulated substances and 

non-HFC substitutes for HFCs with 

GWP greater than 53 would be subject 

to the leak repair requirements 

established in this rule. Further, EPA 

notes that HFCs and certain substitutes 

for HFCs, including HFO and HCFO 

refrigerants, are not exempt from the 

venting prohibition under 40 CFR 

82.154, and it is illegal to knowingly 

vent or otherwise release such 

refrigerants into the environment while 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82767 

96EPA finalized a requirement that all HFCs (both 

virgin and reclaimed) imported, filled in containers 

domestically, and sold as refrigerants meet the 

specifications in appendix A to subpart F of part 

82—Specifications for Refrigerants, see Allocation 

Framework Rule at https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

d/2021-21030/p-679. 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of an appliance or IPR. EPA 

is aware that substitutes for HFCs are 

increasingly being used in certain 

RACHP subsectors and are commonly 

used in refrigerant blends with HFCs. 

Any refrigerant blend that contains an 

HFC would be subject to the leak repair 

requirements in this rulemaking, which 

are being established consistent with the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1) 

of the AIM Act, including maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing the release 

of regulated substances from equipment. 

EPA decided to limit the requirements 

that apply to substitutes for HFCs in this 

rule to those substitutes for HFCs with 

GWPs above 53 for reasons articulated 

in this final rule and in the proposal. 

EPA is applying this cutoff because it is 

the lowest GWP among regulated 

substances in the AIM Act. Further, the 

installed stock of these substitutes for 

HFCs is not as established as the 

installed stock of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with HFCs or refrigerants 

that contain HFCs. However, the 

installed stock of these substitutes for 

HFCs may be important in the future, 

and EPA may reevaluate this decision in 

the future and may consider applying 

other aspects of this program to nonHFC substitutes. As noted in a previous 

response, EPA interprets subsection (h) 

to authorize regulations that would 

apply to substitutes for HFCs. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

reclaimed refrigerant has never needed 

to be labeled in the industry and stated 

that requirements to label reclaimed 

refrigerant would create an additional 

‘‘product’’ despite the reclaimed gas 

being chemically and functionally 

identical to virgin. The commenter 

stated that the greatest benefit to 

reclaimers is if reclaimed refrigerant is 

marked as fungible with virgin 

refrigerant. The commenter stated that 

labeling reclaimed refrigerant could lead 

to a perception that reclaimed material 

is of lesser quality and therefore had to 

be mandated by a Federal agency. The 

commenter claimed this could depress 

reclaimed gas sales contrary to the AIM 

Act’s direction, and would create 

confusion about why two different 

classes of refrigerant exist in the market. 

Another commenter opposed the 

recordkeeping and labeling 

requirements and claimed that there 

was no clear need to ensure that 

reclaimed refrigerants are easily 

recognized by servicers because 

technicians only need assurance that the 

material meets appropriate 

specifications for the particular HFC or 

HFC blend. The commenter stated that 

requirements for reclamation occurring 

at the batch level further reduced the 

meaning of the proposed container 

marking requirements. The commenter 

stated that compliance with EPA’s 

proposed mandate was the only reason 

servicers would need to distinguish 

between reclaimed and virgin material. 

The commenter suggested that EPA 

should instead clarify that for current 

reclaimer reporting, a reclaimer’s annual 

total reported reclamation should match 

the reclaimer’s reported annual total of 

recovered input minus waste, which 

could be a less burdensome alternative 

that the Agency should consider. A 

third commenter recommended the use 

of a label or QR code to disclose the 

amount of bona fide recovered 

refrigerant in reclaimed material. The 

commenter advocated detailed data on 

chain of custody to avoid false claims 

and illegal trade, with a ‘‘credible paper 

trail throughout its return to service.’’ 

Response: EPA acknowledges that this 

labeling requirement is new and may 

vary from current practices. The Agency 

disagrees that the labeling requirements 

would designate reclaimed refrigerant as 

being inferior to virgin refrigerant and 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

description of the perceived rationale 

for a Federal agency mandate. The 

Agency was clear in the NPRM and in 

this final rule that reclaimed refrigerant 

is capable of performing the same 

functionality of virgin refrigerant in 

equipment. Both are required to meet 

the exact same purity standard (i.e., 

based on AHRI 700). The labeling 

requirements are being established to 

support the required uses of reclaimed 

refrigerants and to indicate that the 

reclaimed refrigerant contains no more 

than 15 percent, by weight, virgin HFCs, 

thus promoting a consistent 

understanding of what reclaimed 

refrigerants are. Given the requirements 

for the servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment to be 

done with reclaimed HFCs in this final 

action, labeling will help regulated 

entities comply with those obligations. 

Thus, EPA disagrees with the comment 

that there is no need for technicians to 

be able to easily recognize reclaimed 

refrigerant. As such, the labeling 

requirement helps to support the 

purpose identified in subsection (h) of 

the AIM Act to maximize reclamation. 

The Agency further notes that use of 

similar labels that indicate use of 

recycled materials is common practice 

throughout a wide range of industries 

and products. Many consumers value 

and seek out recycled materials or 

products. The requirements that both 

virgin and reclaimed HFC refrigerants 

must meet the same standards for purity 

based on AHRI–700 is relatively new, 

and in fact EPA regulations under CAA 

section 608 only applied the 

requirement to meet the AHRI–700 

purity standard to reclaimed 

refrigerants.96 EPA acknowledges that 

some applications require higher purity 

material than AHRI–700 (e.g., metered 

dose inhalers) and there may be 

contractual arrangements that limit 

entities to suppliers of virgin or 

reclaimed refrigerant only at this time. 

However, as noted throughout this final 

rule, as the phasedown of the 

production and consumption of virgin 

HFCs continues, demand for reclaimed 

HFC refrigerant will grow. Thus, the 

required label will provide pertinent 

information to purchasers and users of 

refrigerants and help them to select a 

refrigerant that meets their needs in 

particular situations. EPA responds that 

the commenter’s concern that a new 

label could signal a new separate 

‘‘product’’ seems unfounded given that 

all reclaimed HFCs will be required to 

be labeled as such and there is an 

overall requirement for labeling of 

HFCs. Further, EPA is aware of at least 

one reclaimer that specifically markets a 

line of refrigerants as reclaimed 

refrigerant. 

EPA acknowledges the comments 

raising chain of custody concerns. EPA 

is imposing recordkeeping requirements 

providing the name, address, contact 

person, and the phone number of the 

reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 82.164, 

as well as information about the date the 

container was filled and the amount of 

the regulated substance in the container. 

Batch and substance identification 

information is included in these 

requirements along with the percentage, 

by weight, of the virgin regulated 

substances. The labeling and 

certification requirements in this 

rulemaking help to ensure that 

purchasers and users of reclaimed 

refrigerant are receiving and/or using a 

product that has been verified to be 

reclaimed to the proper purity, as well 

as meeting the 15 percent limit on virgin 

HFCs. 

Comment: Many commenters 

commented on limiting recovered and 

reclaimed material to substances 

removed from equipment or systems in 

the United States. One of the 

commenters stated that limiting the 

source of material to the United States 

would help EPA ensure the quality of 

material, confirming that only standardVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Oct 10, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11OCR2.SGM 11OCR2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82768 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

compliant material is utilized, and 

allow for greater transparency and 

traceability throughout the reclamation 

process, facilitating monitoring and 

enforcement, ensuring the program 

operates effectively and efficiently. 

Another commenter stated that illegally 

traded HFCs will decrease reclamation. 

One commenter asserted that neither 

reclaimed nor virgin material should be 

imported for destruction for carbon 

credit purposes and that EPA should 

instead prioritize recovery and 

reclamation in the U.S. market. 

One commenter suggested that 

geographic limits and quality control are 

necessary to ensure bona fide use and 

recovery and ensure compliance with 

the reclamation standard and maximum 

virgin content. The commenter claimed 

that incidents of importing virgin 

refrigerant sold as counterfeit reclaimed 

refrigerant have been documented under 

previous ODS phaseout regimes and 

that requirements to expend allowances 

for bulk imports does not ensure 

compliance with the 15 percent limit. 

The commenter also stated that 

importers of pre-charged equipment 

would not be subject to the same 

allowance requirements. In contrast, the 

commenter claimed that requirements to 

use domestically reclaimed refrigerant 

will be verifiable and enforceable, 

particularly with the proposed tracking 

and labeling requirements which will 

support a strong domestic market. 

Another commenter questioned how 

EPA would monitor that refrigerant was 

reclaimed with the authorized limit of 

virgin material and suggested that 

relying on certifications would be an 

invitation to abuse, especially for 

refrigerant reclaimed overseas. Another 

commenter expressed concern that 

imported refrigerant could be 

incorrectly labeled as reclaimed if it 

came from countries with excess 

production. Conversely, the commenter 

stated that more profitable exports of 

recovered refrigerant could starve 

domestic servicing needs. 

Another commenter stated that, 

without a geographic limitation for 

reclaimed or recovered refrigerant 

sourcing, refrigerant recovered abroad 

will not reduce U.S. emissions nor 

create market incentives to improve 

domestic recovery and verifying 

recovery or reclamation abroad will be 

very challenging, potentially indirectly 

advantaging importers of pre-charged 

equipment sourcing cheaper or even 

counterfeit material. The commenter 

also stated that the United States should 

not aim to receive reclaimed HFCs from 

the world because Kigali Amendment 

ratifiers need to implement their own 

phasedowns and it would be better to 

reuse HFCs within their countries of 

origin. The commenter also suggested 

that there is an incentive for cheating 

given that importing reclaimed HFC–32 

requires fewer allowances than HFC– 

410A. The commenter encouraged 

setting up trade agreements for import 

of reclaimed HFCs where a similar HFC 

phasedown schedule exists. 

Another commenter requested that 

EPA make clear that reclaimed 

refrigerant must have been recovered 

from equipment in the United States or 

that reclaimed material from outside the 

United States be allowed only if it was 

legitimately recovered, disclosed upon 

import, and followed EPA’s current 

process for legacy refrigerants. An 

additional commenter suggested that 

EPA establish standards and a 

certification process to ensure reclaimed 

refrigerant is authentic and has a known 

point of origin. Another commenter 

stated that it is important that importers 

of pre-charged equipment be required to 

purchase reclaimed HFCs from EPAcertified reclaimers in the United States, 

either using reclaimed material to 

charge equipment in the United States 

or dry-shipping equipment and charging 

it in the United States. The commenter 

suggested requiring the dry shipment of 

equipment to be charged in the United 

States, to minimize the transport of 

reclaimed HFCs across countries. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments regarding the verifiability of 

recovered and reclaimed HFCs 

particularly outside the United States. 

The Agency is not establishing a 

requirement that recovered or reclaimed 

HFCs be sourced only from equipment 

in the United States in this final rule. 

The Agency understands the 

commenters’ concerns to ensure that 

refrigerant that is recovered and sent for 

reclamation can be confirmed as having 

a bona fide use in refrigerant-containing 

equipment, as this rule requires, and 

that there can be challenges in verifying 

imported material claiming to be 

recovered or reclaimed. EPA anticipates 

that in most cases, recovered material 

that reclaimers receive would have been 

sourced from refrigerant-containing 

equipment within the United States. 

Under the requirements previously 

established in separate regulations in 40 

CFR part 84, subpart A, import of any 

bulk HFCs to the United States, whether 

virgin, reclaimed, or recovered, requires 

expenditure of the requisite number of 

allowances and associated reporting and 

recordkeeping under those regulations. 

Thus, if one were to import any 

recovered HFCs to be reclaimed within 

the United States, allowances must be 

used. As stated, EPA anticipates 

reclaimers would likely seek to obtain 

recovered materials from within the 

United States, as they would not require 

allowances to receive these domestically 

recovered HFCs. The regulations under 

40 CFR part 84, subpart A are designed 

to provide recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for the requirements under 

subpart A, but the Agency notes that 

this reported information may also be 

useful in identifying if practices are 

occurring that would violate the 

regulations established in this final rule. 

Even if commenters are correct about 

current incentives regarding imports, as 

the HFC production and consumption 

phasedown progresses, and the overall 

quantity of available allowances 

decreases, importers will need to make 

decisions about how to expend their 

allowances, and those incentives may 

shift. 

In response to comments related to 

requiring geographic limits to ensure 

that recovered materials had bona fide 

use in equipment, EPA concludes that 

such restrictions are not required to 

ensure the provisions in this rule are 

being followed. The requirements in 

this rule are such that the servicing and/ 

or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment must be done 

with reclaimed HFCs, and the reclaimed 

HFCs must meet the standard of 

containing no more than 15 percent 

virgin HFCs, by weight. EPA has 

established labeling provisions for EPAcertified reclaimers to affix labels on 

containers they fill with reclaimed HFCs 

to certify that the standard is being met. 

As such, any material that is reclaimed 

by an EPA-certified reclaimer would 

have a label certifying compliance with 

the reclamation standard. If one chooses 

to import reclaimed HFCs and sell, 

identify, or report market it as being 

reclaimed for use in the installation, 

servicing, or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment, they would need 

to verify that the imported reclaimed 

HFCs are meeting the reclamation 

standard to ensure they are in 

compliance with the requirements 

finalized in this rule at 84.112(a). 

Further, under this final rule, those 

servicing and/or repairing refrigerantcontaining equipment in the 

supermarket systems, refrigerated 

transport, or automatic commercial ice 

makers subsectors that contains an HFC 

must do so with reclaimed refrigerant 

that meets certain requirements 

including the reclamation standard. 

Thus, they would need to confirm that 

the reclaimed HFC refrigerant they are 

using for these purposes meets those 

requirements to ensure they are in 

compliance with their obligations. 

Moreover, this final rule establishes 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82769 

certain requirements for the sale, 

distribution, or transfer of ownership for 

certain recovered HFCs, including 

reclaiming the HFCs prior to such sale, 

distribution, or transfer, with limited 

exceptions. Thus, if one chooses to 

expend allowances and import 

recovered HFCs, the recovered HFCs 

must, as applicable be reclaimed before 

being sold, distributed, or transferred to 

a new owner. See also subsection 

(h)(2)(B) (providing that a regulated 

substance used as a refrigerant that is 

recovered shall be reclaimed before the 

regulated substance is sold or 

transferred to a new owner, except 

where the recovered regulated substance 

is sold or transferred to a new owner 

solely for the purposes of being 

reclaimed or destroyed). Further, as 

required by this rule, the EPA-certified 

reclaimers who fill reclaimed HFCs into 

containers for sale or distribution will 

need to ensure the reclaimed HFCs meet 

the reclamation standard of no more 

than 15 percent virgin HFCs, by weight, 

and will need to comply with the 

applicable labeling and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

In response to the comment stating 

that refrigerant recovered abroad will 

not reduce U.S. emissions and may 

disincentivize domestic recovery, EPA 

disagrees and states, as noted earlier in 

this comment response, that allowances 

are required to import any HFCs. Thus, 

any HFCs (whether virgin, reclaimed, or 

recovered) that are imported require the 

expenditure of allowances that have 

been allocated and accounted for under 

other regulations under the AIM Act. If 

recovered materials are imported, they 

would have been accounted for under 

the phasedown and would not 

contribute to additional emissions. EPA 

also disagrees that imports of recovered 

materials could disincentivize domestic 

recovery of HFCs. Reclaimers do not 

need to expend allowances to receive 

HFCs that are recovered domestically, 

which EPA anticipates being an 

incentive for reclaimers to primarily 

seek domestically sourced recovered 

HFCs as source material for reclamation. 

EPA acknowledges that whether 

recovered materials are reclaimed in the 

United States as opposed to exported 

may come down to a business decision; 

however, the requirements in this rule 

would promote reclaimed HFCs in the 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment. These 

requirements would likely, in turn, 

promote recovery of HFCs to be 

reclaimed to meet the demand for 

servicing and/or repairing these 

equipment as opposed to exporting the 

recovered materials. 

EPA understands that illegal trade of 

HFCs may decrease demand for 

refrigerant reclamation, and moreover, 

is a concern for the successful 

implementation of the phasedown. 

Outside of this rulemaking, EPA has 

already established a multifaceted 

enforcement approach to deter the 

illegal import of HFCs. The strong 

compliance and enforcement system 

will help preserve the environmental 

and economic benefits of the HFC 

phasedown. 

With respect to the comments related 

to other countries’ implementation of 

the Kigali Amendment and the import 

of virgin or reclaimed material for 

destruction or carbon credit purposes, 

the topics are out of scope for this 

rulemaking, and thus these comments 

require no further response. For 

additional clarity, the Agency notes that 

under 40 CFR 84.25, EPA does allow the 

import of regulated substances into the 

United States for destruction, subject to 

a petition process. However, the 

provisions included in 40 CFR 84.25 are 

out of scope for this rulemaking. 

EPA also received comment that 

reclaimed feedstocks sourced from the 

United States should be treated 

similarly to imports for transformation, 

with no time limit for how long they can 

be stored under 40 CFR 84.25, and that 

domestic reclaimed feedstocks awaiting 

blending or fractionation should be 

treated equivalently to HFCs imported 

for destruction. As noted above, 

provisions included under 40 CFR 84.25 

are out of scope of this rulemaking, and 

thus the comment requires no further 

response. EPA further notes that the 

commenter appears to be using the term 

‘‘feedstock’’ in a way that diverges from 

the Agency’s use of that term. For 

example, as explained further in the 

2024 Allocation Rule, creating a blend 

is a completely different process from 

producing HFCs in the first instance, in 

which feedstock chemicals are entirely 

consumed as part of a production 

process. See 88 FR 46836, 46863 (July 

20, 2023). 

EPA notes that it is not finalizing the 

proposed requirements for the initial fill 

of new refrigerant-containing equipment 

with reclaimed HFCs in this 

rulemaking, as discussed elsewhere in 

this section and in section IV.E of this 

preamble. Thus, to the extent these 

comments relate to those proposed 

requirements for initial fill of such 

equipment, EPA need not respond 

further to them in this action. EPA is 

requiring bona fide use for recovered 

HFCs that are used to meet the 

requirements established in this rule 

related to the provisions for reclaimed 

HFCs. Circumventing those 

requirements by importing pre-charged 

equipment and recovering the 

refrigerant without bona fide use would 

be inconsistent with the requirements of 

this final rule. 

2. Requirements for servicing and/or 

repair of existing equipment in the 

RACHP sector EPA proposed that the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining appliances in certain 

subsectors and applications in the 

RACHP sector where HFCs (whether 

neat or in a blend) are used would need 

to be done with reclaimed HFCs starting 

January 1, 2028. EPA proposed these 

requirements for refrigerant-containing 

appliances in the following RACHP 

subsectors: 

• Stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration; 

• Supermarket systems; 

• Refrigerated transport; and 

• Automatic commercial ice makers. 

EPA is finalizing this provision with 

modifications after consideration of the 

comments. EPA is requiring that the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining appliances in certain 

subsectors and applications in the 

RACHP sector where HFCs (whether 

neat or in a blend) be done with 

reclaimed HFCs starting on January 1, 

2029, one year later than the proposed 

date of January 1, 2028. Further, EPA is 

finalizing the requirement for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment to be done with 

reclaimed HFCs for some (but not all) of 

the subsectors addressed in the 

proposal. EPA is not finalizing this 

requirement for stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration but is establishing the 

requirement for refrigerant-containing 

equipment in the supermarket systems, 

refrigerated transport, and automatic 

commercial ice maker subsectors. 

As noted in section I.B, EPA is not 

finalizing as part of this action the 

proposed provisions for container 

tracking of HFCs that could be used in 

the servicing, repair, and/or installation 

of refrigerant-containing or fire 

suppression equipment. However, EPA 

is establishing a discrete reporting 

requirement for reclaimers and 

refrigerant distributors that supply 

reclaimed HFCs in the affected RACHP 

subsectors (i.e., supermarket systems, 

refrigerated transport, and automatic 

commercial ice makers). EPA is 

planning to use these data to monitor 

progress on the amount of reclaimed 

HFCs available for use in these 

subsectors ahead of the compliance date 

for the requirements for the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in the 

covered RACHP subsectors. EPA is 

establishing this requirement in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82770 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

97EPA received multiple comments, available in 

the docket of this rulemaking, related to taking a 

data driven approach to establish requirements for 

servicing and/or repairing refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFC refrigerants. 

Examples include EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606–0109, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606–0121, and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2022–0606–0147, among others. 

98To the extent this commenter refers to 

refrigerant production and consumption, EPA 

further notes that it appears that the commenter 

may be using these terms differently from how EPA 

uses them, and it is not clear what relevance those 

terms have in this context. Both of these are defined 

terms under the AIM Act, and as defined in 40 CFR 

84.3 they refer to regulated substances. 

response to, and based on consideration 

of, comments 97 seeking assessment and 

data associated with reclaim use and 

availability. EPA is establishing a 

discrete reporting requirement for these 

entities to provide this information to 

EPA, so that EPA can further evaluate 

the availability of reclaimed HFCs 

intended for servicing and/or repair of 

equipment in these subsectors. The 

reporting requirement will require two 

annual reports (i.e., one report in each 

of two years) to be submitted to the 

Agency, which includes information on 

the reclaimed HFC refrigerants sold or 

distributed to equipment owners and 

operators. Each annual report must be 

submitted by February 14 of the year 

following the reporting period and 

include information on the amounts and 

types of reclaimed HFCs intended for 

servicing and/or repair of equipment 

and sold in the covered subsectors over 

the preceding calendar year. The first 

report is due on February 14, 2027, and 

covers activity from January 1, 2026, to 

December 31, 2026; the second report is 

due on February 14, 2028, and covers 

activity from January 1, 2027, to 

December 31, 2027. The Agency notes 

that these compliance dates coordinate 

with the labeling requirements being 

established in this rulemaking, such that 

refrigerant distributors would know 

which containers contain refrigerants 

with reclaimed HFCs. EPA intends to 

use this information to further evaluate 

the ability to comply with the 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in 

these subsectors as established in this 

rulemaking. Further, the two-time 

reporting will allow EPA to assess the 

one-year trend in availability of 

reclaimed HFCs for use in the servicing 

and repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in the covered subsectors. 

EPA will review this information and 

may consider proposing changes to the 

provisions, if warranted. 

EPA notes that the reporting 

requirements here contain certain data 

elements that are similar to data 

elements that were originally proposed 

as a part of the container tracking 

provisions. As noted, the Agency is not 

finalizing those provisions in this 

action; however, the public was aware 

of EPA’s interest in information on these 

topics through the proposal to include 

similar data elements in those other 

provisions. As commenters noted, and 

EPA agrees, there is value to collecting 

such data as it pertains to provisions 

that are being finalized in this 

rulemaking; notably, the requirements 

for servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs. Thus, these reporting 

requirements are being established as 

requirements that are separate and 

distinct from the proposed tracking 

system requirements, although they 

include a limited number of data 

elements that are similar to some 

included in the proposed tracking 

system requirements. For example, 

these reporting requirements are 

different from the proposed tracking 

system requirements because they are 

being established to occur only twice 

and do not require data elements be 

reported at an individual container 

level. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed broad support for EPA’s 

proposed requirements for the recovery 

and reclamation of HFC refrigerant. 

Some commenters stated, consistent 

with the preamble to the proposal, that 

reclamation can bolster the current HFC 

supply, support a smooth transition to 

HFC substitutes, minimize disruption of 

the current capital stock of equipment, 

avoid supply shortages of virgin 

refrigerants, and help to finance 

refrigerant recovery. Two commenters 

stated that because the proposed use 

requirements apply only to HFCs and 

not their substitutes, EPA’s approach 

could encourage certain users to 

transition away from HFCs altogether 

into lower-GWP substitutes. One 

commenter suggested that increasing 

HFC reclamation benefits the climate, 

economy, and all users of cooling 

equipment and supports the availability 

of refrigerants for increasing demand for 

refrigerants in heat pumps for building 

decarbonization. The commenter further 

agreed that as proposed, the rule will 

help insulate the industry, and 

consumers, against price spikes that 

could affect the servicing of existing 

systems using HFCs. Another 

commenter stated that the provisions 

would send a strong market signal in 

favor of increased reclamation and lead 

to a reduction of HFC emissions and 

venting. Another commenter stated that 

sufficient reclamation volume may help 

reduce demand for new, virgin HFC 

production and consumption, which is 

more emissive than the reclamation 

process, and that the implementation of 

the subsection (h) rule can be a 

transformative force, particularly in 

addressing low rates of HFC 

reclamation. 

One commenter generally supported 

reclaimed refrigerant mandates to drive 

recovery and stimulate investment, but 

requested that the final requirements be 

sensitive to market conditions in terms 

of current and projected refrigerant 

supply, production, and consumption. 

The commenter stated that they did not 

support claims that reclaim mandates 

are not feasible because of insufficient 

material to meet demand or because 

market data for a given year takes time 

to accumulate and analyze. Another 

commenter supported regulations to 

increase the use of reclaimed 

refrigerants in the market, specifically 

through the incentivization of recovery 

and/or improvement of EPA’s ability to 

enforce recovery. Another commenter 

also claimed that reclaimers have made 

significant progress investing in and 

installing technology to reclaim 

complex HFCs including fractional 

distillation to expand reclamation 

capacity. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

supportive comments. The Agency 

agrees that the volume of reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants will grow significantly in 

the coming years particularly as the 

production and consumption of virgin 

HFCs decreases consistent with the 

phasedown provisions under the AIM 

Act. EPA anticipates this increased 

volume will support compliance with 

the requirements related to reclaimed 

refrigerants finalized in this action and 

addresses other comments related to 

supply of reclaimed HFCs in more detail 

in another response in this section. 

However, as described earlier in this 

section, EPA is establishing a discrete 

reporting requirement for data on the 

availability of reclaimed HFCs used in 

the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in the 

covered RACHP subsectors and EPA 

may evaluate the requirements 

established in this rulemaking after 

assessing the reported data. With 

respect to the comment suggesting that 

the final requirements be sensitive to 

market conditions, EPA notes that these 

discrete reporting requirements will 

improve EPA’s ability to evaluate 

market conditions and consider whether 

adjustments are appropriate.98

EPA responds to comments stating 

that these provisions may result in some 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82771 

equipment owners or operators 

switching to a refrigerant that is a 

substitute for an HFC by noting that 

entities may choose to transition to a 

different refrigerant for a number of 

reasons. For example, some equipment 

owners or operators may choose to 

transition on a decision based on energy 

efficiency. However, EPA is establishing 

reclamation requirements for servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in certain RACHP subsectors 

to promote reclamation of HFCs, 

consistent with the purpose identified 

in subsection (h)(1) of the Act of 

maximizing reclamation of HFCs. The 

Agency is not establishing these 

provisions as a means to promote 

transitions to substitutes for HFCs. 

While EPA did not primarily focus on 

this provision as a way to minimize 

emissions of HFCs from refrigerantcontaining equipment, the Agency 

describes in the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD that the reclaim 

requirements may lead to additional 

emission reductions by increasing 

recovery of refrigerant at equipment 

disposal. In our analysis, however, we 

assumed such emission reductions 

would take place due to previous AIM 

Act regulations (although not 

specifically required by such) and 

normal, business-as-usual practices by 

the industry—for instance in response 

to the venting prohibition in 40 CFR 

82.154—and so conservatively did not 

include such emission reductions as 

benefits attributable to this rule. The 

Agency views other provisions finalized 

in this rule as primarily focused on 

minimizing emissions (e.g., leak repair 

requirements as discussed in section 

IV.C). The Agency acknowledges these 

comments related to supply and 

availability of reclaimed HFCs as well as 

the availability of advanced reclamation 

technologies for efficient reprocessing 

and complex separations. Many 

commenters provided support that the 

supply of reclaimed HFC refrigerants 

would be adequate to achieve the 

provisions in this rulemaking, while 

other commenters noted concerns on 

supply. Further, commenters provided 

information on the availability and 

current use of these technologies to 

support the requirements of this 

rulemaking. EPA agrees with 

commenters that there is adequate 

supply of reclaimed HFC refrigerants to 

support the provisions in this 

rulemaking. Comments related to 

supply of reclaimed HFCs are discussed 

in additional detail in other responses 

later in this section and in section 

IV.E.1. 

The Agency agrees with the 

comments stating that increased 

reclamation could help to reduce the 

demand for virgin HFCs, particularly for 

HFCs such as those used in servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in RACHP subsectors such as 

supermarket systems, refrigerated 

transport, and automatic commercial ice 

makers. Further, EPA agrees with the 

comments stating that increased 

reclamation is likely to help insulate the 

market from possible price spikes for 

certain refrigerants as the phasedown of 

the production and consumption of 

virgin HFCs progresses. Reclaimed 

HFCs are and will continue to be an 

important source for refrigerants for 

existing refrigerant-containing 

equipment. As virgin HFCs may become 

scarcer to support the servicing and/or 

repair of existing refrigerant-containing 

equipment, reclaimed HFCs will be 

increasingly more vital. EPA also 

acknowledges comments stating the 

reclamation process is overall less 

emissive than production of virgin HFCs 

for use as refrigerants. However, EPA 

believes this point warrants further 

evaluation in the context of the U.S. 

market, and thus, is not concluding that 

the reclamation process is overall less 

emissive than the producing virgin 

HFCs for use as refrigerants. 

EPA recognizes the importance of 

increased recovery as it relates to 

maximizing reclamation. In agreement 

with some of the comments, EPA 

anticipates that the provisions in this 

rule would drive additional recovery to 

support the reclamation of HFCs. EPA 

discusses the anticipated effect of 

increased recovery in responding to 

another comment in this section. For 

example, additional recovery is 

expected as more refrigerant-containing 

equipment reaches their end-of-life, and 

the value of refrigerants needed to 

service existing refrigerant-containing 

equipment increases. 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported reclaim requirements for 

servicing existing equipment. One 

commenter stated that all HFC 

refrigerants used in the servicing of 

equipment should be applicable to the 

proposal. One commenter generally 

supported reclaim requirements for the 

sectors specified. The commenter 

recommended extending servicing 

requirements to additional subsectors as 

adequate reclaimed HFC supplies 

become available. Another commenter 

supported the role of recovery and 

reclamation of refrigerants, particularly 

as the supply of virgin HFCs is reduced. 

Some commenters expressed support 

for the use of reclaimed refrigerants in 

existing equipment and urged EPA to 

maximize the use of reclaimed 

refrigerants in the market. One 

commenter claimed that until the 

transition to near-zero GWP refrigerants 

is complete, the use of reclaimed 

refrigerant will lessen the impact of 

continued use of mid-range GWP 

refrigerants and will help avoid 

stranding existing higher-GWP 

equipment that may be well within its 

useful life. Another commenter stated 

that a reclaim mandate for servicing of 

existing equipment would be 

reasonable, as refrigerants supplied to 

service equipment are distributed 

through many channels and would not 

conflict with current business models. 

Another commenter requested that 

reclaimed refrigerants be mandatory 

only in servicing applications and states 

that the recovery of high-GWP 

refrigerants currently in use can be 

promoted more effectively, leading to a 

significant contribution towards 

mitigating global warming. 

Another commenter generally 

supported most aspects of the proposed 

rule and stated that successful carbon 

reduction initiatives require cooperation 

among chemical manufacturers, 

wholesale distributors, technicians, 

EPA-certified reclaimers, and 

government agencies. The commenter 

appreciated EPA’s transparent, 

collaborative, and market-neutral 

approach to the HFC allocation, 

technology transitions, and refrigerant 

management rulemakings. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments in support of the provisions 

related to the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in certain RACHP 

subsectors. In the Agency’s view, based 

in part on its experience with ODScontaining equipment, reclaimed HFCs 

will play an increasingly key role in 

supporting existing equipment as virgin 

materials become scarce; several of 

these comments provide additional 

support for that view. As described in 

more detail in responses later in this 

section, EPA is establishing 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment to be done with reclaimed 

HFCs in three RACHP subsectors: 

supermarket systems, refrigerated 

transport, and automatic commercial 

icemakers. EPA agrees that these 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment to be done with reclaimed 

HFCs are reasonable and will not be 

disruptive, as reclaimed refrigerants are 

available for these sectors and used to 

a degree already. EPA also is reiterating 

that the Agency is not at this time 

establishing requirements for the initial 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82772 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

fill of refrigerant-containing equipment 

with reclaimed HFCs in any RACHP 

subsectors and is maintaining the focus 

of this rulemaking on servicing and/or 

repair of equipment in the covered 

RACHP subsectors. 

EPA acknowledges comments 

regarding evaluating for additional 

applicability of the requirements for 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs in other RACHP subsectors. The 

Agency discusses the consideration of 

additional subsectors in another 

response in this section. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

reclaimed refrigerant has played a 

crucial role in maintaining chillers for 

decades, starting with CFCs. The 

commenter also noted that reclaimed 

HCFC–22 played a critical role in the 

gaps of supply after EPA, in compliance 

with the Montreal Protocol, accelerated 

the HCFC phaseout schedule and 

banned HCFC–22 for new equipment 

when there were brief periods of 

concerns about shortages for servicing. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment and agrees that reclaimed 

refrigerants have played an important 

role in servicing ODS equipment 

leading up to and since the production 

and consumption of those ODS have 

been phased out, as noted in a prior 

response in this section the Agency’s 

experience with ODS-containing 

equipment informs its view that 

reclaimed HFCs will play an 

increasingly key role to support existing 

equipment as virgin materials become 

more limited. While this rulemaking 

does not include required use of 

reclaimed HFCs for chillers, EPA notes 

the commenter’s example of the 

importance of reclaimed refrigerants to 

meet servicing demand where virgin 

refrigerants have become scarce. 

Comment: Some commenters opposed 

the proposed requirements for the use of 

recovered and reclaimed HFCs for 

certain RACHP subsectors for servicing 

of existing equipment. The commenters 

claimed that the proposal is creating 

consternation and uncertainty for their 

supermarket customers who have 

already been converting their systems to 

low-GWP refrigerants as quickly as 

possible. The commenters also asserted 

that the HFC phasedown and 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule will create 

demand for reclaimed refrigerants, and 

EPA does not need to impose mandates 

to accomplish this. The commenters 

strongly encouraged EPA to withdraw 

any mandates on the use of reclaimed 

refrigerant and allow market dynamics 

to create an increased demand for 

reclaimed refrigerant without the added 

burden of a compliance risk. A few 

additional commenters expressed 

opposition to mandating the use of 

reclaimed HFCs in the specific 

refrigeration sectors, arguing it is 

unnecessary market manipulation. 

Some of these commenters added that 

the best time for switching may not be 

the same across all sectors and 

supported allowing market forces to 

drive the transition to reclaimed HFCs. 

The commenters claimed that 

regulations may distort key market 

features and negatively impact 

consumers. Another commenter 

suggested that EPA delete requirements 

for use of reclaimed refrigerants from 

the rule. 

One commenter suggested that the 

phasedown schedule, most imminently 

the 2024 reduction, will significantly 

reduce the supply of regulated 

substances. The commenter further 

stated that with the reduction in 

available allowances to produce or 

import virgin regulated substances, the 

supply of higher-GWP refrigerants will 

be reduced such that sufficient 

allocation is available to meet demand 

for lower-GWP refrigerants. The 

commenter stated that the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule by design, 

will increase the demand for lowerGWP refrigerants exponentially each 

year due to new appliance GWP limits. 

The resulting dynamic of these 

requirements will lead to an increase in 

the demand for reclaimed HFCs, 

especially to service the installed base 

of higher-GWP refrigerant-containing 

appliances. The commenter also stated 

that there is no evidence that the 

requirement to use reclaimed HFCs will 

lead to greater reclamation, and the 

Agency did not show how this aspect of 

the rule would reduce releases of 

refrigerant. Further, the commenter 

stated there is no need for regulation to 

create demand for reclaimed refrigerant. 

For these reasons, the commenter stated 

that EPA’s proposal to require the use of 

reclaimed refrigerants in servicing of 

certain equipment is unneeded. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

comments and concerns described. EPA 

understands that the supermarket 

industry, like many industries, has been 

transitioning to lower-GWP refrigerants 

over time and will continue to do so 

consistent with the GWP limits and 

compliance dates in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule. EPA 

acknowledges the concerns raised by 

some entities within the supermarket 

industry regarding the available supply 

of reclaimed refrigerants that will also 

be compliant with the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule’s GWP threshold for 

new supermarket systems. EPA notes 

that it is not, at this time, finalizing 

requirements for the initial fill of 

refrigerant-containing equipment to be 

done with reclaimed HFCs. Therefore, 

the Agency is not responding to 

comments on initial charge in this final 

rule. 

In prior responses in this section, EPA 

noted the importance of reclaimed HFC 

refrigerant to support the continued 

operations of existing equipment, 

including certain older supermarket 

systems. The Agency agrees that 

existing market dynamics and other 

regulatory drivers may incentivize the 

use of reclaimed refrigerants over time, 

but disagrees with the conclusion that 

those possible incentives mean this 

requirement is unneeded. Congress put 

particular weight on reclamation in 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act, directing 

EPA in subsection (h)(1) to promulgate 

certain regulations, where appropriate, 

for purposes including maximizing 

reclaiming. Subsection (h)(2)(A) of the 

Act further provides that the EPA 

Administrator ‘‘shall consider the use of 

authority available under this section to 

increase opportunities for the 

reclaiming of regulated substances used 

as refrigerants.’’ This requirement is 

consistent with both of these provisions. 

Moreover, even assuming that market 

dynamics or implementation of other 

programs lead to some additional 

reclamation and use of reclaimed 

refrigerant over time, the commenters 

do not provide any reason to think that 

those factors alone would ‘‘maximize’’ 

reclamation. It is the Agency’s view that 

the regulatory programs established 

under the AIM Act work in conjunction 

with each other and implementation of 

each is necessary as HFCs are phased 

down, and the reclaim requirements 

established in this action will help 

increase reclamation and support 

additional recovery of HFC refrigerants, 

as discussed in another comment 

response in this section. To the extent 

that the comments intend to suggest that 

EPA should provide a particular type or 

amount of information related to each 

regulatory provision’s effects on 

increasing reclamation or reducing 

releases, EPA disagrees. As explained 

earlier in this preamble, as EPA 

interprets the statutory text in 

subsection (h)(1), the suite of 

regulations established under 

subsection (h)(1) of the Act, taken 

together, are focused on serving the 

three purposes identified in subsection 

(h)(1), but individual regulatory 

provisions under subsection (h)(1) need 

not each connect to all three purposes. 

This interpretation is integral to 

establishing an effective regulatory 

program, as some regulatory provisions 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82773 

99See comment number EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0009. 

that might be considered under (h)(1) 

may be highly efficacious at addressing 

one of the regulatory purposes but not 

address the other two, or alternatively, 

may be important to support the 

functioning of the regulatory program as 

a whole, but not be focused on any of 

the identified purposes. 

The Agency does not agree with the 

comments that requirements for 

reclaimed refrigerants by subsector are 

market manipulation. Entities within in 

these subsectors are able to purchase 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants from 

whichever supplier or reclaimer they 

choose, just as they could for virgin 

refrigerants. EPA discusses the 

estimated demand and supply of 

reclaimed HFCs for the affected RACHP 

subsectors in greater detail in other 

comment responses in this section, but 

notes here that EPA estimates that the 

supply of reclaimed HFCs will be 

sufficient for the demand anticipated for 

the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in the 

affected RACHP subsectors. The Agency 

also describes elsewhere in this 

preamble that reclaimed HFCs are 

required to meet the same purity 

standards as virgin HFCs and must be 

verified to meet those standards by 

specified analytical methods. Thus, 

entities within the supermarket systems, 

refrigerated transport, and automatic 

commercial ice makers subsectors can 

continue to purchase refrigerants for 

servicing and/or repair of equipment. 

Further, as EPA explains in another 

comment response in this section, EPA 

is not aware of market data or trends 

signifying that reclaimed HFCs are more 

expensive than virgin HFCs. The 

Agency received a comment on its 

NODA (87 FR 62843, October 17, 2022) 

stating that prices for reclaimed HFCs 

and virgin HFCs are generally 

equivalent.99 Nonetheless, for 

conservative purposes, the analysis in 

the Economic Impact and Benefits TSD 

assumes a ten percent premium for 

reclaimed refrigerant, and we also 

included a sensitivity analysis where 

costs are equivalent. With these 

considerations, the Agency does not 

view the subsector approach as market 

manipulation. 

Further, these requirements are a 

reasonable approach to implementing 

aspects of subsection (h)(1). Among 

other things, subsection (h)(1) of the 

AIM Act directs the Agency to establish 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, practices, processes, or 

activities regarding the servicing or 

repair of equipment that involves a 

regulated substance or the reclaiming of 

a regulated substance used as a 

refrigerant. EPA interprets subsection 

(h)(1) to authorize this type of provision 

to require reclaimed HFCs in the 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

equipment in certain subsectors. The 

requirements in this rulemaking to 

control the servicing and/or repair of 

certain refrigerant-containing equipment 

are within this authority and support 

the purpose of maximizing reclaim of 

HFCs. Further, EPA’s decision to apply 

these requirements only to refrigerantcontaining equipment in particular 

RACHP subsectors is based on 

consideration of where such controls are 

‘‘appropriate,’’ as the availability of 

reclaimed HFCs may not be prepared to 

support such requirements for all 

existing RACHP equipment by the 

compliance date. By requiring that 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment be 

done with reclaimed HFCs by a certain 

time frame, these requirements provide 

some predictability in the market, 

which is expected to encourage efforts 

to increase capacity for reclamation and 

support recovery of HFCs. 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments regarding the availability of 

the supply of reclaimed refrigerant to 

meet the required uses of reclaimed 

HFC refrigerant as proposed. A few 

commenters claimed that the reclaim 

rate will not increase to meet demand 

and that EPA has not provided 

sufficient data to support the 

availability of necessary reclaim 

material for the regulated sectors. The 

commenters stated that even if HFC 

reclamation continued to grow at 38 

percent every year, supply would barely 

provide half of the quantity needed in 

2028. One commenter stated that not 

enough recovery machines are sold in 

the United States to support the reclaim 

mandate, thus leading to insufficient 

refrigerant recovery and reclamation. 

The commenter claimed that this 

resulting refrigerant shortfall will drive 

up costs. Another commenter noted that 

the inadequate supply of reclaimed gas 

would mean that the reclaim mandates 

are consequently unlikely to be 

practical, achievable, or enforceable. 

Another commenter was skeptical that 

enough reclaimed refrigerant will be 

available in the market by 2028 and 

claimed that the rulemaking record does 

not support that a sufficient quantity 

will be available. One commenter stated 

that only four percent of 2022 demand 

for R–410A was reclaimed in 2022. The 

commenter further stated that new 

systems need to be installed in order to 

realize the transition to lower-GWP 

refrigerants and that there will be a lack 

of recovered refrigerant from new 

technologies using lower-GWP 

refrigerants until equipment approaches 

retirement. The commenter also claimed 

that including equipment meeting 

Technology Transitions GWP limits 

would complicate the reclamation 

process. The commenter claimed that 

this approach is consistent with the 

statutory design of the AIM Act by 

allowing the phasedown to move at its 

prescribed pace while accommodating 

sector and subsector-specific restrictions 

and avoiding potential disruptive 

market effects. Another commenter 

stated that current low recovery and 

reclamation volumes and a lack of 

market readiness do not support 

establishing reclaim mandates but, if 

EPA proceeds, such requirements 

should require use equal to reasonable 

market supply projections. Another 

commenter stated the challenge of 

obtaining a sufficient amount of 

recovered refrigerant available to 

reclaim and stated that any provisions 

to minimize releases should be balanced 

such that adequate supply of refrigerant 

is available. 

A couple of other commenters stated 

that EPA has not evaluated reclaim 

availability on a sector-specific basis, 

instead, assuming that the availability 

for each reclaimed HFC will increase 

consistently across all HFC blends. The 

commenters stated that EPA needs to 

look at HFC blends in each sector 

because certain blends are hard to 

recover and are end-use specific. The 

commenters stated that R–404A and R– 

507 are two examples of refrigerants that 

are difficult and expensive to reclaim 

and that many reclaimers cannot 

reclaim these blends or would choose 

not to, leading to insufficient supply 

and refrigeration problems. 

Another commenter expressed 

concerns regarding the future market 

availability and price of certified 

reclaim such as that of R–410A because 

there are no ‘‘drop in’’ substitutes to 

replace it. The commenter stated that 

this is very different from EPA’s most 

recent 2010 refrigerant transition in the 

stationary air conditioning and heat 

pump market where there were 

alternatives for HCFC–22; thus, industry 

had options that they do not have in this 

transition. The commenter noted this 

could create unforeseen shortages 

unless EPA takes actions to ensure 

reclaim mandates are based on actual 

data and are focused on the service 

market. The commenter expressed 

concerns that EPA’s future projected 

reclaim quantities will not be sufficient 

to meet actual market demand for both 

initial charge as well as service/ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82774 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

aftermarket demand and thus 

encouraged EPA to focus on the service/ 

aftermarket and remove the initial 

charge mandates from the proposed 

rule. 

Another commenter stated that the 

challenge of providing sufficient 

reclaimed HFCs to maintain HVACR 

systems is not the reclamation capacity 

of reclaimers but rather obtaining 

sufficient recovered HFCs. The 

commenter claimed that regulations 

increasing demand for HFCs or adding 

costs to reclamation would exacerbate 

the situation. The commenter pointed to 

the fact that most manufacturers have 

typically mandated virgin refrigerants in 

new applications and that the reclaim 

mandate in the proposed rule upends 

this. The commenter noted that some in 

the industry anticipate that HFC 

availability will drop significantly 

following the 2024 phasedown step of a 

30 percent reduction, motivating the use 

of less refrigerants. The commenter 

stated that only one percent of the 

expected 2028 HFC market 

requirements are currently recovered, 

that it is not clear how this will satisfy 

the 85 percent requirement for new 

system charging, and that consumers 

will still demand that systems function 

even if there is insufficient supply. The 

commenter acknowledged that moving 

to alternate refrigerants will take some 

pressure off the HFC demand but stated 

that very little new A2L product is 

entering the market. The commenter 

stated that ramping up significant 

transition by the end of 2024 looks to be 

very challenging and questioned 

whether there will be enough relief in 

the HFC supply by 2028. 

One commenter stated that contrary to 

EPA’s suggestion in the preamble to the 

proposed rule that HFC reclamation is 

increasing, the reclamation sector is 

experiencing significant structural, 

market, and regulatory challenges that 

have limited refrigerant reclamation’s 

growth in the United States over the 

past decade. The commenter asserted 

that despite expectations of an increase 

in reclamation volumes, the overall data 

indicate a decrease, with 2018 yielding 

18.1 million pounds per year, and even 

with the slight rise in HFCs in 2022, the 

total weight amounted to 15.4 million 

pounds for the same year. However, the 

commenter also stated that this rule, 

once finalized and implemented, could 

catalyze a substantial shift, resulting in 

the HFC reclamation market growing 

tenfold by 2032. The commenter stated 

that the reclamation volumes that EPA 

foresees are highly attainable by 2028, 

due to the effectiveness of the AIM Act 

hinging not on the capabilities of U.S. 

reclaimers, but on overcoming structural 

barriers in refrigerant pricing to 

establish a genuine circular economy for 

refrigerants, where reclamation stands 

as the low-cost solution. 

A few commenters suggested that EPA 

formulate alternatives to the proposed 

reclaim provisions and align with more 

realistic expectations and assumptions. 

Both commenters stressed the following 

two principles: basing reclaim mandates 

on relevant data to ensure practicality 

and phasing in reclaim mandates on a 

gradual basis. These commenters 

recommended that EPA establish a 

process to review data on the projected 

availability of reclaimed refrigerant and 

adjust requirements for the following 

year as needed. One commenter 

recommended that EPA use a data 

driven approach to set reclaim mandate 

requirements using a lagging model 

where future mandate amounts depend 

on actual reclaim production amount. 

The commenter stated that such a 

lagging model would allow EPA to 

mandate higher reclaim if recovery rates 

increase but also avoid market 

disruption. Two commenters 

recommended that EPA actively engage 

with industry stakeholders to gather 

comprehensive data on reclaim 

infrastructure capacity, available 

refrigerant types and quantities, and 

market demand across different sectors 

to provide a solid foundation for a more 

effective and efficient regulatory 

framework. One commenter 

recommended that EPA revisit 

reclaimed HFC data and adjust 

requirements based on real-world 

feasibility. Another commenter stated 

that the Agency may consider other 

mechanisms within its authority to 

increase reclamation. Another 

commenter urged EPA to conduct 

further analysis on a refrigerant-byrefrigerant basis to ensure there will be 

enough used refrigerant available for 

reclaimers to process to support the 

volume of reclaim needed by January 1, 

2028. 

Another commenter suggested that 

EPA may wish to consider collecting 

information on the total amount of 

refrigerant recovered compared to the 

total amount purchased by various 

entities as well as the percentage of the 

total amount purchased that is used for 

installation of new equipment compared 

to the total amount used to top up leaks. 

The commenter suggested that EPA may 

wish to interview CARB and OEMs as 

to the successes and challenges 

associated with the R4 Program to learn 

from the largest experiment of its kind 

in the United States, which appears to 

have resulted in an increase in R–410A 

reclaim by as much as approximately 

500 metric tons from 2021 to 2022. The 

commenter noted that CARB allowed for 

an alternate compliance pathway of 

‘‘Early Action’’ to transition to a lowGWP refrigerant prior to 2025, meaning 

that not all OEMs were required to 

participate, which may be reflected in 

the slight increase in reclaimed 

refrigerant reported to EPA. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments related to the supply of 

reclaimed HFCs to support the 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs 

established in this rulemaking. EPA 

understands the need for increasing 

recovery of refrigerants and ensuring 

that these refrigerants are provided to 

reclaimers for subsequent reclamation. 

The Agency took advanced comments 

on technician certification and in a 

future proposal could consider the 

relationship between technician 

certification and recovery. The Agency 

has taken into consideration, in this 

rule, requirements for reclaimed HFCs 

and expects these regulations will 

provide market signals that will support 

increased recovery of HFC refrigerants 

becoming available for reclamation, and 

will support reclaimers increasing the 

amount of reclaimed refrigerants 

available to meet the increased demand. 

The Economic Impact and Benefits TSD 

does not include increased recovery in 

the base case for this rule based on the 

assumptions for that scenario; however, 

EPA did consider an alternate scenario 

with increased recovery and anticipates 

that the reclamation provisions could 

support increased recovery during 

servicing or disposal where the 

refrigerant may otherwise have been 

vented or released. EPA also 

acknowledges comments describing a 

need to evaluate data related to the 

requirements for servicing and/or repair 

of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs. In this 

rulemaking, EPA is making 

modifications to the proposed approach 

and finalizing provisions based on 

additional consideration of these 

challenges and needs, as described in 

the following paragraphs. 

First, the Agency is not at this time 

establishing requirements for the initial 

fill of refrigerant-containing equipment 

with reclaimed HFCs. The Agency 

understands concerns related to 

reclaiming newer refrigerant blends that 

are more recently being used in 

equipment and comply with the 

restrictions established in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule. Because 

EPA is not finalizing the proposed 

requirements for initial fill with 

reclaimed HFCs at this time, the 

concerns in comments related to HFC 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82775 

100A-Gas (2023). A-Gas Breaks Ground on 

Additional Market-Leading Refrigerant Separation 

Technology. Available at: https://www.agas.com/ 

news-insights/a-gas-breaks-ground-on-additionalmarket-leading-refrigerant-separation-technology/. 

101Available at: https://www.epa.gov/section608/ 

summary-refrigerant-reclamation-trends. 

refrigerants used in the first fill of 

refrigerant-containing equipment to 

comply with the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule are not implicated in 

this final rule. The Agency also notes 

that it is not finalizing any exclusions 

based on GWP for other provisions in 

this rule related to servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs, as 

discussed in another comment response 

in this section. 

Second, under the requirements 

finalized in this rule, the servicing and/ 

or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs covers 

a narrower scope of RACHP subsectors 

than in the proposal. EPA is finalizing 

these requirements for supermarket 

systems, refrigerated transport, and 

automatic commercial icemakers. EPA 

is not, at this time finalizing these 

provisions for stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment; however, the 

narrower scope of the provisions 

finalized in this rulemaking does not 

have much impact on EPA’s analysis of 

the supply of reclaimed refrigerants, 

given in part that in many cases this 

equipment is hermetically sealed and 

less likely to have field repairs in the 

same way as field-charged equipment. 

The draft Economic Impact and Benefits 

TSD accompanying the proposal 

estimated that demand for reclaimed 

HFCs in the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in the 

stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment subsector in 2028 was 

approximately 20 metric tons, with 

about 80 percent being HFC–134a. EPA 

notes that the analysis provided for the 

proposal did not take into account 

effects of the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, as the rule was not yet 

finalized when this proposal was 

issued. The 20 metric tons of reclaimed 

HFCs for servicing and/or repair in the 

stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

subsector is minor relative to the 

estimated demand for reclaimed HFCs 

in the servicing and/or repair of the 

other three RACHP subsectors, which 

was estimated at 12,168 metric tons. 

While not finalizing at this time, the 

requirements for servicing and/or repair 

with reclaimed HFCs in the stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration subsector only 

alleviates a small amount of needed 

supply in 2029. EPA discusses 

anticipated supply relative to estimated 

demand with the updated analyses in 

another comment response and notes 

that anticipated supply is expected to 

meet the estimated demand. Further, 

EPA is focusing these requirements in 

the final rule on servicing and/or repair 

of certain existing refrigerant-containing 

equipment that use HFC refrigerants 

that are currently being reclaimed. EPA 

understands that a significant portion of 

recovered and reclaimed refrigerants is 

sourced when refrigerant is recovered at 

a piece of equipment’s EOL. The types 

of refrigerant-containing equipment 

affected by these provisions are those 

that are currently existing and in-use; 

thus, the installed stock of refrigerants 

to continue to support the useful life of 

these types of refrigerant-containing 

equipment will be supported as older 

ones reach their EOL. The Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD accompanying 

this rulemaking provides additional 

analysis of the existing stock of HFCs by 

type of refrigerant-containing 

equipment. Accordingly, under the 

provisions in this final rule, resources 

can be focused on providing reclaimed 

HFCs for servicing and/or repair of 

existing refrigerant-containing 

equipment in certain RACHP 

subsectors, where there is a greater 

ability to obtain recovered refrigerants 

from equipment that is at its EOL. 

Third, EPA is delaying the 

compliance date for these provisions by 

one year to January 1, 2029. This delay 

of the compliance date should enable 

reclaimers to increase their supply of 

reclaimed refrigerants to meet demand 

for servicing and or repair of equipment 

in the covered subsectors. EPA notes 

this date aligns with the next major 

phasedown step of production and 

consumption of virgin HFCs under the 

AIM Act, when reclaimed HFCs will 

play an even greater role in supporting 

the servicing and repair of existing 

equipment. Further, EPA is aware of 

examples from reclaimers that are 

actively building capacity of advanced 

separation technologies.100 EPA 

acknowledges comments related to 

suggestions for phasing in these 

requirements; however, the Agency is 

not finalizing such a method for these 

requirements, for the reasons discussed 

in another comment and response in 

this section. 

Finally, EPA is establishing a discrete 

reporting requirement to better 

understand the sale, distribution, and 

availability of reclaimed HFCs in the 

subsectors covered in this rulemaking. 

As described in this section, EPA is 

requiring reporting by reclaimers and 

distributors that contain information on 

the volumes of reclaimed HFCs sold and 

intended for servicing and/or repair of 

equipment in the covered subsectors. 

EPA is establishing a two-time reporting 

requirement to gather this information 

and better understand the landscape for 

reclaimed HFC availability for these 

subsectors in 2026 and 2027 (reports 

must be submitted by February 14, 

2027, and February 14, 2028, 

respectively), leading up to the 

compliance date of January 1, 2029. EPA 

notes that the Agency will review this 

information and may consider 

proposing changes to the requirements 

for reclaimed HFCs, if warranted. 

EPA acknowledges the comments 

related to assessing particular blends 

and subsectors as related to reclaimed 

HFC refrigerant availability. EPA 

considered this in the report ‘‘Analysis 

of the U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon 

Reclamation Market: Stakeholders, 

Drivers, and Practices,’’ available in the 

docket for this rule and evaluated the 

anticipated demand of HFCs in the 

covered subsectors. Among the covered 

RACHP subsectors in this rule, the most 

anticipated demand HFC and HFC 

blend refrigerants are HFC–134a, R– 

404A, R–407A, and R–507. Related to 

R–404A and R–507, the Agency 

understands the uses of these particular 

blends in each of the covered subsectors 

of this rulemaking. Even if the 

commenters were correct about the 

current costs and difficulties sourcing 

these refrigerants today, EPA notes that 

these blends are currently being 

reclaimed, and the Agency anticipates 

this rulemaking to provide market 

signals to reclaimers to increase 

reclamation of these blends and secure 

additional recovered materials. 

Similarly, EPA anticipates those 

recovering HFCs from equipment will 

be aware of reclaimers’ increased need 

for such materials and will increasingly 

develop arrangements to provide 

recovered HFCs to reclaimers. R–404A, 

in particular, has had a steady volume 

of reclamation between approximately 

400,000 and 500,000 pounds each year 

from 2017 to 2022 with a larger increase 

upwards of 800,000 pounds in 2023.101

While specific data on R–507 

reclamation are not published, 

reclamation volumes of R–507 between 

2017 and 2023, as reported to EPA, have 

been steady between approximately 

40,000 and 130,000 pounds each year. 

EPA reiterates that the Agency is only 

finalizing requirements for the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment to be done with reclaimed 

HFCs in a limited number of RACHP 

subsectors. 

The Economic Impact and Benefits 

TSD estimates that approximately 

12,168 metric tons (26.8 million 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82776 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

102This estimate is based only on demand and 

does not take into account that reclaimed 

refrigerants may contain up to 15 percent virgin 

HFCs, by weight. See Appendix D in the Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD for more information. 

103Available at: https://www.epa.gov/section608/ 

summary-refrigerant-reclamation-trends. 

104A-Gas (2023). A-Gas Breaks Ground on 

Additional Market-Leading Refrigerant Separation 

Technology. Available at: https://www.agas.com/ 

news-insights/a-gas-breaks-ground-on-additionalmarket-leading-refrigerant-separation-technology/. 

pounds) 102 of reclaimed HFCs will be 

needed to meet this demand in 2029 

and that this amount will decline in 

future years due to the transitions to 

lower-GWP refrigerants under the 2023 

Technology Transitions rule. The 

Agency anticipates increased rates of 

reclamation of recovered refrigerants as 

the phasedown continues. EPA also 

notes that there are several options 

available to reclaimers, including 

reclaiming the blends themselves, 

reclaiming individual HFCs that can be 

combined to form specific blends, and 

separating blends into individual 

components to meet demand of specific 

refrigerants. EPA also notes that in some 

cases, reclaimers may plan to stockpile 

recovered HFCs ahead of the AIM Act 

phasedown milestone in 2029. 

Stockpiling both virgin and reclaimed 

refrigerants ahead of phasedown steps 

has been a common practice both with 

regards to the ODS phaseout and thus 

far with implementation of the HFC 

phasedown. 

EPA does not assume that all HFCs 

are recovered and reclaimed. For 

example, some HFCs are used in other 

sectors, such as foams or aerosols, 

where the HFCs are not typically 

recovered or their use is, by nature, 

emissive, respectively. Further, HFCs in 

refrigerant-containing equipment may 

leak, reducing the amount that is 

recoverable at the piece of equipment’s 

EOL. In the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD, EPA estimates in 2029, 

that the amount of HFC refrigerants 

available to be recovered (after 

accounting for the factors above) from 

refrigerant-containing equipment will be 

35,458 metric tons (78.2 million 

pounds). If all HFC refrigerants available 

for recovery in refrigerant-containing 

equipment are in fact recovered and 

reclaimed, EPA notes that this amount 

represents nearly three times the 

estimated servicing demand of 

reclaimed HFCs for refrigerantcontaining equipment in the affected 

subsectors in 2029. However, even if a 

substantially lower share (e.g., 

approximately one third) of what is 

available for recovery in a given year is 

actually reclaimed, sufficient amounts 

of reclaimed refrigerant would be 

available to meet the rule’s 

requirements. Further, this assessment 

does not consider the amount of 

recoverable HFC refrigerants that are 

available in the years leading up to 

2029. EPA understands that it is 

common practice for reclaimers to 

stockpile recovered refrigerants and 

reclaim them when most efficient or 

opportune. Thus, EPA anticipates that 

reclaimers will be securing sufficient 

amounts of recovered HFC refrigerants 

to reclaim to meet the estimated 

demand in 2029. EPA also expects that 

the HFC reclamation market will 

increase in future years as more 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

equipment using HFC refrigerants reach 

their EOL, and more HFCs are 

potentially available for recovery and 

reclamation. CAA title VI prohibited the 

use of HCFC–22 in new air conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment starting in 

2010, facilitating manufacturers to 

transition to use ODS substitutes— 

including, HFCs. That market shift 

nearly 15 years ago means that today we 

are just starting to see certain HFCcontaining equipment reach its EOL. 

Going forward, we will see an increased 

amount of HFC-containing equipment 

reach its EOL, which will impact the 

amount of HFCs available for recovery. 

EPA also notes that the Agency is 

establishing a two-time reporting 

requirement to gather information and 

better understand the landscape for 

reclaimed HFC availability for the 

affected RACHP subsectors in 2026 and 

2027, leading up to the compliance date 

of January 1, 2029. The Agency will 

review this information and may 

consider proposing changes to the 

requirements for reclaimed HFCs, if 

warranted. 

EPA notes that the amount of 

reclaimed HFCs increased over 40 

percent from 2021 to 2022 and 

increased a further 20 percent from 2022 

to 2023.103 These year-over-year 

increases may suggest that the 

reclamation market for HFCs is 

continually becoming more robust. EPA 

included an analysis of recent trends in 

reclamation totals and anticipated 

growth related to the requirements in 

this final rule in the report available in 

the docket of this action, Analysis of the 

U.S. Hydrofluorocarbon Reclamation 

Market: Stakeholders, Drivers, and 

Practices. The analysis finds that even 

assuming a linear and conservative 

growth trajectory, reclamation totals 

approach the expected demand for 

2029. However, EPA notes that 

reclamation totals in reality are unlikely 

to follow a linear growth trend, and that 

growth in capacity may increase at a 

significantly higher rate due to the 

provisions in this rule and other factors, 

such as new reclamation facilities 

coming online.104 EPA notes that the 

year-over-year increases in 2022 and 

2023 are absent additional regulations to 

maximize reclamation, which this rule 

is establishing. EPA also notes that the 

phasedown may have had some effect 

on this increase; for example, the 

increases in reclamation data as 

reported to EPA in 2022 and 2023 were 

likely linked to overall awareness and 

reaction to the AIM Act and, more 

recently, the increase in 2023 may be in 

anticipation of the phasedown step in 

2024. These effects may be observed as 

related to the overall phasedown; 

however, the regulations established in 

this rule are necessary to maximize 

reclamation of HFCs throughout the 

course of the phasedown and beyond. 

EPA also notes, as stated above, that the 

Agency is establishing a two-time 

reporting requirement to gather 

information and better understand the 

landscape for reclaimed HFC 

availability for the affected RACHP 

subsectors in 2026 and 2027, leading up 

to the compliance date of January 1, 

2029. The Agency will review this 

information and may consider 

proposing changes to the requirements 

for reclaimed HFCs, if warranted. 

EPA also acknowledges comments 

related to outreach and engaging with 

industry stakeholders to gather data and 

information. As noted in section IV.E, 

EPA provided multiple opportunities 

for engagement for this rulemaking. 

Among those opportunities include the 

publication of a NODA with a public 

comment period, a public stakeholder 

meeting, and a public webinar. Further, 

EPA provided notice and an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

proposed rule, and has considered those 

comments in this final rule, as 

appropriate. 

Regarding the commenter’s statement 

that allowance use for virgin HFCs 

could potentially shift to other 

subsectors as requirements for 

reclaimed HFCs come into effect for the 

subsectors covered in this rulemaking, 

EPA responds that as the phasedown 

continues, EPA anticipates market shifts 

that could include changes in the 

production and consumption of certain 

HFCs and changes in the use patterns 

with reclaimed HFCs replacing virgin 

HFCs. EPA further notes that under the 

phasedown schedule established in 

subsection (e)(2)(C) of the Act, in the 

last step of the phasedown HFC 

production and consumption 

allowances equal to 15 percent of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82777 

105Available at: https://www.epa.gov/section608/ 

summary-refrigerant-reclamation-trends. 

106Available at: https://www.epa.gov/section608/ 

summary-refrigerant-reclamation-trends. 

respective baselines will continue to be 

available indefinitely. The Agency 

assumes applications that are difficult to 

transition and/or applications requiring 

higher purity HFCs may continue to 

require virgin HFCs into the future. 

While the Agency acknowledges that 

there will be shifting business practices 

given the HFC phasedown, the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, and this 

final rule that will increase the reliance 

on reclaimed HFCs especially for 

servicing RACHP and fire suppression 

equipment, there are business practices 

including patents and licensing 

arrangements that could affect the 

ability of certain reclaimers to supply 

certain customers with reclaimed HFCs. 

The Agency anticipates that as patents 

expire and licensing arrangements 

expand, these limitations will lessen. 

EPA reiterates that the requirements in 

this rule only apply to servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in 

three RACHP subsectors. Further, the 

compliance date for these requirements 

is January 1, 2029, which should give 

industry sufficient time to adjust current 

business practices. 

EPA acknowledges the concerns of 

the commenters regarding challenges 

facing the reclamation industry and the 

Agency responds that several of the 

provisions established in this 

rulemaking are designed to support 

increased reclamation. These provisions 

focus specifically on the maximizing of 

reclaiming HFCs, consistent with one of 

the purposes identified in subsection 

(h)(1) of in the AIM Act. Per reported 

data for reclaimed refrigerants, the total 

amount of reclaimed refrigerant (ODS 

and HFCs) was 14.7 million pounds in 

2018 and 14.2 million pounds in 

2022.105 The commenter is correct that 

the total amount was reduced, 

considering both ODS and HFCs 

together. However, as noted, this 

rulemaking is focused on increasing 

reclamation of regulated substances (i.e., 

HFCs), and HFC reclamation increased 

from 5.25 million pounds in 2018 to 7.6 

million pounds in 2022, an increase of 

over 40 percent. EPA anticipates this 

trend to increase related to the 

provisions established in this 

rulemaking as well as the overall 

phasedown and increasingly limited 

supply of virgin HFCs. 

EPA acknowledges the comment on 

collecting information on amount of 

refrigerant recovered. The information 

suggested by the commenter related to 

total refrigerant recovered to compare to 

the amounts purchased by entities 

(identified by use in first fill, servicing, 

etc.) may be useful to understanding 

trends in refrigerant recovery. Such data 

may also be helpful in understanding 

how refrigerant is recovered and 

recycled in equipment (whether it be 

the same piece of equipment or another 

piece of equipment under the same 

ownership). However, EPA did not 

propose such information collection, 

which would require additional 

reporting by various entities in the 

supply chain, and notably, reporting 

from certified technicians performing 

the actual recovery and servicing and/or 

repair activities. Further, EPA 

recognizes the important role 

technicians play in recovering 

refrigerant destined for reclamation and 

that it may be useful to have such 

information collected; however, the 

Agency did not propose and is not 

finalizing recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements for certified technicians to 

collect information on the total 

refrigerants they recover in this 

rulemaking. However, the Agency notes 

that it may consider proposing 

information collection requirements on 

recovered refrigerant, such as 

recordkeeping and reporting for 

technicians on the amount of refrigerant 

recovered in a future rulemaking. For 

example, this suggestion could warrant 

additional consideration in a potential 

future rulemaking where the role of 

technician certification programs is 

considered more fully. 

EPA notes that under current 

reporting for certified reclaimers per 40 

CFR 82.164, reclaimers are required to 

report on the annual totals of 

refrigerants they receive. EPA notes the 

value of reporting on a more granular 

level, however. As noted previously in 

this response, EPA is establishing 

discrete reporting requirements to better 

understand the availability of reclaimed 

refrigerants in the covered subsectors 

prior to the compliance date for these 

requirements. 

The Agency also notes that in issuing 

the proposed rule and reviewing 

comments in development of this final 

rule, we reviewed information on the R4 

Program, including a review of the State 

agency’s statement of reasons related to 

establishing such a program. EPA found 

this to be a useful source of information. 

EPA notes that the data presented by the 

commenter alluding to the increase in 

R–410A reclamation from 2021 to 2022 

reference EPA’s published data on 

reclamation totals as reported under 

EPA’s CAA section 608 regulations.106

The total increase in R–410A 

reclamation from 2021 to 2022 was 

approximately 1.04 million pounds (520 

tons). While this increase was greater 

than previous years’ trends, EPA did not 

explicitly discuss with CARB the use of 

the early action pathway related to the 

State’s R4 Program. This program may 

have contributed to the increase in 

reclamation of R–410A from 2021 to 

2022; however, the Agency is also aware 

that reclaimers have been building 

additional capacity and notes that 

increased reclamation could also be a 

result of other factors, such as the 

progression of the HFC phasedown. For 

example, the reclamation of HFC–134a 

also saw a significant increase from 

2021 to 2022 of approximately 473,000 

pounds (237 tons). Further, the CARB 

R4 Program is applied at the State level 

and this rulemaking applies at the 

national level and thus, considers the 

availability of reclaimed HFCs 

nationwide. Entities may choose to 

service and/or repair their refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs prior to the compliance dates. The 

compliance dates for this rule were 

informed by analysis (e.g., assessing the 

estimated demand of reclaimed HFCs) 

and consideration of comments received 

on the proposed rule, and they allow the 

reclamation industry to provide 

sufficient supply for servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in the affected RACHP 

subsectors with reclaimed HFCs. With 

these considerations, the Agency is not 

establishing an early action option for 

compliance at this time. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the reclaim industry has already 

reached a large scale of reclaimable 

refrigerant even though there was no 

Congressional mandate to reclaim this 

product and the public was generally 

unaware of the negative environmental 

effects associated with HFC refrigerant 

emissions. The commenter stated that 

EPA can meet its 100 percent reclaim 

usage goals through rapid scaling of 

recovery rates for HFC refrigerants 

under the AIM Act which has already 

given HFCs high economic value. The 

commenter suggested that the 

refrigerant in the installed base 

aftermarket and in equipment 

approaching its EOL will both coincide 

well with recovery opportunities. The 

commenter stated that the servicing 

sector, specifically the contractors, is 

the only real material source for 

increasing the amount of reclaimed 

refrigerants, which if recovered more 

consistently will lead to the 

corresponding growth in reclamation 

necessary for an orderly transition 

under the AIM Act. The commenter also 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82778 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

noted that mandating reclaimed HFCs in 

the servicing sector would encourage 

more recovery by contractors and that 

this approach incentivizes contractors to 

provide more recovered refrigerant to 

reclaimers to ensure access to reclaimed 

refrigerant to service consumers’ needs. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment. EPA agrees that scaling up 

HFC refrigerant recovery and 

reclamation may become increasingly 

important, particularly as a business 

strategy, as HFCs are phased down and 

appreciates efforts that have already 

been made, including those made prior 

to the enactment of the AIM Act. EPA 

acknowledges the role of the technicians 

and contractors in the overall recovery 

of refrigerant, especially as equipment 

reaches its EOL. The Agency is aware of 

a range of programs, including those 

with incentives, that have been used by 

OEMs and reclaimers to support 

recovery of refrigerants. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

requiring reclaimed HFCs for servicing 

is largely untrialed in the United States 

and needs gradual testing and iteration. 

The commenter mentioned that 

California is currently in the first year 

of implementation of its R4 Program, 

which requires OEMs for residential AC 

and VRF systems to use specific 

calculated reclamation volumes in 2023 

and 2024. The commenter noted that 

since the inaugural year of the program 

has not yet concluded, comprehensive 

data and conclusive findings regarding 

the program’s efficacy and success are 

currently unavailable to the broader 

stakeholder community to inform the 

formulation of a national reclaim 

requirement rule. 

Response: EPA disagrees that reliance 

on reclaimed refrigerants is untrialed in 

the servicing sectors. As discussed 

elsewhere in this final rule, the Agency 

notes that since 2020, reclaimed HCFC– 

22 is the only viable option for servicing 

legacy HCFC–22 systems. Similarly, for 

the CFC systems, this has been the case 

since the 1990s. The Agency also notes 

that the amount of reclaimed HFCs has 

been reported annually to EPA since 

2017 and that the amount has been 

increasing. Reclaimers are selling 

reclaimed HFCs and competing with 

virgin HFCs in many markets 

particularly for servicing certain RACHP 

and fire suppression equipment. The 

Agency proposed and is finalizing a 

program that is markedly different from 

the R4 Program. Further, the Agency 

will be interested in any data California 

will be able to share; however, the 

Agency does not need those data to 

finalize a reclamation program under 

subsection (h). 

Comment: Many commenters 

discussed the demand and supply of 

relevant refrigerated blends for 

servicing, especially R–410A. One 

commenter stated that EPA’s mandate 

for reclaimed HFCs, when combined 

with the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule, will likely drive perverse 

commercial practices to meet this 

demand because companies will be 

incentivized by EPA’s rules to take 

usable, reclaimed R–410A and separate 

out the HFC–32 from the HFC–125 in 

order to make reclaimed HFC–32. The 

commenter claimed that not only would 

this be counterproductive to meeting 

demand for reclaimed R–410A service 

gas for that equipment base, but it 

would also require unnecessary energy 

consumption from the distillation 

process. In addition, the commenter 

stated that the stranded HFC–125 

ultimately would simply be re-blended 

with virgin HFC–32 to make R–410A to 

be sold to subsectors that are not subject 

to the reclaim mandate, creating a 

repetitive and unproductive loop. 

Additionally, a commenter stated that 

separating individual HFC refrigerants 

from recovered refrigerant mixtures, 

such as R–410A, R–404A, and the R– 

407 series, is not necessary because the 

demand for such reclaimed refrigerant 

mixtures particularly for service will be 

high and would in fact be an 

environmental detriment due to the 

high energy consumption required for 

the separation process. 

An additional commenter stated that 

the HFC market would be disrupted by 

the requirements described in the 

NPRM and noted that reclamation 

currently services at best less than nine 

percent of the expected 2028 demand. 

The commenter additionally stated that 

the proposed rule does not explain how 

the reclamation industry will achieve 

the necessary growth and that even 

achieving growth at a rate of 38 percent 

(i.e., the growth from 2021 to 2022) 

would not supply a sufficient quantity 

of reclaimed HFCs. The commenter 

claimed that the disconnect between 

supply and demand would be even 

wider than this because of highly mixed 

refrigerants, which require advanced 

fractional distillation, technical 

expertise, and high capital costs. The 

commenter provided an example for 

HFC–32, estimating that HFC–32 

reclamation in 2022 represented 2.4 

percent of what will be needed in 2028. 

The commenter further claimed that, 

given that HFC–32 units will not be 

available to be reclaimed in significant 

quantity for 15–20 years, reclaimers may 

try to reclaim mildly flammable HFC–32 

from R–410A. The commenter noted 

that R–410A is azeotropic and therefore 

requires significant energy to separate, 

that it requires investments in 

equipment due to HFC–32’s mild 

flammability, and that there would only 

be a limited market for the HFC–125 

that remained. The commenter 

concluded that there is therefore a 

mismatch between HFC–32 demand and 

supply of reclaimed material and that 

the weight of the reclaim requirement 

would fall on the HFC–32 producer. 

Another commenter noted that they 

currently use fractional distillation to 

separate HFC–32 from recovered 

refrigerant blends to ensure purity that 

meets or exceeds the AHRI 700 standard 

for the product. The commenter claimed 

that sustaining adequate HFC–32 

supplies to 2029 and beyond is crucial 

to ensure equipment operation until the 

EOL because its GWP is below certain 

thresholds established in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule. 

Another commenter claimed that 

EPA’s reclaim requirements ignore how 

refrigerant is recovered. The commenter 

stated that refrigerant is recovered when 

equipment is replaced, retrofitted, or 

retired, and that given the long lag times 

between when new equipment is 

installed and when equipment is 

replaced or retired, the large increase in 

R–410A reclamation that occurred from 

2021 to 2022 could be due to R–410A 

equipment that was installed in 2010 

and reached its EOL, and that a large 

annual increase in R–410A reclamation 

is not foreseeable based on existing data. 

The commenter claimed that EPA 

should model reclaim supply based on 

the installed base of refrigerants, 

estimated by yearly turnover and 

estimated recovery efficiency. The 

commenter modeled the R–410A 

installed base using AHRI shipment 

data for RACHP from 2008 to 2022 and 

provided an attachment with modeled 

data to support its argument. The 

commenter used these data to assert that 

the growth in reclamation of R–410A in 

2022 was expected, because there was 

an increase in new units using R–410A 

in 2010 compared to 2009. Furthermore, 

the commenter stated that it considered 

the equipment mix when factoring in 

future reclamation numbers of R–410A, 

as well as how refrigerant is recovered. 

Another commenter mentioned that 

the maximum amount of annual 

‘‘recoverable’’ and subsequently 

‘‘reclaimable’’ R–410A in 2022 would be 

approximately 29,000 metric tons or 63 

million pounds of R–410A and that the 

amount of reclaimed R–410A reported 

to EPA by the reclaimers in 2021 was 

2.5 million pounds. The commenter 

stated it is abundantly clear that there 

is great scope for improving recovery 

and reclamation rates for HFCs that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82779 

107Available at: https://www.epa.gov/section608/ 

summary-refrigerant-reclamation-trends. 

would yield significant climate benefits 

resulting from preventing those GHGs 

from being emitted into the atmosphere 

and reduce the need for supplies of 

virgin HFCs. The commenter further 

noted that some may argue that the 

small quantities of HFCs reclaimed 

today are evidence that the reclamation 

market will not be able to meet the 

demand for reclaimed HFCs under the 

proposed rule but stated that the current 

HFC reclamation data reflect the 

absence of market drivers that will make 

reclaimed HFCs a valuable commodity. 

The commenter stated that the amount 

of R–410A reclaimed in 2022 is nearly 

40 percent higher than the previous year 

and that this is a clear sign that the start 

of the HFC phasedown and the 

expectation of regulatory mandates for 

use of reclaimed HFCs can lead to 

dramatic, positive shifts in the industry. 

The commenter also stated that EPA 

may hear that scaling capacity for 

advanced fractional distillation 

reclamation will take time, and that 

splitting out component gases of 

azeotropic or near-azeotropic refrigerant 

blends tends to use more energy than 

reclaiming blends like R–410A back to 

their original form without separating 

out their components. The commenter 

noted that this may be true; but there is 

also good reason to encourage the 

development of a reclamation industry 

that is capable of splitting mixed gases. 

The commenter mentioned that new 

refrigerants favored by most of the large 

OEMs are HFC–32 and blends using 

HFC–32 (e.g., R–454B). The commenter 

stated that the main source of reclaimed 

HFC–32 will be recovered R–410A, 

which is the refrigerant currently used 

in most RACHP equipment, and that 

separating HFC–32 out from R–410A is 

feasible and, if recovery is maximized, 

as is the intent of the proposed rule, 

there will be a sufficient quantity of it 

available to meet the demand. The 

commenter estimated that there will be 

a need for approximately 72 million 

pounds of recovered R–410A and that if 

recovery of R–410A from retiring 

equipment is maximized, an estimated 

63 million pounds of R–410A would be 

recovered in 2022. However, the 

commenter noted that the amount of 

recoverable R–410A will grow, since the 

number of retiring systems grows just as 

the number of new systems does. The 

commenter estimated the amount of 

recoverable R–410A in 2028 will be 

approximately 70 to 74 million pounds, 

which will be sufficient for meeting the 

demand for reclaimed HFC–32 in 2028. 

The commenter noted that there might 

be challenges, but ultimately, the data 

suggest that there is a tremendous 

untapped opportunity for upscaling 

HFC recovery and reclamation in the 

United States. 

Another commenter stated that 63 

million pounds of recovered R–410A 

could yield 31.5 million pounds of 

reclaimed HFC–32 for use in the initial 

charge of new equipment using HFC–32 

or other blends mainly composed of 

HFC–32 and HFOs. The commenter 

noted that the R–410A available from 

2024 to 2027 would also supplement 

annual amounts recoverable from 2028 

onwards. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s 

existing data support the availability of 

sufficient refrigerant in the aftermarket 

to meet service sector demand at 100 

percent by 2028. The commenter 

suggested that the total amount of 

refrigerant available for recovery at EOL 

is likely in excess of 80 million pounds 

annually and that based on this 

estimate, the amount of refrigerant 

available for recovery via service is 

sufficient to meet the goals described in 

the proposed rule. However, the 

commenter suggested that it will be 

difficult for EPA to meet their reclaim 

goals without the consideration of an 

alternative construction of the reclaim 

mandate as a servicing mandate based 

on refrigerant types rather than sectors. 

The commenter noted that it would be 

impossible to meet EPA’s goal without 

focusing on the recovery of R–410A, 

which is predominately used in small 

outdoor units. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments and understands the 

competing interests for reclaiming 

particular HFC blends as compared to 

separating out and reclaiming particular 

components to be used either neat or in 

other blends. EPA understands that the 

example of HFC–32 as a component of 

R–410A is one of the more common 

scenarios. EPA notes, as described in 

other responses, that we are finalizing 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in 

certain RACHP subsectors. EPA is not 

establishing requirements for initial 

charge with reclaimed HFCs at this 

time, where the Agency anticipates a 

majority of HFC–32, blends that include 

HFC–32, and other blends will be used 

in the coming years. 

EPA acknowledges comments about 

supply of reclaimed HFCs and those 

related to driving supply of reclaimed 

HFCs through the requirements 

established in this rulemaking. The 

Agency also notes comments providing 

specific detail on potential availability 

of reclaimed refrigerants, and in 

particular of HFC–32 as sourced from 

recovered R–410A, and the Agency 

understands that there is room for 

improvement in the increase of 

refrigerant recovery to supply to 

reclaimers. EPA notes that R–410A 

comprised about 39.2 percent of the 

existing installed refrigerant stock by 

mass in 2022, while other blends such 

as R–404A, R–407C, and R–507 also 

make up a significant portion of the 

2022 installed refrigerant stock. 

Reclamation data, as reported to EPA, 

show that R–410A is also currently the 

most commonly reclaimed HFC 

refrigerant in the United States by 

weight. Annual reclamation data 

reported to EPA indicates that the 

annual supply of reclaimed R–410A has 

increased from about 2,100,000 pounds 

in 2017 to approximately 4,626,000 

pounds in 2023.107 The Agency 

provides additional detail on similar 

comments related to supply of 

reclaimed refrigerants and provides a 

response earlier in this section. EPA 

understands that the significant recent 

increases in R–410A reclamation could 

be attributed to refrigerant-containing 

equipment with R–410A installed in the 

early 2010s reaching its EOL. The 

Agency expects this trend to continue, 

as additional refrigerant-containing 

equipment with R–410A would be 

expected to reach their EOL in the 

coming years as well. 

The mix of refrigerants will change 

over time given the overall phasedown 

of HFCs, the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, business decisions, 

and other factors including demand for 

more energy efficient equipment. The 

reclaim requirements help to support 

the goal of subsection (h) of the AIM Act 

to maximize reclamation. EPA 

understands that it may be preferable at 

times for reclaimed R–410A and/or 

other reclaimed refrigerant blends not 

separated to their components EPA 

considers reclaiming and making 

available refrigerant blends to be one 

way to avoid retiring equipment early. 

However, EPA also acknowledges 

comments regarding increasingly 

available capabilities of reclaimers to 

separate out components from 

refrigerant blends for individual 

reclamation or to combine them so as to 

increase the available supply of a 

different refrigerant blend. Over time, 

particularly as the refrigerants used in 

equipment change, the Agency 

anticipates seeing movement in this 

direction. The Agency anticipates that 

demand will drive reclaimers’ decisions 

concerning reclaiming a blend or 

separating the blend for its components. 

EPA previously noted and agrees with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82780 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

comments that HFC–32 reclamation by 

separating from recovered blends is a 

current practice. The Agency further 

acknowledges the need for reclaimers to 

address safety considerations when 

handling HFC–32, and other mildly 

flammable and/or flammable 

refrigerants particularly if reclaimers 

choose to use separation technologies. 

Further, the Agency is establishing 

alternate RCRA standards for 

reclamation facilities related to handling 

flammable refrigerants, as described 

further in section IV.H of this 

rulemaking. 

As noted, EPA is not establishing 

requirements for reclaimed HFCs in the 

initial fill of equipment in certain 

subsectors in this rulemaking. 

Therefore, subsectors that may be using 

HFC–32 or blends that contain HFC–32 

could source the refrigerant for initial 

charge from either virgin or reclaimed 

supplies. 

In the case that recovered R–410A is 

separated out to its components for their 

individual reclamation, the Agency 

disagrees that the HFC–125 would be 

stranded or only be used for reclaimed 

R–410A. EPA notes that HFC–125 is 

used in other HFC refrigerant blends 

besides R–410A. If HFC–32 reclamation 

is achieved through separation of 

recovered R–410A, the remaining HFC– 

125 could be used in these other blends, 

including R–404A, the R–407 series, or 

R–507, which are HFC blends the 

Agency anticipates will be used in the 

covered subsectors for the requirements 

for the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs. HFC–125 is also a 

component of several newer refrigerant 

blends and could be used in the those 

blends as well. 

EPA responds to comments on 

establishing provisions related to 

requirements for reclaimed HFCs on a 

refrigerant basis rather than a subsector 

basis. The Agency notes that a subsector 

approach is preferable in this 

rulemaking, as it avoids cases where 

there could be shortages of particular 

reclaimed HFCs or HFC refrigerant 

blends. The Agency has similarly 

looked at sectors and subsectors in other 

parts of this rule (e.g., leak repair 

thresholds, ALD systems) and in other 

AIM Act rules (e.g., 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule). The Agency considers 

this approach, sectors and subsectors as 

a means of setting a level playing field 

for all participants in that affected sector 

or subsector. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed support for phased-in 

reclamation requirements. One 

commenter expressed support for EPA’s 

proposed requirements but 

acknowledged that the supply of 

reclaimed refrigerant will need to be 

scaled up quickly to meet the 

requirements by 2028. To facilitate this 

transition, the commenter suggested that 

EPA assist the industry by setting 

benchmarks and interim targets to 

ensure that refrigerant recovery and 

reclamation will expand at the pace and 

scale needed to support the HFC 

phasedown. Another commenter 

strongly agreed with the principle 

behind requiring use of reclaimed and 

recycled HFCs and was optimistic about 

the pace of change in the recovery and 

reclamation industry. The commenter 

noted that the benefits of a graduated 

schedule would outweigh greater 

reporting requirements, but that the 

schedule should start sooner than 2028 

and ramp up to 100 percent by 2028. 

The commenter stated that it would be 

important to boost reclaimed HFC 

availability before the 2029 HFC 

phasedown step to fulfill HFC demand. 

Another commenter proposed using 

reclaimed refrigerant in the servicing of 

equipment with the interim goals of 10 

percent in 2026, 20 percent in 2027, and 

35 percent in 2028 and beyond. Other 

commenters recommended a gradual 

phase-in of reclaim requirements based 

on data for the anticipated need of 

reclaim on a yearly basis. 

Another commenter stated that a 

gradual step-up/phased-in approach is 

preferable to reach the 100 percent 

requirement goal in 2028 for reclaim 

usage under the proposed rule and it 

would allow sufficient reclaim supply 

growth to offset any shortage of 

available virgin HFCs and avoid market 

interruption, which is needed for 

climate mitigation. The commenter 

stated they expect HFC reclamation to 

continue to increase and they urged 

EPA to adopt a step-up/phased-in 

approach to incentivize HFC recovery 

and reclamation between now and 2028. 

The commenter noted that a phased-in 

approach would incentivize the 

necessary changed behavior by all 

involved, especially the contractors, 

who will need to recover more 

refrigerants over time to meet the 

demand for 100 percent reclaim in 

servicing and repair by 2028. The 

commenter noted that larger charged 

systems in the sectors already included 

in the proposed rule’s service/repair 

mandate typically operate in confined 

spaces and have greater recovery rates at 

EOL and servicing when compared to 

smaller, outdoor systems. The 

commenter stated that the types of 

refrigerant systems would include HFC– 

134a, R–404A, R–407A, R–407C, and R– 

507 systems, among others. The 

commenter suggested creating an initial 

reclaim mandate for servicing these 

systems starting in 2025 with a lower 

percentage of 25 percent and then 

building the requirement overtime to 

meet the 100 percent reclaim mandate 

in the proposed rule by 2028. The 

commenter expressed support for 

requiring the contractors to report that 

they are purchasing the proper amount 

of reclaimed refrigerant as defined in 

the proposed rule at a minimum on an 

annual basis to ensure compliance with 

this mandate. The commenter suggested 

that servicing of R–410A systems with 

reclaimed refrigerant might need a 

slightly longer ramp-up period due to 

the behavioral change necessary for the 

contractors that service these R–410A 

systems. The commenter also suggested 

a 10 percent mandate for servicing these 

systems in 2025, increasing to 25 

percent in 2026 and then continuing to 

increase to a 100 percent mandate by 

2028. 

Another commenter suggested a 

phased approach for reclaimed HFCs 

with initial targets based on data and 

industry feedback to incentivize 

reclaimed HFC use, which the 

commenter maintained would better 

align with the manufacturing process 

and supply chain realities of both 

equipment and reclaimed HFCs. The 

commenter encouraged EPA to revisit 

the reclaimed HFC data and adjust its 

approach based on real-world 

feasibility, considering existing supply 

chain disruptions and rising costs. The 

commenter recommended initially 

prioritizing the reclaim of high-GWP 

refrigerants and allowing the market to 

adjust and around 2028 revisiting the 

need for low-GWP reclaim requirements 

based on market adoption, performance, 

technological advancements, and 

feasibility, starting with 2036 as a 

potential timeframe. 

Two commenters noted that to the 

extent that EPA adopts a phased-in 

schedule for these mandates, it should 

be sector neutral (not sector specific) 

and differentiated where necessary only 

on a product-by-product basis. Another 

commenter noted the reduced HFC 

supply under the AIM Act step-down 

and 2023 Technology Transitions Rule 

and suggested a phased approach that 

would be coordinated with the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule. The 

commenter also noted that only a small 

fraction was reclaimed in 2022 and that 

significant changes would be required to 

the entire supply chain to ensure 

sufficient recovery and reclaim 

quantities, which takes time. 

One commenter noted they would not 

support a phased approach whereby 

EPA uses subsector percentages to work 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82781 

gradually towards 100 percent use of 

reclaimed HFCs in servicing and/or 

repair, given the administrative burdens 

necessary to track and verify 

compliance that are stated in the 

proposed rule. 

Response: EPA is not establishing a 

phased-in approach for the 

requirements for reclaimed HFC 

refrigerant, though the Agency 

encourages affected entities to consider 

increased reliance on reclaimed HFCs 

ahead of the compliance date. As 

described above, EPA is finalizing 

requirements that the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in three RACHP subsectors 

be done with reclaimed HFCs with a 

delayed compliance date of January 1, 

2029, but is not at this time finalizing 

either the proposed requirement for 

servicing and/or repair with reclaimed 

HFCs in a fourth subsector or the 

proposed requirement for the initial fill 

of refrigerant-containing equipment to 

be done with reclaimed HFCs. The 

Agency understands the industry 

identified certain potential benefits to a 

phased-in approach with limited data to 

support this approach. The Agency is 

instead establishing a discrete reporting 

requirement to better gauge the sale, 

distribution, and availability of 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants in the 

subsectors required to service and/or 

repair refrigerant-containing equipment 

with reclaimed HFCs. EPA intends to 

use these reported data to better assess 

transitions to reclaimed HFCs in these 

subsectors and may consider revisiting 

the timing for the provisions for 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs prior to the compliance 

date, if warranted. While EPA intends to 

use this reporting to better understand 

the landscape of reclaimed HFCs in 

these subsectors, the Agency disagrees 

with commenters that suggested 

delaying the timing beyond 2029 (e.g., 

starting in 2036). Reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants are already being used and 

will increasingly play a significant role 

throughout the entire phasedown, not 

starting when the phasedown reaches its 

final step in 2036. 

EPA agrees with the importance of 

increased recovery of refrigerants to 

support additional reclamation and 

potential need for changes related to 

this practice. The provisions in this 

rulemaking are expected to drive 

demand for additional recovery. 

Recovery and sending recovered 

refrigerants to reclaimers is likely to 

increase as the value of the recovered 

HFC refrigerants is more widely 

appreciated, HFC equipment reaches its 

EOL, and a reduced amount of virgin 

HFCs is available as the HFC 

phasedown continues. EPA notes that 

many of the transitions to R–410A 

occurred in response to the 2010 HCFC 

phasedown step and associated 

restrictions on the use of HCFC–22 in 

new equipment. This means that a large 

amount of R–410A-containing 

equipment is approaching an expected 

EOL and this equipment will 

increasingly be a source of recoverable 

R–410A. Moreover, EPA disagrees that a 

required phased-in approach is 

necessary to cause a shift in behavioral 

changes and would be more effective 

than having the requirement begin at 

100 percent for reclaimed HFCs in the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in the covered 

subsectors. 

EPA is establishing the requirements 

for servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs on a subsector basis at this time. 

The Agency considered and is finalizing 

in this rulemaking requirements to for 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs in three RACHP subsectors after 

further evaluation and informed by 

comments on a range of factors. 

Additional discussion on covering more 

subsectors and on taking a subsector 

approach are covered in another 

comment response in this section. The 

Agency is not establishing requirements 

for initial fill of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in this 

rulemaking. EPA acknowledged in a 

previous response on the challenge of 

securing sufficient reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants where the refrigerants have 

not been in the installed stock of 

equipment for sufficient time and may 

take a number of years for adequate 

reclaimed refrigerant to be available. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA include a force majeure or 

hardship clause in the rule should the 

mandated amounts of certified reclaim 

not be available to regulated entities 

including OEMs because without such a 

clause, OEMs and other regulated 

entities could fall into non-compliance 

due to no fault of their own. The 

commenter also requested that EPA 

provide a mechanism whereby a 

regulated authority can appeal to EPA 

for relief should this situation occur. 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed stipulation to utilize recycled 

or reclaimed substances poses a notable 

challenge, as the future accessibility of 

these recycled or reclaimed materials 

remains entirely uncertain. The 

commenter stated that complying with 

the requirement might prove impractical 

and could result in significant 

operational delays or business closures. 

In lieu of these explicit requirements, 

the commenter strongly urged EPA to 

incorporate an alternative compliance 

approach, contingent upon the regulated 

entity maintaining documented 

evidence that the requisite recycled or 

reclaimed substances are unavailable, 

necessitating the use of virgin products. 

The commenter stated that this 

approach aims to offer flexibility in 

situations where compliance with the 

primary requirement is unfeasible due 

to material unavailability. 

Response: EPA responds that the 

Agency is not establishing a force 

majeure or hardship clause as described 

by the commenter in this rulemaking. 

As noted in prior responses, EPA is only 

finalizing some of the proposed 

reclamation requirements at this time, is 

delaying the compliance date, and will 

use data to assess the uptake of 

reclaimed HFCs ahead of the 

compliance date. EPA acknowledges 

comments related to unforeseen events, 

which could affect operations at 

individual facilities that may impact 

contractual arrangements. However, the 

Agency does not agree with the need to 

provide any general regulatory 

exceptions to remove liability for 

unforeseeable and unavoidable 

catastrophes that interrupt the expected 

course of operations, though the Agency 

recognizes that there may be value in 

regulated entities including force 

majeure clauses in their contracts if the 

parties to the contract believe such a 

clause is appropriate. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

commented on whether lower-GWP 

refrigerants should be included in 

reclamation requirements for servicing. 

Some commenters supported excluding 

refrigerants with GWPs below the 2023 

Technology Transitions thresholds from 

reclaim requirements. One commenter 

proposed that EPA should focus on 

refrigerants with GWPs that are above 

the GWP limits included in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule for a final 

rule. The commenter noted that this 

change would also focus recovery and 

reclamation activity on the products 

with the highest GWP, where reclaim 

has the most environmental benefit per 

pound of gas recovered. Another 

commenter requested that EPA limit the 

reclaim servicing requirements to HFC 

refrigerants that are restricted by the 

2023 Technology Transition Rule and 

not all HFCs regulated by the AIM Act. 

The commenter claimed that many lowGWP HFCs will not be introduced until 

January 1, 2025, so there will not be 

enough low-GWP HFCs recovered to 

generate enough reclaim to use in 

service for these sectors. Another 

commenter stated that reclaim mandates 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82782 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

on low-GWP refrigerants do not make 

sense because these are not in 

widespread use. In contrast, a different 

commenter stated that EPA should not 

exempt low-GWP refrigerants from 

reclaim mandates and that having 

reclaim requirements for low-GWP 

refrigerants will benefit the environment 

and create a more circular economy. 

One commenter urged EPA to provide 

an exception for certain newer and 

commonly used low-GWP refrigerants 

such as R–448A, R–449A, and R–407A, 

stating that they are unlikely to be 

reclaimed in sufficient quantity to 

satisfy industry needs, as these 

substances have only recently started to 

be used in newly installed or retrofitted 

in commercial refrigeration systems. 

The commenter noted that these 

refrigerants are subject to patents held 

by their manufacturers; thus, not all 

reclaimers can legally formulate their 

blends, which will constrict supply. 

Another commenter suggested that the 

use of reclaimed refrigerant for service 

and repair of existing supermarket 

refrigeration appliances starting in 2028 

should be limited to refrigerants with 

GWPs greater than 1,500, if the reclaim 

mandate as of 2028 is pursued by EPA. 

Another commenter recommended that 

EPA prohibit the use of virgin 

refrigerant for servicing equipment in 

supermarket systems, cold storage 

warehouses, refrigerated transport, and 

automatic commercial icemakers with a 

GWP greater than 2,200 beginning 

January 1, 2029, and with a GWP greater 

than 1,400 beginning January 1, 2034. 

Another commenter proposed that a 

refrigerant supplied for servicing in the 

applicable sectors that exceeds the 

established GWP thresholds set forth in 

the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule 

could be a specified percentage of 

reclaimed refrigerant, as determined by 

the Administrator on an annual and 

gradually increasing basis. The 

commenter suggested additional 

subsectors for consideration for 

servicing and/or repair requirements 

with reclaimed refrigerants. An 

additional commenter suggested EPA 

review market data and applicable 

percentages for servicing using 

reclaimed refrigerant annually via a 

notice and comment process. The 

commenter also suggested excluding 

from servicing requirements any 

equipment containing a refrigerant with 

a GWP below the applicable threshold 

established by the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule. 

Another commenter stated that the 

requirements for reclaimed HFCs cause 

concerns regarding the excessive burden 

being placed on the retail industry. The 

commenter expressed support for the 

need to incentivize reclaimed refrigerant 

as a way to balance the decreased 

supply of HFCs due to the decreased 

allocation of allowances; however, the 

commenter expected the focus of 

reclaim to be on the refrigerants that 

were not included as future options of 

the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule. 

The commenter also expected the focus 

of the proposed rule to be on the need 

to service existing equipment 

throughout its natural lifetime. 

One commenter added that heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) equipment typically has a 

lifespan of around 10–15 years, and 

refrigerant recovery is very limited 

during this time, with recovery only 

possible during maintenance and repair 

work. Therefore, the commenter 

asserted that after the transition to lowGWP refrigerants in 2025, these lowGWP refrigerants must not become the 

focus of recovery efforts until 2035 to 

2040. The commenter stated that until 

then, the refrigerant contained in the 

already installed equipment will be the 

dominant part of the recovery work. The 

commenter stated that in the domestic 

and commercial HVAC sector, R–410A 

is the main target for recovery as there 

are no refrigerants below GWP 700 on 

the market. Therefore, the commenter 

suggested that it is substantially 

infeasible to obtain reclaimed 

refrigerants with a GWP of 700 or less 

as of 2028. 

One commenter stated that there 

should be no exemptions for newer, 

lower-GWP refrigerants (such as HFC– 

32, R–454A/B, R–448A, R–449A, R–450, 

R–456A, R–444A, or others). Another 

commenter claimed that there is not 

enough HFO refrigerant available to 

support the service and new equipment 

market and recommended that 

reclaimed HFC and HCFC makes sense 

for 2028. The commenter requested 

further specificity regarding the 

statement requiring reclaimed 

refrigerant for repair and servicing. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments concerning the GWP of 

refrigerants and basing the provisions 

for the requirements for reclaimed HFCs 

with this consideration. Further, EPA 

understands commenters’ suggested 

rationale of considering reclaimed 

refrigerant requirements related to GWP 

limits established in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule. As noted 

in previous responses in this section, 

EPA is not establishing requirements for 

the initial fill of refrigerant-containing 

equipment to be done with reclaimed 

HFCs in this rulemaking. EPA 

understands that many newer 

refrigerants (e.g., R–448A, R–449A, and 

R–407A) would be used for the initial 

fill of new equipment in compliance 

with the restrictions established in the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule. 

However, EPA notes that based on 

reported data from certified reclaimers, 

newer refrigerants are currently being 

reclaimed albeit in smaller amounts but 

as previously noted, those amounts will 

increase over time. Newer equipment is 

less likely to require repairs so the 

amount of newer refrigerants being 

reclaimed should comport with 

transition to those refrigerants. Also, as 

noted above, HFC blends can be 

separated into components and these 

components can be used in other blends 

to the extent patents, licensing 

agreements, and other business 

relationships allow. As described above, 

EPA is establishing a reporting 

requirement that will further inform the 

provisions for reclaimed HFC refrigerant 

use in the covered RACHP subsectors. 

EPA will use the information in these 

reports to evaluate these provisions. 

EPA is not establishing exclusions 

based on GWP for the requirements for 

the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in this rulemaking. The 

Agency disagrees with the suggested 

GWP level of 1,500 on which to base 

exclusions, noting among other things, 

that this would exclude HFC–134a, 

which by volume is currently the 

second most reclaimed HFC refrigerant, 

has a GWP of 1,430; thus supply is not 

tied to that GWP level. In response to 

comments on GWP considerations of 

2,200 in 2029 and 1,400 in 2034, the 

Agency notes that similar to reasons 

discussed related to the GWP 

consideration of 1,500, these suggested 

cut-offs would exclude HFCs that have 

significant GWP levels. Regarding a 

GWP of 2,200, this would exclude HFC– 

134a, as noted above, and other HFC 

refrigerants that are currently being 

reclaimed, including R–407A, R–407C, 

and R–410A. A GWP-based exclusion of 

2,200 would be inappropriate and could 

discourage the recovery and reclamation 

of these and other HFC refrigerants and 

refrigerant blends that will be important 

to have available per the established 

requirements for using reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants in this rulemaking and as 

the phasedown progresses. Further, the 

GWP based exclusion at 1,400 would 

exclude other HFCs, such as R–448A 

and R–449A which are used in 

supermarket systems. A GWP cut-off of 

1,400 may discourage efforts to recover 

and reclaim these refrigerants. In 

response to comments suggesting the 

GWP of 700 as the cut-off, which is the 

GWP threshold used for requirements 

established for certain sectors and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82783 

108Chemours and Honeywell Announce Program 

to Enable Reclamation and Recycling of Refrigerants 

in Support of Circular Economy, November 16, 

2022, available: https://www.chemours.com/en/ 

news-media-center/all-news/press-releases/2022/ 

chemours-and-honeywell-announce-program-toenable-reclamation-and-recycling-of-refrigerants-insuppo. 

109A-Gas Named Authorised Reclaimer of Patent 

Protected Refrigerants, 2023, available: https://

www.agas.com/uk/news-insights/a-gas-namedauthorised-reclaimer-of-patent-protectedrefrigerants/. 

subsectors in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, EPA notes differences 

in the statutory provisions in 

subsections (h) and (i) and maintains 

that in this final rule, EPA is 

promulgating requirements maximizing 

reclamation. 

EPA acknowledges other comments 

related to not placing GWP-based limits 

on the reclaimed HFC refrigerant 

requirements for servicing and/or repair 

of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment and the need to protect the 

useful lifetime of the equipment. The 

Agency agrees and effectively designed 

provisions in this rule to avoid 

stranding equipment or forced early 

retirements. The Agency considered the 

long and successful use of reclaimed 

refrigerants as well as some of the 

longstanding concerns reclaimers have 

raised with market access and 

acceptability. 

As noted in response to other 

comments, EPA is aware of both patents 

and certain business arrangements that 

pertain to certain newer refrigerants and 

notes the changes between proposal and 

the final rule. 

Comment: Another commenter 

requested that the reclaim mandate be 

limited to refrigerants with GWPs 

greater than 1,500. The commenter 

stated that it will be very challenging to 

meet the food retail industry’s need for 

reclaimed R–404A in 2028 and 

proposed that the mandate be 

postponed until 2030 at the earliest to 

avoid the certainty of commercial 

system shutdowns due to lack of 

refrigerant for servicing. The commenter 

stated that while the existing reclaim 

banks of all HFCs are currently 

inadequate to meet a servicing tail need 

in 2028, exempting refrigerants with 

GWPs less than 1,500 from the reclaim 

mandate would serve to accelerate 

retrofits out of high-GWP refrigerants 

into HFC/HFO blend refrigerants like R– 

448A and R–449A, which would serve 

to quickly increase the amount of R– 

404A and R–507A especially. The 

commenter further claimed that 

including refrigerants like R–448A/R– 

449A in the reclaim mandate would 

remove all motivation for food retailers 

to retrofit high-GWP R–404A systems to 

R–448A or R–449A. The commenter 

stated that if it is clear when this 

regulation is finalized if there will be a 

way to service or maintain existing R– 

448A or R–449A equipment because if 

there are no reclaimed refrigerant 

available, food retailers will 

immediately stop using these 

refrigerants, and possibly start using 

higher-GWP refrigerants that are more 

likely to have significant banks of 

refrigerant available for service and 

maintenance. The commenter also noted 

that R–448A and R–449A are used today 

in new appliances, which are unlikely 

to reach their EOL until 2035–2040 at 

the earliest. The commenter stated that 

refrigerant is reclaimed at the EOL, so 

the only opportunity to establish banks 

of reclaimed refrigerant is when a new 

generation of appliances using those 

refrigerants begin to be retired. The 

commenter noted that, while it is true 

that there are older appliance retrofits 

being carried out that use R–448A and 

R–449A, retrofitted appliances can be 

expected to continue to operate at least 

for an additional 10 years after the 

retrofit; otherwise, the cost of the retrofit 

cannot be justified. 

Response: EPA responds and refers to 

the discussion in the previous response 

of this section related to a GWP-based 

exclusion for the reclaimed HFC 

refrigerant requirements at a GWP of 

1,500. Further, the Agency notes that 

the requirement for the servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs is 

being delayed by one year to January 1, 

2029. EPA also responds, as explained 

in prior responses, that the Agency is 

not establishing requirements for the 

initial fill of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs in this rulemaking. Thus, 

decreasing the estimated need for 

supply of reclaimed HFCs needed to 

meet those provisions and, in particular, 

the reclaimed HFC or HFC blend 

refrigerants discussed in this comment. 

EPA responds that setting such a GWP 

limit may have the opposite effect and 

that by not including all HFC-containing 

refrigerants based on a GWP limit, there 

would be less incentive to recover and 

reclaim these blends. If the 

requirements were established such that 

R–448A and R–449A, for example, were 

exempted from the requirements for 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs, there could be less 

incentive to properly recover these 

blends for future reclamation. Based on 

data reported to EPA on reclamation 

totals, these blends are currently being 

reclaimed to a degree, as are their 

components. EPA notes that while these 

or other newer blends may be under 

patent, the Agency is aware that, on a 

global basis,108 109 there are certain 

agreements in place among producers 

and reclaimers to reclaim certain 

blends. Further, the Agency notes that it 

anticipates that with proper 

maintenance and adherence to the leak 

repair and ALD requirements, as 

applicable, in this rulemaking, leaks of 

HFCs should be minimized, decreasing 

the need for additional servicing of 

equipment. 

In response to comments related to 

retrofit, EPA explains that retrofit is 

considered as a servicing or repair 

activity in this rulemaking. For the 

subsectors that are required to service 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs (i.e., 

supermarket systems, refrigerated 

transport, and automatic commercial ice 

makers), retrofits must be done with 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants if the 

refrigerant-containing equipment is 

being retrofitted to use a refrigerant that 

contains an HFC. Where a piece of 

refrigerant-containing equipment is 

being retrofitted to use a substitute for 

an HFC, reclaimed refrigerant would not 

be required. 

Comment: Two commenters provided 

comments recommending establishing 

exemptions from the requirements for 

reclaimed HFC refrigerant for those 

applications that receive applicationspecific allowances under the AIM Act. 

Response: EPA responds to these 

comments related to providing 

exemptions in cases for which 

application-specific HFC allowances are 

provided under subsection (e)(4)(B) of 

the AIM Act. As discussed in section 

I.B, EPA is excluding two applications, 

mission-critical military end uses and 

on board aerospace fire suppression, 

from these regulations for a year or years 

for which the application receives an 

application-specific allowance as 

defined at 40 CFR 84.3. EPA is 

establishing requirements for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFC refrigerants in the supermarket 

systems, refrigerated transport, and 

automatic commercial ice makers 

subsectors. If mission-critical military 

end uses and/or on board aerospace fire 

suppression applications received 

application-specific allowances for 

HFCs in a particular year or years, then 

the exemption would apply. 

This rulemaking establishes a 

definition for ‘‘refrigerant-containing 

equipment,’’ which specifically does not 

include military equipment used in 

deployable and expeditionary 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82784 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

situations. Where reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants are required to be used for 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment per 

this rulemaking, the requirements do 

not apply to the specific case of military 

equipment used in deployable and 

expeditionary situations. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

EPA move the January 1, 2028, 

compliance date back at least two years 

to allow for development of the 

necessary supply of reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants on the market. Another 

commenter supported the 2028 timeline 

for the implementation of reclaimed 

refrigerants and noted that EPA’s firm 

rulemaking will help make a strong 

business case for scaling up separation 

technologies. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments and responds that the Agency 

is delaying the compliance date for the 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment to be done with reclaimed 

HFCs to January 1, 2029. The Agency 

has reviewed comments and considers 

January 1, 2029, as an appropriate 

compliance date. The delayed 

compliance date provides industry more 

time to build up capacity of reclaimed 

HFCs available for these activities and 

for those in RACHP subsectors required 

to service and/or repair refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs to establish avenues to obtain the 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants. A 

compliance date of January 1, 2029, also 

aligns with the next major step of the 

phasedown under the AIM Act when 

virgin HFC production and 

consumption will be reduced to 30 

percent of the baseline. Reclaimed HFCs 

will play a crucial role in supporting 

refrigerant-containing equipment using 

HFCs as this next step of the phasedown 

occurs. 

Comment: EPA received many 

comments on the included subsectors 

for the requirements for use of 

reclaimed refrigerants for servicing and 

repair. One commenter recommended 

that EPA follow the approach taken by 

California’s SB 1206 and implement 

reclaimed use requirements for all HFC 

sectors. The commenter stated that 

CARB adopted a prohibition on the sale, 

distribution, or other entrance to the 

market of newly produced bulk highGWP HFCs, regardless of the sector. The 

commenter recommended that EPA take 

this comprehensive approach to 

establishing requirements for reclaimed 

HFCs, since it would apply to bulk 

refrigerant used in all sectors, including 

retail food applications and non-space 

conditioning heat pump sectors such as 

clothes dryers, water heaters, and pool 

and spa heaters. The commenter also 

stated that since these technologies are 

projected to experience rapid adoption 

in the next decade, if they are not 

addressed in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, these sectors’ 

equipment manufacturers may not be 

incentivized to transition away from 

high-GWP refrigerants. 

One commenter recommended that 

EPA include residential air 

conditioning, light commercial air 

conditioning, heat pumps, cold storage 

warehouses, and IPR sectors in the 

requirements for servicing and/or repair 

of refrigerant-containing equipment 

with reclaimed HFCs if EPA does not 

take a comprehensive approach to 

include all sectors in these 

requirements. One commenter requested 

that the proposed prohibition of virgin 

refrigerant usage for equipment 

servicing be limited to supermarkets, 

cold storage warehouses, refrigerated 

transport, and automatic commercial 

icemakers. Another commenter noted 

that many of these subsectors are 

already transitioning to ultra-low-GWP 

alternatives for new equipment. The 

commenter stated that the supermarket 

sector in particular is anticipated to 

undergo significant near-term retrofits 

from high- to low-GWP HFCs, which 

will make large quantities of retired 

refrigerant available for reclamation and 

reuse in the refrigeration servicing 

market. 

One commenter urged EPA to expand 

the servicing and repair reclamation 

mandate to additional sectors; 

specifically light commercial and 

residential air conditioning and heat 

pumps. The commenter stated that the 

inclusion of this sector is essential to 

any material growth in recovery and 

reclamation as it has the greatest 

number of operating units and therefore 

the greatest number of pounds of 

refrigerant that can be recovered at EOL. 

The commenter also suggested 

expanding the proposed rule to include 

smaller outdoor units would also 

increase the amount of reclaim 

recovered annually. The commenter 

suggested that EPA should focus the 

rule on system mandates, as opposed to 

mandates by sector. The commenter 

noted that this approach will help 

contractors better understand the 

reclaim refrigerant requirements by 

relying on the type of system and stated 

refrigerant charge. Moreover, the 

commenter claimed that, as the lowerGWP systems begin to be installed 

pursuant to the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule, EPA could then lower 

its GWP target below 1,000 GWP as 

stated in this suggested approach and 

create additional reclaim mandates for 

the lower-GWP systems. The commenter 

further stated that, as with the ODS 

phaseout, using the ‘‘worst first’’ 

principle creates significant reduction 

in the earlier years. 

Some commenters expressed 

opposition to EPA’s proposed mandate 

to use reclaimed gas for servicing 

various subsectors; specifically, the 

retail food manufacturing and 

distribution sector. Multiple 

commenters expressed opposition to 

EPA’s proposed requirements for HFC 

refrigerant reclaim in the retail food 

industry and other commercial 

refrigeration. The commenters stated 

that the cost of reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants will not be cheaper than 

new HFCs. Three commenters claimed 

that reclaimed HFCs are more expensive 

than HFCs because reclaimers incur 

significant equipment and operational 

costs, including HFC losses during 

reclamation, equipment upkeep costs, 

and costs associated with rebalancing 

refrigerants. One commenter stated that, 

since some industries are not required 

to use reclaimed HFC refrigerant, they 

will procure either new or used HFCs, 

depending on which is cheaper, so the 

price of reclaimed HFC refrigerant will 

always be at least as high as new HFCs. 

The commenter continued by stating 

that the proposed requirements will 

drive demand for reclaimed HFC 

refrigerant above that of new HFC 

refrigerant, likely causing them to cost 

more. Further, the commenter claimed 

that the use of reclaimed HFCs for 

equipment servicing and repair may be 

technically infeasible for custom-built 

equipment, particularly when upgrading 

or replacing components. The 

commenter stated that a limited supply 

of niche HFCs or blends not 

manufactured or reclaimed in 

significant volumes but essential for 

specific subsectors may also create 

compliance challenges. The other 

commenter expressed concerns that the 

mandate to use reclaimed gas for 

servicing will strand installed 

equipment if there is insufficient 

reclaimed gas to service the equipment. 

The commenter also noted that any time 

market supply and demand for a 

commodity are short, the price of that 

commodity will increase, and some 

consumers have to forgo the product, 

which the commenter stated would be 

especially unfortunate for equipment 

owners in the food manufacturing and 

distribution sectors. The commenter 

stated that any further disruptions or 

cost escalations to the food 

manufacturing and distribution sectors 

would increase already historically high 

food costs. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82785 

110See comment number EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0009. 

111 Yasaka, Yoshihito, et al. ‘‘Life-Cycle 

Assessment of Refrigerants for Air Conditioners 

Considering Reclamation and Destruction.’’ 

Sustainability, vol. 15, no.1, 2023, p. 473, 

doi:10.3390/su15010473. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments related to including 

additional subsectors in the 

requirements for using reclaimed HFCs 

in this rulemaking. At this time, the 

Agency is finalizing requirements for 

the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in the supermarket 

systems, refrigerated transport, and 

automatic commercial ice makers 

subsectors. The Agency is not finalizing 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in the 

stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

subsector and is not establishing 

requirements for the initial fill of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in this rulemaking. EPA 

is removing requirements for reclaimed 

HFCs in the servicing and/or repair of 

stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment in part due to the nature of 

the equipment. EPA understands that 

these types of refrigerant-containing 

equipment are likely hermetically 

sealed and are less likely to need 

servicing and/or repair. 

EPA is not establishing an approach 

for requirements to all RACHP 

subsectors. As described in other 

responses, EPA considered available 

supply of reclaimed HFC refrigerants 

per these requirements. EPA is also 

establishing a reporting requirement to 

better assess the use of reclaimed HFCs 

in the RACHP subsectors covered in this 

rulemaking to evaluate the requirements 

in this rulemaking. The Agency 

acknowledges comments to establish an 

approach for all subsectors or to include 

additional subsectors and may consider 

additional subsectors in a future 

rulemaking. 

EPA disagrees with the assertion that 

reclaimed HFCs are substantially more 

expensive than virgin HFCs and is not 

aware of market data or analyses clearly 

indicating such a trend. In response to 

the NODA that the Agency published on 

October 17, 2022 (87 FR 62843), in 

which EPA requested comment on 

current trends on the price of 

refrigerant, one reclaimer noted: ‘‘The 

market price for reclaim and virgin are 

generally equivalent. There is neither a 

‘green premium’ nor a lower price for 

reclaim.’’ 110 EPA is also aware of at 

least one study indicating that 

reclaimed HFCs may actually be more 

cost-effective than virgin manufacture, 

when considering the full refrigerant 

lifecycle. In the analysis for the 

proposed ER&R rule, EPA referenced a 

study, Yasaka et al. (2023),111 which 

performed a life cycle assessment for the 

virgin production, destruction, and 

reclamation of R–410A, HFC–32, and 

HCFC–22 in Europe and Japan and 

found that the reclamation process had 

lower energy consumption and costs 

and emitted fewer GHG emissions 

compared to production and 

destruction, regardless of the refrigerant 

type or plant location. EPA is not aware 

of a similar study for the United States 

and so has conservatively assumed 

higher costs for reclaimed HFCs in the 

analysis for the final rule. Specifically, 

in its assessment of costs and benefits 

detailed in the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD and summarized above 

EPA has assumed a cost premium of 10 

percent for reclaimed HFCs vis-a-vis 

virgin manufactured HFCs. 

EPA notes that the commenter has not 

provided any quantitative information 

regarding a supposed cost increase in 

food prices resulting from refrigeration, 

or the effect that other factors such as 

refrigerant savings resulting from leak 

detection and repair provisions 

contained in this rule could have in 

mitigating such a cost increase. 

EPA does not agree with the 

commenter’s position that the 

requirement for the servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs will 

strand installed equipment. The 

commenter suggests a scenario where 

there is an insufficient supply of 

reclaimed refrigerant. As EPA notes 

above, the Agency considers these 

provisions as encouraging increased 

reclamation. Further, as described 

above, the provisions for servicing and/ 

or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs 

finalized in this rule differ from the 

proposal. The Agency made changes 

from the proposal to delay the 

compliance date. Further, the Agency is 

only finalizing these provisions for 

refrigerant-containing equipment in 

three RACHP subsectors at this time. 

Accordingly, the Agency does not 

expect these concerns to be implicated 

by this final rule. The Agency does not 

agree that the provisions will result in 

unfavorable pricing for consumers. The 

Agency notes the overall phasedown of 

HFCs is more likely to affect the price 

of HFCs than these provisions. In 

addition, EPA describes current 

reclamation trends in other responses in 

this section, including reclamation of 

certain HFC refrigerants that are in 

blends and/or form the components of 

other blends. EPA anticipates that, 

while direct recovery reclamation of 

certain blends may be occurring at a 

lower rate, the recovery of blend 

components is expected to support the 

overall reclamation of these blends. 

Comment: Another commenter 

suggested that this proposal will create 

confusion by requiring the use of 

reclaimed refrigerants in certain subsectors, while not requiring it in others 

even though some of these sectors use 

the same refrigerants. The commenter 

stated that, currently, based on EPA’s 

proposal, stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration, supermarket systems, 

refrigerated systems, refrigerated 

transport, and automatic ice makers are 

required to use reclaimed refrigerants, 

but cold storage warehouses and IPR are 

exempt. The commenter suggested that 

the refrigeration reclaim usage 

requirements are not separated by 

subsectors. The commenter noted that 

the use of reclaimed refrigerants in 

imported equipment depends on the 

availability of recovered HFCs in the 

exporting countries and that it may be 

challenging to prove the authenticity of 

reclaimed refrigerants abroad. The 

commenter stated that these two factors 

could amount to an import ban for 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs. The 

commenter therefore requested that 

imported equipment be exempted from 

the mandatory use of reclaimed 

refrigerants. 

Another commenter stated that the 

NPRM did not address how reclaim 

requirements would apply to imported 

units and HFCs. The commenter 

questioned what the effects of 

reclamation in other countries would be 

upon capacity in the U.S. market and 

suggested that EPA should not provide 

offshore producers with an advantage. 

Response: EPA responds to comments 

about the requirements for servicing 

and/or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs by noting that these types of 

provisions are within the authority 

under subsection (h) to promulgate 

regulations to control practices, process, 

or activities related to the servicing, 

repair, disposal, or installation of 

equipment. EPA disagrees that requiring 

that the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in certain RACHP 

subsectors and not others would create 

confusion. The Agency is establishing 

labeling requirements for containers of 

reclaimed refrigerants that contain HFCs 

(as discussed in section IV.E.1) such 

that equipment owners and operators 

can verify they are using reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants for servicing and/or repair 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82786 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

of refrigerant-containing equipment in 

the supermarket systems, refrigerated 

transport, and automatic commercial ice 

maker subsectors. Further, EPA clarifies 

that this rule would not preclude the 

use of reclaimed HFC refrigerants in any 

manner. Consistent with the proposed 

rule and EPA’s experience in the use of 

reclaimed ODS refrigerants, EPA 

anticipates that reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants will continue to play an 

increasingly significant role in the 

servicing and/or repair of existing 

equipment that use HFC refrigerants as 

the phasedown on production and 

consumption of virgin HFCs progresses. 

EPA responds that the Agency is not 

establishing requirements for the initial 

fill of refrigerant-containing equipment 

with reclaimed HFCs at this time. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

an alternative where EPA could finalize 

a program to define a ‘‘service gas’’ to 

distribute the finite reclaimed HFCs 

across the entire service market, and in 

this alternative, exclude first fill 

requirements with reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants. The commenter further 

claimed that EPA could require a 

minimum percentage of reclaimed HFCs 

(with consideration of the 15 percent 

limit, by weight, on virgin HFCs) to be 

used in service gas sold to the 

aftermarket. The commenter further 

suggested requiring that all reclaimed 

HFCs be recovered from equipment 

manufactured in the United States 

(excluding equipment meeting GWPs 

under the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule and first fill requirements), 

claiming that this would maximize 

reclaim across the full market, maintain 

free market competition, return 

reclaimed higher-GWP refrigerants to 

service, and maximize reclaim as 

recovery rates grow over time. The 

commenter recommended that EPA 

consider different service levels by 

market sector, exempting IPR because of 

its requirement to continuously 

maintain temperature ranges. 

A couple of commenters discussed 

the feasibility of EPA creating a new 

service gas category for refrigerants. One 

commenter requested that EPA reject 

arguments that reclaim goals cannot be 

met due to challenges in recovery 

practices and that a new service gas 

category can be used in the secondary 

market (that is less than 85 percent 

reclaim). The commenter contended 

that such arguments were intended to 

cast doubt on the ability of reclaimers to 

provide sufficient reclaimed refrigerant. 

Another commenter suggested that a 

limit on virgin refrigerant could thwart 

reclaim goals and restrict uses like a 

‘‘service gas’’ where an increasing 

percentage of reclaimed refrigerant 

could be used over time. 

Response: EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing the creation of a service 

gas category for refrigerants as EPA does 

not agree that the creation of a service 

gas category is necessary. EPA 

acknowledges that under the CAA title 

VI phaseout ODS regulations, virgin 

HCFCs can be produced and imported 

in very small quantities solely for 

purposes of servicing certain 

appliances. For example, today under 

the ‘‘servicing tail’’ requirements, EPA 

issues allowances that allow for no more 

than 0.5 percent of the U.S. HCFC 

baseline to be produced and imported, 

requires that those HCFCs must be used 

solely for servicing, and further limits 

the allowances to only the two HCFCs 

with the lowest ozone-depleting 

potentials (i.e., HCFC–123 and HCFC– 

124). The structure of the AIM Act and 

the CAA differs significantly in this area 

and, in particular, the AIM Act’s 

phasedown and not phaseout of HFC 

production and consumption is a stark 

difference from the ODS structure, 

resulting in a need for a different 

approach with regards to servicing. EPA 

does not agree conceptually with a new 

category of gas that has a percentage of 

reclaimed material between a ‘‘virgin 

regulated substance’’ and ‘‘reclaimed 

refrigerant.’’ It is EPA’s view that the 

creation of this new category could 

create unnecessary complications in the 

market and could weaken the demand 

for reclaimed refrigerant rather than 

strengthening it. As EPA explains in 

section IV.E.1, the Agency is 

establishing a standard for the limit on 

the percentage of virgin HFCs, by 

weight, in reclaimed HFC refrigerants. 

EPA explains that, in addition to 

supporting maximizing reclamation, 

this standard helps to provide a 

consistent understanding of what 

constitutes reclaimed HFCs for their use 

in refrigerant-containing equipment. 

EPA views that a service gas category as 

described by the commenter would be 

detrimental to this, such that the service 

gas category would introduce 

refrigerants with more virgin HFCs than 

would be in reclaimed HFC refrigerants 

meeting the standard established in this 

rulemaking. Such a service gas category 

would contradict the goal of maximizing 

reclamation by allowing more virgin 

HFCs in the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment. 

Further, EPA anticipates that this 

approach would require additional 

recordkeeping, and potential reporting, 

to confirm particular owners and 

operators were using a service gas of a 

specified percentage of reclaimed HFCs. 

Where the commenter states that 

varying percentages of reclaimed HFCs 

could be in service gas by subsector, the 

Agency responds that this could create 

confusion on the market. Equipment 

owners and operators would be required 

to ensure that the correct service gas 

was being used to service and/or repair 

their refrigerant-containing equipment 

depending on the subsector they are in. 

The established requirements for the 

standard on reclaimed HFC refrigerants 

avoid this confusion by ensuring there 

is a consistent understanding of 

reclaimed HFC refrigerant on the 

market. This standard and the 

established labeling requirements 

(discussed in section IV.E.1) properly 

support the requirements for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs in certain RACHP subsectors, 

such that equipment owners or 

operators in these subsectors can be sure 

that the reclaimed HFC refrigerants are 

compliant and can be used to service 

and/or repair their refrigerantcontaining equipment. 

As explained in other responses in 

this section, the provisions that EPA is 

finalizing to require that the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in 

certain RACHP subsectors are within 

the authority of subsection (h) of the 

AIM Act. EPA is also notes that the 

Agency discusses considerations and 

responds to comments related to 

establishing the servicing and/or repair 

with reclaimed HFCs provisions with a 

GWP limit (including considering those 

GWP levels established in the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule). The 

Agency is not establishing GWP-based 

cut-offs for reclaimed HFC refrigerants 

for the provisions in this rulemaking for 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in certain RACHP 

subsectors. Further, the Agency is not 

establishing requirements for reclaimed 

HFC refrigerants in the initial fill of any 

refrigerant-containing equipment in this 

rulemaking. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about patent and 

intellectual property issues with 

reclamation. One commenter 

recommended that EPA provide an 

exception for certain newer and 

commonly used low-GWP refrigerants 

such as R–448A, R–449A and R–407A, 

given that they are unlikely to be 

reclaimed in sufficient quantity to 

satisfy industry needs, as these 

substances have only recently started to 

be used in newly installed or retrofitted 

commercial refrigeration systems. The 

commenter further claimed that these 

refrigerants are subject to patents held 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82787 

112Chemours and Honeywell Announce Program 

to Enable Reclamation and Recycling of Refrigerants 

in Support of Circular Economy, November 16, 

2022, available: https://www.chemours.com/en/ 

news-media-center/all-news/press-releases/2022/ 

chemours-and-honeywell-announce-program-toenable-reclamation-and-recycling-of-refrigerants-insuppo. 

113A-Gas Named Authorised Reclaimer of Patent 

Protected Refrigerants, 2023, available: https://

www.agas.com/uk/news-insights/a-gas-namedauthorised-reclaimer-of-patent-protectedrefrigerants/. 

by their manufacturers; thus, not all 

reclaimers can legally formulate their 

blends, which will constrict supply. The 

commenter also stated that the proposed 

rule does not clarify EPA’s analysis with 

respect to patent issues when carrying 

out HFC reclamation activities. Another 

commenter requested that EPA exclude 

patented or intellectual propertyprotected products from these 

requirements. One commenter stated 

that a portion of reclaimer recovered 

refrigerants are patented and cannot be 

reclaimed to AHRI 700 specifications 

without ‘‘rebalancing’’ through the 

addition of blend components. The 

commenter claimed that rebalancing 

puts reclaimers at odds with patent laws 

and the refrigerant producers. The 

commenter noted that if out-ofspecification patented refrigerants fell 

under RCRA, within a year the 

reclaimers would be unable to process 

the material and unable to store it. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

about intellectual property restrictions, 

particularly for new low-GWP 

refrigerants. The commenter stated that 

reclaimers would need to secure 

authorization from producers to reblend recovered HFCs into mixtures. 

The commenter suggested that this 

would be a bottleneck in the supply of 

reclaimed refrigerant and that recovered 

refrigerant should be primarily utilized 

to service the installed base (e.g., R– 

410A) instead of for the production of 

low-GWP blends (e.g., R–32 from R– 

410A to blend R–454B). Another 

commenter pointed out that many 

refrigerant blends are patented and 

cannot be reclaimed until the patents 

expire, which would make it impossible 

to supply the necessary refrigerants for 

this proposal. 

One commenter recommended that 

the final rule exclude patented 

refrigerants from any reclaim 

requirements under subsection (h) due 

to the requirements’ potential to create 

serious issues for patented blends and 

incentivize patent infringement. The 

commenter stated that licensing rights 

would need to be secured to sell 

patented blends. Alternatively, the 

commenter suggested that the reclaim 

mandates could compel owners or 

operators to prematurely decommission 

equipment, leading to high costs and 

waste, counteracting sustainability 

goals. Another commenter highlighted 

that other free market initiatives are 

already underway to support refrigerant 

recovery, reclaim, and recycling by U.S. 

companies exploring programs to enable 

the circularity of proprietary HFO 

blends. The commenter stated that EPA 

should not finalize any rule that 

incentivizes or requires patent 

infringement or authorizes reprocessing 

of patented blends when source material 

is unknown. 

Response: On a global basis,112 113

EPA is also aware that some chemical 

producers have entered into agreements 

with reclaimers that support additional 

reclamation particularly where patents 

may be in place. EPA acknowledges 

there may be patents, licensing 

agreements, and other business 

practices that may impact the ability of 

some reclaimers to reclaim certain 

refrigerants. The Agency saw a similar 

situation when the market shifted from 

ODS to HFC refrigerants and to some 

extent has seen it with each 

introduction of a new HFC blend. 

However, requiring an upper bound of 

virgin HFCs, as the Agency is doing in 

this final rule, would not change 

whether or not a reclaimer could 

reclaim or introduce to commerce 

reclaimed HFCs. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the proposal to mandate the use of 

reclaimed HFCs in servicing/repair for 

certain subsectors exceeds EPA’s 

authority in subsection (h) of the AIM 

Act, as the Act provides no authority for 

the Agency to single out specific 

subsectors to shoulder the increased 

costs of using reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants. The commenters noted that 

subsection (i) of the statute provides 

specific authority for EPA to ‘‘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,’’ 

and that EPA has used that authority to 

promulgate specific requirements for 

subsectors in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule. One commenter 

continued by stating that subsection (h), 

the authority for this rulemaking, does 

not refer to ‘‘sectors’’ or ‘‘subsectors,’’ 

giving no basis for EPA to treat 

subsectors differently in requiring the 

use of reclaimed HFCs. The commenter 

noted that this action exceeds the scope 

of EPA’s AIM Act authority and is 

arbitrary and capricious within the 

meaning of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. 

Two commenters stated that the 

proposed rule would regulate the ‘‘use’’ 

of HFCs, which would require fulfilling 

prerequisites under subsection (i) of the 

AIM Act, and that this rulemaking does 

not fulfill them. The commenters stated 

that manufacturing a new unit or 

supplying refrigerant for servicing is not 

such a practice, process, or activity 

related to the servicing, repair, disposal, 

or installation of equipment. One 

commenter stated that subsection (h) 

provided one specific example for what 

would be ‘‘appropriate’’—requiring 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation to be performed by a trained 

technician. The commenter further 

stated that the same practices, 

processes, or activities are done for 

virgin or reclaimed HFCs and the 

requirement to use reclaimed HFCs is 

removed from subsection (h)’s example 

of what is appropriate—technician 

training. The commenter also claimed 

that EPA’s interpretation of subsection 

(h) was impermissibly broad and could 

cover ‘‘anything and everything’’ that 

has to do with HFCs as connected to 

equipment. The other commenter 

claimed that these practices do not 

include opportunities for reclamation. 

The commenter stated that EPA’s 

justification under subsection (h) to 

require the use of reclaimed HFCs in 

certain applications to minimize the 

release of regulated substances is 

creating a situation where EPA’s 

authority could theoretically become 

unlimited. The commenter gave a 

theoretical example of EPA requiring 

lower-GWP refrigerants in certain 

applications to ‘‘minimize releases’’ of 

HFCs. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

comment that the requirement for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs in certain RACHP subsectors 

exceeds EPA’s authority in subsection 

(h) of the AIM Act. EPA does not 

consider the authority conveyed in 

subsection (i)(1), or the use of the terms 

‘‘sector’’ and ‘‘subsector’’ in subsection 

(i), to preclude EPA from tailoring its 

regulations under other provisions of 

the Act to particular sectors or 

subsectors, where it is appropriate and 

reasonable to do so. As noted elsewhere 

in this action, EPA interprets the AIM 

Act as providing separate and distinct 

regulatory authorities, which can be 

implemented in ways that reinforce and 

complement one another. In this final 

rule, EPA is requiring that the servicing 

and/or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment be done with 

reclaimed HFCs as part of the 

regulations implementing its authority 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82788 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

under subsection (h) of the Act. That 

provision directs EPA to promulgate 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, any practice, process, or 

activity regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves: a regulated substance, a 

substitute for a regulated substance, the 

reclaiming of a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant, or the reclaiming of a 

substitute for a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant. A requirement for the 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment be 

done with reclaimed HFCs controls a 

practice, process, or activity regarding 

the servicing or repair of equipment and 

involves a regulated substance or the 

reclaiming of a regulated substance. 

This requirement also supports and 

encourages reclamation of HFCs and 

thus is consistent with at least one of 

the purposes identified in subsection 

(h)(1). Accordingly, this requirement is 

within the scope of EPA’s authority 

under subsection (h). In contrast to the 

regulations established under the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, in this 

rule, EPA is not restricting the use of 

specific HFCs in a sector or subsector, 

nor is it limiting the use of HFCs based 

on a GWP threshold. Rather, it is 

requiring that the HFCs used in 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in certain RACHP 

subsectors meet criteria related to the 

processing of the HFC before it is used; 

specifically, requiring that the reclaimed 

HFC refrigerants meet specific purity 

standards and meet the established 

standards in this rulemaking limiting 

virgin HFC content (see section IV.E.1). 

EPA identified the refrigerantcontaining equipment subject to this 

requirement by sector or subsector in 

part to build on terms that are already 

familiar to the regulated community so 

that it is easier to understand how these 

requirements will apply. Nothing in 

subsection (h) requires that regulations 

established under this subsection apply 

equally to all types of equipment. Such 

an interpretation would make little 

sense, as different types of equipment 

necessarily involve different practices, 

processes, or activities regarding their 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation. EPA has explained its 

rationale for this action elsewhere in 

this preamble, and for those reasons, 

views this requirement as a reasonable 

measure to implement its authority 

under subsection (h)(1) of the Act. 

In response to comments that state 

that subsection (h) provides one, 

specific example of what is 

‘‘appropriate’’ to control, which the 

commenter states is technician training, 

EPA disagrees that the statutory 

language under subsection (h) is best 

read as narrowly defining technician 

training as the only appropriate 

practice, process, or activity regarding 

the servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment. Rather, EPA 

interprets the text at subsection (h)(1) to 

simply identify an example of a 

requirement that would fit within the 

scope of (h)(1), not as a limitation that 

would preclude establishing other 

regulations that are also within the 

scope of (h)(1). The fact that the 

statutory text says, ‘‘including requiring, 

where appropriate . . .,’’ indicates that 

the example was not intended as a 

limitation, as ‘‘including’’ makes clear 

that what follows is a potential 

requirement contemplated under the 

statutory text but does not exclude other 

possibilities. Further, the phrase ‘‘where 

appropriate’’ in the parenthetical 

suggests that Congress contemplated 

that the Agency would consider 

whether such a requirement was 

appropriate before establishing it, not 

that Congress automatically assumed 

that any such requirement would 

necessarily be appropriate, much less be 

the only appropriate option. Moreover, 

as discussed previously in this 

preamble, the phrase ‘‘where 

appropriate’’ in subsection (h)(1) 

provides EPA discretion to reasonably 

determine how the regulations under 

subsection (h)(1) will apply. Thus, as 

explained above, the phrase ‘‘where 

appropriate’’ in the parenthetical in 

subsection (h)(1) clearly leaves EPA 

flexibility to determine whether and in 

what circumstances to require that 

‘‘such servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation be performed by a trained 

technician meeting minimum standards, 

as determined by the Administrator,’’ as 

well as discretion to establish such 

minimum standards. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that EPA lacks authority over nonservicing actions under the AIM Act. 

The commenters claimed that EPA’s 

proposal in section 84.112 to regulate 

the marketing and sale of HFCs in 

commerce upstream from the use of 

HFC gas in equipment is not reasonably 

within EPA’s authority. In particular, 

EPA’s proposal to restrict the sale of 

reclaimed gas in section 84.112(b) does 

not relate to servicing of equipment, but 

rather restricts the sale of reclaimed gas 

upstream from the equipment. EPA’s 

rule would restrict any sale of reclaimed 

HFCs in lieu of virgin gas for any uses 

that are still available to virgin gas 

under EPA’s various AIM Act 

regulations. One commenter claimed 

that EPA is going beyond its subsection 

(h) authority by implementing reclaim 

requirements that go beyond 

maximizing reclaim and minimizing 

emissions that occur during specified 

events such as servicing and repair, and 

that EPA only has explicit authority to 

regulate releases from equipment and to 

ensure safety of technicians and 

consumers. The other commenter 

further asserted that, read together, the 

terms that Congress used—‘‘servicing, 

repair, disposal, or installation of 

equipment’’—naturally refer to work 

performed on equipment, not to the 

design of the equipment or the choice of 

which refrigerant gas is used in the 

equipment, and that given the context of 

the statute, it is not natural (and 

therefore not reasonable) to describe the 

choice of what gas is used in equipment 

as a ‘‘practice, process, or activity.’’ The 

commenter maintained that the choice 

or specification of what refrigerant gas 

to use to charge a system is simply not 

an ‘‘activity’’ as used in the statute, and 

that EPA’s reading of the concept of 

‘‘activity,’’ which they characterize as 

overly expansive, would lead to 

unexpected and overbroad results if, for 

example, specification of equipment 

components is considered to be an 

activity and EPA could dictate the type 

of steel used in the refrigeration system 

or the energy efficiency of the system. 

The commenter asserted that the 

mandate to use reclaimed gas when 

servicing or repairing equipment relates 

to the choice of which gas to use, not 

to the activities that are normally 

considered repair and servicing such as 

refrigerant recovery or charging gas 

(apart from the choice of using virgin or 

reclaimed gas), replacing parts, or fixing 

coupling or seals, and further claimed 

that if Congress had intended to 

delegate to EPA the authority to dictate 

the type of refrigerant gas that can be 

sold in the marketplace, it would have 

provided express authority similar to 

that in subsection (i) relating to 

technology transitions. The commenter 

further stated that there is no indication 

in subsection (h) that Congress intended 

to give EPA the ability to ‘‘eliminate 

virgin gas’’ and replace it with reclaim 

gas. The commenter further claimed that 

had Congress intended to give EPA the 

power to do so, it would have ‘‘stated 

so in clear terms.’’ There is no 

indication in the AIM Act that the 

reclaim provision was intended to 

trump the allowance program and 

technology transition provisions in this 

way. The commenter claimed that in 

contrast, a narrower approach focused 

on equipment servicing is entirely 

consistent with the statutory goal of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82789 

114EPA is clarifying the commenters’ 

characterization of the phasedown on the 

production and consumption of HFCs under the 

AIM Act. The phasedown requires a 40 percent 

reduction from the baseline in 2024 (i.e., 60 percent 

of the baseline) and a 70 percent reduction from the 

baseline in 2029 (i.e., 30 percent of the baseline). 

increasing reclaim, reducing emissions, 

and enhancing safety. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with 

the comments that these provisions go 

beyond its authority under subsection 

(h) of the AIM Act. The AIM Act 

provides various grants of authority to 

EPA, which, while separate and 

distinct, can be implemented in ways 

that reinforce and complement one 

another. Under subsection (h), for 

purposes including maximizing 

reclaiming and minimizing the release 

of a regulated substance from 

equipment, Congress directed the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

to control practices, processes, or 

activities regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves a regulated substance and 

the reclaiming of a regulated substance 

used as a refrigerant. This final rule, 

including the requirements related to 

the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in certain RACHP 

subsectors, carries out this direction in 

subsection (h). The requirement for the 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs controls a practice, 

process, or activity regarding the 

servicing or repair of equipment and 

involves a regulated substance or the 

reclaiming of a regulated substance. 

This requirement also supports and 

encourages reclamation of HFCs and 

thus is consistent with the purposes 

identified in subsection (h)(1). 

Accordingly, this requirement is within 

the scope of EPA’s authority under 

subsection (h). While this requirement 

regulates the activities of the person 

performing the servicing or repair by 

requiring that the refrigerant used 

during servicing or repair meet certain 

criteria, Congress did not limit EPA’s 

authority under (h)(1) to only servicing 

activities that are performed directly on 

equipment. Rather, as noted previously, 

Congress authorized EPA to regulate a 

broader scope of processes, practices or 

activities regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment. 

The statutory term ‘‘regarding’’ is quite 

expansive and EPA interprets it broadly 

in this context. Selection of a refrigerant 

for servicing and/or repair is an 

important part of the servicing or repair 

process, as not all refrigerants are 

compatible with all equipment, and it is 

critical to select a refrigerant for 

servicing or repair that can 

appropriately be used with the 

equipment being serviced or repaired. 

For example, it would not be 

appropriate to use a flammable 

refrigerant in equipment that is 

designed to use only nonflammable 

refrigerants, so selecting the appropriate 

refrigerant for recharging such 

equipment after repair is a vital part of 

the repair process. The commenter’s 

hypothetical examples regarding EPA 

dictating the steel used in the 

refrigeration system or its energy 

efficiency are inapposite because 

neither of those choices appear to 

involve a regulated substance or 

substitute, nor the reclaiming of a 

regulated substance (or substitute) used 

as a refrigerant. See subsection 

(h)(1)(A)–(D). 

The limitation on selling, identifying, 

or reporting a refrigerant as reclaimed 

unless it meets certain criteria helps 

ensure that the refrigerant used to 

comply with the requirements for 

reclaimed refrigerants actually contains 

HFCs that have had bona fide use in 

equipment and been recovered from 

equipment before being reclaimed. This 

provision helps ensure that the 

requirements in this final rule achieve 

their regulatory purposes of maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing release of 

HFCs from equipment. For instance, it 

gives assurance to a technician 

purchasing refrigerant for servicing 

equipment in a RACHP subsector 

subject to the requirement to service 

with reclaimed refrigerant that 

refrigerant that is marketed as reclaimed 

refrigerant will meet EPA’s regulatory 

requirements. Under EPA’s 

interpretation of subsection (h), the 

practices, processes, or activities 

regulated by this provision have 

sufficient relation to servicing or repair 

of equipment to also be within the 

Agency’s authority under subsection 

(h)(1). Because EPA is not finalizing, at 

this time, the proposed requirement for 

the initial fill of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with HFCs, it is not 

responding to comments concerning its 

authority for that provision. 

Contrary to the commenters’ 

assertions, EPA further notes that this 

provision does not restrict the sale of all 

refrigerants in the marketplace, but 

rather only applies to those refrigerants 

that are being sold, identified or 

reported as reclaimed. Further, these 

requirements do not mandate 

elimination of virgin gas from the 

supply chain, but rather prevent it from 

being sold, identified, or reported as 

reclaimed refrigerant and limits its use 

in servicing or repairing certain 

refrigerant-containing appliances. 

Moreover, this final rule does not reflect 

an approach that would ‘‘trump the 

allowance program and technology 

transition provisions’’ but rather 

contains requirements that are designed 

to serve the direction and purposes in 

subsection (h). Finally, EPA 

acknowledges the commenters’ 

suggested approaches to refrigerant 

management that it believes EPA should 

adopt. Some of those suggestions are 

consistent with regulations that EPA is 

finalizing in this action; others reflect 

approaches that EPA did not propose 

and is not finalizing in this action, but 

which may be considered in the future 

under subsection (h). 

Comment: A few commenters claimed 

that the proposed rule, if finalized, 

would improperly accelerate the 

phasedown of HFC production and 

import for specific sectors by restricting 

HFC use in those sectors to 15 percent 

of (baseline) levels for repair and 

servicing in contravention to the AIM 

Act and the HFC phasedown 

regulations. The commenters claimed 

that the proposed rule effectively 

mandates an 85 percent reduction of 

production and import of HFCs for use 

in those sectors by 2028, which is 

substantially faster than the 40 percent 

reduction in 2028 required by the AIM 

Act.114 While the commenters 

recognized that the proposed 

acceleration is limited to certain 

subsectors and activities, the practical 

implications are much broader because 

HFCs are specific to end-use. The 

commenters requested that EPA 

reconsider the reclaim requirements 

because the AIM Act does not authorize 

such an acceleration of the HFC 

phasedown in these sectors; there is not 

sufficient evidence that supply of 

reclaimed HFCs can meet demand for 

the specific sectors; and the mandate 

will increase HFC prices in the sectors, 

resulting in harm to consumers. 

Another commenter stated that the 

possible outcome suggested in the Draft 

RIA addendum for the proposed rule 

that the requirements for the use of 

reclaimed HFCs in refrigerantcontaining equipment in certain RACHP 

subsectors would reduce the need for 

production of refrigerant. Further, the 

commenter cited that the high 

additionality case in the Draft RIA 

addendum showed environmental 

benefits related to reduced 

consumption. The commenter stated 

that to the extent that occurs, it would 

be an improper acceleration of the 

phasedown in contravention with 

subsection (f). The commenter, 

however, also suggested that EPA 

separately consider accelerating the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82790 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

115The White House, ‘‘FACT SHEET: Biden 

Administration Combats Super-Pollutants and 

Bolsters Domestic Manufacturing with New 

Programs and Historic Commitments,’’ The White 

House, September 23, 2021, available at: https://

www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2021/09/23/fact-sheet-bidenadministration-combats-super-pollutants-andbolsters-domestic-manufacturing-with-newprograms-and-historic-commitments. 

HFC phasedown pursuant to subsection 

(f) as a means of supporting reclamation. 

The commenter stated that there 

currently is an excess of HFCs available 

in the market due to stockpiling and soft 

demand for RACHP equipment. The 

commenter mentioned that the current 

over-supply of HFCs discourages 

reclamation. The commenter suggested 

that a 10 percent step-down in each of 

2027, 2028, and 2029 would help 

prevent the shock of a sudden drop in 

supply and encourage reclamation. 

Response: The Agency responds by 

noting the AIM Act provides various 

grants of authority to EPA, which, while 

separate and distinct, can be 

implemented in ways that reinforce and 

complement one another. As explained 

elsewhere in this notice, the 

requirements for the servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs are 

being finalized under subsection (h) of 

the AIM Act, consistent with the 

direction and purposes identified in that 

subsection. The Agency did not propose 

to and is not accelerating the HFC 

phasedown through this action, nor 

does the RIA addendum analyze an 

acceleration of the HFC phasedown. 

Rather, HFCs will continue to be 

available consistent with the 

phasedown codified at 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart A. Even if commenters’ 

contentions were correct that these 

requirements would in effect reduce the 

production or consumption of HFCs 

used in particular sectors or subsectors 

faster than the scheduled reductions 

under the Act, that does not make this 

rule an acceleration under subsection 

(f). Subsection (f) addresses the EPA 

Administrator’s authority to 

‘‘promulgate regulations that establish a 

schedule for phasing down the 

production or consumption of regulated 

substances that is more stringent than 

the production and consumption levels 

of regulated substances required under 

subsection (e)(2)(C)’’ and the 

requirements for such regulations. As 

discussed in greater detail elsewhere in 

this notice, subsection (e)(2)(C) 

establishes an economy-wide 

phasedown schedule from baselines that 

are established pursuant to subsection 

(e)(1)(A) ‘‘for all regulated substances in 

the United States,’’ and the production 

and consumption phasedown is 

implemented on an exchange valueweighted basis (rather than establishing 

caps for particular HFCs). This rule does 

not change the phasedown schedule, 

alter the amount of HFC production and 

consumption allowed in any year on an 

exchange value-weighted basis, nor does 

it alter the number of allowances that 

EPA will allocate in a future year. 

Further, this rule does not prohibit any 

production or import of any HFC. 

Instead, the provisions in this rule 

govern specified processes, practices, 

and activities concerning the servicing 

and/or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs in specific subsectors. 

EPA notes that consideration of 

accelerating the phasedown under 

subsection (f) of the AIM Act is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking and thus 

the comment suggesting that EPA 

consider such an acceleration requires 

no further response. 

Regarding the claim that the supply of 

reclaimed HFCs cannot meet the 

demand, the Agency notes that the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD 

examined such supply. While EPA’s 

analysis does show that the amount of 

HFCs reclaimed in 2023 (latest year 

available) was less than the estimated 

demand, the data showed a significant 

increase in HFC reclamation compared 

to the previous year and showed that if 

this trend continued, there would be 

enough reclaimed HFC to meet the 

projected demand many times over. 

Further, in the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD, EPA evaluated the 

expected amount of HFCs from 

equipment coming out of service when 

the requirements for servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in 

certain RACHP subsectors take effect, 

and sees that such amounts, if 

reclaimed, could meet the demand on a 

chemical-by-chemical basis. Further, 

nothing in this rule prevents 

reclamation of refrigerants in 

compliance with the standard in this 

rule before the reclaim requirements 

take effect. Reclaimers or users may 

then choose to hold such materials for 

any expected demand later on, meeting 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

provisions that apply to such material. 

In the Economic Impact and Benefits 

TSD, EPA assumed an increase in price 

for reclaimed refrigerant compared to 

virgin refrigerant. Based on comments 

received, the Agency also provided a 

sensitivity analysis under which it 

assumed cost parity between reclaimed 

and virgin refrigerant. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that EPA consider an 

accelerated reclaim refrigerant 

requirement for federally owned 

equipment or buildings to lead by 

example and stimulate reclaim market 

expansion. One of the commenters 

recommended this as a pilot program to 

assemble real-world data on costs and 

various issues. The commenter stated 

that a pilot could allow the validation 

of the Agency’s assumptions about 

reclaim supply without risking adverse 

consequences. The commenter claimed 

that imposing a requirement for the use 

of reclaimed HFCs on Federal 

departments and agencies would allow 

EPA to assess the feasibility and 

resulting costs without imposing a 

widespread requirement nationwide. 

The commenter claimed that such a 

pilot would allow for the assembly of 

verified data and lead to ‘‘lessons 

learned’’ and the refinement of resulting 

regulation, minimizing any consumer 

and community impact that EPA may 

not have considered. Another 

commenter pointed to California as an 

example where reclaim requirements 

were implemented for State owned or 

operated equipment and noted the large 

number of buildings owned or leased by 

the Federal government. Another 

commenter noted that many large-scale 

purchasers are already purchasing 

reclaimed refrigerants and encouraged 

the General Services Administration 

and other Federal agencies to continue 

to support the reclaim market. Another 

commenter stated that the Biden 

Administration previously announced 

that the General Services 

Administration would review contracts 

to support the use of reclaimed 

refrigerants in facilities.115

Response: EPA appreciates the 

suggestion for a program aimed at 

federally-owned buildings. The Agency 

will share with other relevant Federal 

entities, including the General Services 

Administration, these comments 

encouraging a Federal program. While 

such a program is out of scope for this 

rulemaking and thus requires no further 

response, the Agency does note that for 

the leak repair provisions, the Agency 

did not propose and is not finalizing 

flexibilities that allow for additional 

time for federally-owned buildings, 

which is allowed under the related CAA 

section 608 regulations. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

if EPA finalizes any of the proposed 

reclaim requirements, EPA should: 

require contractors to maintain records 

(subject to audit) of the quantity and 

type of refrigerant recovered and used to 

service equipment, require OEMs, 

distributors, reclaimers, and other 

allowance holders to annually report on 

the quantities of refrigerant recovered, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82791 

reclaimed, disposed of, and introduced 

into commerce, and review EPA’s 

program, including opportunity for 

public comment, by October 1, 2026, 

and finalize revised standards by 2027. 

The commenter also requested that EPA 

‘‘condition the effectiveness of such 

requirements on the development of 

new certification standards for 

contractors.’’ 

Response: EPA responds to this 

comment that the Agency solicited 

comments in an ANPRM related to 

technician training, certification, and 

other considerations. The Agency 

acknowledges the comment related to 

requiring certain recordkeeping and/or 

certification standards for contractors 

and considers this comment related to 

the ANPRM. As such, the Agency is not 

addressing the comment at this time. 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

EPA is establishing a discrete reporting 

requirement for relevant data to be 

submitted to the Agency to evaluate the 

availability of reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants being supplied for servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in the supermarket systems, 

refrigerated transport, and automatic 

commercial icemakers subsectors. EPA 

is establishing these reporting 

requirements to be prior to the 

compliance date of the requirements for 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants used for 

servicing and/or repair in these 

subsectors. EPA intends to consider the 

reported data and evaluate the 

requirements that begin as of January 1, 

2029. 

Comment: One commenter claimed 

that subsection (h)(2) does not give EPA 

authority to require the use of reclaimed 

substances or substitutes. The comment 

stated that subsection (h)(2) simply 

provides that ‘‘[i]n carrying out this 

section’’ EPA is to ‘‘consider the use’’ of 

authority under ‘‘this section’’ with 

regard to opportunities for reclaim. The 

commenter asserted that this provision 

must be read within its statutory context 

and does not provide EPA with 

authority to utilize authority contained 

outside of subsection (h). The 

commenter stated that subsection (h)(2) 

is ‘‘most naturally read’’ to mean that 

when instituting regulations relating to 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment, EPA consider 

opportunities for refrigerant 

reclamation. The commenter also stated 

that EPA cites no legislative history to 

support a broader interpretation of 

(h)(2), and asserts that EPA is arbitrarily 

creating an unauthorized, mandatory 

market for reclaimed HFCs based on its 

reading of the purposes of this section, 

while simultaneously claiming that 

market forces alone will increase the 

amount of reclaimed HFCs available. 

The commenter further stated that there 

is no ‘‘market failure’’ for EPA to correct 

via regulation, and that market forces 

should take precedence. 

Response: Although the commenter 

does not specify which part of 

subsection (h)(2) of the AIM Act the 

comment is referencing, the Agency, 

based on the excerpt quoted (which 

appears in subsection (h)(2)(A) of the 

Act) interprets this comment to relate to 

subsection (h)(2)(A) but not subsection 

(h)(2)(B), which as discussed elsewhere 

in this notice pertains to reclamation of 

recovered HFC refrigerants. As 

discussed in the proposal and in this 

final rule, the Agency has considered 

the use of authority available to the 

Administrator to increase opportunities 

for reclamation of HFCs used as 

refrigerants in developing the 

requirements established in this rule. As 

this action is taken under subsection (h) 

of the Act, EPA need not address the 

application of subsection (h)(2)(A) to 

other subsections of the AIM Act, and 

to the extent that the comment relates to 

other subsections of the Act it is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking and thus 

requires no further response. As 

discussed in more detail elsewhere in 

this preamble and in other responses to 

comment, EPA interprets the 

requirements established in this final 

rule to perform servicing and/or repair 

of certain appliances in certain sectors 

or subsectors with reclaimed HFCs as 

being within the scope of its regulatory 

authority under subsection (h)(1) of the 

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

directs the Agency to establish 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, practices, processes, or 

activities regarding the servicing or 

repair of equipment that involves a 

regulated substance or the reclaiming of 

a regulated substance used as a 

refrigerant. The relevant provisions in 

the final rule control the servicing and/ 

or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment by requiring that 

it be done with reclaimed HFCs and 

thus are within this authority and 

support the purpose of maximizing 

reclaim of HFCs. This interpretation is 

based on the text of subsection (h), as 

the available legislative history for the 

AIM Act is very limited, and the 

commenter does not cite any statutory 

text or legislative history to suggest that 

this interpretation is inconsistent with 

Congressional intent. Given that the 

statutory text in subsection (h)(1) 

identifies particular purposes for 

regulations established under this 

provision, it is reasonable to consider 

those purposes in establishing such 

regulations, as EPA is doing in this rule. 

The Agency disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that these 

requirements arbitrarily create an 

unauthorized, mandatory market for 

reclaimed HFCs. While EPA 

acknowledges that existing market 

dynamics may incentivize the use of 

reclaimed refrigerants over time, as 

explained elsewhere in this final rule, 

the Agency disagrees with the 

conclusion that those possible 

incentives mean this requirement is 

unneeded or that those market 

dynamics mean that the Agency should 

not establish these requirements. 

Congress put particular weight on 

reclamation in subsection (h) of the AIM 

Act, including through the provisions of 

(h)(1) and (h)(2)(A) referenced 

previously in this response. Even 

assuming that market dynamics or 

implementation of other programs lead 

to some additional use of reclaimed 

refrigerant over time, the commenter did 

not provide any reason to think that 

those factors alone would ‘‘maximize’’ 

reclamation as stated in subsection 

(h)(1). It is the Agency’s view that the 

reclaim requirements established in this 

action will help increase reclamation 

and support additional recovery of HFC 

refrigerants, are within its authority 

under subsection (h) of the Act, and will 

help serve the purposes identified in 

that subsection. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA revise its proposed language in 

sections 84.112(e) and (f) to specify that 

all permissible substitutes will continue 

to be allowed for servicing and repair. 

The commenter stated that EPA’s 

proposed regulatory language in 

sections 84.112(e) and (f) could be read 

to require that refrigerant-containing 

appliances in the identified subsectors 

may only be serviced and repaired with 

reclaimed HFCs, to the exclusion of 

substitutes. 

The commenter stated that robust 

demand for reclaimed HFC refrigerant 

already exists and will continue to grow 

significantly due to the AIM Act’s 

phasedown of HFCs. The commenter 

requested that EPA revise its proposed 

language to specify that all permissible 

substitutes will continue to be allowed 

for servicing and repair and include a 

regulatory exception to relieve the 

obligation to comply where there is an 

inadequate supply of reclaimed HFCs to 

meet service and repair needs in the 

identified subsectors. 

Response: EPA responds that 

substitutes for HFCs can be used in the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in the RACHP 

subsectors included in this rulemaking 

(i.e., supermarket systems, refrigerated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82792 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

transport, and automatic commercial ice 

makers). The proposed regulatory text at 

section 84.112(f) was intended to 

require that the servicing and/or repair 

of refrigerant-containing equipment in 

these subsectors must be done with 

reclaimed HFCs, where those pieces of 

refrigerant-containing equipment use a 

refrigerant containing an HFC, but 

would not apply to refrigerant that 

contains no HFCs or to any non-HFC 

constituents in the refrigerant. For 

example, if an owner or operator uses 

CO2 as the refrigerant in its existing 

supermarket system, they would not be 

required to service and/or repair the 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed refrigerant, since such 

equipment is not using a refrigerant that 

contains an HFC. EPA is finalizing 

revisions to the regulatory text to make 

this intent clearer in response to this 

comment but does not view these edits 

as changing the substance of the 

provision. As discussed elsewhere in 

this preamble, EPA is not finalizing in 

this rule, the proposed requirement for 

the initial charge of new refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs and thus, is not making parallel 

edits to that provision. For the reasons 

described in a prior response to 

comment in this section, the Agency 

does not agree that exceptions are 

needed for the requirements to service 

and/or repair existing equipment in the 

covered subsectors using reclaimed 

HFCs when there is an inadequate 

supply and thus is not finalizing such 

an exception. The Agency recognizes 

that commenter’s points on the existing 

market for reclaimed HFCs and agrees 

with that commenter’s views that this 

market will in fact grow. The Agency is 

finalizing provisions to support and 

encourage growth in reclamation. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

EPA allow the use of reclaimed 

refrigerant for servicing in 2025 to be 

credited against compliance obligations 

in future years. Another commenter 

requested that EPA confirm that exports 

of virgin HFCs will be eligible under the 

Request for Additional Consumption 

Allowance (RACA) program, regardless 

of when the original HFCs or individual 

blend components were imported. The 

commenter added that it is critical that 

the RACA program, under 40 CFR 84.17, 

be available to obtain allowances for 

HFCs that can be used in the United 

States and that EPA has projected will 

be available in the market. The 

commenter stated that this is essential 

to minimizing stranded assets and 

preventing further disruptions to the 

market that would ultimately effectuate 

significant commercial harm to the 

after-market and ultimately to 

consumers). 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

suggestion that the Agency allow the 

use of reclaim refrigerants for servicing 

and/or repair in 2025 to be credited 

against compliance obligations for 

future years. The Agency did not 

propose and is not finalizing any sort of 

early crediting regime. In the NPRM, 

EPA did discuss scaling the reclaim 

requirements for servicing and/or repair 

on a percentage basis, but as discussed 

in responses earlier in this section, the 

Agency is not finalizing that approach. 

However, EPA encourages early action 

by industry to support the uptake of 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants ahead of the 

compliance date. 

Comments or requests concerning the 

structure of the allocation program are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

However, the Agency notes, allowing 

entities to receive allowances for the 

reclamation of refrigerant would 

artificially inflate the number of 

allowances in the market. 

EPA agrees that the RACA process 

under 40 CFR part 84 subpart A is 

important to allowance holders. EPA is 

not modifying that RACA program in 

this rulemaking, and EPA further notes 

that the reclamation requirements for 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in certain 

subsectors in this rulemaking will not 

impact the RACA program. 

Comment: Another commenter 

recommended that EPA not replicate 

California’s HFC programs because 

California State law has no bearing on 

how the Agency interprets the AIM Act 

and because the State’s current R4 

Program is short term in nature. The 

commenter stated that EPA should 

avoid adopting different regulatory 

provisions based on State law instead of 

the intentional design of the AIM Act. 

The commenter claimed that the R4 

Program was created as an interim 

measure after CARB finalized sector 

control limits that could not be 

implemented by the effective date. The 

commenter suggested that EPA consult 

with OEMs to understand the 

complications and burden of the R4 

Program when the first reports are due 

in July 2024 and not to adopt provisions 

until after this. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments and responds that the Agency 

proposed a rule and is now establishing 

provisions based on that proposal that 

are in correspondence with the AIM 

Act, not a State’s regulation or 

legislation. EPA referenced and 

reviewed multiple States’ programs and 

policies in place or under consideration, 

including the California regulations, 

when developing the proposed rule. The 

Agency reviewed these regulations for 

informational purposes and awareness 

of what was being implemented under 

those programs; however, EPA did not 

propose and is not finalizing regulations 

that mirror, fully, any specific State 

requirements, nor was it the Agency’s 

intent to do so. EPA consulted with 

many different stakeholders when 

developing the proposal, including 

information from comments received on 

the Agency’s NODA, through multiple 

webinars, and through the comment 

period, including from OEMs. EPA is 

finalizing requirements for the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in certain RACHP subsectors 

and is not finalizing requirements for 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants in the initial 

fill of refrigerant. The Agency 

acknowledges that in many instances, 

the industry seeks alignment with 

Federal and State regulations. However, 

this regulation is being finalized 

consistent with, and to serve the 

particular purposes of and direction in, 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act, and EPA 

understands that States are 

promulgating regulations based on their 

State authorities. 

Comment: EPA received a few 

comments on establishing requirements 

for refrigerant recovery. One commenter 

was disappointed that EPA did not 

propose requirements that would 

increase recovery of refrigerants from 

existing equipment, but instead focused 

requirements on increasing demand for 

reclaimed refrigerant. The commenter 

stated that government mandates are not 

needed to increase demand through the 

HFC phasedown and that such solutions 

will not maximize reclamation. The 

commenter also stated that there does 

not appear to be a bias for or against 

reclaimed refrigerant according to 

distributors, so the emphasis should be 

on increasing refrigerant recovery. The 

commenter suggested that, if mandates 

are put in place, such mandates should 

be visible to the technician community 

by creating access to reclaimed 

refrigerant to create an incentive to 

increase their recovery rates. The 

commenter claimed that technicians 

understanding that reclaimed refrigerant 

must be used in servicing and that no 

additional virgin material is allowed 

will have a better understanding of why 

recovery is required. 

Another commenter stated that not 

only is recovered refrigerant not 

reaching reclaimers, there also seem to 

be stockpiles not turned in to 

reclaimers. The commenter also stated 

that they have heard that it takes too 

long to recover refrigerant, especially R– 

410A. The commenter noted that this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82793 

116EPA has established standards for recovery 

and/or recycling equipment under section 608 of 

the CAA for the service, repair, or disposal of 

appliances containing ODS and ODS substitutes 

(e.g., HFCs) under 40 CFR 82.158. Additionally, 

EPA has standardized equipment for the servicing 

of refrigerant from MVAC systems under CAA 

section 609, and any technician servicing 

equipment for consideration must use approved 

refrigerant handling equipment pursuant to 40 CFR 

82.36. 

could be because of using the recovery 

equipment for R–22 instead of R–410A. 

The commenter suggested that EPA may 

want to consider using some of its 

funding for small contractors serving 

low and medium-income communities 

to apply for grants or to outright 

purchase the correct recovery 

equipment. The commenter further 

suggested that EPA may wish to 

interview contractors to better 

understand the challenges they face 

with recovery and price points to 

incentivize purchasing reclaimed 

refrigerant. The commenter noted that 

despite these relatively high prices, 

reclaim rates have never been above 

5,000 metric tons per year for HCFC–22, 

even with a complete ban on newly 

produced HCFC–22 for servicing, 

according to EPA’s Summary of 

Refrigerant Reclamation. 

One commenter states that the 

proposed rule did not pay sufficient 

attention to the role of recovery in 

maximizing reclamation. The 

commenter further proposed that, given 

the central role recovery plays, EPA 

should initiate a new rulemaking under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act as soon 

as possible to ensure these and other 

issues related to recovery are adequately 

addressed before any further reclaim 

mandates are considered. 

Another commenter recommended 

considering process enhancements to 

reduce refrigerant contamination before 

reuse or return for reclaim arguing that 

many reclamation facilities without 

fractional distillation capacities cannot 

separate components when 

contamination is above 15 percent. The 

commenter requested that EPA evaluate 

how much refrigerant is returned 

contaminated and how much is 

destroyed annually and integrate tools 

to reduce cross-contamination to 

maximize the potential for reusing 

refrigerants. 

One commenter stated that increasing 

the recovery of HFCs for reclamation is 

essential for economic growth and other 

environmental benefits, while another 

commenter stated the importance of 

mandates for increased recovery is 

needed to support reclamation. Another 

commenter noted that financial 

incentives for technicians may be 

effective to enhance recovery of HFCs. 

Another commenter stated that in 

addition to incentivizing recovery, 

regulations can be effective for 

enforcement of recovery of HFCs. 

One commenter stated that the 

requirements for reclaimed HFCs would 

lead to increased demand for reclaimed 

HFCs and thus incentivize recovery of 

HFCs; however, additional measures 

may also be needed to bolster recovery. 

The commenter requested that EPA 

consider establishing a standard for 

equipment used to recover refrigerant to 

control leakage during recovery. 

Response: EPA responds to these 

comments that requirements established 

for the recovery of HFCs from 

equipment would be related to those 

requirements for technicians and 

contractors performing the actual 

recovery. EPA understands that critical 

link between recovery and reclamation 

and agrees that increased recovery of 

refrigerants supports the increased 

reclamation of those refrigerants. The 

Agency views requirements related to 

recovery under the authority of 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act, as they 

are related to practices, processes, or 

activities related to the servicing, repair, 

or disposal of equipment. Recovery of 

the refrigerant would likely be a 

practice, process, or activity required to 

remove the charge of refrigerant to 

repair the equipment or would be 

performed during the process of 

disposing the equipment to recover the 

refrigerant before it is disposed. EPA 

views such practices, processes, or 

activities as those performed by a 

technician or contractor, and the 

Agency refers to the ANPRM published 

related to technician training, 

certification, and other considerations. 

The Agency, thus, acknowledges these 

comments and will consider them for a 

future rulemaking under subsection (h) 

of the AIM Act. 

EPA acknowledges comments related 

to using the proper recovery machines 

to recover refrigerants from equipment. 

EPA also notes that certified recovery 

equipment is required for such 

practices, as handled under other 

regulations under the CAA.116 EPA 

acknowledges the comment related to 

grant funding for recovery equipment 

and notes that such considerations are 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking. 

EPA agrees there is value in 

understanding challenges faced with 

recovery of refrigerants. As previously 

stated, EPA solicited comments in an 

ANPRM on considerations related to 

technicians and, while not addressing in 

this rulemaking, the Agency will review 

and consider those for future 

rulemakings. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that there is evident viability of on-site 

recycling during the refrigerant recovery 

process for HVACR appliances. The 

commenter stated that as long as 

HVACR technicians use AHRI 740 

certified equipment and establish 

refrigerant identification protocols, the 

recycled refrigerant will be suitable for 

reuse within the same system. The 

commenter recommended that this 

industry learn from the successes that 

the MVAC industry has had with 

refrigerant reclamation. The commenter 

also recommended that there be a 

defined process to qualify refrigerant for 

reuse in the field alongside on-site 

analyses. In addition, the commenter 

stated that a refrigerant identifier or 

analyzer should be present. The 

commenter noted that such measures 

are fundamental to the safe and proper 

recycling of refrigerants to mitigate risks 

associated with the use of unqualified or 

contaminated refrigerants and to 

provide an alternative to reclaiming all 

refrigerant extracted. 

Response: EPA responds to this 

comment that on-site recovery and 

recycling for stationary refrigerantcontaining equipment is a current 

practice in industry, such that the 

recovered refrigerant is used in the same 

piece of refrigerant-containing 

equipment or is recovered and used in 

another piece of refrigerant-containing 

equipment of the same owner. This 

practice is consistent with the 

requirements under 40 CFR 82.156(h), 

which are applicable to appliances 

containing ODS refrigerants as well as 

certain substitutes for ODS refrigerants 

(e.g., HFCs). This rulemaking does not 

affect such practice and EPA notes that 

HFC refrigerants that are recovered can 

continue to be recycled to the same 

piece of refrigerant-containing 

equipment that the HFC refrigerant was 

recovered from or another piece of 

refrigerant-containing equipment under 

the same ownership. 

EPA recommends but does not require 

the use of refrigerant identification 

technology in the servicing of AC 

systems. EPA agrees that refrigerant 

analyzers are an important tool to 

identify contaminated systems and to 

prevent a technician from charging the 

incorrect refrigerant into an air 

conditioning system. While not 

addressed in this rulemaking, EPA 

considers this comment to fall under the 

scope of the ANPRM as it relates to 

considerations for technicians. As 

explained in section VIII below, EPA is 

not responding to comments related to 

the ANPRM in this final rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule disrupts the supply 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82794 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

117 Yasaka, Yoshihito, et al. ‘‘Life-Cycle 

Assessment of Refrigerants for Air Conditioners 

Considering Reclamation and Destruction.’’ 

Sustainability, vol. 15, no.1, 2023, p. 473, 

doi:10.3390/su15010473. 

chain by creating a captive market 

where specific market transitions are 

mandated, losing economic incentives 

to lower the costs of products. The 

commenter claimed that the proposed 

rule requires that OEMs and technicians 

buy reclaimed HFCs, creating a closed 

market with a finite amount of 

reclaimed HFCs. The commenter 

claimed that EPA has not analyzed the 

cost impact of such an unbalanced, 

artificial market to the end consumer, 

nor the potential concentration of a 

finite reclaimed HFC supply within a 

small number of suppliers. The 

commenter recommended that proposed 

mandates be validated by robust supply/ 

demand modeling. 

Response: EPA responds to the 

commenter’s concerns for a closed 

market and relevant analysis. This 

rulemaking does not limit the 

production or consumption of HFCs. 

HFCs will continue to be produced and 

imported in accordance with the 

phasedown schedule. HFCs will be 

available to be sold and distributed for 

a range of eligible applications. It is 

likely that as the phasedown continues, 

shifts in which HFCs are produced and 

imported will occur as well. The 

Agency notes and directs interested 

readers to the Allocation Framework 

Rule, where the Agency discussed more 

fully the use of an exchange value 

weighted approach rather than a 

chemical-to-chemical approach to 

phasing down HFCs. 

The Agency acknowledges that by 

requiring the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed refrigerant in certain RACHP 

subsectors, the Agency is precluding the 

use of virgin HFCs for servicing and/or 

repair in those applications. The Agency 

disagrees that requiring the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in 

certain subsectors would create any sort 

of monopoly, as EPA has not mandated 

that stakeholders purchase refrigerant 

from any specific entity. 

The Agency notes that there are over 

50 certified reclaimers in the United 

States. Therefore, there will be sufficient 

competition among those reclaimers to 

supply reclaimed HFCs. The Agency 

further notes that there are only five 

HFC producers with production 

facilities in the United States, and often 

there is only one facility producing each 

of the HFCs that are produced 

domestically, with other HFCs only 

available through imports. Supply of 

virgin HFCs is significantly augmented 

by imports, and on an annual basis 

between 2024 and 2028, there are, or 

will be, approximately 75 companies 

with EPA-issued consumption 

allowances that allow them to legally 

import virgin or reclaimed HFCs. 

EPA has analyzed the compliance 

costs and benefits for using reclaim 

requirements in the Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD included with this 

rulemaking. Results from this analysis 

indicate that requiring the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in the 

covered subsectors by this rulemaking 

may result in incremental costs to 

industry while also reducing demand 

for virgin HFCs. This reduction in 

demand may in turn reduce costs to 

industry by alleviating potential supply 

shortages, although EPA has not 

quantified such cost savings in its 

analysis. A study117 cited by EPA in the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD and 

comments EPA has received from at 

least one reclaimer of HFCs also 

indicate that the use of reclaimed HFCs 

may actually be on par with or more 

cost-effective than the use of virgin 

HFCs. Therefore, EPA has included a 

sensitivity analysis in its Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD in which the 

use of reclaimed HFCs is assumed to be 

cost-neutral. 

Comment: One commenter claimed 

that the existing record does not show 

a current need for the requirements for 

the use of reclaimed HFCs in certain 

RACHP subsectors, noting that the 

proposed rule extols the successes of 

recycling and reclaiming Class II ODS. 

The commenter cites EPA’s Draft 

Report—Analysis of the U.S 

Hydrofluorocarbon Market: 

Stakeholders, Drivers, and Practices 

(September 2023) in arguing that the use 

of recycled/reclaimed HFCs was already 

anticipated as a path to compliance with 

the phasedown. Further, the commenter 

noted that among impediments to the 

U.S. reclaim market noted in the draft 

report, inadequate demand for 

reclaimed HFCs was not identified as 

such an impediment to the market. The 

commenter also stated that 

environmental benefits estimated for the 

requirements for using reclaimed HFCs 

are non-existent, and that the 

requirements could result in shifting 

allowance use to meet demand in other 

sectors and subsectors. 

Response: EPA responds that the 

requirements for reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants in the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in certain RACHP subsectors 

are being established under subsection 

(h)(1) of the AIM Act, which provides 

EPA with the authority to promulgate 

regulations to control, where 

appropriate, ‘‘any practice, process, or 

activity, regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment’’ 

for purposes that include maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing releases of 

HFCs from equipment. EPA views these 

requirements for using reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants in the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment as controlling a practice, 

process, or activity regarding the 

servicing and/or repair of such 

equipment, and as helping serve the 

purpose of maximizing reclamation, as 

the requirements present opportunities 

for increased recovery of used 

refrigerants and use of and demand for 

reclaimed HFCs and thus increased 

reclamation. Even assuming increased 

recycling or reclamation is anticipated 

to occur under the phasedown, the 

commenter provides no reason to think 

that such voluntary increases alone 

would be sufficient to serve the 

statutory purpose identified in 

subsection (h)(1) of maximizing 

reclamation. To the extent that the 

commenter suggests that EPA must 

demonstrate a particular degree or 

magnitude of current need to establish 

regulations under subsection (h)(1), EPA 

disagrees, as such a requirement is not 

explicitly stated in the statutory 

language of subsection (h). Nonetheless, 

for the reasons described earlier in this 

response and elsewhere in this final 

rule, the Agency concludes that these 

requirements are appropriate to serve 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1) 

and to implement that provision. 

EPA acknowledges that inadequate 

demand was not identified as a barrier 

to increased reclamation in the Draft 

Report. However, as the Agency 

explains in this rulemaking and 

consistent with the proposed rule, these 

provisions are expected to support 

additional recovery of HFC refrigerants 

and, thus, reclamation. As noted in a 

previous comment response, EPA’s 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD does 

not include increased recovery in the 

base case for this rule based on the 

assumptions for that scenario; however, 

EPA did consider an alternate scenario 

with increased recovery and anticipates 

that the reclamation provisions could 

support increased recovery during 

servicing or disposal where the 

refrigerant may otherwise have been 

vented or released. EPA notes that the 

barriers described in the Draft Report 

were intended to capture the status of 

the reclamation industry and inform 

this rulemaking. The Draft Report 

identified barriers such as separating 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82795 

mixed refrigerants and refrigerant 

release events (e.g., leakage during 

operation or venting at EOL), among 

others. The provisions in this rule and 

current market dynamics help to 

address these barriers. This final rule is 

expected to encourage reclamation and 

drive innovation in separation 

technologies as well as capacity of these 

technologies to meet the estimated 

demand of reclaimed HFCs related to 

the requirements in this rule. Further, 

the requirements related to leak repair 

and ALD systems will lead to reduced 

amounts of emissions of refrigerants 

from appliances; thus, ensuring 

additional material is available to be 

recovered and reclaimed. 

The Agency acknowledges that 

allowance use for virgin HFCs may shift 

related to the provisions established in 

this rulemaking. However, the Agency 

anticipates that any such shifts in use of 

allowances would be related to 

allowances needed for difficult to 

transition applications where a path to 

substitutes for HFCs is less clear at this 

time. Further, even assuming such shifts 

occur, they do not provide a reason to 

not finalize the requirements in this 

rule. If anything, they merely provide an 

example of how implementation of this 

rule may also have the effect of assisting 

in supporting implementation of other 

programs under the AIM Act. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA did not analyze the economic 

cost and consumer pricing impacts of 

the HFC supply and demand mismatch. 

The commenter stated that EPA’s 

awareness of impact without analysis is 

not consideration of relevant factors 

required by subsection (h). The 

commenter stated that the NPRM does 

not estimate the costs of resetting the 

market through new customer/supplier 

relationships, and the commenter 

further stated that restricting HFC 

quantities would increase refrigerant 

prices. The commenter stated that 

certain refrigerants from producers (e.g., 

certain HFC–32 lines) may no longer be 

economically viable and stated that the 

NPRM should have considered the 

likelihood of stranding production 

assets. The commenter additionally 

asserted that the reclaim mandate 

eliminates incentives to develop lowGWP blends with an HFC component, 

and recommended that EPA base any 

reclaim requirement on robust and 

appropriate data. 

Response: The HFC allowance 

allocation system is out of scope for this 

rulemaking; however, EPA reminds 

readers that the United States is phasing 

down HFC production and 

consumption. The overall phasedown of 

HFCs will result in changes in 

production and consumption of specific 

HFCs and blends. Furthermore, the 

commenter mischaracterizes the 

relevant factors for this rulemaking. The 

Agency has provided an analysis of the 

costs and benefits of this rule for 

informational purposes and to address 

E.O. requirements. The Agency does not 

rely on this information as a record base 

for this rule and would have reached the 

same conclusions without this analysis. 

Instead, this rule is focused on serving 

the statutory purposes identified in 

subsection (h), which are maximizing 

reclaiming and minimizing the release 

of regulated substances from equipment 

and ensuring the safety of technicians 

and consumers. 

EPA disagrees that the proposed rule 

disincentivizes the development and 

deployment of low-GWP blends. As 

noted elsewhere, the overall phasedown 

of HFC production and consumption, as 

well as the 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rule, will affect both the overall supply 

and demand for virgin HFCs. The 

Agency does not agree that this rule 

results in a mismatch of supply and 

demand. Nor does the Agency consider 

this rule as contributing to a 

disincentive for U.S. innovation. The 

Agency further notes that innovation 

can come in many forms. It could be the 

introduction of new chemistry, and it 

also could include better and more 

efficient ways to recover and reuse 

HFCs, including through HFC 

reclamation technologies. 

Further, EPA is establishing a 

reporting requirement in this 

rulemaking for information related to 

the availability of reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants in the supermarket systems, 

refrigerated transport, and automatic 

commercial ice makers subsectors. EPA 

intends to assess the reported data and 

consider further evaluating the 

established requirements for reclaimed 

HFC refrigerants in the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in these subsectors. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that there is no plan for banned 

virgin refrigerants that can no longer be 

used for service in the proposed sectors. 

The commenter claimed that these 

virgin refrigerants would have no value. 

The commenter stated that EPA has not 

done research to determine the quantity 

of HFCs currently stockpiled in the 

country (imported before the AIM Act) 

and that this quantity is large. The 

commenter recommended a carbon 

credit program for destroyed HFCs and 

stated that without such a program the 

price of virgin HFCs will drastically 

decline as distributors with stockpiles 

sell this material, limiting the number of 

system retrofits to lower-GWP 

refrigerants. The commenter noted that 

this would continue until late 2027, at 

which point companies would be forced 

to change or use expensive and scarce 

refrigerant to service equipment, leaving 

considerable virgin material with no 

value and no destruction and carbon 

credit program. The commenter 

questioned if there was a need to speed 

up the HFC phasedown that is already 

in place. 

Another commenter stated that the 

requirements for using reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants for refrigerant-containing 

equipment in certain RACHP subsectors 

could have adverse effects on existing 

allowance holders by denying them 

customers and therefore harming 

business plans and investments. 

Response: EPA disagrees that a 

specific plan is needed for the virgin 

HFCs that would have been used for the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in the covered 

RACHP subsectors where this rule 

requires that those activities be done 

with reclaimed HFCs. EPA also 

disagrees that these virgin HFCs would 

have no value, as they could still be 

used other applications, such as the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in other RACHP 

subsectors. Furthermore, the Agency is 

not at this time finalizing requirements 

for the initial charge of refrigerantcontaining equipment, and the virgin 

HFCs could be used in these cases. EPA 

notes that the requirements to service 

and/or repair refrigerant-containing 

equipment in the supermarket systems, 

refrigerated transport, and automatic 

commercial ice makers subsectors will 

be effective beginning January 1, 2029. 

Regulated entities would have 

approximately four years to determine 

how to best use any remaining virgin 

HFCs that they own, which includes the 

option to continue servicing and/or 

repairing refrigerant-containing 

equipment with any virgin HFCs they 

own until these requirements are 

effective. 

The Agency disagrees with the need 

to establish a destruction program for 

virgin HFCs for generating carbon 

credits. As stated above, EPA disagrees 

with the commenter’s statement that 

virgin HFCs would lose their value, as 

they could be used in other 

applications. Further, the Agency notes 

that it has been more than 30 years since 

the CFC phaseout, yet there is still 

demand for reclaimed CFCs, indicating 

there is continued demand for these 

substances. EPA believes there will 

continue to be demand for both virgin 

and reclaimed HFCs as the phasedown 

progresses and even after the final step 

of the phasedown, when 15 percent of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82796 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

118 88 FR 46843, July 20, 2023. 

the baseline of production and 

consumption of virgin HFCs will be 

allowed. EPA discusses this in a prior 

response in this section, noting that any 

such program would, among other 

things, need to consider additionality of 

any generated credits and moreover 

such consideration of carbon credits is 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking. 

EPA notes that the phasedown of 

production and consumption addresses 

virgin HFCs by reducing the overall 

levels in a stepwise fashion while not 

precluding their use generally in a range 

of acceptable applications. Regarding 

comments about stockpiles of HFCs in 

the United States, the Agency responds 

that as with the CFC phaseout, the 

Agency anticipates the continuing 

demand for these HFCs in the multitude 

of acceptable applications. The 2024 

Allocation Rule provides additional 

detail related to assessing stockpiling 

and how that is considered in the 

methodology for allocating 

allowances.118 EPA notes that allocation 

of allowances is out of scope for this 

rulemaking. 

EPA disagrees that this rulemaking 

would accelerate the phasedown of 

HFCs under the AIM Act, which would 

require meeting specific criteria as 

provided in subsection (f) of the AIM 

Act. EPA responds to comments 

regarding the acceleration of the 

phasedown in an earlier response in this 

section. 

EPA disagrees that the requirements 

for the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in certain RACHP 

subsectors would drastically disrupt 

current allowance holders’ business 

plans. EPA is not establishing 

requirements for reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants in the initial fill of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in this 

rulemaking. Such requirements are only 

for the servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in 

certain RACHP subsectors. Most of these 

existing types of equipment are 

currently using refrigerants that contain 

HFCs that have been in equipment for 

an extended period of time. As such, 

these types of refrigerant-containing 

equipment are likely to continue to rely 

on reclaimed HFCs as the phasedown 

progresses. EPA does not dictate how 

allowance holders use their allowances 

but understands that some may use 

allowances for refrigerants that contain 

HFCs that would be compliant with the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule. 

Further, as noted above, EPA is 

establishing a compliance date of 

January 1, 2029, for the requirements for 

reclaimed HFC refrigerants for servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in certain RACHP 

subsectors. This period of 

approximately four years provides 

entities with time to secure and adjust 

business relationships as needed. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that, if after each threeyear period (starting in 2028) EPA 

requires each consumption allowance 

holder to acquire a quantity in exchange 

value equivalent metric tons of 

reclaimed HFCs produced by any U.S. 

reclaimer equal to a portion of their 

consumption allowance allocation 

(capped at a maximum five percent to 

reasonably balance the supply of 

reclaimed material with consumption 

holder demand) and the program 

remains necessary, then the percentage 

be adjusted for the following three-year 

period based on changes over the prior 

three-year period in reclaim capacity 

and availability, the supply of HFCs, 

and market demands. The commenter 

stated that the program could include 

exemptions for de minimis allowance 

holders and economic hardships, such 

as lack of reclaimed HFCs in the market 

or unreasonable prices. 

Response: EPA responds that this 

comment is out of scope for this 

rulemaking. EPA did not propose or 

seek comments on changes to the 

allowance system codified at 40 CFR 

part 84, subpart A. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

if EPA goes forward with these 

requirements, it should make grant 

funding available to offset the increased 

costs associated with purchasing 

reclaimed HFC refrigerant, and the 

requirement should be imposed only on 

grant recipients. 

Response: EPA notes that 

establishment of grant funding is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed rule could 

impact smaller businesses by adding 

tasks for recovering HFCs and for 

related logistics and that burdensome 

demands coupled with potentially 

unrealistic reclaim targets may divert 

resources from core operations and stifle 

innovation of the value chain. 

The commenter further stated that 

requirements for reclaimed refrigerants 

at the OEM level is impractical, and that 

the Agency should shift its regulatory 

scope to focus on chemical producers 

and importers, which could allow the 

Agency to reduce its burden on small 

businesses and reduce supply chain 

disruptions and costs. The commenter 

stated that it will be difficult for the 

Agency to achieve its goal of regulating 

anyone who produces, imports, 

reclaims, repackages, or fills a container 

with a regulated substance used in 

servicing, repair, or installation of 

equipment by regulating at the 

wholesaler/distributor or contractor 

level. The commenter asserted that 

doing so would require extensive 

container tracking and reporting 

frameworks alongside enforcement 

mechanisms. The commenter claimed 

that since a majority of wholesalers and 

contractors are small businesses, EPA 

would have to complete EPA’s Small 

Business Ombudsmen assessment. 

Additionally, the commenter claimed 

EPA would have to regulate over 1,000 

wholesalers/distributors and 200,000 

contractors, making enforcement more 

difficult. Additionally, the commenter 

stated that EPA would require 

significant support from industry, 

potentially delaying implementation. 

Alternatively, the commenter stated 

that EPA should regulate reclaim at the 

producer/importer level. The 

commenter mentioned that chemical 

producers/importers are already 

regulated under the AIM Act, and that 

these entities already have established 

infrastructures to report sales, imports, 

production, and destruction of 

refrigerants. The commenter continued 

that regulating at the point of sale would 

make implementing reclaim 

requirements easier, reduce the number 

of companies that EPA would have to 

regulate, and allow for more effective 

communication and collaboration 

between EPA and the regulated entities. 

The commenter further noted that 14 

companies control 89% of the 

consumption allowances and that eight 

of these 14 are reclaimers themselves, 

reducing the need for new infrastructure 

and investment. The commenter stated 

that this approach would also reduce 

the burden on small businesses. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter both on the small business 

impacts associated with recovering 

refrigerant and with how those impacts 

would be affected by the reclamation 

provisions. The Agency conducted a 

small business screening analysis and 

refers readers to section VI of this 

preamble and to Appendix G of the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. The 

commenter did not provide sufficient 

information to explain how these 

provisions would divert resources from 

core operations and stifle innovation of 

the value chain. EPA considered supply 

chain and logistics when drafting the 

rule, including projections of future 

refrigerant supply. Based on these 

projections, EPA determined that 

finalizing requirements for the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82797 

119EPA’s HAWK electronic reporting system can 

be accessed through the Electronic Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Tool (e-GGRT). Regulated entities that are 

subject to reporting requirements under the AIM 

Act submit reports this electronic reporting system. 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs in the 

covered subsectors is feasible. 

EPA responds to the commenter’s 

suggestion to regulate reclaim at the 

producer/import level by noting that it 

is not clear to the Agency how such a 

regime would work in practice. The 

commenter provides information on the 

potential benefits of efficiency and a 

reduced number of regulated entities, 

but does not make clear statements how 

this program could work. The 

commenter States that the existing 

framework under 40 CFR 84 could 

simplify to implementation for point of 

sale for the reclaim requirements. 

However, it is unclear how the majority 

of reclaimers who are not importers or 

who do not receive allowances would 

operate under such a program for the 

effective implementation of the 

requirements for reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants for servicing and/or repair 

of refrigerant-containing equipment in 

certain RACHP sectors. Further, to the 

extent that this comment relates to 

proposed requirements that EPA is not 

finalizing at this time, EPA notes that it 

is not responding to comments on those 

aspects of the proposal in this final rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

to purchase ‘‘reclaim materials’’ in the 

market, a company would need to be an 

EPA-certified reclaimer; have reporting 

responsibility under EPA’s HAWK (HFC 

and ODS Allowance Tracking) 119

electronic reporting system; 

demonstrate analytical chemistry and 

blending capabilities; avoid engaging in 

transshipping or various import 

schemes; demonstrate chain of custody 

ability; have a fleet of refillable 

cylinders; and maintain a physical 

reclamation facility in the United States. 

The commenter asserted that a company 

should not be engaged in simply dropshipping refrigerants to actual EPAcertified reclaimers to control access to 

the market. Similarly, no company 

involved in market manipulation or 

illegal imports should be allowed to 

grow market share by forcing small 

reclaimers out of the market and 

purchasing their allowances. Given the 

increased emphasis the proposed rule 

places on the role of EPA-certified 

reclaimers, the commenter 

recommended that EPA develop 

enhanced requirements for reviewing 

the qualifications of certified reclaimers. 

The commenter noted that this process 

should also involve the inclusion of 

individuals on their hotline who are not 

reclaimers but are buying material. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment. EPA understands the term 

‘‘reclaim materials’’ to refer to recovered 

materials that are available to be 

reclaimed. The Agency appreciates 

these considerations, but notes that it is 

neither reopening nor modifying the 

criteria and qualifications for 

certification for reclaimers under 40 

CFR part 82, subpart F in this 

rulemaking. EPA has established 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for reclaimers under both 

the AIM Act and CAA section 608. In 

addition to these requirements, starting 

in 2024, EPA is requiring third-party 

auditing of EPA-certified reclaimers. 

Information related to the auditing of 

reclamation facilities can be found in 40 

CFR 84.33. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that EPA consider a 

mechanism that would allow 

negotiations between entities to fulfill 

reclaim requirements. The commenter 

stated that, for example, allowance 

holders of refrigerants, who may not 

want to manage reclaim operations or 

purchase reclaimed gas directly, could 

negotiate with another entity to take on 

CO2 equivalent reclaim obligations, 

allowing smaller entities to participate 

in the reclaim program without 

significant investments in infrastructure 

or expertise. The commenter claimed 

that this would make the reclaim 

program more accessible and flexible for 

smaller allowance holders, promoting 

broader participation. 

Response: EPA responds that EPA is 

not implementing a reclaim program 

based on CO2 equivalency at this time. 

EPA notes that the established 

requirements in this rulemaking may 

result in some allowance holders 

purchasing reclaimed HFC refrigerants 

to service or repair their equipment in 

the covered RACHP subsectors; 

however, EPA does intend for all of 

these allowance holders to manage their 

own reclamation operations. 

Reclaimers, who in some cases are also 

allowance holders, are certified under 

40 CFR 82.164. If an allowance holder 

who is not already a certified reclaimer 

wishes to manage their own reclamation 

operations, they would need to be 

approved by EPA to become a certified 

reclaimer. 

The Agency understands the 

availability of advanced reclamation 

technology and describes some of these 

considerations in section IV.E.1 of this 

preamble, related to the reclamation 

standard. As EPA understands, some 

reclaimers have access to more 

advanced separation technologies to 

reprocess materials to proper 

specifications. These advanced 

technologies can be useful for 

reclaiming more complex and multicomponent refrigerants blends. 

However, the Agency is establishing 

that reclaimed refrigerant may still 

contain an amount of virgin HFCs that 

may be necessary for reclaiming these 

blends. Further, the Agency is not 

establishing requirements for the initial 

fill of refrigerant-containing equipment 

with reclaimed HFCs in RACHP 

subsectors, including those where 

newer blends of refrigerants that are 

compliant with the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule would be used in new 

equipment. By limiting requirements for 

reclaimed HFCs to servicing and/or 

repair, EPA is focusing on existing 

equipment where more common HFCs 

and HFC blends have been used for 

years and are currently being reclaimed. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that EPA put a per-pound 

deposit on regulated refrigerants that 

would be refunded when the substance 

is recycled. The commenter noted a 

potential downside due to the creation 

of a market for stolen refrigerant but 

noted that recordkeeping requirements 

would deter theft. The commenter 

suggested a balance between a price that 

could encourage recycling but not 

encourage theft and claimed that the 

cost would also support leak reduction 

measures. The commenter also 

recommended monthly reporting of 

refrigerants given the importance of the 

issue but noted a negative impact on 

consumers as the cost of reporting 

increases. The commenter 

recommended relying on market forces 

where possible and providing rewards 

for compliance. 

Response: EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing a refrigerant deposit 

program. If in the future, the Agency 

were to consider such a program, the 

Agency would evaluate the potential 

drawbacks of implementing such a 

program (such as the potential for fraud 

and increased recordkeeping or 

reporting burden) that could outweigh 

potential benefits. EPA notes that the 

requirements in the rulemaking have 

been established considering market 

conditions and other analyses as 

described in the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD for this rule. 

Comment: Another commenter 

supported the provision in section 

84.104(a) to prevent resale of reclaimed 

refrigerant for any purpose besides 

reclamation and recommended that 

there be explicit enforcement 

mechanisms. The commenter requested 

that EPA provide clearer guidance for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82798 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

what enforcement would entail under 

this rulemaking. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment and notes that this provision 

is consistent with the statutory language 

in subsection (h)(2)(B) of the AIM Act, 

which provides that recovered regulated 

substances that are used as a refrigerant 

must be reclaimed before it is sold or 

transferred to a new owner, unless the 

recovered regulated substances are 

being sold or transferred to a new owner 

solely for the purposes of reclamation or 

destruction. As described above, under 

40 CFR part 82, subpart F, recovered 

refrigerant may be recycled and used for 

servicing or repair of the same appliance 

or another appliance of the same owner. 

EPA clarifies that this rulemaking does 

not prevent that practice. 

EPA notes that the provisions related 

to reclaimed refrigerant use for servicing 

and/or repair of certain equipment build 

on the established reclamation standard 

for limiting the virgin HFC content in 

reclaimed refrigerant to 15 percent, by 

weight. This requirement, as described 

in section IV.E.1 includes labeling, 

recordkeeping, and certification 

requirements to ensure reclaimed 

refrigerants are meeting the established 

standard. Certification must be provided 

to the purchaser of the reclaimed 

refrigerants to verify that the product 

does not exceed the limit on virgin 

HFCs. Thus, the purchaser can ensure 

that reclaimed HFCs are appropriately 

used to service or repair equipment in 

the covered subsectors of this 

rulemaking. Enforcement action may be 

taken where virgin HFC refrigerant is 

used for servicing or repairing 

equipment in the covered subsectors, 

where containers of refrigerant do not 

have the proper labeling for reclaimed 

refrigerants and records/certifications 

can be checked. Specific requests about 

what more information is being asked 

for has not been described by the 

commenter, and the Agency may 

consider issuing additional guidance in 

the future. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed rule does not 

allow sufficient flexibility to spread 

reclaimed refrigerants across the entire 

market, allowing for potential 

circumvention in the aftermarket space. 

The commenter requested that EPA 

tailor reclaim requirements for sectors 

and end users to create a more flexible, 

practical, and achievable program. The 

commenter stated that reclaiming many 

newer refrigerants with HFO 

components is currently impractical and 

that EPA should proceed on a CO2e net 

basis to allow producers to provide 

more virgin lower-GWP substances and 

offset them with higher-GWP 

substances, in order to ensure both the 

transition to low-GWP alternatives and 

continued reclaim activity and to 

encourage the responsible transition to 

low-GWP refrigerants without hindering 

the overall effectiveness of the reclaim 

program, with requirements 

implemented at the producer or 

importer level to streamline AIM Act 

reporting. 

The commenter further stated that 

companies should be encouraged to 

recover low-GWP refrigerants by 

receiving GWP credit towards 

compliance requirements, incentivizing 

low-GWP recovery. The commenter 

requested that EPA allow companies to 

voluntarily reclaim and place on the 

market refrigerants exceeding the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule thresholds 

beyond their percentage reclaim 

requirements and receive GWP credits. 

The commenter claimed that these two 

measures would encourage a consistent 

culture of refrigerant management 

across the industry, reward companies 

for reclaiming, and pave the way for 

future regulations. The commenter 

additionally proposed that EPA 

consider requiring that businesses or 

persons offering refrigerant for sale or 

distribution for service must receive 

recovered refrigerant for reclaim in a 

ratio determined and updated by the 

Administrator, preferably based on CO2

equivalents. The commenter stated that, 

if implemented at the wholesaler/ 

distributor level, this could be audited 

using the proposed container tracking 

system. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s interest in flexibility and 

in spreading the requirements to service 

and/or repair refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs across 

additional subsectors as well as their 

concerns for reclaiming blends with 

HFOs. As described above in section 

IV.E.1 of this preamble, EPA is 

establishing a limit of 15 percent, by 

weight, virgin HFCs in reclaimed HFC 

refrigerants. Further, EPA notes that it is 

not establishing a limit on the amount 

of virgin HFC substitutes that can be 

used in a reclaimed refrigerant blend 

and is thus not requiring reclamation of 

HFC substitutes. However, EPA 

recognizes that for HFC/HFO blends the 

commenter is likely referring to 

concerns with patents, licensing 

arrangements, and other business 

practices that may limit who can 

reclaim certain newer refrigerants. As 

discussed in a previous response in this 

section, the Agency is aware of these 

practices. However, the Agency has 

considered these concerns and made 

modifications to what it is finalizing in 

this rule that are intended to address 

these concerns with respect to 

provisions finalized in this rule. For 

example, EPA delayed the compliance 

date, which will allow regulated entities 

additional time to prepare to comply 

with the rule. Further, EPA is finalizing 

the requirement for servicing and/or 

repair with reclaimed HFCs for 

refrigerant-containing equipment in 

only three RACHP subsectors; EPA is 

not finalizing requirements for the 

initial fill of refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs or the 

proposed requirement for the servicing 

and/or repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment in the stand-alone 

refrigeration subsector at this time. 

Existing equipment in the majority of 

cases currently uses HFCs or HFC 

blends that are common and are 

currently being reclaimed. 

The Agency did not propose and is 

not finalizing a crediting system. 

Moreover, the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule sets GWP limits for 

certain new equipment and not for 

existing equipment where this rule will 

establish requirements for reclaimed 

HFCs. EPA did not reopen the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule in this 

rulemaking and is not making any 

changes to its requirements in this rule. 

EPA further notes that these 

requirements are not optional, and the 

Agency is not establishing a credit 

system that could be related to 

exceeding the requirements in those 

regulations. The Agency is requiring the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs in certain RACHP subsectors in 

the ER&R regulations established in this 

rulemaking. Moreover, EPA anticipates 

that there will be reclaimed refrigerant 

to meet demand for refrigerant servicing 

in the affected subsectors consistent 

with the compliance date, which may 

prevent the early retirement of existing 

equipment. 

The Agency did not propose and is 

not finalizing refrigerant reclaim 

requirements on a CO2e net basis. EPA 

acknowledges the comment on the use 

of a tracking system and notes that the 

Agency is not finalizing the proposed 

tracking system at this time. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the supply of virgin refrigerants is far 

more plentiful than anticipated in 2021. 

The commenter stated that there seems 

to have been significant stockpiling, 

some amount of illegal imports, and 

significant growth in the import of 

products containing HFCs, with the 

value of imported air conditioning 

systems from Mexico increasing by 

approximately 50 percent from 2020 to 

2022. The commenter noted that the 

allowance for Mexican refrigerant 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82799 

120EPA understands these terms ‘‘initial 

installation,’’ ‘‘initial charge,’’ or ‘‘initial fill’’ to be 

synonymous when discussing fire suppression 

equipment to done with recycled HFCs. 

121On board aerospace fire suppression is defined 

at 40 CFR 84.3. 

122These industry standards may include NFPA 

2001 (Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing 

Systems), NFPA 10 (Standard for Portable Fire 

Extinguishers), ASTM D6064–11 (Standard 

Specification for HFC–227ea), ASTM D6231/ 

D6231M–21 (Standard Specification for HFC–125), 

ASTM D6541–21 (Standard Specification for HFC– 

236fa), and ASTM D6126/D6126M–21 (Standard 

Specification for HFC–23). 

123National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 

Today, May 6, 2022, https://www.nfpa.org/Newsand-Research/Publications-and-media/BlogsLanding-Page/NFPA-Today/Blog-Posts/2022/05/06/ 

Clean-Agent-System-Basics. 

extends to R–410A containing 

condensing units, which may currently 

be imported with no restriction other 

than a label for service consistent with 

the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule. 

The commenter stated that EPA could 

increase demand for reclaimed 

refrigerant by addressing this issue 

under the Technology Transitions 

Program. The commenter claimed that 

without these changes, it is unlikely that 

a transition away from R–410A will 

occur fully in the United States until 

2034 when both countries are impacted 

by their phasedown schedules. The 

commenter also claimed that there will 

not be any significant demand for 

reclaimed refrigerant because of this 

legal allowance of imported products 

containing HFCs. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments and concerns related to 

demand for reclaimed refrigerant due to 

the factors mentioned. EPA notes that 

this comment is out of scope for this 

rulemaking. 

F. How is EPA establishing an HFC 

emissions reduction program for the fire 

suppression sector? 

HFCs and substitutes for HFCs are 

used in many different sectors, 

subsectors, and applications beyond 

those in the RACHP sector, and EPA 

interprets its authority under subsection 

(h) to include promulgating regulations 

that control the types of practices, 

processes, or activities identified in 

subsection (h)(1) in those sectors, 

subsectors, and applications, with the 

limitation that the Agency does not 

interpret its regulatory authority under 

subsection (h) to extend to HFCs or 

substitutes for HFCs when they are 

contained in foams. 

HFCs are also used in the fire 

suppression sector. EPA is establishing 

certain requirements to address HFC 

management for fire suppression under 

subsection (h), further described in 

section IV.F.2 of this preamble. EPA 

proposed and is finalizing requirements 

for the initial installation 120 and 

servicing and/or repair of fire 

suppression equipment to be done with 

recycled HFCs as well as requirements 

for minimizing HFC releases during the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment; technician training; 

recycling of HFCs prior to the disposal 

of fire suppression equipment 

containing HFCs; and recordkeeping 

and reporting. EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2026, for 

the following fire suppression 

requirements: (1) Minimizing HFC 

releases during the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of fire 

suppression equipment; (2) the 

servicing and/or repair of fire 

suppression equipment to be done with 

recycled HFCs; (3) technician training; 

(4) recycling of HFCs prior to the 

disposal of fire suppression equipment 

containing HFCs; and (5) recordkeeping 

and reporting. EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2030, for 

the requirement for the initial 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment to be done with recycled 

HFCs. 

EPA notes that the finalized definition 

of ‘‘fire suppression equipment’’ for 

purposes of subsection (h) excludes 

military equipment used in deployable 

and expeditionary applications, as well 

as space vehicles. Those applications 

are exempt from the requirements to use 

recycled HFCs in the installation, 

servicing, and/or repair of such fire 

suppression equipment. This exclusion 

is based on EPA’s understanding that 

there are situations in which the unique 

design and use of such military 

equipment and space vehicles make it 

impossible to recover fire suppression 

agents during the service, repair, 

disposal, or installation of the 

equipment. They are also exempt from 

the requirement to use recycled HFCs 

for the initial installation of equipment 

and for the servicing and/or repair of 

equipment. 

Application-specific HFC allowances 

are available to mission-critical military 

end uses as well as on board aerospace 

fire suppression 121 applications under 

regulations at 40 CFR 84.13. EPA is not 

extending the requirement to use 

recycled HFCs in the installation, 

servicing, and/or repair of such fire 

suppression equipment provided that 

they meet the requirements for 

application-specific allowances in 40 

CFR 84.13. As long as they meet the 

requirements for application-specific 

allowances, these applications are also 

exempt from the requirement to use 

recycled HFCs for the initial installation 

of equipment and for the servicing and/ 

or repair of equipment. 

1. Nomenclature Used in This Section 

This section uses the term ‘‘recycled’’ 

or ‘‘recycling’’ to describe the testing 

and/or reprocessing of HFCs used in the 

fire suppression sector to certain purity 

standards.122 HFCs that are recycled for 

fire suppression use include HFC– 

227ea, HFC–125, HFC–236fa, and HFC– 

23. The term ‘‘recycled’’ or ‘‘recycling’’ 

as used in the fire suppression sector is 

similar, but not identical, to the term 

‘‘reclaim’’ as defined under the AIM 

Act. Under the AIM Act, the terms 

‘‘reclaim; reclamation’’ are defined in 

subsection (b)(9) of the Act, and that 

definition refers to the purity standards 

under AHRI Standard 700–2016 (or an 

appropriate successor standard adopted 

by the Administrator) and the 

verification of purity using, at a 

minimum, the analytical methodology 

described in that standard. 

The fire suppression industry 

describes clean agent as ‘‘a gaseous fire 

suppressant that is electrically 

nonconducting and that does not leave 

a residue upon evaporation,’’ and the 

term ‘‘clean agents’’ includes HFCs, 

according to the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA).123 For 

the purposes of this section, EPA is 

generally referring to the term ‘‘clean 

agents’’ as HFCs. While the term ‘‘fire 

suppressants’’ may have a broader 

meaning, including non-gaseous agents 

for example, EPA generally views the 

terms ‘‘fire suppressants’’ and ‘‘fire 

suppression agents’’ as interchangeable 

for the purposes of this section. 

2. Emissions Reduction in the Fire 

Suppression Sector 

As part of implementing subsection 

(h)(1), EPA is finalizing a number of 

requirements to minimize releases of 

HFCs during the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of fire 

suppression equipment containing 

HFCs or during the use of such 

equipment for fire suppression 

technician training. These requirements 

are similar to the halon emissions 

reduction requirements found at 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart H. The fact that 

recycled halons have been the only 

supply of halons in the United States 30 

years after its production and 

consumption phaseout in 1994 

demonstrates the important role 

recovery and recycling of clean agents 

from fire suppression equipment can 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82800 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

124NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire 

Extinguishing Systems. Available at: https://

www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-2001- 

standard-development/2001. 

125NFPA 10 Standard for Portable Fire 

Extinguishers. Available at: https://www.nfpa.org/ 

codes-and-standards/nfpa-10-standarddevelopment/10. 

play by providing an ongoing supply 

where substitutes may not be suitable. 

As discussed in the proposal, EPA 

understands that this model has carried 

over on a voluntary basis to the 

management of HFCs by many in the 

fire suppression sector. 

a. Minimizing Releases of HFCs 

To minimize releases of HFCs, EPA is 

requiring that covered entities 

installing, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of fire suppression equipment 

containing a regulated substance may 

not release into the environment, such 

as by intentional venting, any HFCs 

used in such equipment. EPA is also 

requiring that owners and operators of 

fire suppression equipment containing 

HFCs not allow the release of HFCs as 

a result of failure to maintain such 

equipment. 

Recognizing the extensive 

requirements for testing (e.g., Federal 

Aviation Administration, United States 

Coast Guard, Department of Defense) 

associated with the approval for use of 

fire suppressants in certain applications, 

certain limited HFC releases for health, 

safety, environmental, and other 

considerations are exempted, including: 

• Releases during the testing of fire 

suppression equipment only if the 

following four criteria are met: (1) 

Equipment employing suitable 

alternative fire suppressants is not 

available, (2) release of fire suppressants 

is essential to demonstrate equipment 

functionality, (3) failure of the 

equipment would pose great risk to 

human safety or the environment, and 

(4) a simulant agent cannot be used in 

place of the regulated substance for 

testing purposes. 

• Releases associated with 

qualification and development testing 

during the design and development of 

equipment containing regulated 

substances only when (1) such tests are 

essential to demonstrate equipment 

functionality, and (2) a suitable 

simulant agent cannot be used in place 

of the regulated substance for testing 

purposes. 

In addition, these requirements to 

minimize HFC releases do not apply to 

emergency releases of HFCs for actual 

fire extinguishing, explosion inertion, or 

other emergency applications for which 

the equipment was designed. 

Below, EPA is responding to 

comments related to its approach and 

requirements to minimize releases of 

HFCs from the fire suppression sector. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for the requirements 

to reduce HFC emissions from the fire 

suppression sector. One of the 

commenters stated that the proposed 

requirements are akin to the 1998 halon 

emissions reduction requirements. The 

commenter stated that the fire 

suppression sector has developed 

several voluntary measures to decrease 

emissions, such as the voluntary code of 

practice (VCOP) and the voluntary 

recycling code of practice, and that 

these voluntary programs and the 

industry’s experience in recycling 

halons provide the infrastructure 

necessary for the success of the HFC 

recycling requirements in EPA’s 

proposal. The commenter also 

maintained that the required use of 

recycled HFCs is important in 

mitigating emissions and encouraging 

the use of other alternatives due to the 

high-GWP HFCs typically used in the 

fire suppression sector. Another 

commenter stated that the fire 

suppression industry fully supports 

EPA’s goals of minimizing emissions of 

HFCs and encouraging the recycling and 

reuse of HFCs. The commenter stated 

that as a companion to the VCOP, an 

HFC emissions estimating program 

(HEEP) was developed that collects data 

on sales of HFCs for recharge of fire 

protection equipment as a surrogate for 

emissions. The commenter stated that 

compiled data of estimated emissions of 

HFCs from fire protection equipment 

have been submitted to EPA and 

published each year since 2002. 

Another commenter generally supported 

exploring potential practices that can 

help expand HFC recycling and reduce 

GHG emissions, while expressing 

concern with whether there is a 

sufficient supply of recycled HFCs for 

use in fire suppression systems. 

A couple of commenters stated that 

the proposed requirements of 40 CFR 

84.110(a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) are similar 

to the halon emission reduction 

requirements found at 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart H. One of the commenters 

stated that the halon emission reduction 

requirements have proven to be effective 

and useful in the responsible 

management of fire suppressants and 

that these practices are commonplace in 

the fire protection industry and are 

incorporated into industry codes and 

standards. Another commenter 

commended EPA for basing the 

requirements for HFC management in 

fire suppression equipment on the halon 

emission reduction rule, as these 

practices are commonplace within the 

fire protection industry and 

incorporated into industry codes and 

standards. The commenter expressed 

support for the prohibition in 40 CFR 

84.110(a) against knowingly venting 

HFCs in the installation, servicing, 

repair, or disposal of fire suppression 

equipment. The commenter stated that 

the proposed exemptions for testing fire 

suppression equipment and 

qualification testing during system 

design and development are 

appropriate. The commenter also 

expressed support for the prohibition in 

section 84.110(b) against allowing 

release of HFCs as a result of failure to 

properly maintain equipment. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenters’ general support of the fire 

suppression requirements, and that the 

Agency considered the fire suppression 

industry’s past experience with recycled 

halons as well as their voluntary efforts 

with recycled HFCs to develop fire 

suppression requirements that 

complement current industry practices 

to minimize emissions of HFCs. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended a stricter set of terms and 

greater consistency in alignment 

between industry groups represented in 

subsection (h), including the fire 

suppression industry and the RACHP 

industry. The commenter expressed 

support for the proposal to align 

requirements for recyclers of fire 

suppression or refrigerant-based systems 

to meet the same rigid standards as 

EPA’s CAA section 608 certified 

reclaimer program. The commenter 

maintained that voluntary practices do 

not require the level of recycling, such 

as the need for reclaim, so recycled 

HFCs sourced from fire suppression 

applications ‘‘could act to undermine 

the integrity and quality of the 

refrigerant supply chain.’’ The 

commenter stated that the marketplace 

should be able to expect the same 

quality, rigor, and tracking as proposed 

for refrigerants in the rulemaking. 

Response: The Agency considers the 

fire suppression sector and the RACHP 

sector as distinct sectors with unique 

specifications and experiences; thus, the 

requirements established for each sector 

are tailored to that sector. EPA 

understands that entities in the U.S. fire 

suppression industry typically operate 

in accordance with requirements from 

NFPA 2001 124 or NFPA 10 125 or 

appropriate American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards 

to recover and recycle HFCs during 

servicing and/or repair of fire 

suppression equipment. None of these 

current industry standards or 

specifications related to HFCs used in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82801 

fire suppression contain specific 

requirements to minimize releases of 

HFCs, including during servicing or 

repair of the equipment. Therefore, and 

as noted by the commenter, efforts by 

the industry to minimize emissions of 

HFCs used in the fire suppression sector 

have to date been on a voluntary basis. 

For example, the VCOP includes as part 

of its emission reduction strategies 

during storage, handling, and transfer of 

HFCs to recover and recycle agents 

during servicing and to adopt 

maintenance practices that reduce 

leakage as much as is technically 

feasible. By adopting regulatory 

requirements informed by these current 

voluntary practices and relevant 

industry standards, this action will 

minimize emissions of HFCs more 

broadly within this sector of where 

HFCs are used, consistent with the 

purposes identified in subsection (h), 

and in a manner that maintains the 

integrity of recycled HFCs from this 

source. 

b. Requirements for Initial Installation 

of Equipment for Fire Suppression 

EPA is requiring for the fire 

suppression sector where HFCs are 

used, that the initial installation of fire 

suppression equipment, including both 

total flooding systems and streaming 

applications, must be with recycled 

HFCs, starting on January 1, 2030. 

Specifically, for factory-charged 

equipment that uses HFCs, EPA is 

requiring that in order to install such 

equipment, the equipment is required to 

use recycled HFCs for the initial 

installation during the manufacture of 

the equipment. These requirements 

apply whether the HFCs are used neat 

or in a blend. 

However, EPA notes that most often, 

where fire suppression agents are 

needed and HFCs are being used, these 

are single component HFCs with some 

of the highest GWPs for the regulated 

HFCs. Given the high GWPs for the 

commonly used HFC fire suppression 

agents, this aspect of the action is 

anticipated to further minimize 

emissions by requiring that recycled 

HFCs be used for the initial installation 

of fire suppression equipment. 

Currently, recycled HFCs are 

primarily used for the servicing and 

recharge of existing fire suppression 

equipment. EPA understands that, in 

practice, recycled HFCs are required to 

meet applicable purity standards and 

function the same as their virgin 

counterparts when used in equipment 

in the fire suppression sector. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for EPA’s proposal to increase 

the use of reclaimed and recycled HFCs 

in new and existing HFC-containing fire 

suppression equipment. Some 

commenters expressed concern with the 

requirement to use recycled HFCs for 

the initial installation of fire 

suppression equipment. One of these 

commenters stated that the requirement 

to use recycled HFCs for the first fill of 

fire suppression equipment should not 

be included in the final rule. The 

commenter also stated that there is 

uncertainty in whether the supply of 

recycled HFCs will be adequate to serve 

new and existing equipment. The 

commenter questioned the 

appropriateness and necessity of the 

requirement to use recycled HFCs for 

the initial fill of fire suppression 

equipment. Additionally, the 

commenter stated that during meetings 

with EPA staff and in the public 

stakeholder meeting, no indication was 

given that initial fill of equipment 

would be regulated in this rule, as the 

commenter understood that the 

technology transition section of the AIM 

Act was the appropriate place for such 

proposed regulations. 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed requirement to use only 

recycled HFCs for the initial fill is not 

supported based on the historical 

success of halon recycling. The 

commenter stated that the current 

market for clean agent fire systems and 

the need for virgin HFCs are very 

different from the historical halon 

market. The commenter stated that they 

are a contributor to this success and 

suggested that EPA should not equate 

the current HFC market with that of 

halon given important differences 

between halons and HFCs and their use 

patterns. Specifically, the commenter 

stated that recycled halon has been 

made available for redeployment by a 

steady system of replacement with HFCs 

on a comparable performance basis, 

while current non-HFC replacement fire 

technologies provide many challenges 

to comparable replacement, extending 

the lifetime for HFC fire systems to 

remain in place, and reducing the 

availability of material to be recycled. 

The commenter also maintained that 

installed halon systems are significantly 

older than HFC systems, and that the 

accelerated changes in facilities and 

technologies being protected make 

many of these halon installations 

obsolete, providing sufficient stocks for 

recycling. The commenter provided an 

example that shipbreaking of aged 

vessels is a significant halon source for 

which there is no HFC equivalent. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

halon recovery and recycling is active 

and viable on a global basis and the 

United States receives significant 

quantities of halon from non-domestic 

sources, while non-domestic HFCs for 

recycling will require AIM Act 

allowances limiting their viability to 

relocate to the U.S. market, requiring a 

domestic bank of installed HFC to 

support requirements for both service 

and new systems. However, the 

commenter stated that most installed 

HFC fire systems are protecting viable 

ongoing facilities with no anticipated 

need to convert or retrofit to alternate 

technologies, reducing the available 

resource bank. 

Response: In response to the 

comment’s assertions that there was no 

notice in public meetings of an intent to 

cover initial fill or installation, EPA 

notes that the proposed rule provided 

notification of the Agency’s intention to 

include both initial installation and 

servicing requirements (88 FR 72216, 

October 19, 2023). EPA disagrees with 

the commenter’s assertion that it should 

not draw parallels between the 

experience with recycled halons and 

with recycled HFCs. There are 

numerous similarities between the use 

of halons and the use of HFCs for fire 

suppression. This includes the supply 

chain, the types of applications and 

equipment, and general industry 

practices. Recycled halon is still 

available today, 30 years after the 

United States phased out production 

and consumption of halons. It is this 

experience, since the phaseout of the 

halons in 1994, that demonstrates the 

important role recovery and recycling of 

fire suppression agents can play by 

providing an ongoing supply of HFCs in 

fire suppression applications especially 

where other substitutes may not be 

suitable. EPA understands that this 

model has carried over on a voluntary 

basis to the management of HFCs by 

many in the fire suppression sector. 

In response to the comments 

questioning the appropriateness and 

necessity of the requirement for initial 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment with recycled HFCs, EPA 

views the requirement to use of recycled 

HFCs for the initial installation of fire 

suppression equipment as part of its 

efforts to minimize emissions of HFCs 

from equipment, consistent with one of 

the purposes identified in the Act for 

regulations under subsection (h). EPA 

notes that most often, where fire 

suppression agents are needed and 

HFCs are being used, these are single 

component HFCs with some of the 

highest GWPs for the regulated HFCs. 

Given the high GWPs for the commonly 

used HFC fire suppression agents, this 

provision will further minimize 

emissions by requiring that only 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82802 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

recycled HFCs be used in fire 

suppression equipment as well as 

ensuring that HFCs have been recovered 

and recycled from the equipment prior 

to the final step of the disposal of the 

equipment so that HFCs are not released 

during the disposal of the equipment. 

EPA understands that, in practice, 

recycled HFCs are required to meet 

applicable purity standards and 

function the same as their virgin 

counterparts when used in equipment 

in the fire suppression sector. Currently, 

recycled HFCs are primarily used for the 

servicing and recharge of existing fire 

suppression equipment. Comments by 

Halon Alternatives Research 

Corporation (HARC) on the October 

2022 NODA indicate that it does not 

anticipate major barriers to using 

recycled HFCs in new fire suppression 

equipment. EPA understands while 

there may not be barriers to using 

recycled HFCs in new fire suppression 

equipment, commenters have stated that 

there may be uncertainty in the supply 

of recycled HFCs. EPA acknowledges 

the need for allowances to import 

recycled HFCs for fire suppression, 

however the Agency anticipate that as 

the HFC Phasedown progresses, HFCs 

no longer needed in larger uses such as 

refrigeration and air conditioning may 

become available for fire suppression 

applications. Informed by comments, 

EPA acknowledges that commenters 

expressed concerns regarding the 

supply of recycled HFCs and is 

extending the compliance dates for the 

use of recycled HFCs to ensure that the 

infrastructure and supply will be 

available for affected stakeholders to be 

able to comply with requirements, 

further described later in this section 

IV.F.2.b of this preamble. 

With regards to the sourcing of used 

HFCs, the comments concerning the 

need for allowances are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. In this section 

IV.F.2.b of the final rule, the comments 

regarding the RACA process, are also 

beyond the scope of this action and thus 

require no further response, as EPA has 

proposed no changes to the 

requirements of the RACA process. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

their support for the AIM Act was based 

on there being a phasedown of HFC 

production, not a complete phaseout. 

The commenter stated that EPA’s 

proposal is equivalent to an HFC 

phaseout for fire protection in the 

United States, stating that they did not 

believe that it was appropriate or 

necessary for EPA to regulate initial fill 

of fire suppression equipment in this 

rule. The commenter also stated that it 

would put HFCs domestically in a more 

restrictive position than halons and 

CFCs, as these chemicals can be 

imported without the expenditure of 

allowances. In addition, the commenter 

stated that due to the high-GWP nature 

of HFCs used for fire protection, the 

observed effect of the AIM Act has been 

to reduce the production and 

consumption of virgin HFCs in the 

sector, below the phasedown schedule, 

and that companies have obtained the 

required listings and approvals so that 

a transition to the use of recycled HFCs 

in new fire suppression systems is 

underway. The commenter expressed a 

view that they would expect this 

transition to occur naturally and expand 

as the phasedown proceeds and claimed 

that it was not environmentally justified 

to force this transition on the industry 

by regulation in what in their view is a 

short time frame. 

Another commenter asserted that the 

proposed requirements for use of 

recycled HFCs for initial fill and 

recharge, would, in effect, ban the 

production of fire suppression HFCs as 

of January 1, 2025, and it would mean 

there would be no commercial market 

for virgin fire suppression HFCs, since 

any use of the agents (other than in 

extremely limited essential uses) would 

be illegal. The commenter contended 

that the AIM Act implements the 

phasedown under the Kigali 

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol 

and does not authorize EPA to issue a 

rule that results in a total ban on the 

production and consumption of HFCs, 

including fire suppression HFCs, and 

therefore that the proposed rule is not 

authorized by the AIM Act. 

This commenter also stated that the 

proposed rule also violates the 

accelerated schedule provision of the 

AIM Act (42 U.S.C. 7675(f)). This 

commenter maintained that the 

proposed fire suppression requirements 

would result in a total ban on the 

production and consumption of virgin 

fire suppression HFCs as of January 1, 

2025, which would be more stringent 

than the phasedown schedule under 

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

Thus, they asserted that establishing an 

effective total ban on the production 

and consumption of virgin fire 

suppression HFCs as of that date would 

require rulemaking following receipt of 

a petition as specified in subsection (f) 

of the AIM Act. The commenter also 

stated that the proposed requirement to 

use only recycled HFCs for initial fill is 

not supported based on the historical 

success of halon recycling, due to 

important differences between halons 

and HFCs and their use patterns. For 

example, the commenter stated that an 

important difference between HFCs and 

halons is their relative firefighting 

effectiveness. The commenter stated 

that halons, bearing no blanket import 

restrictions, were successfully funneled 

into reuse under a production phaseout 

due to halon’s uniquely effective fire 

extinguishing properties. The 

commenter further stated that market 

forces in critical applications like 

aerospace consistently supported a 

recycle market, maintaining sufficient 

value to drive recycling activity. The 

commenter maintained that HFCs do 

not have the same level of market pull 

to support recycling activity in a market 

that immediately accelerates the sunset 

of virgin material for initial fill versus 

the anticipated phasedown schedule 

supported by the AIM Act framework 

rule. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that finalizing 

these requirements under subsection (h) 

regarding recycled fire suppression 

agents is a phaseout of HFCs or an 

acceleration of the phasedown under 

subsection (f) of the AIM Act. EPA 

further disagrees with the commenters’ 

conclusion that these requirements are 

not authorized under the AIM Act. 

While the AIM Act includes 

provisions related to the phasedown of 

production and consumption of HFCs, 

including the provisions in subsections 

(e) and (f) of the Act, it also includes 

separate and additional regulatory 

authorities, such as those in subsection 

(h) of the Act. As explained in detail 

throughout, this rule is promulgated 

under subsection (h) of the AIM Act, not 

subsections (e) or (f). Subsection (h) 

uses different language from subsections 

(e) and (f), and it is framed differently. 

EPA interprets Congress’ direction 

under these subsections as different and 

as providing distinct authorities that are 

tailored to the respective areas of focus 

of these subsections, so that EPA can 

establish regulatory regimes that 

effectively achieve each subsection’s 

purposes. For example, subsection 

(e)(1)(A) directs EPA to establish 

production and consumption baselines 

‘‘for all regulated substances in the 

United States,’’ and subsection (e)(2)(B) 

describes the methodology for 

determining the quantity of regulated 

substances that may be ‘‘produced or 

consumed in the United States’’ in a 

particular calendar year by multiplying 

the percentage listed for that year in 

subsection (e)(2)(C) by the production or 

consumption baseline. EPA’s 

implementing regulations for these 

provisions establish limits on the 

‘‘[t]otal production and consumption of 

regulated substances in the United 

States in each year’’ (40 CFR 84.7) that 

apply to HFC production and 

consumption in the United States on an 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82803 

126As this rule does not prohibit any production 

or consumption of HFCs, EPA need not and is not 

further addressing the comment’s assertion that the 

AIM Act does not authorize EPA to issue a rule that 

results in a total ban on the production and 

consumption of HFCs, including fire suppression 

HFCs. 

economy-wide basis. Subsection (f) 

addresses the EPA Administrator’s 

authority to ‘‘promulgate regulations 

that establish a schedule for phasing 

down the production or consumption of 

regulated substances that is more 

stringent than the production and 

consumption levels of regulated 

substances required under subsection 

(e)(2)(C)’’ and the requirements for such 

regulations. The comment does not 

provide any data or analysis that 

indicates that the requirements to use 

recycled fire suppression agents in this 

rule would alter the phase down 

schedule established under subsection 

(e)(2)(C). EPA codified numeric levels of 

permissible production and 

consumption in 40 CFR 84.7(b)(3), Table 

2. EPA did not propose and is not taking 

any action in this rulemaking that 

would change the economy-wide 

phasedown schedule established in 

subsection (e)(2)(C) or the numeric 

levels of permissible production and 

consumption codified in 40 CFR 

84.7(b).126 The production and 

consumption phasedown is 

implemented on an exchange valueweighted basis (rather than establishing 

caps for particular HFCs), and this rule 

does not alter the amount of HFC 

production and consumption allowed in 

any year on an exchange value-weighted 

basis, nor does it alter the number of 

allowances that EPA will allocate in a 

future year. Further, it does not prohibit 

any production or import of any HFC. 

HFCs affected by the rule’s requirements 

to use recycled fire suppression agent 

are not exclusively used for fire 

suppression. 

In contrast to the focus on the 

phasedown of production and 

consumption in subsections (e) and (f), 

subsection (h) is targeted at management 

of regulated substances. As relevant 

here, subsection (h)(1) directs EPA to 

‘‘promulgate regulations to control, 

where appropriate, any practice, 

process, or activity regarding the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment’’ that involves 

a regulated substance, for purposes that 

include minimizing releases of HFCs 

from equipment. This final action is an 

appropriate use of EPA’s authority 

under subsection (h), as requiring the 

servicing, repair, and installation of fire 

suppression equipment with recycled 

HFCs at a set date in the future is 

exactly the type of activity that the AIM 

Act envisions in subsection (h) since the 

requirements are controlling practices, 

processes, and activities regarding the 

servicing, repair, disposal, and 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment that involves a regulated 

substance. 

To the extent these commenters 

contend that these requirements would 

in effect ban the production or 

consumption of fire suppression HFCs, 

that is a mischaracterization of the 

requirements of the rule. These 

requirements involve the practice or 

activity of using recycled HFCs to 

service, repair, and install fire 

suppression equipment, with different 

compliance dates for existing and new 

equipment, and thus also control the 

practice or activity of using of virgin 

HFCs during these activities in fire 

suppression equipment. However, even 

if the requirements result in virgin HFCs 

no longer being used to service, repair, 

and install fire suppression equipment, 

that is not a ban on production or 

consumption of HFCs, as those are 

distinctly defined terms under the AIM 

Act. Requiring this practice or activity is 

appropriate under subsection (h). There 

is availability of recovered and 

reprocessed HFCs that can be used for 

this purpose. While opposing the time 

frame of the proposed rule, one 

commenter indicated that the transition 

to recycled HFCs in fire suppression is 

underway and would expand as the 

phasedown proceeds. Further, this 

provision will foster additional 

recycling of these HFCs and thus fewer 

emissions of HFCs from this equipment, 

consistent with the purposes identified 

in subsection (h). 

EPA acknowledges that while there 

are numerous similarities, there may be 

certain market and efficacy differences 

between halons and HFCs, such as 

halons not requiring expenditure of 

allowances as described earlier in this 

section. Since 1994, with the phaseout 

of the production and consumption of 

halons, recycled halons have been 

available and are still available today, 

which demonstrates the important role 

recovery and recycling of fire 

suppression agents can play by 

providing an ongoing supply of HFCs in 

fire suppression applications, especially 

where substitutes may not be suitable. 

As discussed in the proposal, EPA 

understands that this model has already 

been carried over on a voluntary basis 

to the management of HFCs by many in 

the fire suppression sector. In 2002, the 

fire suppression industry developed a 

VCOP for the reduction of emissions of 

fire suppression agents including HFCs. 

The VCOP was developed by HARC, an 

industry organization, in partnership 

with EPA, the Fire Suppression Systems 

Association (FSSA), the Fire Equipment 

Manufacturers Association (FEMA), and 

the National Association of Fire 

Equipment Distributors (NAFED). Many 

of the practices have already been 

voluntarily adopted by the fire 

suppression sector, such as equipment 

manufacturers or distributors. In EPA’s 

view, the fire suppression requirements 

will benefit from and bolster these 

efforts. While EPA notes that the 

commenter did not think HFC 

extinguishants would have the same 

market demand that supports halon 

recycling, the Agency views VCOP as an 

example of this industry already 

significantly supporting HFC recycling 

and reuse of fire suppression agents and 

understands that with the extended 

compliance dates, it would provide the 

market time to adjust. EPA 

acknowledges that HFCs are not used in 

all of the same applications as halons 

for various reasons and for the near term 

those applications will continue to rely 

on the over 30-year practice of recycling 

and reusing halons. EPA considers the 

longstanding and highly successful use 

of recycled halons for both installation 

and servicing of fire suppression 

equipment in the United States to be a 

premier example of the effectiveness of 

relying on recycling. 

The Agency responds to the 

comments regarding the compliance 

timelines to meet these requirements by 

noting that EPA is finalizing compliance 

dates for the initial installation with 

recycled HFCs (beginning January 1, 

2030) and for servicing and/or repair 

with recycled HFCs (beginning January 

1, 2026) of fire suppression equipment, 

as described in more detail in sections 

IV.F.2.b and IV.F.2.c of this preamble. 

Comment: One commenter mentioned 

that the final rule should preserve the 

ability to use substitutes for initial 

installation and servicing/repair of fire 

suppression equipment. The commenter 

stated that the proposed regulatory 

language could be read to suggest that 

only recycled regulated substances, and 

not their substitutes, could be used to 

fill and/or service fire suppression 

equipment. The commenter stated that 

this result was likely unintended 

because it overlooks the potential use of 

HFC substitutes in fire suppression 

equipment, which in some cases may be 

more environmentally friendly than 

recycled HFCs. The commenter 

requested that EPA amend 40 CFR 

84.110(c) to clarify that fire suppression 

equipment must be initially charged and 

serviced with recycled HFCs or 

allowable HFC substitutes, as such 

substitutes become available on the 

market. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82804 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

127See memo titled EPA Questions to FAA, 

which is available in the docket for this rulemaking, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606. 

Response: EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing requirements for the use 

of recycled HFC substitutes in fire 

suppression equipment at this time. 

EPA notes that nothing in this final rule 

impedes the use of fire suppression 

alternatives. EPA determined that it is 

prudent to limit the requirements to 

HFCs, noting that the consumption and 

production phasedown will create 

scarcity for certain HFCs and such 

demand should partly be addressed by 

the increased use of recycled HFCs. The 

Agency acknowledges the importance of 

HFC substitutes and encourages the 

development and deployment of HFC 

substitutes to the extent possible. EPA 

also recognizes that in the context of a 

phasedown, certain uses of HFCs will 

continue indefinitely. 

Comment: A commenter mentioned 

that because the Federal Aviation Act 

and controlling case law interpreting the 

Act reserve to the FAA primary 

jurisdiction over matters related to 

aircraft safety and operations, 

requirements related to passenger 

aircraft air conditioning and fire 

suppression equipment necessarily falls 

within the purview of FAA’s authority 

and therefore cannot be infringed upon 

by EPA. The commenter also states that 

more important than any jurisdictional 

considerations, any acknowledged 

threat to passenger safety is 

unacceptable as a regulatory 

requirement, and notes that a lack of 

meaningful coordination with the FAA 

could result in a failure to ensure that 

air safety is the top consideration when 

determining applicability of the 

proposed rule’s requirements to the 

commercial aviation sector. The 

commenter expressed support for EPA’s 

proposed exemption for onboard 

aerospace fire suppression systems from 

the requirement to use recycled HFCs 

and recommended that the exemption 

be expanded to hangar fire suppression 

systems. The commenter also requested 

the broadest application possible for 

this proposed exemption given the 

potentially lengthy process for FAA 

approval of such products and their 

potential to impact the safe operation of 

aircraft. 

The commenter stated that the 

proposed rule does not appear to 

contain a similar exemption from the 

requirement to use recycled HFCs for 

fire suppression systems in hangars. The 

commenter stated that hangar fire 

suppression systems are highly 

specialized, and mandating that new 

and existing hangar fire suppression 

systems use recycled HFCs could be 

incredibly costly for their members and 

potentially disruptive to safe and 

smooth commercial aviation operations. 

The commenter also stated that such a 

requirement for hangars must also go 

through the FAA consultation process to 

ensure that any final requirements that 

may apply to the commercial aviation 

sector and its ground facilities do not 

jeopardize safety or the smooth and 

efficient operation of the commercial 

aviation industry when planes are in the 

air and on the ground. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s broad assertions that EPA 

does not have authority to issue 

regulations pertaining to HFCs in 

aircraft and aircraft operations. While 

EPA agrees that the FAA has 

jurisdiction over matters related to 

aircraft safety and operations consistent 

with its Congressionally mandated 

authorities, under CAA title VI and the 

AIM Act, EPA has issued numerous 

regulations that concern the use of ODS 

and HFCs in many applications 

including onboard aviation and flight 

operations. With respect to this action, 

the AIM Act does not exclude aircraft or 

aircraft operations from the scope of 

implementing regulations. As noted 

previously in this notice, the inclusion 

in the statute at subsection (e)(4)(b)(iv) 

of ‘‘on board aerospace fire 

suppression,’’ which includes aircraft, 

indicates that Congress did not intend to 

exempt aircraft and aircraft operations 

from the AIM Act. In addition, the 

commenter does not address the 

provisions of subsection (h) itself. None 

of the text of subsection (h) indicates 

that Congress contemplated that these 

provisions would not apply to 

equipment used in commercial aviation. 

Congress expressly addressed 

inapplicability of regulations under (h) 

in subsection (h)(4), in which it 

provided that regulations under 

subsection (h) shall not apply to HFCs 

or their substitutes contained in foams. 

If Congress had intended to exclude 

equipment used in commercial aviation 

from regulations promulgated under 

subsection (h), it would be reasonable to 

expect that the statute would include 

similar language creating that exclusion. 

Although the commenter did not appear 

to base objections on the text of 

subsection (h), to the extent they 

intended to argue that this rulemaking 

exceeds EPA’s authority under that 

provision, EPA notes that it is 

establishing the subsection (h) 

requirements in this final rule to control 

practices, processes, or activities 

regarding the servicing, repair, disposal, 

or installation of equipment that 

involves a regulated substance or a 

substitute for a regulated substance and 

to serve the statutory purposes 

identified in subsection (h). Thus, this 

final rule is within the scope of EPA’s 

authority under subsection (h)(1), 

including as it pertains to equipment 

used in commercial aviation. Further, as 

discussed above, EPA is not extending 

the requirements for recycled HFCs 

under this rule to on board aerospace 

fire suppression applications, as listed 

at previously finalized EPA regulations 

at 40 CFR 84.13, for a year or years for 

which that application receives an 

application-specific allowance as 

defined at § 84.3. 

With regard to the commenters’ 

assertions that finalizing the proposed 

rule would conflict with the Federal 

Aviation Act’s statutory purpose and 

scheme and that this statute reserves to 

the FAA jurisdiction over matters 

related to aircraft safety and operations 

and broadly preempts the field of 

regulation with respect to commercial 

aviation, aircraft operations, and aircraft 

safety, EPA responds that the 

information presented in the comment 

letter does not indicate that EPA is 

generally precluded from including 

requirements related to the commercial 

aviation sector in this rulemaking. The 

comment cites and quotes cases that 

speak to the pervasive nature of Federal 

regulation in this area and address the 

preemption of State and local 

regulations. However, preemption of 

State and local laws is not relevant to 

EPA’s authority to establish regulations. 

In response to the commenter’s 

assertions that EPA did not consult with 

the FAA on these regulations, 

particularly for any fire suppression 

requirements that may apply to the 

commercial aviation sector, the Agency 

notes that it reached out to FAA on 

certain topics in developing the draft 

final rule prior to interagency review.127

Further, FAA and other Federal 

agencies had an opportunity to review 

a draft of the final rule during 

interagency review. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter that hangars or ground 

facilities are not subject to this rule and 

should be exempted. EPA is not 

requiring the initial installation or 

servicing and/or repair of fire 

suppression equipment with recycled 

HFCs in certain applications that 

receive application-specific allowances, 

including mission-critical military end 

uses and on board aerospace fire 

suppression. On board aerospace fire 

suppression is one of the six 

applications listed in the AIM Act that 

allows companies that use HFCs to 

receive application-specific allowances. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82805 

Specifically, as defined in EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

84.3, on board aerospace fire 

suppression means use of a regulated 

substance in fire suppression equipment 

used aboard commercial and general 

aviation aircraft, including commercialderivative aircraft for military use; 

rotorcraft; and space vehicles. Onboard 

commercial aviation fire suppression 

systems are installed throughout 

mainline and regional passenger and 

freighter aircraft, including engine 

nacelles, auxiliary power units, lavatory 

trash receptacles, baggage/crew 

compartments, and handheld 

extinguishers. As such, hangars or 

ground facilities do not fall under this 

purview. 

Comment: The Agency also received 

comments regarding the supply of 

recycled HFCs. One commenter stated 

that while they mentioned that there are 

no barriers to using recycled HFCs for 

initial fill, they provide no information 

that could be used to conclude that the 

supply of recycled HFCs is adequate to 

serve new and existing equipment. The 

commenter also stated that their 

concern is not currently when the 

supply of recycled HFCs may be high, 

but five to ten years in the future, when 

there may still be a significant installed 

base of HFC-containing equipment. 

Another commenter maintained that 

recycled HFCs have been used for years 

to recharge most fire systems in the 

event of discharge, and that historically 

the availability of recycled HFCs has 

balanced well with the nominal 

requirements for system service. The 

commenter stated that there are not 

sufficient recycled HFCs available to the 

market to confidently supply all 

domestic fire suppression needs for both 

service and new systems now and into 

the future. The commenter also stated 

that the lack of sufficient available fire 

suppressants to meet crucial fire 

suppression needs will put critical 

facilities, and the people who work in 

those facilities, at risk of harm from fire 

events and reduce market confidence in 

the use of fire suppression technologies 

for special hazard applications. The 

commenter also stated that the 

remaining need for HFCs in new 

systems in the United States is due to 

a lack of viable alternatives for meeting 

very challenging technical requirements 

for special hazard fire systems. The 

commenter maintained that 

implementing the rule as proposed will 

make providing effective fire 

suppression more difficult for these 

applications without providing a 

meaningful impact on emissions 

associated with the use of HFCs in fire 

suppression. 

Another commenter stated that while 

there is a robust recycling market in the 

fire suppression industry, there is 

concern that the availability of recycled 

HFCs would not always balance market 

demand under the proposed rule 

requirements. Instead, the commenter 

suggested that the availability of 

recycled HFCs would adjust to balance 

the required market needs given time 

under the current AIM Act rule 

structure. The commenter stated that the 

required use of recycled fire 

suppression agent would be 

unnecessary and counterproductive to 

the existing market-driven activities in 

the fire suppression industry. 

One of the commenters expressed 

concern over whether the proposed 

requirements would ensure that there is 

a sufficient supply of recycled HFCs 

available for use in fire suppression 

systems, especially for hangars. The 

commenter stated that if EPA intends 

for hangars to be covered by the 

proposed fire suppression system 

requirements, it is imperative that the 

requirements ensure that a sufficient 

supply of recycled HFCs would be 

available so that industry sectors would 

have a sufficient supply of necessary 

materials to ensure safe operations 

while also complying with any 

applicable regulatory requirements. 

Response: EPA acknowledges 

comments related to the supply of 

recycled HFCs to support the 

requirements for recycled HFCs in fire 

suppression equipment established in 

this rulemaking. EPA understands that 

the fire suppression industry has been 

generally using recycled HFCs for 

servicing (as shown in the HEEP data). 

EPA acknowledges that the 

phasedown of production and 

consumption of HFCs under the AIM 

Act and Kigali Amendment to the 

Montreal Protocol will have broader 

impacts on HFC use and transition to 

HFC substitutes. In the context of the 

HFC phasedown, not establishing 

requirements to limit the release of 

HFCs will create supply issues as the 

phasedown progresses. As addressed 

elsewhere in this preamble, this final 

rule is being promulgated under 

subsection (h). EPA acknowledges the 

comments regarding the current market 

structure of the fire suppression 

industry with respect to the use of 

recycled HFCs. EPA notes that the 

provisions established in this 

rulemaking are intended to support 

increased recycling and further bolster 

the supply of recycled HFCs. As the 

phasedown progresses, other sectors 

that use certain HFCs may reduce their 

use of certain HFCs or no longer use 

certain HFCs, which may be become 

available for use in the fire suppression 

sector. After further consideration, EPA 

agrees that additional time is warranted, 

this will enable the fire suppression 

sector to build up additional stock of 

recycled HFCs to meet demand for the 

installation, servicing, and/or repair of 

fire suppression equipment and to 

adjust any relevant existing contracts. 

The date for the requirement for the 

initial installation of fire suppression 

equipment with recycled HFCs is after 

the next major phasedown step of 

production and consumption of virgin 

HFCs under the AIM Act, when 

recycled HFCs will play an even greater 

role in supporting the servicing and 

repair of existing equipment. The 

commenters pointed to the need for 

additional time for the market to further 

adjust supply and demand for recycled 

fire suppression agents. Thus, EPA is 

finalizing later compliance dates than 

proposed for the initial installation and 

the servicing and/or repair of fire 

suppression equipment with recycled 

HFCs, as described in more detail in 

sections IV.F.2.b and IV.F.2.c of this 

preamble. The Agency is also finalizing 

differentiated dates for servicing and 

initial installation, with the date for 

servicing earlier than initial installation 

based on commenters’ information on 

current practices. 

Comment: One commenter stated the 

proposed requirement to only use 

recycled HFCs for initial fill will disrupt 

the current market-driven balance of 

recycled agent supply and demand, 

impacting the AIM Act’s important 

environmental goals. The commenter 

stated that the 2020 HEEP data show 

recycled HFCs currently support the 

preponderance of system service 

requirements (80 percent in 2020), 

providing a viable and responsible life 

cycle process and market-driven 

balance. The commenter claimed, 

however, that the proposal requiring the 

use of recycled HFCs for initial 

installation would have the effect of 

reinforcing the market perception that 

HFCs are being regulated out of 

existence. The commenter stated that 

the EU’s 2000 regulation devalued halon 

1301 and that the regulation correlated 

with the EU halon emissions. The 

commenter voiced concerns that the 

requirement to use only recycled HFCs 

for initial fill, by overriding current 

market forces, would have a similar 

effect of instigating a spike in emissions 

due to collapse of market confidence in 

HFCs. In such a market, the commenter 

maintained, where used HFC stocks are 

of low or negative value, owners and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82806 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

128Regulation (EU) 2024/590 of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 7 February 2024 

on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and 

repealing Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. Available 

at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ 

PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202400590. 

129The comment is not clear whether it intends 

to suggest that the commenter views these 

provisions as an overreach of EPA’s authority or 

rather is simply stating that there would be no need 

to overreach EPA’s authority in this context 

(without expressing any opinion as to whether the 

proposed provisions did so), the commenter fails to 

provide any reasoning or analysis that would 

support an argument that these provisions exceed 

EPA’s authority and does not provide any 

explanation for why it disagrees with the discussion 

of authority for these provisions that EPA provided 

in the proposal. Accordingly, even if the comment 

does intend to challenge EPA’s authority for the fire 

suppression provisions, those points are addressed 

by EPA’s discussion of its authority elsewhere in 

this section and no further response is needed. 

service entities could be negatively 

incentivized to release stocks of HFCs to 

the atmosphere in anticipation of 

further regulations or to avoid storing a 

valueless commodity. The commenter 

also stated that with the termination of 

production of a potential fire 

suppression agent (i.e., FK–5–1–12) 

from a manufacturer, there may likely 

be insufficient supply of a low-GWP 

alternative for HFCs, causing 

uncertainty about the long-term viability 

of fire suppression technologies. The 

commenter further stated that, as with 

the EU in 2000, they expected a rise in 

HFC emissions from the fire 

suppression sector if the requirement to 

use recycled HFCs for initial fill is 

promulgated. The commenter stated that 

the proposed rule, along with potential 

supply issues, would severely restrict 

market access to effective fire 

suppressants, further eroding customer 

confidence in clean agent protection 

and putting additional critical facilities 

and people at risk from a fire event. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assessment of the 

requirement for recycled HFCs in the 

fire suppression sector as disruptive or 

that it would be misinterpreted as 

regulating HFCs out of existence. The 

AIM Act directs EPA to implement an 

85 percent phasedown of the production 

and consumption of HFCs from baseline 

by 2036. This is a phasedown and not 

a phaseout. The Agency foresees 

continued production and consumption 

of HFCs beyond 2036, albeit limited so 

as to not exceed the very restrictive cap. 

While this final rule has the effect of 

restricting the use of virgin HFCs for 

particular practices, processes, and 

activities related to servicing, repair, 

and installation of particular equipment, 

those requirements do not apply to all 

applications in which HFCs are used, 

and they do not limit the use of recycled 

or reclaimed HFCs that meet the 

regulatory criteria. In fact, as discussed 

throughout this final rule, the Agency 

expects that virgin production and 

consumption consistent with 40 CFR 

part 84, subpart A will continue and 

anticipates continued use of both virgin 

and reclaimed or recycled HFCs. 

Consistent with subsection (h), in 

developing this rule, the Agency 

explored options that would serve the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1), 

including minimizing emissions of 

HFCs from equipment and maximizing 

reclamation where appropriate. The 

Agency considers fire suppression, with 

its long and successful history of using 

recycled HFCs, an appropriate 

application for this requirement. As the 

phasedown continues, the availability of 

virgin HFCs decreases while the market 

demand for recycled HFCs increases in 

the fire suppression sector; however, 

EPA anticipates there will be continued 

demand for and use of virgin HFCs for 

other applications for many years. 

Unlike halons, most of the HFCs used in 

fire suppression have other uses (e.g., 

HFC–227ea is used as a propellant for 

metered dose inhalers). Halons 

generally have only been used for fire 

suppression. Contrary to the comment, 

recent updates to the EU regulation 

2024/590 puts a high value on existing 

supply of halons by prohibiting the 

destruction of halons unless the purity 

of the recovered or recycled substance 

does not allow for reclamation and 

reuse.128 As market demand increases 

for recycled HFCs in the fire 

suppression sector, the value of the 

recycled HFCs should also increase and 

lead to more incentive to recover and 

recycle HFCs rather than releasing them. 

One commenter noted that the 

termination of a potential fire 

suppression agent (i.e., FK–5–1–12) 

production from a manufacturer would 

mean an insufficient supply of a lowGWP alternative for HFCs, causing 

uncertainty about the long-term viability 

of fire suppression technologies. EPA 

recognizes the loss of an alternative 

agent may limit one option, but with the 

limited use of FK–5–1–12 to date, the 

termination of this agent should not 

cause much disruption to the market as 

the search for suitable alternatives 

would continue in those applications. It 

is unclear that the end of production of 

one agent with current limited use 

would cause uncertainty with fire 

suppression technologies in general. 

One commenter stated that recycled 

HFCs support many service 

requirements, providing a viable and 

responsible life cycle process and 

market-driven balance. EPA views the 

requirements for recycled HFCs in fire 

suppression equipment as a bolster to 

this effort. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

requesting the export of fire suppression 

systems containing virgin HFCs. One 

commenter interpreted the phrase ‘‘that 

is installed in the United States’’ in 40 

CFR 84.110(c), to say that the 

requirement to use recycled HFCs for 

initial fill of fire suppression equipment 

does not pertain to equipment intended 

for export. The commenter stated that 

fire suppression equipment intended for 

export could continue to be installed 

with virgin HFCs and that the expended 

allowances would continue to be 

refunded under the RACA process. The 

commenter asked for confirmation on 

the interpretation in the final rule. 

Another commenter asserted that with 

the implementation of the AIM Act, the 

volume of HFCs placed in new fire 

systems in the United States has 

dramatically decreased. The commenter 

experienced more than 90 percent 

reduction in volume of HFCs in new 

systems, far exceeding the intent and 

goals of the AIM Act. The commenter 

further stated that the AIM Act has 

motivated fire system manufacturers to 

promote non-HFCs alternatives and 

initiate approvals for recycled HFC use 

in new fire systems. The commenter 

stated that there is no reasonable 

requirement for EPA to overreach its 

authority and require the use of recycled 

HFCs in the fire market, and that the 

market is responding and progressing in 

an accelerated manner without 

prescriptive forces. The commenter 

further stated if EPA believes it has the 

authority under the AIM Act and there 

is a need and benefit to requiring the 

use of recycled HFCs for fire 

suppression equipment, both new 

systems and service, in the United 

States, the export of fire systems 

containing virgin HFCs should continue 

to be allowed and qualify for the RACA 

process. The commenter stated that 

requiring U.S. fire system manufacturers 

to use only recycled agents for all global 

requirements would place them at a 

significant competitive disadvantage 

and appreciably reduce the available 

inventories of domestic recycled HFC 

fire extinguishing agents. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, EPA first notes that it views 

the requirement in this final rule for 

recycled HFCs for fire suppression 

equipment to align with the purpose of 

minimizing the release of HFCs from 

that equipment under subsection (h) 

and to be consistent with its authority 

under that provision, as discussed in 

detail elsewhere in this section.129 EPA 

notes that with certain limited 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82807 

exceptions discussed in section IV.F, 

fire suppression equipment installed in 

the United States will be required to 

meet the requirements the Agency is 

finalizing in this action. The comments 

regarding RACA are beyond the scope of 

this action and thus require no further 

response because EPA has proposed no 

changes to the RACA requirements of 

process. However, for purposes of 

providing information to regulated 

entities, EPA notes that whether fire 

suppression equipment may qualify for 

the RACA process depends on whether 

the equipment meets the definition of 

bulk in 40 CFR 84.3, which EPA is not 

reopening or revisiting through this 

rulemaking. For the purposes of 40 CFR 

part 84, subpart A, system cylinders, 

such as those used in total flooding 

systems are bulk substances and may be 

eligible for the RACA process. A 

portable fire extinguisher, in contrast, is 

not considered a bulk regulated 

substance because it contains a 

dispensing apparatus and may be used 

without transferring the contained 

regulated substance to another 

container. These portable fire 

extinguishers are products and are not 

eligible for the RACA process. 

Furthermore, RACAs are not limited to 

virgin HFCs—additional consumption 

allowances may be requested in general 

for verified exports of any bulk 

regulated substance. 

EPA proposed a compliance date of 

January 1, 2025, for the initial 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment with recycled HFCs, and also 

considered other potential compliance 

dates. In this final rule, the Agency sets 

a compliance date of January 1, 2030, 

for the initial installation of fire 

suppression equipment with recycled 

HFCs. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the compliance date of January 1, 2025, 

is feasible given the sector’s overall 

comparatively small volumes of 

material, as well as existing 

infrastructure and practices regarding 

the use of reclaimed material, which 

already makes up a significant 

percentage of overall volumes. A few 

commenters expressed concern 

regarding the January 1, 2025, start date 

for the requirement for the use of 

recycled HFCs for the initial installation 

of fire suppression equipment. 

One commenter stated that the time to 

implement the recycle requirement 

proposal is not sufficient for industry to 

adjust. The commenter stated that the 

proposed rule will likely leave stranded 

virgin HFCs already in the U.S. 

inventory, given the few alternative 

applications of fire suppression HFCs 

have for use in other market segments, 

and claimed that the timeframe would 

damage responsible manufacturers and 

shake industry confidence in clean 

agent fire protection technologies. The 

commenter stated that the short 

enaction timeframe would create 

significant delays, contract disputes, 

and costly modifications for projects 

currently in process, since new fire 

system requirements are mostly for 

newly constructed facilities, fire 

systems are often the last item to be 

installed before occupancy, and 

construction agreements are executed in 

advance of the delivery of the specified 

fire system, with many subcontractor 

agreements. The commenter mentioned 

that this too will further destabilize and 

reduce confidence in the overall fire 

system industry and stall the current 

market driven shift to recycled HFCs 

and alternative protection options. 

Additionally, the commenter 

maintained that the fire suppression 

industry operates under existing longterm contracts that require 

commitments of certain volumes using 

specific agents and asserted that the rule 

as proposed will cause problems and 

irreparable financial harm to business 

and users with these contractual 

obligations. The commenter stated that 

an alternative to the initial fill rule 

proposed, which is a ban on the import 

of virgin HFCs for use in domestic fire 

protection (except for the critical enduses) after a certain future date, could be 

considered. The commenter stated that 

this may help avoid the irreparable 

financial harm to entities that have, 

since September 23, 2021, acted in good 

faith under the framework rule. The 

commenter expressed concerns that the 

passage of the rule, with the recycled 

HFC initial fill requirement as proposed, 

will not reduce HFC emissions or 

improve the environmental impact of 

HFC fire systems to sufficiently offset 

the increased risk to property and 

people. 

The same commenter claimed that 

EPA’s 2025 enaction timeframe limits 

the ability to revise and adjust these 

agreements and would create confusion 

among entities who have entered into 

agreements in good faith under the AIM 

Act framework schedules and 

structures. The commenter stated that if 

EPA were to enact this requirement, 

they would recommend a start date of 

January 1, 2036, or after the AIM Act 

phasedown to 15 percent of baseline is 

complete, in order to allow equipment 

manufacturers to fulfill or modify 

existing contracts, and for potential lowGWP alternatives to be introduced in an 

orderly manner, supportive of the 

market balance the commenter 

maintains is necessary for a viable, longterm, recycled HFC market. The 

commenter stated that if EPA believes 

enactment of this rule is required, an inforce date, no sooner than a 2030 

through 2036 timeframe, must be 

considered to provide sufficient time to 

effectively prepare for such a ruling. 

Another commenter requested that 

EPA extend the date of implementation 

to January 1, 2027, to allow proper time 

for fire suppression equipment 

manufacturers to assess any safety 

concerns or unexpected impacts of 

transitioning to recycled substances and 

development of the reclaimed HFC 

supply. 

Another commenter stated that since 

the final rule will not be published until 

sometime in 2024, the industry would 

have less than a year to transition to 

using recycled HFCs for all first fills. 

The commenter stated that if EPA 

decides to maintain this requirement in 

the final rule, a start date of January 1, 

2030, would be more appropriate. The 

commenter stated that this would 

provide time for equipment 

manufacturers to fulfill or modify 

existing contracts that specify newly 

produced agent and find alternative 

avenues of supply. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposal provides a short window to 

perform the transition and, in their 

view, the most logical year would be to 

start the transition in 2029 when the 

next stepdown happens. The 

commenter stated that the fire 

suppression industry is project-based 

and often, projects are worked in phases 

over many years. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposal does not provide sufficient 

time for the commercial aviation sector 

to safely comply with the proposed fire 

suppression system requirements at 

ground facilities such as hangars. The 

commenter requested that EPA extend 

the applicable compliance deadlines for 

using recycled HFCs in fire suppression 

systems. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments both in support of and raising 

concerns with the timing of the 

requirements for recycled HFCs 

including sufficient availability of 

recycled HFCs for the initial installation 

of fire suppression equipment. EPA 

acknowledges the importance of the 

overall HFC phasedown and notes that 

comments on the phasedown’s 

structure, including a ban on the import 

of virgin HFCs for use in fire 

suppression and use of consumption 

allowances to import virgin HFCs, are 

beyond the scope of this action and 

require no further response. The Agency 

does not agree that the provisions as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82808 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

130HARC comments on Notice of Data 

Availability Relevant to Management of Regulated 

Substances under the American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 are available in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606) for this 

rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov. 

131HARC Report of the HFC Emissions Estimating 

Program (HEEP) 2002–2020 Data Collection, 

October 2022. 

proposed will result in irreparable 

financial harm, given the adjustment 

made in this final rule to extend the 

compliance date. As noted previously, 

reliance on recovered and reusable 

HFCs will be increasingly important. 

Informed by comments and after further 

evaluation, EPA is finalizing the 

compliance date for the initial 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment with recycled HFCs of 

January 1, 2030, five years later than 

proposed and after the next phasedown 

in 2029. This will provide any 

companies using virgin HFCs for this 

purpose more time to transition to 

recycled HFCs. It will also allow 

industry time to adjust any relevant 

existing contracts concerning supply of 

recycled HFCs and provide more time to 

alleviate concern about inadequate 

supply of recycled HFCs. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

also mentioned that potential cross 

contamination continues to be an issue 

for recycled halon and that the 

requirements in 40 CFR 84.110(c)(1) and 

(2) should support the avoidance of this 

issue for HFCs in the fire suppression 

sector. One of the commenters 

commended EPA for the requirements 

intended to prevent cross-contamination 

of recycled fire suppression agents 

during transfer, recovery, and storage, 

stating that the cross-contamination of 

recycled halon 1301 is an ongoing 

problem, and that these requirements 

would enhance ongoing industry efforts 

and keep it from becoming a significant 

issue for HFCs. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

comments that the requirements in 40 

CFR 84.110(c)(1) and (2) should help to 

address potential cross-contamination 

issues with HFCs used for fire 

suppression. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA’s proffered options for the use of 

recycled HFCs for initial fill still come 

with difficult challenges: how far out to 

extend the requirement to ensure 

sufficient available recycled material, 

and how to report and manage a 

variable percent recycled content 

requirement. The commenter stated that 

existing AIM Act structure already 

presents a challenge to the use of virgin 

HFCs in fire suppression due to their 

high-GWP allowance opportunity cost. 

The commenter stated that this intent of 

the AIM Act is motivating industry 

towards low/no GWP options where 

available, promoting the general use of 

recycled material when possible, but 

leaving the flexibility of new, virgin 

material for those applications requiring 

the performance and safety of an HFC 

fire suppression agent when low/no 

GWP options are suitable and recycled 

HFCs may be unavailable. The 

commenter suggested that this is the 

right way to manage the limited use of 

HFCs in fire suppression without 

putting critical facilities and people at 

risk of a fire. 

Response: As described in the 

proposal, EPA sought comments from 

stakeholders on options that would be 

viable. The commenter does not cite any 

provision in the AIM Act to support its 

assertion that the Act’s intent is to leave 

general flexibility to use new virgin 

material for fire suppression 

applications nor does it cite any 

information or data to support the 

implication that there are situations 

when performance and safety 

requirements would indicate use of an 

HFC fire suppressant but no low/no 

GWP options are suitable and recycled 

HFCs are unavailable. Thus, EPA cannot 

provide a more detailed response to 

these concerns. As explained in detail 

elsewhere in section IV.F.2.b of this 

preamble, the provisions finalized in 

this rule, including the requirements to 

use recycled HFCs in fire suppression 

equipment are consistent with EPA’s 

interpretation of its authority under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act and the 

direction in the statutory provision. 

Further, elsewhere in section IV.F.2.b of 

this preamble, EPA has made 

adjustments to the requirements in the 

final rule based on points raised in 

public comments by delaying the 

compliance dates to address possible 

concerns with the supply of recycle 

HFCs. To the extent this comment 

concerns aspects of the AIM Act or 

EPA’s implementing regulations beyond 

the proposed rule under subsection 

(h)—such as the allowances, the 

structure of the phasedown, and 

tradeable allowances—it is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. EPA has a 

long and successful history of working 

with the fire suppression industry to 

lead in the production phaseout of 

halons and transition to safe alternatives 

through testing and changes to industry 

standards. This has taken into 

consideration the needs and challenges 

in sectors such as the military, oil and 

gas, maritime, and aviation to protect 

critical facilities, equipment, and 

personnel. We look forward to managing 

the ER&R program in the same way. 

c. Requirements for Servicing and/or 

Repair of Existing Equipment for Fire 

Suppression 

EPA is requiring the servicing and/or 

repair of fire suppression equipment to 

be done with recycled HFCs, including 

both total flooding systems and 

streaming applications, starting on 

January 1, 2026. Covered entities are 

required to evacuate, as applicable, all 

equipment used to recover, store, and/ 

or transfer HFCs prior to each use to 

prevent contamination, arrange for 

destruction of the recovered HFCs as 

necessary (e.g., recovered HFCs that are 

too contaminated to be recycled), and 

collect and dispose of wastes from 

recycling process. If the recycling of 

HFCs is not practical, the disposal of 

HFCs will help to prevent releases of 

used HFCs into the atmosphere. 

In 2015, data on recycling of HFC fire 

suppression agents were collected as 

part of the HEEP, which is a voluntary 

data collection effort implemented by 

the fire suppression industry. HEEP 

collects data on sales of fire suppression 

agents for recharge in order to estimate 

annual emissions of HFCs. These data 

showed that the HFC–227ea, HFC–125, 

HFC–236fa and HFC–23 were all 

recycled for fire suppression use.130 In 

recent years, approximately 75 percent 

of HFCs sold for recharge came from 

recyclers, with 80 percent reported in 

2020, based on data submitted 

voluntarily to HEEP, which may not 

include all entities in this sector.131

As part of servicing and/or repairing 

fire suppression equipment, recovery 

and recycling equipment is used to 

recover HFCs. EPA is also requiring that 

covered entities must (1) operate and 

maintain recovery and recycling 

equipment in accordance with 

manufacturer specifications to ensure 

that the equipment performs as 

specified; (2) repair leaks in HFC 

storage, recovery, recycling, or charging 

equipment before use; and (3) ensure 

that cross-contamination does not occur 

through the mixing of HFCs that may be 

contained in similar cylinders. Recovery 

equipment collects HFCs from 

equipment, and recycling equipment, 

which is used during servicing and/or 

repair, removes contaminants from 

HFCs. By ensuring that this equipment 

is functioning properly, HFC releases 

can be minimized during the recovery 

and recycling process. The requirements 

finalized in this rule will ensure that 

releases from fire suppression 

equipment are minimized when 

recycling HFCs during servicing and/or 

repairing fire suppression equipment. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

there is no need to require the fire 

suppression industry to migrate to a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82809 

132These may include, but are not limited to, 

other EPA regulations, DOT regulations, 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) regulations, codes and standards of NFPA, 

and other federal, state, or local fire, building, 

safety, and environmental codes and standards. 

recycled agent for servicing existing 

systems. The commenter stated that 

most important, protected assets require 

quick servicing, often within 24 hours, 

in order to maintain their critical 

functions. The commenter stated that 

sometimes, to maintain critical function 

in a timely manner, newly made HFCs 

are more expedient. The commenter 

stated that the high value risk and 

critical function requirements of many 

protected facilities supports the 

continued availability of both options, 

virgin and recycled, to best manage risk 

for these facilities. 

Another commenter mentioned that 

the AIM Act has already effectively 

reduced the use of HFCs in new fire 

suppression systems beyond the 

statutory requirements of the Act, 

reinforcing the use of recycled HFCs for 

servicing existing systems. This 

comment is also covered in section 

IV.F.2.b of this final rule. 

As mentioned in section IV.F.2.b of 

this final rule, one commenter 

expressed support for EPA’s proposal to 

increase the use of reclaimed and 

recycled HFCs in new and existing HFCcontaining fire suppression equipment. 

Another commenter also expressed 

support for the proposal to require the 

use of recycled HFCs to service existing 

fire suppression equipment. The 

commenter stated that as the HEEP data 

show, recycled HFCs already provide 

the vast majority of agent used for 

servicing in the United States. The 

commenter suggested that the 

requirement to use recycled HFCs for 

servicing should begin on January 1, 

2028, in order to provide adequate time 

for any companies still using virgin 

HFCs for service to make the transition. 

Response: As the HEEP data show, 

recycled HFCs are already extensively 

being used for servicing. EPA 

understands this to be already industry 

practice used by most entities. EPA also 

appreciates the need for flexibility in 

supporting critical function of fire 

suppression equipment and in 

particular for high value equipment. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing a later 

compliance date than proposed for the 

use recycled HFCs in the service and/or 

repair of fire suppression equipment 

(i.e., January 1, 2026) to provide 

industry time to adjust to the changes, 

make any necessary infrastructure 

changes, and make any necessary 

changes to existing business contracts. 

This delay of the compliance date will 

enable the fire suppression industry to 

build up additional stock of recycled 

HFCs to meet demand for servicing and/ 

or repair of fire suppression equipment. 

While one commenter suggested a 

compliance date of 2028 for servicing, 

EPA concludes that an earlier 

compliance date than 2028 is reasonable 

for these requirements, given the use of 

recycled HFCs is already common 

practice in the fire suppression industry 

for this application. 

Comment: As covered in section 

IV.F.2.b of this final rule, one 

commenter mentioned that the final rule 

should preserve the ability to use 

substitutes for initial installation and 

servicing/repair of fire suppression 

equipment. 

Response: As covered in section 

IV.F.2.b of this final rule, EPA 

acknowledges the comment. As 

responded to in section IV.F.2.b of this 

final rule, nothing in this final rule 

impedes the use of fire suppression 

alternatives. 

d. Fire Suppression Technician Training 

Starting as of January 1, 2026, EPA is 

requiring that all entities that employ 

fire suppression technicians who 

maintain, service, repair, install, or 

dispose of fire suppression equipment 

containing HFCs must provide training 

(as described in this section) and ensure 

that their fire suppression technicians 

complete this training. Fire suppression 

technicians must be trained by June 1, 

2026. Fire suppression technicians 

hired after January 1, 2026, must be 

similarly trained within 30 days of 

hiring, or by June 1, 2026, whichever is 

later. EPA considers this a one-time 

training requirement. This requirement 

is intended to control practices, 

processes, or activities regarding 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of such fire suppression 

equipment by providing fire 

suppression technicians with 

knowledge and skills to minimize 

releases of HFCs during such practices, 

processes, or activities, and the 

requirements involve a regulated 

substance. Fire suppression technicians 

are an important part in any effort to 

control unnecessary HFC emissions 

from fire suppression equipment while 

servicing, repairing, installing, or 

disposing of such equipment. By 

training fire suppression technicians in 

the significance of minimizing 

unnecessary HFC releases from fire 

suppression equipment and providing 

information on applicable procedures 

such as the recovery and recycling or 

reclamation of HFCs from the fire 

suppression equipment, technician 

training supports EPA’s effort to reduce 

HFC emissions from fire suppression 

equipment. 

The HFC fire suppression technician 

training must be designed to include: (1) 

An explanation of the purpose of the 

training requirement, including the 

significance of minimizing releases of 

HFCs and ensuring technician safety; (2) 

an overview of HFCs and environmental 

concerns with HFCs including 

discussion of other Federal, State, local, 

or Tribal fire, building, safety, and 

environmental codes and standards; (3) 

a review of relevant regulations 

concerning HFCs,132 including the 

requirements of this section that apply 

with respect to fire suppression 

equipment; and (4) specific technical 

instruction relevant to avoiding 

unnecessary HFC emissions during the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed their support for EPA’s 

proposed training requirement for fire 

suppression technicians. One of the 

commenters expressed support for the 

proposed training requirements for this 

sector to ensure higher rates of recovery 

and recycling of HFCs. The commenter 

stated that the proposed training 

requirements will be highly valuable to 

the fire suppression sector which has 

technicians skilled in the recovery and 

recycling of HFCs. Another commenter 

supported enhanced training for fire 

suppression technicians to facilitate the 

implementation of the fire protection 

requirements. 

One commenter requested that EPA 

develop course content of the required 

training and make it available to the 

regulated community. The commenter 

stated that this would ensure consistent 

course content across the country and 

be far more cost-effective then having 

every regulated facility generate training 

for the technicians that service their 

regulated fire suppression systems. 

Response: EPA acknowledges 

commenters’ support of the training 

requirement for fire suppression 

technicians and is finalizing this 

requirement as proposed with only a 

change to the compliance date to 

January 1, 2026, to align with other 

changes such as the compliance date for 

the servicing and/repair of fire 

suppression equipment to be done with 

recycled HFCs. The Agency 

acknowledges the request for consistent 

course content across the country; 

however, the Agency considers the 

affected entities able to design effective 

training on their own taking into 

consideration their needs and practices, 

as relevant. That said, on a voluntary 

basis, EPA could review and provide 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82810 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

133HARC comments, dated November 7, 2022, to 

Notice of Data Availability Relevant to Management 

of Regulated Substances Under the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 are 

available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606) 

for this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov. 

feedback on training programs and 

materials. The Agency has provided a 

list of the primary topics to be included 

in the training: (1) An explanation of the 

purpose of the training requirement, 

including the significance of 

minimizing releases of HFCs and 

ensuring fire suppression technician 

safety; (2) an overview of HFCs and 

environmental concerns with HFCs; (3) 

a review of relevant regulations 

concerning HFCs, including the 

requirements of the HFC emissions 

reduction program for fire suppression 

equipment; and (4) specific technical 

instruction relevant to avoiding 

unnecessary HFC emissions during the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment at each individual facility. 

EPA may provide suggested resources to 

assist entities to develop the training as 

necessary. 

e. Recycling of HFCs Prior to Disposal 

of Fire Suppression Equipment 

Containing HFCs 

EPA proposed requirements related to 

the disposal of fire suppression 

equipment. The intent of these 

requirements is to ensure that HFCs 

have been recovered and recycled from 

the equipment prior to the final step of 

the disposal of the equipment so that 

HFCs are not released during the 

disposal of the equipment. EPA is 

requiring owners and operators of fire 

suppression equipment containing 

HFCs (including an HFC blend) to 

dispose of this equipment by recovering 

the HFCs themselves or by arranging for 

HFC recovery by a fire suppression 

equipment manufacturer or distributor, 

or a fire suppressant recycler. EPA is 

also requiring that owners and operators 

dispose of HFCs used as a fire 

suppression agent by sending them for 

recycling to a fire suppressant recycler 

or a reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 

82.164 or by arranging for its 

destruction using one of the controlled 

processes listed in 40 CFR 84.29. 

Consistent with 40 CFR part 82, subpart 

H, disposal of HFCs used as a fire 

suppression agent means the process 

leading to and including discarding of 

HFC-containing equipment. The 

voluntary industry standards that apply 

to the uses of HFCs in fire suppression 

equipment, NFPA 2001 for fire 

suppression systems and NFPA 10 for 

fire extinguishers, contain no current 

requirement for the recovery and 

disposal of HFCs prior to disposal of 

equipment. Efforts by the industry to 

minimize emissions of HFCs used in the 

fire suppression sector have to date been 

on a voluntary basis. For example, the 

VCOP includes as part of its emission 

reduction strategies during storage, 

handling, and transfer of HFCs, 

requirements to recover the agents after 

the end of the equipment’s useful life 

and either recycle or destroy them. 

These requirements will minimize 

emissions of HFCs through recovery of 

the agent prior to disposal of the 

equipment and ensure that recycling or 

proper disposal of HFCs occurs broadly 

within this sector of use. Under the 

requirements, the owners and operators 

of this equipment (e.g., specialized fire 

suppression systems containing HFCs 

that protect high value equipment, such 

as electronic server rooms or oil and gas 

production facilities) must ensure that 

HFCs are recovered from the fire 

suppression equipment before it is sent 

for disposal, either by recovering the 

HFCs themselves before sending the 

equipment for disposal or by leaving the 

HFCs in the equipment and sending it 

for disposal to a facility (e.g., fire 

suppression equipment manufacturer, a 

distributor, or a fire suppressant 

recycler) operating in accordance with 

industry standards (i.e., NFPA 10 and 

NFPA 2001 standards), as applicable. 

The owners or operators of fire 

suppression equipment also must 

recover any HFCs, as part of the 

disposal of such equipment, by sending 

them to a fire suppressant recycler 

operating in accordance with the 

relevant industry standards, which EPA 

understands to be the NFPA 10 and 

NFPA 2001 standards (depending on the 

type of equipment), by sending them to 

a reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 

82.164, or by arranging for their 

destruction by a technology that is listed 

as an approved technology for 

destruction of the relevant regulated 

substance in the regulations at 40 CFR 

84.29. As part of implementing 

subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act, these 

requirements control practices, 

processes, or activities regarding the 

disposal of such fire suppression 

equipment by establishing certain 

requirements that must be met as part of 

the disposal process and involve a 

regulated substance. 

Owners and operators of fire 

suppression equipment who recover 

HFCs prior to disposal may already be 

aware of the importance of HFC 

recycling given prior communication 

efforts by the industry and may already 

take steps to ensure recovery of HFCs 

prior to disposal. The recycling of HFCs 

plays an important role in providing the 

fire suppression sector with continued 

supply of HFCs for fire suppression 

equipment during servicing. Industry 

trade organizations have encouraged 

owners and operators of fire 

suppression equipment and those 

disposing of HFCs to contact fire 

suppression equipment manufacturers, 

distributors, or fire suppressant 

recyclers to ensure that HFCs are safely 

recovered from equipment and recycled 

for future use. Therefore, the 

requirements finalized in this rule are 

likely consistent with current industry 

practices. Most fire suppression systems 

and extinguishers in use today are 

purchased, installed, and serviced by 

fire suppression equipment distributors. 

EPA is aware that there are established 

distribution channels within the 

commercial and industrial sectors 

where these specialized systems are 

used. Industry representatives have also 

indicated that the simplest way in their 

opinion to ensure proper recycling of 

HFCs is to encourage equipment owners 

to return equipment containing HFCs to 

distributors.133 EPA values using 

established industry practices where 

such practices exist and can be used to 

meet the Agency’s intended goals. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the requirements in sections 

84.110(e) and 84.110(f) on the disposal 

of fire suppression equipment and the 

disposal of HFCs used in fire 

suppression. Another commenter also 

supported the proper disposal of HFC 

fire suppression equipment and agents. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenters’ support for the 

requirement to recycle HFCs prior to 

disposal of fire suppression equipment 

containing HFCs and is finalizing as 

proposed requirements to recover and 

recycle HFCs prior to the final step of 

disposal of the fire suppression 

equipment. 

f. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

EPA is finalizing recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements on the fire 

suppression provisions under 

subsection (h) for HFCs used in the 

installation of new equipment and 

servicing and/or repair of existing 

equipment. EPA is finalizing these 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements mainly as proposed with 

some modifications to the requested 

information to clarify the intent of the 

regulatory text. As part of implementing 

subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act, these 

provisions control practices, processes, 

or activities regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of fire 

suppression equipment, and involve a 

regulated substance. For example, the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82811 

requirements control recordkeeping and 

reporting practices, process, or activities 

for servicing and repair that involves 

HFCs. 

EPA is requiring covered entities in 

the fire suppression sector to provide 

data on HFCs to the Agency. The fire 

suppression industry is familiar with 

data collection and reporting, as some of 

the entities in this industry are 

voluntarily reporting data to HEEP as 

mentioned in section IV.F.2.b of this 

preamble. Relevant reporting entities 

covered under this requirement include 

entities that perform first fill of 

equipment, service (e.g., recharge) 

equipment and/or recycle regulated 

substances. Relevant entities include 

companies, such as equipment 

manufacturers, distributors, agent 

suppliers, or installers that recycle 

regulated substances. Records related to 

the fire suppression sector must be 

maintained for three years. Specifically, 

the covered entities must submit a 

report to the Agency annually covering 

the prior year’s activity from January 1 

through December 31. The first annual 

report must be submitted to the Agency 

on February 14, 2027, and subsequent 

annual reports must be submitted by 

February 14 of each subsequent year. 

Each annual report must be submitted 

electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform. Each 

annual report must contain basic 

identification information (i.e., owner 

name, facility name, facility address 

where equipment is located) and the 

following information for each regulated 

substance: 

• The quantity of material (the 

combined mass of regulated substance 

and contaminants) sold for the purpose 

of installation of new fire suppression 

equipment and servicing and/or repair 

of existing fire suppression equipment; 

• The quantity of material (the 

combined mass of regulated substance 

and contaminants) in inventory onsite 

for the purpose of installation of new 

fire suppression equipment and 

servicing and/or repair of existing fire 

suppression equipment broken out by 

recovered, recycled, and virgin; 

• The total sold for the purpose of 

installation of new fire suppression 

equipment and servicing and/or repair 

of existing fire suppression equipment; 

• The total mass in inventory onsite 

for the purpose of installation of new 

fire suppression equipment and 

servicing and/or repair of existing fire 

suppression equipment broken out by 

recovered, recycled, and virgin; and 

• The total mass of waste products 

the reporting entity sent for disposal, 

along with information about the 

disposal facility if waste is not 

processed by the reporting entity. 

Covered entities must maintain an 

electronic or paper copy of the fire 

suppression technician training as 

discussed in section IV.F.2.d, and EPA 

can request to view a copy of the 

training on an as needed basis. EPA is 

also requiring facilities to document that 

they have provided training to 

personnel. For example, local personnel 

records could be annotated, indicating 

where and when the training occurred. 

Alternatively, records could be 

centralized. Where EPA established 

requirements for recordkeeping, the 

Agency is requiring that the records be 

maintained for three years in either 

electronic or paper format. 

As discussed in section IV.F.2.e, EPA 

is requiring that covered entities 

maintain records documenting that 

HFCs are recovered from the fire 

suppression equipment before the 

equipment is sent for disposal, either by 

recovering the HFCs themselves before 

sending the equipment for disposal or 

by leaving the HFCs in the equipment 

and sending it for disposal to a facility 

(e.g., fire suppression equipment 

manufacturer, distributor, or a fire 

suppressant recycler). Such records 

must be maintained for three years. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this action do not 

change any recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for fire suppressant 

recycling per 40 CFR 84.31(j) (Subpart 

A) and EPA is not reopening or 

revisiting those requirements through 

this action. If any entity is reporting 

information to EPA under Subpart A 

that is also required under the reporting 

provisions established in this final rule 

at 84.110(g), EPA will consider the 

information reported under Subpart A 

in evaluating whether the corresponding 

reporting obligations under this final 

rule have been satisfied. There is one 

instance where there is overlap between 

40 CFR 84.31(j) and in this final rule at 

84.110(g). Under 40 CFR 84.31(j), each 

recycler of a regulated substance used as 

a fire suppressant must submit a report 

containing the quantity of each 

regulated substance held in inventory 

onsite broken out by recovered, 

recycled, and virgin. To the extent the 

information reported by an entity under 

Subpart A overlaps with the information 

that must be reported under provisions 

established in this final rule at 

84.110(g), in lieu of reporting the same 

information twice, in completing the 

reporting under 84.110(g) the entity may 

refer to the corresponding information 

reported under Subpart A and explain 

how it satisfies the reporting 

requirements under 84.110(g). 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

expressed concerns about the 

requirements for reporting and 

recordkeeping being onerous and 

unnecessary. The commenters stated 

that the current requirements under the 

Allocation Program provide sufficient 

information for EPA to track the amount 

of HFCs being used and recycled for fire 

suppression. The commenters also 

claimed that the domestic movement of 

halons or HCFCs used for fire 

suppression have had no history of 

illegal activity, while the high GWPs of 

fire suppression agents make it unlikely 

that fire suppression equipment would 

be used to illegally move HFCs. The 

commenters also claimed that existing 

reporting, recordkeeping, and testing 

requirements under 40 CFR 84.31(j) 

have been challenging for the industry, 

to a degree that companies in the sector 

who previously performed HFC 

recycling in-house no longer perform 

that service to avoid EPA reporting 

requirements. The commenters also 

stated that if the proposed reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements take effect, 

companies may choose to not to install 

or service HFC-based equipment, which 

they claimed would work against the 

stated goal of the AIM Act framework 

rule to stimulate HFC recycling and 

could lead to increased HFC emissions. 

Additionally, the commenters stated 

that the management of halons in the 

United States over the last several 

decades has demonstrated a model of 

collaboration between industry, 

government, and users, which the 

commenters maintained has been 

accomplished with the necessary 

reporting requirements on manufacture, 

import, and export. One of the 

commenters claimed that the degree of 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in the existing 

requirements and the proposed action 

makes the regulation burdensome, while 

bringing no environmental benefit. The 

commenter claimed this burden would 

further disrupt the market balance 

currently allowing for environmentally 

responsible, circular economy, 

commercial options. The commenter 

stated that increasing the burden of 

recordkeeping and reporting beyond 

what is currently proven successful 

would provide no value to EPA or 

industry, and would add what they 

characterized as unnecessary 

complexity to an already challenging 

situation. The other commenter 

questioned why EPA needs a report of 

every HFC-based fire protection system 

or extinguisher that is sold or serviced 

in the United States. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82812 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: EPA acknowledges the time 

and resources that reporters dedicate to 

fulfilling reporting requirements. EPA 

considers these recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements to be a 

reasonable approach to assessing 

compliance with requirements under 

subsection (h) to help ensure the rules 

serve their intended purposes of 

minimizing releases of HFCs from fire 

suppression equipment. Additionally, 

the fire suppression industry is familiar 

with data collection and reporting under 

HEEP, which helps industry minimize 

emissions by setting benchmarks, 

among other things. HEEP supports 

successful implementation of the 

elements of the VCOP. EPA 

acknowledges that the fire suppression 

industry has been voluntarily reporting 

under HEEP, however because this 

reporting is voluntary and managed by 

a third party, EPA could not reasonably 

be expected to have complete 

information in order to accurately assess 

compliance by individual companies 

subject to this rule. EPA is not asking for 

information for every individual piece 

of equipment, but instead on the 

quantities of HFCs sold, the quantities 

in inventory onsite including virgin, 

recovered, and recycled HFCs, and 

virgin as well as quantities sent for 

disposal. This information is similar to 

information already reported by certain 

members of the industry on a voluntary 

basis to HEEP. The recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements will support 

compliance and improve the overall 

understanding of the availability of 

recycled HFCs used in the fire 

suppression sector. This information 

may provide data that is helpful in 

implementing the regulations and 

assessing compliance. This information 

may also help to inform future 

rulemakings under the AIM Act. 

Consistent with EPA’s approach under 

other AIM Act programs, EPA intends to 

share data publicly. Additionally, these 

requirements are limited to entities that 

perform first fill of equipment, service 

(e.g., recharge) equipment and/or 

recycle regulated substances. Relevant 

entities include companies, such as 

equipment manufacturers, distributors, 

agent suppliers, or installers that recycle 

regulated substances. These covered 

entities are in the same categories as 

those that provide information on a 

voluntary basis to HEEP (i.e., in 2020, 16 

companies reported to HEEP). As a 

result, the Agency disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that 

recordkeeping and reporting would 

bring no environmental benefit. Under 

40 CFR part 84, subpart A, information 

is collected for the purposes related to 

the Allocation Program and requested 

from fire suppression recyclers only. 

EPA is requesting information from 

covered entities under this provision to 

account for the management of HFCs 

and to minimize releases in the fire 

suppression sector. EPA intends to limit 

to the extent practicable duplicative 

burden between part 84 subparts A and 

C by using the same reporting systems. 

If there are any duplicative 

requirements, entities would only report 

once. As noted in section II.B of this 

preamble, recordkeeping and reporting 

under the AIM Act are also supported 

by section 114 of the CAA, which 

applies to the AIM Act and rules 

promulgated under it as provided in 

subsection (k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act. 

Comment: Another commenter stated 

that fire suppression systems can 

accidently be triggered to release the 

regulated substance (e.g., electronic 

failure) and are not situations of 

intentional release or releases due to 

failure to maintain the system. The 

commenter suggested that EPA require, 

under 40 CFR 84.110(g), that the owner/ 

operator maintain documentation for 

three years from the date of release of 

any accidental releases of a regulated 

substance from a fire suppression 

system that was not a result of failure to 

maintain the system. The commenter 

also requested that EPA specify the 

address or location where to send the 

report requested in 84.110(g). 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

suggestion for including the date of 

release of any accidental releases of a 

regulated substance from a fire 

suppression system that was not a result 

of failure to maintain the system. EPA 

understands that accidental releases in 

these fire suppression systems are 

relatively rare, and any releases are 

typically addressed quickly due to the 

nature of the specialty equipment these 

fire suppression systems are protecting. 

For these reasons, EPA is not finalizing 

such a requirement because the Agency 

does not plan to use this information at 

this time. 

Reports requested in 84.110(g) must 

be submitted electronically using the 

Agency’s applicable reporting platform. 

G. What requirements is EPA 

establishing for handling disposable 

cylinders? 

1. Requirements for Disposable 

Cylinders 

EPA proposed to require that 

disposable cylinders containing HFCs 

and that have been used for the 

servicing, repair, or installation of 

refrigerant-containing equipment or fire 

suppression equipment must be sent to 

an EPA-certified reclaimer or a fire 

suppressant recycler. EPA also proposed 

that these entities (i.e., reclaimers and 

fire suppressant recyclers) must remove 

all HFCs, including any remaining 

amount after the cylinders are 

considered empty for servicing, repair, 

and installation purposes (e.g., the heel), 

prior to discarding these cylinders. The 

Agency proposed a compliance date of 

January 1, 2025, for requiring that 

disposable cylinders be sent to a 

reclaimer or fire suppressant recycler 

and for the removal of HFCs from 

disposable cylinders. EPA also proposed 

that the remaining heel in containers 

that have been used in the servicing, 

repair, or installation of equipment 

would not be considered a virgin 

regulated substance. Additionally, EPA 

requested comment on an alternative 

approach that would involve requiring 

the final processor of a disposable 

cylinder to ensure that all regulated 

substances, including the remaining 

heel, have been recovered prior to final 

disposition of the cylinder; or a 

combination of the lead proposal and 

this alternate approach. Related to the 

alternative approach, EPA discussed the 

consideration of recordkeeping 

requirements that would be necessary 

for the alternative approach and 

requested comments on other relevant 

factors such as the level of vacuum 

needed to ensure proper evacuation of 

the heel and information on recovery 

machines available to perform the heel 

removal. EPA also requested comment 

broadly on the current channels by 

which disposable cylinders are 

transported to have the heels removed. 

EPA is finalizing aspects of the 

proposal, with modifications, after 

consideration of the comments and 

information received on the proposed 

rule. First, EPA is requiring that 

disposable cylinders that contain HFCs 

and that have been used for the 

servicing, repair, or installation of 

refrigerant-containing equipment or fire 

suppression equipment must be sent to 

a reclaimer, fire suppressant recycler, 

final processor, or refrigerant supplier 

for removal of the heel. EPA is also 

requiring that the removed heel must be 

sent to an EPA-certified reclaimer for 

further processing. In the case where 

disposable cylinders contain a heel of 

an HFC refrigerant that has flammability 

characteristics (i.e., class 2 or class 2L), 

EPA is finalizing that final processors or 

wholesalers/distributors may remove 

these heels that would be considered 

ignitable spent refrigerant under 40 CFR 

part 266, subpart Q, as long as the 

recovered ignitable spent refrigerant is 

sent to an EPA-certified reclaimer 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82813 

134EPA clarifies that under 40 CFR 261.7(b)(2), a 

container that has held a hazardous waste that is 

a compressed gas is empty when the pressure in the 

container approaches atmospheric. Where a 

disposable cylinder that contained a refrigerant 

with mild flammability characteristics (e.g., class 2 

or 2L) is being discarded using the alternate 

compliance method, evacuating to a vacuum of 15- 

in Hg would also meet the requirements for an 

‘‘empty container’’ under 40 CFR 261.7(b)(2), since 

the vacuum of 15 in-Hg would be an evacuation 

level beyond atmospheric pressure. 

meeting the RCRA alternate standards, 

as described in section IV.H. The 

Agency is also delaying the proposed 

compliance date from January 1, 2025, 

to January 1, 2028, to allow additional 

time for implementation (as described 

in subsequent responses to comments). 

Finally, the Agency is establishing an 

alternate approach informed by 

comments received on the proposed 

rule for appropriate levels of evacuation 

of the heel from disposable cylinders. 

As discussed in response to comments 

in this section, EPA received comments 

suggesting an evacuation level of 15 

inches of mercury (in-Hg) for disposable 

cylinders. After consideration of the 

comments, EPA is establishing an 

alternate compliance method where a 

certified technician evacuates a 

disposable cylinder to a level of 15 inHg (relative to a standard atmospheric 

pressure of 29.9 in-Hg), certifies that 

they have done so, and provides a 

certification statement accompanying 

the evacuated disposable cylinder to the 

final processor. If these criteria are met, 

a certified technician may discard the 

cylinder to a final processor, and the 

cylinder would not need further 

processing or be sent to a reclaimer or 

fire suppressant recycler.134 In 

establishing this alternate compliance 

method, the Agency does not intend for 

final processors to accept certification 

statements from a certified technician if 

the final processor knows or has reason 

to know that a certification statement 

contains falsified information (e.g., if 

there are clear indications that the heels 

within a disposable cylinder have not 

been evacuated properly, such as 

punctures in the cylinder that would 

suggest improper venting of the 

cylinder’s heel), it would be 

inconsistent with the intent of this 

provision for the final processor to 

accept those cylinders and the 

accompanying certification. The 

certification statement must be signed 

by the certified technician who removed 

the heel and accompany each 

disposable cylinder discarded in this 

way. If all the disposable cylinders in a 

shipment were evacuated by the same 

technician, the technician may provide 

a single certification that covers each of 

the cylinders in the shipment. The 

certification must include the statement 

and information as provided in 40 CFR 

84.116(e). EPA is also finalizing that a 

final processor who receives a 

disposable cylinder being discarded in 

this way must maintain a record of the 

signed certification statement for three 

years. 

Comment: Many commenters 

generally supported the proposed 

requirements to have disposable 

cylinders sent to certified reclaimers or 

fire suppressant recyclers for removal of 

the remaining heel. Some commenters 

stated that the requirements would 

support the goals of subsection (h) 

aimed at minimizing releases and 

maximizing reclamation. Many other 

commenters opposed the proposed 

requirements with a few commenters 

requesting that EPA eliminate the 

requirements from the final rule 

altogether. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

comments in support of these 

provisions and responds that the 

Agency is finalizing these requirements 

with additional flexibilities and a later 

compliance date to ensure effective and 

efficient implementation. EPA agrees 

that these requirements are important 

for meeting the purposes identified in 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act and 

promote increased opportunities for 

reclamation. As discussed in the 

proposed rule, heels from used 

disposable cylinders provide an 

important source of material that can 

bolster the amount of refrigerant that 

can be reclaimed. HFC releases of heels 

are far more likely to occur from 

disposable cylinders than from other 

types of cylinders, and those amounts of 

HFCs released are not available for 

reclamation. Comments in opposition of 

the requirements that were proposed are 

discussed in more detail in this section. 

Comment: Some commenters 

questioned EPA’s authority to require 

that used disposable cylinders be sent to 

reclaimers or fire suppressant recyclers. 

One commenter stated that the proposed 

provision was outside the scope of the 

authority of subsection (h). The 

commenter opposed EPA’s 

interpretation of ‘‘any practice, process, 

or activity regarding the servicing, 

repair, disposal, or installation of 

equipment . . .’’ to cover practices, 

processes, and activities that may occur 

before or after the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment, 

stating that the interpretation took a 

limited grant of authority in subsection 

(h) to an unlimited grant of authority 

over the entire HVACR supply chain. 

The commenter stated that the 

provisions for shipping disposable 

cylinders containing heels is beyond the 

authority granted in subsection (h)(1), 

even it can increase refrigerant 

reclamation. Another commenter stated 

that the requirement for used disposable 

cylinders to be sent only to reclaimers 

or fire suppressant recyclers was 

arbitrary and capricious and not 

adequately justified and that EPA did 

not properly consider others in the 

supply chain that could remove the heel 

from disposable cylinders. Another 

commenter stated that the authority 

under subsection (h) does, in fact, allow 

EPA to establish this provision, as it 

aligns with the statutory language in 

subsection (h). 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenter’s conclusion that this 

provision aligns with EPA’s authority 

under subsection (h) and disagrees with 

the comment asserting that EPA is 

interpreting an unlimited grant of 

authority of the HVACR supply chain 

under subsection (h). As described 

above in this notice and in the proposal, 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act directs 

EPA to promulgate regulations to 

control, where appropriate, any 

practice, process, or activity regarding 

the servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment that involves 

regulated substances, among other 

things, for purposes of maximizing 

reclaiming and minimizing the release 

of a regulated substance from equipment 

and ensuring the safety of technicians 

and consumers. EPA interprets this 

authority to include the comprehensive 

practice, process, or activity regarding 

the servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation, including aspects that may 

occur before or after the servicing, 

repair, disposal, or installation of the 

equipment. This interpretation is 

supported by both the text of the 

provision and the statutory context in 

which it appears. With respect to the 

text, Congress authorized EPA to 

regulate ‘‘any practice, process, or 

activity regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment’’ 

(emphasis added). The term ‘‘regarding’’ 

is broad and indicates that Congress 

intended for EPA’s authority to 

encompass not only the actions or 

events directly involved in the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment, but also 

practices, processes, or activities that 

relate to or concern the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment. 

This could include practices, processes, 

or activities that occur before or after the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation. Similarly, by authorizing 

regulations to control ‘‘any practice, 

process, or activity,’’ Congress conveyed 

EPA authority to control actions or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82814 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

135EPA further notes that this comment stated 

that it was incorporating the OMB Pass-Back 

records in EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606–0028 with 

the stated goal of ensuring that these records would 

be included within the administrative record for 

any subsequent judicial review of this rulemaking. 

EPA responds that section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA 

is clear that the record for judicial review does not 

contain interagency review materials as described 

in CAA 307(d)(4)(B)(ii). 

situations that occur throughout, or at 

any point, during the relevant practice, 

process, or activity. This interpretation 

is also consistent with ensuring that the 

regulations can fully serve the purposes 

identified in subsection (h)(1) 

(‘‘maximizing’’ reclamation, 

‘‘minimizing’’ release, and ‘‘ensuring’’ 

safety), as EPA may need to regulate 

actions or situations that occur before or 

after the servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation to achieve these purposes. 

EPA acknowledges the statutory 

language to promulgate regulations ‘‘as 

appropriate’’ to control such practices, 

processes, and activities. Based on 

EPA’s interpretation of this provision, 

subsection (h)(1) authorizes the Agency 

to develop regulations that include 

provisions for the handling of HFCs in 

a disposable cylinder when the cylinder 

and a portion of the HFCs contained 

therein were used in the servicing, 

repair, disposal, or installation of 

equipment. The use of HFCs in these 

cylinders is a typical practice during 

servicing, repair, or installation of 

equipment and the associated disposal 

of the cylinder, and typically some 

HFCs remain in the cylinder after such 

use, unless steps have been taken to 

remove them from the cylinder. 

Accordingly, the disposition of the 

HFCs remaining in the cylinder is 

inherent to the use of HFCs in such 

cylinders in the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment. 

Thus, the Agency considers these 

requirements as establishing appropriate 

controls for a practice, process, or 

activity as related to the servicing, 

repair, or installation of equipment. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

questioned the amount of HFC 

refrigerant that remains in the heel of 

disposable cylinders. Some commenters 

provided information on the amount left 

in the heels of disposable cylinders 

based on experience and data. 

Commenters provided various 

estimates, including (percentages based 

on a nominal 30-pound disposable 

cylinder): 0.1 pounds (∼0.33%), 0.3 

pounds (1%), 0.5 pounds (∼1.67%), 1.25 

pounds (∼4.16%), and 1.5 pounds (5%). 

One commenter cited various other 

estimates including 1.85 percent from 

CARB, noting this was also corroborated 

by Heating, Air-conditioning and 

Refrigeration Distributors International 

(HARDI), and 0.2 percent to 4.4 percent 

from Chemours, an HFC producer. The 

commenter also cited National 

Refrigerants, a reclaimer, stating that 90 

percent of cylinders have a remaining 

heel of 0.5 pounds (about two percent 

by weight) or less and that 60 percent 

have no discernible heel. One 

commenter provided sample data from 

UL testing of an SAE J2788 AC Service 

Machine, noting the net remaining heel 

was around 50 grams (∼0.1 pounds), and 

was typical of heels in disposable 

cylinders used in the MVAC industry. 

Another commenter stated that around 

two-thirds of used cylinders are 

completely empty. Other commenters 

stated that the remaining heel in 

disposable cylinders is minimal as 

contractors and technicians have a 

strong incentive to use as much 

refrigerant from disposable cylinders as 

possible. Another commenter provided 

data on remaining refrigerant in small 

cans of automotive refrigerant per 

CARB’s regulations, with a remaining 

amount of 4 percent. 

One commenter stated that there were 

inconsistencies in the draft RIA and 

supporting draft Cylinder Analysis 

TSD.135 Further, the commenter stated 

EPA did not clearly and consistently 

identify heel estimates used when 

assessing potential benefits of the 

cylinder management requirements. The 

commenter stated that the proposed rule 

preamble was not clear in how the heel 

estimate of 1.25 pounds was concluded, 

while relevant analyses assumed a heel 

of 0.96 pounds. The commenter stated 

that EPA referenced personal 

communications for the heel estimates 

but did not make clear the sources of the 

information or provide them or 

supporting documentation in the docket 

for the rulemaking and that other 

relevant studies are available and could 

have been used to provide information 

on concluding an accurate heel 

estimate. Such studies were provided to 

EPA in previous comments to the 

Allocation Framework Rule. The 

commenter provided studies and related 

data that they stated could be used to 

estimate the heel in a disposable 

cylinder. The commenter also stated 

that EPA’s assumption that 95 percent 

of all cylinders are vented is an 

extraordinary assumption, though 95 

percent may be feasible if it is based on 

the number of cylinders that are not 

returned to companies after they are 

sold. The commenter continued to state 

that there is currently no nationally 

applicable cylinder take-back program, 

and licensed professionals who use the 

cylinders would not be expected to 

return them but, rather, dispose of them 

properly without illegal venting, such as 

through recovery of heel with a vacuum 

pump in the field; in-house refrigerant 

recovery or recycling; or sending nonrefillable cylinders to a reclamation 

facility. The commenter noted 

previously available information on 

rates of cylinder venting. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments and understands that the 

estimate of a typical heel in a disposable 

cylinder may vary. Given the wide 

variety of estimates from commenters on 

the amount of heel in a typical 

disposable cylinder, EPA maintains its 

central estimate that a typical heel is 4 

percent by weight of the cylinder. We 

have updated the Refrigerant Cylinders: 

Analysis of Use, Disposal, and 

Distribution of Refrigerants TSD to more 

clearly and consistently show this 

assumption as well as a low and high 

estimate. In the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD, the Agency also provides 

a sensitivity analysis using a value of 

1.2 percent, as provided by a 

commenter, which EPA understands to 

be a possible estimate for the remaining 

heel in a cylinder. The amount (mass) 

of an HFC held in a full disposable 

cylinder varies by HFC, and hence the 

amount of the heel would vary. 

Although typical full sizes include 30 

pounds (e.g., HFC–134a) and 25 pounds 

(e.g., R–410A), to be conservative EPA 

used 24 pounds (e.g., R–404A) as the 

cylinder size, thus leading to a heel of 

0.96 pounds or 0.288 pounds in the 

sensitivity analysis. As one commenter 

pointed out, at proposal, EPA had 

estimated higher heel amounts; this was 

due to the higher estimates of the charge 

size of cylinders and has been updated 

in the Economic Impact and Benefits 

TSD. EPA further notes that the 

information on which it was relying for 

the analyses for the proposed rule was 

reflected in the draft Cylinder Analysis 

TSD, which was included in the docket 

for this rulemaking. As noted, EPA has 

updated the draft TSD and includes 

revisions to clarify the source of 

information that is presented in the TSD 

and used for relevant calculations. 

Thus, the relevant information that was 

considered in developing the proposed 

rule was available in the docket at the 

time of proposal. Likewise, the 

information and data on which the final 

rule is based is also included in the 

docket. 

In addition to the above sensitivity 

analysis, EPA performed analyses 

assuming a much higher number of 

disposable cylinders, assuming full 

recovery of a large share of such 

cylinders, and a combination of all three 

assumptions. EPA refers to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82815 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD for 

additional details and results. 

EPA responds to the commenter 

regarding the venting rate of refrigerant 

heels in disposable cylinders. EPA is 

not using the assumption that 95 

percent of heels are vented as a basis for 

its analysis in either the preamble, the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD, or 

in any other supporting documents. In 

the Economic Impact and Benefits TSD, 

EPA provided a cost and emissions 

reduction analysis for disposable 

cylinder heels with two venting 

scenarios: a scenario in which 10 

percent of cylinder heels are vented, 

and a control analysis in which 100 

percent of refrigerant heels are vented. 

See Table K–5 of the TSD. Readers may 

estimate approximate costs and benefits 

at different venting scenarios by linearly 

interpolating between the results of the 

two scenarios conducted. EPA 

acknowledges that there are other 

publicly available estimates of 

refrigerant venting, including CARB’s 

estimate that 70 percent of disposable 

cylinders are recycled or disposed of 

without heel evacuation. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern with the Agency’s draft RIA 

addendum and conclusions regarding 

sufficiency of the infrastructure 

necessitated by the proposed new 

cylinder management and tracking 

requirements, as well as the time and 

costs associated with its implementation 

and broad application across multiple 

industry sectors; requiring thousands of 

businesses, including many small 

businesses, to comply with extensive 

new obligations on extremely short 

timelines. The commenter stated that 

EPA must use relevant data to develop 

a reasonable estimate of the number of 

refrigerant cylinders that these 

thousands of newly regulated entities 

will be required to manage and track, 

stating that the assumption that ‘‘4.5 

million HFC cylinders will be sold in 

the United States in 2025’’ represents a 

substantial underestimation that is not 

based on, and in fact fails to consider, 

relevant and credible data in the 

Agency’s possession, including 

comments on the proposed 2021 NRC 

Ban and confidential sales data 

provided to the Agency, as well as data 

from the United States International 

Trade Commission. The commenter 

further stated that the Agency’s 4.5 

million cylinder estimate only 

represents the number of 30-pound 

refrigerant cylinders used annually in 

the United States, and this estimate does 

not include 15-pound cylinders, 50- 

pound cylinders, or any other bulk 

refrigerant containers that would be 

subject to the proposed rule’s cylinder 

management and tracking requirements, 

noting that without a reasonable 

estimate of the universe of refrigerant 

cylinders potentially impacted, EPA 

cannot assess small business impacts as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) or the cost of the proposed 

rule’s recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). The commenter 

urged EPA reevaluate its conclusions in 

light of the data provided to the Agency 

throughout the course of multiple 

cylinder-related rulemakings and to 

reconsider the cylinder management. 

The commenter stated that proposed 

requirements do not appear to be based 

on a complete and legally sufficient 

analysis of the best available data, and 

that EPA may have overstated the 

environmental benefits of the proposed 

cylinder management. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment and reads it as referring to the 

proposed requirements for container 

tracking as well as the requirement to 

remove heels from disposable cylinders. 

In response to the former, EPA is not 

finalizing cylinder tracking 

requirements in this rule. In response to 

comments on managing the removal of 

heels from disposable cylinders, please 

see the response above related to 

additional considerations and estimates 

in the Economic Impact and Benefit 

TSD. 

EPA also responds that the 

requirements for removing the heels 

from disposable cylinders before they 

are discarded are being modified from 

the proposal, based on comments 

received on the proposal and further 

considerations. EPA is finalizing 

additional flexibilities, including 

allowing the heels of disposable 

cylinders to be removed at different 

points in the reverse supply chain (e.g., 

by a final processor or a wholesaler/ 

distributor). Further, EPA is delaying 

the compliance date for these 

requirements from January 1, 2025, to 

January 1, 2028, to allow for additional 

time for industry to become familiar 

with the regulations and secure 

necessary connections within the 

reverse supply chain. EPA is also 

establishing an alternative approach to 

allow disposable cylinders that are 

evacuated to a specified level of vacuum 

to be discarded with an accompanying 

certification. EPA provides additional 

details on these requirements in 

responses throughout this section. 

Overall, these modifications provide 

additional flexibilities as compared to 

the proposed requirements while also 

helping to achieve the purposes 

identified in subsection (h) of the AIM 

Act. 

With respect to the number of 

cylinders that the requirement to 

remove heels covers, EPA notes that it 

has used data from the commenter to 

perform a sensitivity analysis. See the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD for 

additional details. 

Comment: EPA received some 

comments related to the data collection 

and tracking of transporting disposable 

cylinders and the associate heel 

recovery. Some commenters were 

opposed and stated that the proposed 

tracking and data collection 

requirements were burdensome. 

Another commenter expressed concerns 

that the effectiveness of compliance 

with the requirements to remove heels 

from disposable cylinders would be 

lacking absent adequate tracking 

provisions. Another commenter 

expressed support for tracking the 

cylinders until they reach a reclaimer or 

fire suppressant recycler. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments. The Agency is not finalizing, 

as part of this rulemaking under the 

AIM Act, the proposed provisions for 

container tracking of HFCs that could be 

used in the servicing, repair, and/or 

installation of refrigerant-containing or 

fire suppression equipment. However, 

as discussed in this section, the Agency 

is finalizing provisions to ensure that 

used disposable cylinders are properly 

handled and the removed heels are sent 

to reclaimers. EPA is including 

flexibilities, as discussed throughout 

this section, for the removal of the heel 

from used disposable cylinders. EPA 

understands that these flexibilities are, 

in some cases, consistent with current 

practices for the management of used 

disposable cylinders to remove the heel, 

such that entities in the reverse supply 

chain are capable of removing the heel 

and consolidating to a recovery cylinder 

to send to reclaimers. EPA is also 

requiring that heels removed from used 

disposable cylinders must be sent to 

reclaimers, where the used disposable 

cylinder is not already being directly 

sent to a reclaimer. Further, the Agency 

is establishing an alternate approach 

allowing certified technicians to certify 

that a disposable cylinder has been 

evacuated to a specified level of vacuum 

and the cylinder can be discarded with 

no further processing. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

voiced concerns regarding the ability 

and capacity of reclaimers to process the 

influx of many disposable cylinders and 

remove heels. One commenter requested 

that EPA consider allowing reclaimers 

to use a batch method of removing the 

heels from disposable cylinders and 

report as a net amount, rather than per 

cylinder. A couple of commenters noted 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82816 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

that reclaimers may not be prepared and 

have the capacity to handle the volume 

of incoming disposable cylinders and 

that the compliance timeline is 

inadequate. The commenters stated the 

need for additional storage space for the 

cylinders and potential investments in 

transfer, recovery, and crushing and 

disposal equipment. Some commenters 

further stated that the associated costs of 

these types of equipment may 

ultimately be passed down in the form 

of charging to accept disposable 

cylinders. Another commenter stated 

that the Agency confounded the distinct 

actions of removal and reclamation, and 

this requirement to be responsible for 

removal and reclaiming the material 

would be burdensome on reclaimers. 

One commenter further expressed 

uncertainty as to whether EPA-certified 

refrigerant reclaimers have adequate 

capacity to manage the volume of HFCs 

that would be required to be reclaimed 

or whether that capacity can sufficiently 

increase within the proposed 

compliance deadline. The commenter 

cited that the Agency’s solicitation of 

comments on whether to allow recovery 

by parties other than certified reclaimers 

suggests its concern that the current 63 

EPA-certified refrigerant reclaimers may 

not be able to manage timely HFC 

recovery from 4.5 million estimated 

cylinders. The commenter further stated 

that the actual domestic refrigerant 

cylinder market of nearly twice this size 

will surely create a massive refrigerant 

recovery bottleneck that will cascade 

throughout the refrigeration and HVACR 

supply chain and could undermine the 

purpose and intent of the proposed rule. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

comments related to logistical concerns 

with handling the influx of disposable 

cylinders with the proposed 

requirements. In response to comments 

stating concerns about reclaimers 

having capacity, storage space, and 

other resources to process the influx of 

disposable cylinders, the Agency notes 

it is finalizing modifications to the 

provisions for handling of used 

disposable cylinders. As explained in 

this section, EPA is finalizing 

flexibilities to these requirements that 

would achieve the goals of subsection 

(h) of the AIM Act. These flexibilities 

would also help alleviate the number of 

disposable cylinders that would be sent 

directly to a reclaimer to have the heel 

removed and processed. Among these 

provisions, EPA is finalizing that used 

disposable cylinders can be sent to a 

final processor or back through the 

reverse supply chain to have the heels 

removed and consolidated. EPA 

recognizes these current channels in the 

reverse supply chain or the waste 

distribution chain that make for 

effective processing of used disposable 

cylinders and removal of heels for 

ultimate reclamation or, for fire 

suppressants, recycling. EPA anticipates 

that this would reduce the number of 

individual, used disposable cylinders 

that a reclaimer receives for heel 

removal and processing. Further, the 

Agency is establishing a compliance 

date of January 1, 2028, as compared to 

January 1, 2025, in the proposed rule to 

allow the industry to prepare 

effectively. 

EPA acknowledges there is a value in 

disposable cylinders and estimates 

those benefits in the Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD. This analysis 

includes estimated costs for 

transportation, assumed by truck, as 

compared to business-as-usual 

practices. Whether a wholesaler chooses 

to inventory disposable cylinders that 

are returned, remove the heels and 

consolidate them, or expeditiously send 

them to locations allowed under the 

final rule, is a business decision; 

therefore, any value lost due to 

occupying inventory space is not 

assessed as doing so is not a 

requirement in this final rule and EPA 

does not have information on how to 

place a value or cost estimate on such 

inventory space. 

In response to the comment about 

processing removed heels in a batch 

method as compared to the single 

cylinder level, EPA views this comment 

as related to the proposed container 

tracking requirements. As explained in 

section I.B, the Agency, at this time, is 

not taking final action on container 

tracking requirements, and this 

rulemaking does not establish reporting 

requirements for the amount of heels 

removed by reclaimers at the single 

cylinder level. Additionally, reclaimers 

who receive disposable cylinders and 

remove the heels are not required to 

record data for each single cylinder 

received. Reclaimers will continue to 

report their totals of refrigerant received 

or reclaimed when reporting under the 

CAA section 608 programs (40 CFR part 

82, subpart F) and the HFC Allocation 

Program (40 CFR part 84, subpart A). 

EPA acknowledges comments related 

to current reclaimer capacity and 

meeting supply of reclaimed refrigerants 

as required to support provisions in this 

rulemaking. EPA addresses comments 

related to reclaimed refrigerant supply 

in section IV.E.2 of this rulemaking. 

Regarding comments related to 

uncertainty of reclaimers to process the 

influx of a volume of HFCs being 

sourced from heels of disposable 

cylinders, EPA responds that comments 

to the proposed rule describe that 

reclaimers have the capacity to process 

the volume of HFCs. EPA is aware of 

reclaimers expanding capacity volumewise and increasing capacity of 

advanced separation technologies to 

effectively process additional material. 

EPA notes that comments related to 

uncertainty of reclaimers’ capacity 

received in this rulemaking were related 

to processing the influx of disposable 

cylinders and removing heels. The 

additional flexibilities being finalized 

related to the handling of used 

disposable cylinders help to address 

these concerns (as discussed in 

responses in this section). 

Comment: EPA received multiple 

comments related to the distribution 

chains that would support the 

movement of disposable cylinders to 

reclaimers. Some commenters stated 

that the distribution chains for returning 

recovered materials, as EPA alluded to 

in the proposed rule, may have 

difficulty accommodating the increase 

in magnitude of disposable cylinders 

per the proposed requirements, since 

these distribution chains are typically 

used more for return of recovery 

cylinders. Other commenters noted that 

the existing distribution chains could be 

used to support the movement of 

disposable cylinders per the proposed 

requirements. One commenter stated 

that in current practices, contractors 

may already be consolidating recovered 

material into a recovery cylinder 

(including heels) before taking them to 

a distributor. Another commenter stated 

that there are multiple avenues for 

refrigerant recovery from cylinders, 

such as current practices to send 

disposable cylinders to reclaimers or 

wholesale distribution-operated 

cylinder recycling programs, and 

allowing contractors to recover the 

remaining refrigerant and be 

compensated for sending the recovered 

refrigerant to a certified reclaimer. The 

commenter noted that while programs 

for returning disposable cylinders to 

reclaimers exist, this method for 

recovery of the heel may be inefficient 

and rely on proximity to a reclaimer. 

EPA received many comments on 

alternate approaches that shared 

features with the alternate approaches 

described in the proposed rule, one of 

which would allow final processors 

(e.g., landfill operators, scrap metal 

recyclers) to be the entity to recover 

heels from disposable cylinders prior to 

discarding, and another of which would 

have allowed more than just reclaimers 

to recover the heel, while still requiring 

that all the removed material be sent to 

reclaimers for further processing. Many 

commenters were supportive of aspects 

of the alternate approach in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82817 

combination with the proposed 

requirements. One commenter stated 

that EPA should consider alternatives to 

send near-empty disposable cylinders to 

a local appliance disposal outlet in 

addition to sending directly to a 

reclaimer. Another commenter 

supported the implementation of similar 

regulations to those for small appliance 

disposal under CAA section 608, such 

that a final processor is responsible for 

ensuring the remaining refrigerant is 

removed from a cylinder either by them 

or prior to them receiving the cylinder. 

Another commenter stated they 

supported alternative approaches to 

allowing others in the supply chain to 

remove heels from disposable cylinders 

provided the entities have associated 

reporting requirements for total amounts 

recovered annually. The commenter 

further noted that the benefits of the 

alternate approach could help address 

any increase in transportation emissions 

or costs related to shipping disposable 

cylinders. One commenter stated that 

the alternate approach matches 

practices that are already occurring 

effectively where disposable cylinders 

are collected by recycling companies, 

distributors, and appliance recyclers. 

The commenter further stated that there 

may be cases where entities send 

disposable cylinders that contained a 

unique refrigerant to reclaimers ‘‘as is’’ 

rather than recovering and mixing 

refrigerants in a common recovery 

cylinder. Another commenter stated that 

another consideration could be for the 

cylinders to be sent back to the 

refrigerant company for proper disposal 

or recycling. 

One commenter stated that the 

alternate approach may also provide 

benefits for supermarkets, which may 

not have direct relationships with 

reclaimers, but rather rely on third-party 

service providers. The commenter noted 

the importance of using the existing 

channels to send disposable cylinders to 

distributers or suppliers to then be sent 

to a final processor or reclaimer. 

Some commenters discussed other 

approaches to be considered for the 

recovery of heels from disposable 

cylinders. One commenter supported 

provisions to recover heels from 

disposable cylinders in general, but 

stated that certified technicians should 

be trained and able to recover heels 

from disposable cylinders before 

disposal of the cylinders. The 

commenter noted the efficiency and 

reduced transportation burden 

associated with allowing certified 

technicians or others (e.g., distributors) 

to remove and aggregate heels to a 

recovery cylinder for shipping, rather 

than shipping many individual 

disposable cylinders. The commenter 

stated that EPA should at least conduct 

a lifecycle analysis of net GHG 

emissions in various scenarios to 

understand their environmental 

impacts. Other commenters stated that 

EPA could allow any certified 

technician to recover heels prior to 

disposal of the cylinder. One 

commenter also suggested considering 

associated recordkeeping that could be 

subject to auditing. The commenter 

described an approach that would 

involve contractors and technicians 

recovering the heels from disposable 

cylinders prior to disposal and includes 

suggestions for establishing programs 

for cylinder returns to wholesalers or 

distributers. The commenter stated that 

the approach described could be made 

less burdensome by extending the 

program to contractors and disposable 

cylinder users, in addition to certified 

technicians, and coordinating with 

wholesalers, reclaimers, and/or 

refrigerant suppliers. 

One commenter was opposed to the 

approach to allow a final processor to 

recover the heel from disposable 

cylinders, noting this practice could 

lead to venting remaining heels by metal 

recyclers or waste disposal facilities. 

Another commenter, while not opposing 

the alternate approach, stated it is 

advantageous to have the disposable 

cylinders sent to reclaimers, enabling 

them to promptly remove and reclaim 

the heel and allowing EPA to gauge 

success through required reporting. 

One commenter stated that 

establishing collection points, especially 

in areas with few EPA-certified 

reclaimers, could help mitigate concerns 

with costs and logistics, though there 

may still be some associated costs. 

Another commenter stated that 

requiring disposable cylinders to be sent 

to EPA-certified reclaimers or fire 

suppressant recyclers would compete 

for truck space with shipping recovery 

cylinders that are full of recovered 

material. Another commenter stated that 

the logistics and costs of being able to 

first aggregate heels from disposable 

cylinders into a larger recovery cylinder 

would be more efficient, and 

transporting one larger recovery 

cylinder would greatly reduce transport 

of many disposable cylinders. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that the 

current reverse supply chain and waste 

distribution channels are varied. Many 

distribution channels for reclaimers are 

generally more limited to the processing 

of recovery cylinders to reclaimers, 

though not exclusively. EPA is also 

aware that many of these same channels 

are also currently being used for the 

transport of disposable cylinders with a 

remaining heel. As commenters noted, 

the current channels are effective, as 

many contractors or technicians may 

rely on sending used disposable 

cylinders to a wholesaler or distributer 

that consolidates and then sends them 

for further processing to a reclaimer. 

EPA is finalizing that disposable 

cylinders with a heel may continue to 

be sent through these channels with 

their intermediate steps to ultimately 

reach a reclaimer, such as through 

distributors or wholesalers. EPA 

recognizes that these current practices 

can be effective and allowing their 

continued use for processing of used 

disposable cylinders provides 

flexibilities to manage the volume of 

disposable cylinders being transported 

for recovery of the heel. The Agency 

notes that it may be appropriate for the 

distributor or wholesaler to be the entity 

that recovers and consolidates the heels 

from disposable cylinders, recognizing 

the improved logistics of consolidating 

heels to a single recovery cylinder. 

Where this practice may be occurring, 

EPA anticipates that the distributor or 

wholesaler has demonstrated the 

capability to remove all of the heel from 

the disposable cylinder prior to 

discarding. EPA expects this is 

reasonable, as commenters have stated 

this is a common practice that is 

currently occurring for the processing of 

a used disposable cylinder. Further, 

EPA anticipates that distributors or 

wholesalers that are performing this 

practice recognize the value in the 

removed heel that can be sent to a 

reclaimer. 

In this action, EPA is adopting 

portions of the alternative approach; 

specifically, EPA is finalizing an option 

for used disposable cylinders to be sent 

to final processors (e.g., landfill 

operators, scrap metal recyclers, etc.) for 

removal of the heel. As noted earlier in 

this response, EPA is also finalizing that 

the reverse supply chain may be utilized 

for the transport of used disposable 

cylinders to have the heel removed (e.g., 

sent to a distributor or wholesaler 

capable of removing the heel). EPA is 

establishing requirements that heels 

removed by final processors or 

distributors/wholesalers must be sent to 

a reclaimer or fire suppressant recycler. 

The added flexibilities should allow 

those with used disposable cylinders to 

have additional options for the proper 

handling of such cylinders. In general, 

the Agency anticipates that the added 

flexibility will provide access to discard 

used disposable cylinders at locations in 

closer proximity to contractors and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82818 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

136EPA addressed transportation related costs in 

the draft Economic Impact and Benefits TSD and 

further addresses such costs in the Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD accompanying this final 

rule. 

technicians, reducing transportation 136

costs and emissions associated with 

disposing the used cylinders. Final 

processors may already be receiving 

small appliances (e.g., less than five 

pounds of refrigerant) and consistent 

with the regulations promulgated under 

CAA section 608, may already be 

recovering these refrigerants per those 

requirements and sending them for 

reclamation per those requirements. 

Further, where used disposable 

cylinders have been sent for processing 

by a final processor or a distributor or 

wholesaler, the removed heels would be 

consolidated into a common recovery 

cylinder. As commenters stated, this 

practice could help to improve logistics 

related to truck space for shipping 

materials to a reclaimer or fire 

suppressant recycler for further 

processing. Therefore, EPA is finalizing 

these flexibilities for sending the 

disposable cylinders to the reclaimers, 

which are intended to result in the 

proper removal of the heel and to ensure 

that the HFCs from removed heels are 

sent to reclaimers or fire suppressant 

recyclers for further processing and 

reuse. 

EPA acknowledges other comments 

that suggest that a certified technician 

be allowed to remove the heel from 

disposable cylinders. As described more 

fully in a response later in this section, 

EPA is finalizing an alternate approach 

where certified technicians may certify 

that a heel has been removed from a 

disposable cylinder to a vacuum level of 

15 in-Hg, relative to standard 

atmospheric pressure of 29.9 in-Hg. In 

this case, a used disposable cylinder 

certified to have been evacuated to a 

vacuum level of 15 in-Hg may be 

discarded to a final processor without 

further processing. This alternate 

approach being finalized by the Agency 

helps to ensure the contents of 

disposable cylinders are effectively used 

and the remaining heel is negligible 

before the cylinder is discarded. 

EPA acknowledges the comments 

suggesting establishment of collection 

points for used disposable cylinders to 

promote further organization for the 

recovery of heels. The Agency agrees 

that collection points could be an 

effective avenue for facilitating the 

return of disposable cylinders to entities 

capable of properly removing the heel 

and disposing of them. EPA is aware of 

reclaimers that offer services such as 

collection sites for returning recovered 

refrigerant, which may include 

returning used disposable cylinders. 

The Agency sees these collection 

facilities and practices as appropriate 

avenues for discarding cylinders and 

proper heel removal, so long as they are 

in compliance with all regulatory 

requirements, including those being 

established in this rulemaking. 

Finally, EPA is establishing a 

compliance date of January 1, 2028, 

which is three years later than the 

proposed compliance date. The later 

compliance date will allow additional 

time for the distribution networks to be 

established and allow industry to set up 

necessary contracts and logistics for the 

transport of used disposable cylinders 

and the recovery of the remaining heels. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed concerns regarding the 

logistics related to the proposed 

requirements and consideration of the 

net benefits (costs and GHGs emissions 

avoided) when comparing the potential 

costs and emissions related to 

transporting the disposable cylinders to 

reclaimers or fire suppressant recyclers. 

Some commenters stated that the 

transportation of the disposable 

cylinders would incur costs and require 

complex logistics. The commenters 

stated that the contractors or technicians 

using the disposable cylinders may not 

be located near an EPA-certified 

reclaimer or a fire suppressant recycler 

and would be required to travel further 

than they normally do to dispose of a 

used cylinder. Further, the commenters 

stated that the logistics of transporting 

and handling the used disposable 

cylinders would require additional labor 

and coordinating with reclaimers or fire 

suppressant recyclers within their 

operating hours. One commenter noted 

that labor shortages are present in the 

industry and there may be a challenge 

in these requirements competing with 

other revenue-generating activities. 

Another commenter stated that shipping 

disposable cylinders to reclaimers is 

inefficient and noted that others in the 

supply chain are also capable of 

removing the heel properly per AHRI 

Guideline Q. Other commenters stated 

that the emissions associated with 

transporting disposable cylinders for 

heel recovery may exceed those avoided 

by recovering the heel, and the 

associated costs may outweigh the value 

of the recovered refrigerant. Further, 

other commenters stated that associated 

costs for collecting disposable cylinders 

could end up getting passed on to 

contractors or technicians and then 

further passed on to customers. 

Additional commenters expressed 

concerns about wholesalers’ storage 

space for used disposable cylinders that 

they would accept to then be sent to a 

reclaimer. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments on the logistics of this 

provision and responds that the Agency 

is finalizing modifications that would 

allow for additional flexibilities for 

proper handling of used disposable 

cylinders. The final rule allows for 

additional avenues for the transport of 

used disposable cylinders and the 

removal of the heel; for example, as 

described in this section, sending used 

disposable cylinders to a final processor 

or through the reverse supply chain 

(e.g., distributors or wholesalers) for the 

removal of the heel to be sent to a 

reclaimer or fire suppressant recycler. 

EPA acknowledges the importance of 

the reverse supply chain and waste 

distribution chains and the capability of 

distributors and wholesalers to remove 

heels or otherwise facilitate the 

transport of the disposable cylinders to 

a reclaimer, fire suppressant recycler, or 

final processor for proper heel recovery 

and cylinder disposal. These additional 

avenues provide flexibility and 

improved logistics for returning 

disposable cylinders. The Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD accompanying 

this rulemaking provides additional 

detail on costs and considerations of 

logistics described in these comments. 

While comments noted that a person 

may have limited access to returning a 

disposable cylinder to a reclaimer or fire 

suppressant recycler as proposed, it is 

likely that person would have access to 

a distributor, wholesaler, or final 

processor where they can transport the 

disposable cylinder. Further, this 

additional accessibility includes the 

consideration of proximity and other 

logistics, such as cutting down on the 

overall number of disposable cylinders 

that would be in transit. These 

considerations would reduce the overall 

transportation distance needed to bring 

these disposable cylinders to proper 

disposal and the number of trips, by 

allowing the consolidation of heels by 

other entities in the distribution chain. 

Thus, overall emissions associated with 

transportation of the disposable 

cylinders would be reduced. Further, 

EPA is aware that some reclaimers 

operate collection sites or offer services 

to pick up recovered refrigerant, which 

could be an additional avenue that 

provides a closer cylinder return option 

for returning disposable cylinders to 

reclaimers. 

Allowing the use of the typical 

avenues for processing disposable 

cylinders (e.g., through distributors or 

wholesalers) and the inclusion of the 

alternate approach to allow final 

processors to recover heels and dispose 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82819 

cylinders would also alleviate concerns 

related to labor and coordination with 

reclaimers to accept cylinders. These 

flexibilities would make use of existing 

avenues to transport and process 

disposable cylinders and remove heels 

as they are sent along to reclaimers or 

fire suppressant recyclers for further 

reprocessing. EPA recognizes that 

factors such as available labor will be a 

consideration for covered entities as 

they decide among the expanded 

available compliance options on 

removal of heels and proper discarding 

of disposable cylinders. EPA is aware 

that reclaimers often buy back recovered 

refrigerant, and the Agency expects that 

this practice would also be relevant to 

returned disposable cylinders with 

remaining heels or with heels that have 

been recovered and consolidated from 

disposable cylinders. Others may 

choose to send cylinders to final 

disposal entities. Reclaimers may 

choose to expand the use of collection 

points or work with distributors. The 

final rule provides additional flexibility 

while still increasing the removal of 

heels from disposable cylinders for 

further reclamation. 

Related to storage of flammable 

refrigerants at wholesaler facilities, as 

discussed in section IV.H, EPA is 

finalizing requirements that allow final 

processors or those in the reverse 

supply chain (e.g., distributors or 

wholesalers) to manage ignitable spent 

refrigerant removed from disposable 

cylinders under the finalized RCRA 

alternative standards, which include 

emergency preparedness and response 

requirements to address the risk of fire 

from the storage of flammable 

refrigerants. As part of compliance with 

the RCRA alternative standards, final 

processors or those in the reverse 

supply chain (e.g., distributors or 

wholesalers) that remove heels of 

ignitable spent refrigerants are required 

to send the materials to an EPA-certified 

reclaimer that is in compliance with the 

RCRA alternative standards. The criteria 

of the RCRA alternative standards are 

such that handling of these used 

cylinders is done so properly and safely. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended the Agency withdraw the 

proposed requirements for disposable 

cylinders and consider re-proposing in 

a separate action. 

Response: EPA responds that the 

Agency is finalizing these requirements 

with a later compliance date and 

increased flexibility for achieving the 

outcome. The Agency notes that 

recovering the heels from disposable 

cylinders is an important opportunity to 

help achieve the guiding goals of 

subsection (h) to minimize releases and 

maximize reclaim. The heels in 

disposable cylinders provide an 

important source of recovered 

refrigerant that will be necessary to help 

support the supply of reclaimed HFCs 

as the phasedown progresses and the 

required uses of reclaimed HFCs per 

this rulemaking become effective. 

Comment: EPA received multiple 

comments about the proposed 

compliance dates for these 

requirements. Some commenters stated 

that the proposed compliance date of 

January 1, 2025, would be difficult to 

meet. One commenter stated that the 

compliance date should be no earlier 

than January 1, 2028, due to supply 

chain constraints and new processes 

and equipment needed in the supply 

chain. Another commenter stated that 

contracts that are already in place 

would need to be revised or established 

per this provision, but could not be 

done so until the regulation is final. 

Setting up these contracts would take 

longer than the anticipated time 

between the regulation being finalized 

and the proposed compliance date of 

January 1, 2025. The commenter 

suggested that the compliance date be 

18 months from the final regulation 

being published in the Federal Register. 

Another commenter stated that these 

provisions should not be in effect until 

reclaimers are able to sufficiently secure 

the resources (e.g., recovery equipment, 

storage/warehouse space) and logistics 

(e.g., agreements with scrap metal 

recyclers to accept the empty disposable 

cylinders) needed for implementation. 

The commenter stated that this is not 

practical in terms of the proposed 

compliance date. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments and considerations. 

Consistent with commenters’ 

suggestions, the Agency is finalizing a 

later compliance date. The Agency is 

establishing a compliance date of 

January 1, 2028, with these logistical 

and implementation challenges in mind. 

The delayed compliance date should 

allow those affected in the transport of 

disposable cylinders and the reclaimers 

and fire suppressant recyclers that 

receive the cylinders to develop the 

infrastructure and business 

relationships needed to comply with the 

more flexible approach in the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the Agency’s proposal that 

the remaining heel in disposable 

cylinders not be treated as virgin 

material, noting that residual material 

may deviate from specifications and that 

recovered residual material should not 

be exempt from any current reclaimer 

reporting requirements. Another 

commenter stated that the remaining 

heel seems as though it would still be 

virgin refrigerant. The commenter stated 

that a reclaimer could recover and verify 

the condition of the refrigerant. Further, 

the commenter stated that the recovered 

heels could be an additional stock of 

virgin material available to the market. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments and, as explained in section 

IV.A.2, is revising the definition of 

‘‘virgin regulated substance.’’ EPA is not 

including an exclusion to the definition 

for recovered heels from containers. The 

Agency is, however, finalizing to not 

consider recovered heels towards the 

total virgin percentage in reclaimed 

HFCs, as described in section IV.E.2. As 

EPA understands, the removed heels 

from disposable cylinders may be 

recovered into recovery cylinders for 

consolidation. While best practices 

would dictate that the one type of HFC 

or HFC blend is recovered into a 

recovery cylinder, this may not always 

be the case. Removed heels may end up 

in a recovery cylinder containing one or 

more other substances. In the case 

reclaimers are the ones to remove the 

heels from used disposable cylinders, 

they will typically reprocess the 

recovered heels to ensure the recovered 

materials are brought to the required 

purity specifications for reclaimed 

refrigerants. 

Further, the Agency notes that 

material recovered and reclaimed from 

disposable cylinders must be reported 

under current reclaimer reporting 

requirements (i.e., reporting per 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F and 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart A). Heels directly removed by 

reclaimers, but not yet reclaimed, are 

considered as material received and 

should be reported as such under 

current reporting for material received 

by reclaimers. Likewise, for fire 

suppressant recyclers, any heels directly 

recovered, but not yet recycled, should 

be reported as recovered material per 

the reporting requirements established 

in this rulemaking (see section IV.F.2.f). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

a ban on disposable cylinders would 

have been more effective for reducing 

releases and maximizing the reclaim of 

regulated substances. Another 

commenter stated that EPA improperly 

alluded to having the statutory authority 

to reinstate a ban on non-refillable 

cylinders by stating in the proposed rule 

that the Agency is ‘‘not at this time 

proposing’’ to ban non-refillable 

cylinders. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments. The Agency did not propose 

to ban the use of disposable cylinders in 

this rulemaking and reiterates that it is 

not establishing such a ban in this final 

rule. The statement in the proposed rule 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82820 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

that EPA was ‘‘not at this time 

proposing’’ to establish a prohibition 

like the one at issue in HARDI v. EPA, 

71 F.4th 59, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2023) was 

intended to describe the Agency action 

under consideration and how it differed 

from the prohibition in the Allocation 

Framework Rule. In the proposal, the 

Agency acknowledged that the 

prohibition had been vacated in the 

HARDI decision, as the court found that 

EPA had not cited adequate authority to 

support it. Further, as noted in response 

to a comment below, the Agency is 

acting consistent with the HARDI 

decision. Because the Agency did not 

propose and is not finalizing such a ban 

as part of this action, it need not address 

whether it would have authority to do 

so here. EPA notes that the provisions 

to require removal and reclaim of heels 

from disposable cylinders are effective 

to help mitigate the release of the 

remaining heel to the atmosphere while 

providing a source of recovered 

refrigerant to be available for 

reclamation. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the requirements for disposable 

cylinders be expanded to refillable 

cylinders as well. The commenter noted 

potential issues of not requiring that 

refillable cylinders be handled by 

reclaimers or have required heel 

recovery, which included potential 

venting or discarding of the refillable 

cylinder improperly. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment and understands the value of 

ensuring removal of the refrigerant left 

in heels of refillable cylinders. EPA 

notes that the risk of venting heels and 

improper management after use is more 

common to disposable cylinders, given 

they are discarded and not reused. 

Refillable cylinders are refilled and 

reused, so a requirement to remove 

refrigerant heels is unnecessary if the 

cylinder is being refilled with the same 

refrigerant. In cases where the refillable 

cylinder would be filled with a different 

refrigerant, the remaining refrigerant 

would need to be properly removed to 

ensure the cylinder was completely 

emptied before refilling with a different 

refrigerant, which EPA understands is a 

standard practice to avoid mixing 

refrigerants in a refillable cylinder. 

Thus, EPA notes these requirements are 

more appropriate for disposable 

cylinders. 

Comment: One commenter mentioned 

that the proposal was unclear about who 

is responsible for sending the disposable 

cylinder to a reclaimer and asked if it 

was the equipment owner/operator or a 

contractor. 

Response: EPA is establishing 

requirements based on the cylinders 

that have been used in the servicing, 

repair, or installation of refrigerantcontaining equipment or fire 

suppression equipment. Ultimately, the 

responsibility would likely fall on the 

person using or managing the 

disposable cylinder of refrigerant or fire 

suppressant. In most cases, the 

technician or contractor performing the 

process, practice, or activity related to 

servicing, repair, or installation is the 

user of the disposable cylinder. In other 

cases, the contractor or technician may 

report to the location (e.g., a 

supermarket) that manages its own 

supply of refrigerant in disposable 

cylinders. In this case, the responsibility 

of sending the disposable cylinder may 

fall on the equipment owner/operator; 

however, they may arrange agreements 

with the contractor or technician to be 

the person sending the disposable 

cylinder. The logistics of sending the 

disposable cylinder may depend on the 

different practices that are used. In the 

case one of these entities has a working 

business relationship with a reclaimer, 

it would be feasible for that entity to 

manage sending the disposable 

cylinders to a reclaimer. In other cases, 

it may be more logistical to have the 

person who purchases the refrigerant be 

responsible for the return of the 

disposable cylinder if they typically are 

already returning disposable cylinders 

to their wholesaler or distributor, who 

would then be responsible for returning 

the removed heels or disposable 

cylinders to a reclaimer. Finally, as 

described above, EPA is finalizing, in 

conjunction, aspects of the alternate 

approach to allow disposable cylinders 

to be sent to final processors for the heel 

removal, and EPA is also finalizing that 

used disposable cylinders may be 

transported through the reverse supply 

chain (e.g., a distributor or a wholesaler) 

for the removal of the heel. A contractor, 

technician, or an equipment owner/ 

operator may wish to establish 

agreements with a final processor or 

utilize any existing business 

relationships they have with 

distributors or wholesalers to manage 

the disposable cylinders for heel 

removal and ultimately sending the 

removed heels to reclaimers or fire 

suppressant recyclers. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

when recovery machines are used for 

refrigerants, the refrigerant lubricates 

the machines; however, this lubrication 

will not occur in a machine strictly 

doing heel removal, and such a machine 

will have a shorter lifespan. 

Response: EPA is aware that recovery 

machines are used in practice to remove 

refrigerant from equipment and can be 

used to remove heels from disposable 

cylinders. EPA assumes that a recovery 

machine will be used for each of these 

practices, and not strictly one or the 

other. Further, the Agency anticipates 

that recovery machines will have proper 

maintenance to ensure that they are 

running efficiently and are properly 

operated throughout their useful 

lifetime. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed regulatory text contained 

conflicting language about the 

ownership of recovered refrigerant, 

surplus refrigerant, and disposable 

containers with heels. The commenter 

states that the language should be 

clarified to not exclude companies 

important to the supply chain that 

purchase or accept recovered gas or 

salvage and recycling companies. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment. The Agency did not intend to 

propose to limit so that only one avenue 

(i.e., sending used disposable cylinders 

to reclaimers or fire suppressant 

recyclers) would be available to send 

disposable cylinders to reclaimers or 

fire suppressant recyclers. EPA is aware 

of and has reviewed comments on the 

significance of other components of the 

reverse supply chain (e.g., distributors 

or wholesalers) to the transport of 

disposable cylinders to reclaimers and 

fire suppressant recyclers. The Agency 

also notes that it is finalizing provisions 

to allow the used disposable cylinders 

to be sent to a final processor or through 

the reverse supply chain for removal of 

the heel and ultimately sending the 

recovered material to a reclaimer. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the Agency should define when a 

cylinder is considered empty and is 

considered to no longer contain a 

regulated substance, which could 

reduce the need to send all disposable 

cylinders for heel removal. One such 

commenter suggested that a disposable 

cylinder could be considered empty 

when the cylinder approaches 

atmospheric pressure, as consistent with 

RCRA regulations; and that the pressure 

of the cylinder would be documented. 

Further, the commenter stated that EPA 

should state in the regulation how a 

reclaimer would determine that all 

remaining contents of a disposable 

cylinder have been removed, and if 

there is a specified pressure level that 

should be met. The other commenter 

stated that EPA must be clear by what 

is meant to remove all substances from 

a cylinder, noting current requirements 

for removing refrigerants from 

equipment to acceptable levels. 

Other commenters suggested 

requiring that heels from disposable 

cylinders be evacuated to a level of a 

minimum 15 in-Hg. One commenter 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82821 

137Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute, Guideline Q: Content Recovery & Proper 

Recycling of Refrigerant Cylinders, 2016. Available 

at: https://www.ahrinet.org/system/files/2023-06/ 

AHRI_Guideline_Q_2016_0.pdf. 

138EPA clarifies that under 40 CFR 261.7(b)(2), a 

container that has held a hazardous waste that is 

a compressed gas is empty when the pressure in the 

container approaches atmospheric. Where a 

disposable cylinder that contained a refrigerant that 

exhibits the hazardous characteristic of ignitability 

under 40 CFR 261.21 (generally expected to include 

all flammable refrigerants; i.e., Class 2, 2l, and 3) 

is being discarded using the alternate compliance 

method, evacuating to a vacuum of 15-in Hg would 

also meet the requirements for an ‘‘empty 

container’’ under 40 CFR 261.7(b)(2), since the 

vacuum of 15 in-Hg would be an evacuation level 

beyond atmospheric pressure. 

stated that EPA could require records be 

kept for anyone evacuating a cylinder, 

including quantity of cylinders 

evacuated and disposed of by refrigerant 

type. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment and understands that the 

industry is seeking clarity on a finite 

specification of the required level of 

heel removal from a disposable 

cylinder. EPA notes that there are 

longstanding requirements under 40 

CFR part 82, subpart F, for evacuation 

levels of refrigerants from appliances 

using certified recovery machines. 

These requirements include evacuating 

to various levels of vacuum on 

appliances depending on the types of 

appliances and range from 0 to 15 in-Hg. 

EPA is also aware of AHRI Guideline Q 

on recovery and proper recycling of 

refrigerant cylinders.137 AHRI Guideline 

Q defines an empty state for disposable 

cylinders as being evacuated to a 

vacuum of 15 in-Hg (relative to a 

standard atmospheric pressure of 29.9 

in-Hg). EPA is not establishing a 

specified level of evacuation for 

disposable cylinders in this rulemaking. 

However, EPA is establishing an 

alternate compliance option that makes 

use of the evacuation level described in 

AHRI Guideline Q. Where a used 

disposable cylinder is evacuated to a 

level of 15 in-Hg (relative to a standard 

atmospheric pressure of 29.9 in-Hg), a 

person may discard of the cylinder, and 

the cylinder does not require further 

processing or need to be sent to a 

reclaimer or fire suppressant recycler, if 

they provide a certification statement 

during transport to a final processor. 

EPA is aware that the certified recovery 

machines are capable of achieving the 

level of vacuum of 15 in-Hg to remove 

the heels from disposable cylinders. 

Where a cylinder is not evacuated to 15 

in-Hg or a certification is not provided, 

the requirements for sending a 

disposable cylinder for heel removal to 

a reclaimer, fire suppressant recycler, or 

final processor or through the reverse 

supply chain apply. In addition, in the 

case of disposable cylinders containing 

ignitable refrigerant, such cylinders 

must meet the RCRA definition of 

empty container 138 in 40 CFR 261.7 or 

be managed under the applicable RCRA 

standards. EPA is assessing these 

comments and considering a separate 

rulemaking as related to comments 

requested in the ANPRM for 

considerations for technicians. 

Comment: While emphasizing HARDI 

v. EPA, one commenter expressed 

concern that EPA has yet to amend the 

CFR in accordance with the D.C. 

Circuit’s binding vacatur, and indicated 

the absence of any conforming revisions 

to the CFR creates significant 

uncertainty throughout the industry. 

Response: EPA responds that any 

action in response to HARDI v. EPA is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking, 

and thus comments related to such 

action require no response. For 

purposes of public awareness, the 

Agency notes that it is acting consistent 

with the HARDI decision and is not 

implementing or enforcing the QR code 

and tracking requirements for all 

cylinders containing HFCs found at 40 

CFR 84.23. EPA has prepared a 

rulemaking (89 FR 73588, September 11, 

2024) to remove this requirement from 

the CFR. 

Comment: One commenter provided 

alternate considerations to address 

concerns of heel emissions from 

disposable cylinders. The commenter 

described their experience in cylinder 

design and adaptation for class A2L 

refrigerants, noting a resealable pressure 

relief valve and left-handed threads to 

avoid inadvertent connection to a 

refrigerant with flammability 

characteristics. Further, the commenter 

proposed equipping disposable 

cylinders with a resealable pressure 

relief valve to prevent fugitive 

emissions. The commenter also stated 

that disposable cylinders could be 

redesigned with a redundant pressuretight seal to prevent venting by using a 

self-sealing valve that controls gas flow 

and could prevent venting. The selfsealing valve would be similar to that 

for small cans of automotive refrigerant. 

The commenter also suggested 

developing and deploying equipment 

for heel recovery and preparation of 

disposable cylinders for disposal. The 

commenter states that it may be possible 

to reduce venting of heels by making 

heel recovery and cylinder recovery 

easier and less time consuming. Beyond 

the cylinders, the commenter suggested 

other means of addressing venting heels, 

including the development of a 

disposable cylinder buyback program, 

which the commenter states could be 

more effective than the proposed 

requirements if left to be led by 

industry. The commenter also stated 

options such as heel recovery and 

recycling programs internal to 

companies, contractor-led programs 

where cylinders are evacuated to 15 inHg prior to disposal, or programs where 

refrigerant producers and packagers 

establish a seller take-back administered 

at local levels by wholesale customers. 

Finally, the commenter recommended 

that EPA consider labeling for 

disposable cylinders that includes a 

warning and disposal instructions. 

Other commenters suggested that the 

disposable cylinders could be made of 

recyclable materials. 

Response: The Agency appreciates the 

commenter’s suggestions on 

considerations for alternative cylinder 

designs to minimize emissions. EPA 

intends to evaluate the information 

provided for any potential future 

rulemakings. While materials for the 

disposable cylinders are outside of the 

scope of this rulemaking, EPA notes that 

the cylinders are made of steel, which 

can be recycled. 

Regarding alternate considerations 

beyond cylinder design, EPA 

appreciates these comments and 

suggestions. The Agency provided 

responses to similar suggestions in 

comment responses in this section. For 

example, EPA is addressing flexibilities 

of transporting used disposable 

cylinders to reclaimers and fire 

suppressant recyclers by including the 

alternate approach to allow final 

processors to accept disposable 

cylinders and recover the heel and 

establishing that the recovery of the heel 

may occur at other points in the reverse 

supply chain (e.g., wholesalers and 

distributors). These entities are those 

that are capable of removing the heel 

from disposable cylinders and thus have 

access to the proper recovery machines. 

EPA also notes that while establishing 

collection sites may improve logistics of 

returning disposable cylinders for 

recovery of the heel, the Agency is not 

the appropriate entity to establish such 

sites under a regulatory action. Further, 

EPA is establishing an alternate 

approach considering an evacuation 

level of 15 in-Hg, as described earlier in 

this section. The Agency appreciates the 

suggestion to establish a labeling 

requirement for disposable cylinders 

that would describe safe and proper 

disposal of the cylinder. EPA is not at 

this time establishing such labeling 

requirements, but may consider such a 

requirement in a future rulemaking. The 

Agency also notes that the 

manufacturers of these cylinders could 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82822 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

139Small cans of refrigerant, that typically 

contain two pounds or less of regulated substances, 

are commonly used by individuals to service their 

own MVACs. This do-it-yourself (DIY) servicing 

practice is unique to the MVAC subsector within 

the RACHP sector. 

140EPA 1980, Background Document for the 

Hazardous Waste Characteristic of Ignitability, May 

2, 1980, p.7 https://www.epa.gov/hw/backgrounddocument-hazardous-waste-characteristicignitability. 

141 ‘‘Flammability’’ as identified by the ASHRAE 

standards and ‘‘ignitability’’ as identified by the 

RCRA 40 CFR 261.21 standard are both intended to 

capture the potential for a substance to cause fires. 

However, since the methodology used under these 

two systems differs, EPA is using ‘‘flammability’’ 

when describing the ASHRAE standard and 

‘‘ignitability’’ when describing wastes that are 

regulated under RCRA when they meet the ignitable 

characteristic in § 261.21 and therefore are subject 

to hazardous waste management requirements. In 

general, a flammable substance would be presumed 

to be also ignitable under RCRA unless testing were 

to demonstrate otherwise. 

provide additional information on their 

labels if they choose to do so, as long 

as that information is not counter to the 

requirements established by this final 

rule. 

2. Small Cans of Refrigerant 

EPA did not propose that small 

cans 139 of refrigerant with self-sealing 

valves (i.e., those that qualify for 

exemption from the sales restriction 

under 40 CFR 82.154(c)(ix)) must be 

sent to a reclaimer for disposal after use. 

EPA did not receive adverse comments 

on this proposed approach and is 

finalizing as proposed. EPA is 

accordingly not applying the modified 

requirements for disposable cylinders as 

described in section IV.G.1 to small cans 

of refrigerant. EPA edited the regulatory 

text at section 84.116(g) to clarify that 

the requirements do not apply to small 

cans. 

H. How is EPA establishing RCRA 

refrigerant recycling alternative 

standards? 

EPA is finalizing standards under 40 

CFR part 266, subpart Q, that apply 

instead of the full RCRA Subtitle C 

hazardous waste requirements to certain 

ignitable spent refrigerants that are 

recycled for reuse. The purpose of these 

standards is to help reduce emissions of 

ignitable spent refrigerants to the lowest 

achievable level by maximizing the 

recovery and safe recycling of such 

refrigerants during the service, repair, 

and disposal of appliances. 

1. Nomenclature Used in This Section 

This section uses the term ‘‘ignitable 

spent refrigerant’’ to describe the 

refrigerants that are potentially subject 

to RCRA hazardous waste regulation 

under the current rules, and that will 

now be subject to the applicable RCRA 

alternative standards for refrigerants 

when recycled for reuse under the final 

rule. ‘‘Ignitability’’ is one of the RCRA 

hazardous waste characteristics and is 

used to identify waste that may pose a 

risk to human health and the 

environment due to its potential to 

cause fires if improperly managed.140

The characteristic of ignitability is 

defined in 40 CFR 261.21. As discussed 

in more detail below in this section, 

‘‘ignitable’’ is similar, but not identical, 

to the term ‘‘flammable’’ as used in 

ASHRAE Standard 34–2022. ‘‘Spent’’ is 

used in the same context as ‘‘spent 

material,’’ which is defined in 40 CFR 

261.1(c)(1) as ‘‘any material that has 

been used and as a result of 

contamination can no longer serve the 

purpose for which it was produced 

without processing.’’ Thus, an 

‘‘ignitable spent refrigerant’’ is a used 

refrigerant that cannot be reused 

without first being cleaned, and that 

exhibits the hazardous characteristic of 

ignitability per 40 CFR 261.21. 

In addition, the terms ‘‘reclaim’’ and 

‘‘recycle’’ have different regulatory 

purposes and definitions under RCRA 

than under the CAA and the AIM Act. 

Under RCRA, a material is ‘‘reclaimed’’ 

if it is processed to recover a usable 

product, or if it is regenerated. Examples 

are recovery of lead values from spent 

batteries and regeneration of spent 

solvents (see 40 CFR 261.1(c)(4)). 

Reclamation is one of the four types of 

‘‘recycling’’ identified in 40 CFR 

261.2(c) that can involve management of 

a solid waste under RCRA. Materials 

that are solid waste under RCRA are 

potentially subject to RCRA hazardous 

waste requirements. 

In contrast, under title VI of the CAA 

and its implementing regulations, 

‘‘reclaim’’ is a more precise term, 

requiring the reclaimed refrigerant to 

meet regulatory specifications based on 

AHRI Standard 700–2016, while 

‘‘recycle’’ means to extract refrigerant 

from an appliance and clean it for reuse 

in equipment of the same owner 

without meeting all of the CAA 

requirements for reclamation. See those 

definitions in 40 CFR 82.152. Similarly, 

under the AIM Act, ‘‘reclaim; 

reclamation’’ is defined in subsection 

(b)(9) of the Act, and that definition 

refers to the purity standards under 

AHRI Standard 700–2016 (or an 

appropriate successor standard adopted 

by EPA Administrator) and the 

verification of purity using, at a 

minimum, the analytical methodology 

described in that standard. ‘‘Recycle’’ is 

not defined in the AIM Act. 

To avoid confusion when discussing 

what regulatory requirements apply to 

ignitable spent refrigerant, for the 

purposes of the final RCRA alternative 

standards, EPA is using the term 

‘‘recycle for reuse’’ as defined at 40 CFR 

266.601 to mean to process an ignitable 

spent refrigerant to remove 

contamination and prepare it to be used 

again. This umbrella term includes 

reclaiming ignitable spent refrigerants as 

defined in the context of the RCRA 

regulations at 40 CFR 261.1(c), and 

either reclaiming or recycling 

refrigerants as defined in 40 CFR 82.152. 

‘‘Recycle for reuse’’ would not include 

recycling that involves burning for 

energy recovery or use in a manner 

constituting disposal (use in or on the 

land) as defined in 40 CFR 261.2(c), or 

sham recycling as defined in 40 CFR 

261.2(g). 

2. Background 

On February 13, 1991, EPA 

promulgated an interim final rule 

excluding spent chlorofluorocarbon 

(CFC) refrigerants from the definition of 

hazardous waste under RCRA when 

recycled for reuse (56 FR 5910). EPA 

was concerned that subjecting used CFC 

refrigerants to RCRA hazardous waste 

regulations would result in increased 

venting of these refrigerants, resulting in 

increased levels of ODS in the 

stratosphere. As described above in 

section III.C, EPA promulgated a series 

of rules implementing provisions under 

CAA title VI to phase out class I and 

class II ODS, including CFCs used as 

refrigerants, and establishing standards 

applicable to the use, disposal, and 

recycling of ODS refrigerants and their 

substitutes. Some of these acceptable 

substitutes are flammable and likely to 

exhibit the hazardous waste 

characteristic of ignitability found in 40 

CFR 261.21.141 As described in section 

I.B, ASHRAE Standard 34–2022 assigns 

a safety group classification for each 

refrigerant which consists of two 

alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2 or 

B1). The capital letter indicates the 

toxicity class (‘‘A’’ for lower toxicity), 

and the numeral denotes the 

flammability. ASHRAE recognizes three 

classifications and one subclass for 

refrigerant flammability. The three main 

flammability classifications are Class 1, 

for refrigerants that do not propagate a 

flame when tested as per the ASHRAE 

34 standard, ‘‘Designation and Safety 

Classification of Refrigerants;’’ Class 2, 

for refrigerants of lower flammability; 

and Class 3, for highly flammable 

refrigerants, such as certain 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. ASHRAE 

recently updated the safety 

classification matrix to include a new 

flammability subclass 2L, for 

flammability Class 2 refrigerants that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82823 

142ASHRAE Fact Sheet Update on New 

Refrigerants Designations and Safety Classification 

November 2022. https://www.ashrae.org/ 

file%20library/technical%20resources/bookstore/ 

factsheet_ashrae_english_november2022.pdf. 

143S N Kopylov et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth 

Environ. Sci. 272 022064; https://

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/272/ 

2/022064. 

144EPA did not reopen the original CFC 

refrigerant recycling exclusion and did not request 

comment on 40 CFR 261.4(b)(12). 

145U.S. EPA, A Study of the Potential Effects of 

Market Forces on the Management of Hazardous 

Secondary Materials Intended for Recycling, 

November 2006, available at https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-RCRA2002-0031-0358. 

146See comment numbers EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0084, EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606–0085, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2022–0606–0102, EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0109, EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606–0111, EPA– 

Continued 

burn very slowly.142 Since 2010, EPA’s 

SNAP program has listed a number of 

flammable substitute refrigerants that 

have ASHRAE safety classifications of 

A3 (higher flammability, lower toxicity 

refrigerants such as propane or 

isobutane) or A2L (lower flammability, 

lower toxicity refrigerants such as HFC– 

32 or HFO–1234yf). 

The standard for flammability under 

ASHRAE Standard 34–2022 does not 

correspond precisely with the RCRA 

standards for ignitability found in 40 

CFR 261.21, but in general, refrigerants 

with a flammability Class of 2 or 3 are 

expected to be ignitable under RCRA. 

Spent refrigerants with a flammability 

class of 2L may or may not be ignitable 

hazardous waste, depending on the 

specific chemical(s) used in the 

refrigerant and contamination of the 

refrigerant during use. Note that even 

refrigerants that do not exhibit the 

RCRA characteristic of ignitability as a 

virgin material could become ignitable 

with use, especially if contaminated 

with oil or other lubricants, posing a 

risk of fire if mismanaged.143 Similarly, 

the flash point of a refrigerant that is a 

blend of two or more chemicals can 

change if there is a leak during 

operation or during recovery and 

storage, when the refrigerant from 

multiple appliances is combined, or if 

the recovery process is incomplete, 

potentially changing the hazardous 

waste characteristic of the spent 

refrigerant when collected. 

It should be noted that these ignitable 

spent refrigerant substitutes do not fall 

under the 40 CFR 261.4(b)(12) RCRA 

exclusion for refrigerants, since that 

exclusion is limited to CFC 

refrigerants.144 The applicability of 

RCRA to flammable refrigerants is also 

discussed in the 2016 SNAP final rule 

(81 FR 86799–86800, December 1, 

2016). Consistent with that discussion, 

EPA does not consider incidental 

releases of spent refrigerant that occur 

during the service and repair of 

appliances subject to CAA section 608 

to be disposal of a hazardous waste 

under RCRA. However, ignitable spent 

refrigerant from commercial and 

industrial appliances (i.e., nonhousehold appliances) will be classified 

as hazardous waste and will need to be 

managed under the applicable RCRA 

regulations (40 CFR parts 260 through 

270) when recovered (i.e., removed from 

an appliance and stored in an external 

container) or disposed of. These 

requirements include RCRA hazardous 

waste generator notification and on-site 

accumulation standards, emergency 

preparedness and other requirements, 

hazardous waste manifest and 

transportation requirements for the 

ignitable spent refrigerant, and RCRA 

permit requirements for refrigerant 

recyclers that store the refrigerant prior 

to recycling, unless the refrigerants are 

recycled for reuse under 40 CFR part 

266, subpart Q, as described later in this 

section. 

3. Final Alternative RCRA Standards for 

Ignitable Spent Refrigerants Being 

Recycled for Reuse 

Similar to EPA’s concerns expressed 

in the 1991 rulemaking establishing the 

CFC refrigerant recycling exclusion, 

EPA is concerned that applying the full 

RCRA hazardous waste requirements to 

substitute refrigerants that exhibit the 

hazardous characteristic of ignitability 

would discourage recycling and could 

result in an increase in releases of 

ignitable refrigerants, including HFC 

ignitable refrigerants, contrary to the 

goals of RCRA. The Agency separately 

notes that such releases would also be 

contrary to one of the purposes of 

regulations under subsection (h)(1) of 

the AIM Act, which is to minimize 

releases of HFCs from equipment. 

Moreover, inadvertently incentivizing 

releases of refrigerants would be 

contrary to RCRA section 3004(n), 

which requires EPA to control air 

emissions from hazardous waste 

management, as may be necessary to 

protect human health and the 

environment. Finally, the current 

requirements for recovery of refrigerants 

under the CAA section 608 rules are 

more stringent than the recycling 

requirements under the RCRA 40 CFR 

261.6, recyclable materials rules, and 

help ensure that ignitable spent 

refrigerants are legitimately recycled for 

reuse, as well as address the 

flammability risks posed by ignitable 

spent refrigerants. 

For the reasons stated above, EPA is 

finalizing standards under 40 CFR part 

266, subpart Q, applicable to certain 

ignitable spent refrigerants that are 

recycled for reuse that will apply 

instead of the full RCRA Subtitle C 

hazardous waste requirements. The 

purpose of these standards is to help 

reduce emissions of ignitable spent 

refrigerants to the lowest achievable 

level by maximizing the recovery and 

safe recycling of such refrigerants 

during the service, repair, and disposal 

of appliances. 

EPA proposed that 40 CFR part 266, 

subpart Q, RCRA alternative standards 

would apply to HFCs and substitutes 

that are lower flammability (i.e., that do 

not belong to flammability Class 3). In 

this final action, consistent with the 

proposal, EPA is keeping the 

applicability of the alternative standards 

to the lower flammability substitutes 

because of the lower risk of fire from the 

collection and recycling for reuse of 

these refrigerants, and the greater 

market value of these refrigerants, 

which supports the conclusion that 

these spent refrigerants will be recycled 

for reuse and not stockpiled, 

mismanaged, or abandoned. In the 

context of hazardous secondary 

materials recycled under RCRA, EPA 

has found that a low market value for 

a reclaimed product can increase the 

likelihood of mismanagement and 

abandonment occurring during 

hazardous waste recycling activities.145

Lower flammability spent refrigerant 

means a spent refrigerant that is not 

considered highly flammable. Highly 

flammable refrigerants include, but are 

not limited to the following chemicals: 

butane, isobutane, methane, propane, 

and/or propylene. EPA did not receive 

comments on the proposed definition of 

‘‘lower flammability spent refrigerant.’’ 

However, the Agency is modifying the 

definition in this final rule to provide 

examples of refrigerants that are 

considered highly flammable. 

a. Comments on the RCRA Alternative 

Standards and Changes Made in 

Response to Comments 

EPA received 17 public comments on 

the proposed RCRA alternative 

standards. All comments were 

supportive of EPA finalizing alternative 

standards that are specifically designed 

for ignitable spent refrigerant being 

recycled for reuse instead of imposing 

the standard RCRA Subtitle C hazardous 

waste requirements on these waste 

streams. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing 

these standards largely as proposed. 

However, several comments raised 

concerns regarding applying the 

speculative accumulation limit to 

storage of ignitable spent refrigerants at 

reclamation facilities.146 As noted in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82824 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

HQ–OAR–2022–0606–0113, and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2022–0606–0159 in the docket. 

147See comment number EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0152 in the docket. 

148Facilities that store less than ten days in the 

normal course of transportation are considered to be 

transfer facilities as defined in 40 CFR 260.10 and 

are generally not subject to RCRA requirements. See 

40 CFR 263.12. 

149See comment number EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0091 in the docket. 

150Class 1 refrigerants are nonflammable and 

generally not expected to be ignitable, and therefore 

not subject to RCRA requirements. However, if a 

spent Class 1 refrigerant were ignitable due to 

contamination with oil or other lubricants, it would 

be subject to the alternative RCRA standards. 

proposal (88 FR 72275, October 19, 

2023), restrictions on speculative 

accumulation have been an important 

element of the RCRA hazardous waste 

recycling regulations since they were 

originally promulgated on January 4, 

1985 (50 FR 634 through 637). 

According to this regulatory provision, 

the person accumulating the hazardous 

secondary material must demonstrate 

that the material is recyclable and that 

during a calendar year (beginning 

January 1) the amount of such material 

that is recycled or transferred to a 

different site for recycling is at least 75 

percent by weight or volume of the 

amount of the hazardous secondary 

material present at the beginning of the 

calendar year (January 1). 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

requiring reclaimers to process 75 

percent of these refrigerants within one 

year would be very challenging for most 

reclaimers. In particular, commenters 

noted that due to a very small initial 

installed equipment base and low 

equipment service rates in the first years 

of the HFC phasedown, limiting the 

accumulation period to a one-year 

maximum would require processing of 

extremely small quantities, which 

would be an inefficient use of reclaimer 

resources. 

Response: EPA notes that there is an 

existing provision at 40 CFR 260.31(a) 

that allows facilities to petition EPA for 

an extension of the speculative 

accumulation time limit if the applicant 

demonstrates that sufficient amounts of 

the material will be recycled or 

transferred for recycling in the following 

year. Applicants must follow the 

procedures in 40 CFR 260.33. 

However, given that the potential 

limitations in the quantities available to 

be processed would be an industry-wide 

issue during the first years of the HFC 

phasedown, EPA agrees with the 

commenters that a delayed compliance 

date for the speculative accumulation 

requirement is warranted. This delayed 

compliance date is a more efficient use 

of resources than requiring each affected 

facility to petition the Agency for an 

extension and would allow time to 

build up supply to make reclamation 

more economical for the reclamation 

facility. 

Accordingly, EPA is delaying the 

compliance date for the speculative 

accumulation time limit until the 

calendar year 2029. Up until January 1, 

2029, reclamation facilities may 

accumulate ignitable spent refrigerants 

without recycling them for reuse as long 

as the other requirements of the 

alternative RCRA standards are met. The 

speculative accumulation limits would 

then begin to apply during calendar year 

2029. In other words, by December 31, 

2029, reclaimers must reclaim 75 

percent of the inventory of ignitable 

spent refrigerant that was present onsite on January 1, 2029. If they will be 

unable to meet this deadline, they may 

submit a petition for an extension under 

40 CFR 260.31 using the procedures in 

40 CFR 260.33, or they must manage 

their inventory of ignitable spent 

refrigerant as hazardous waste. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification on how the new RCRA 

alternative standards would apply to 

persons who receive refrigerants from 

off-site but do not recycle them for 

reuse.147

Response: EPA agrees that if a facility 

receives ignitable spent refrigerant but 

does not recycle it for reuse, then it 

should not be subject to the proposed 

standard that requires off-site facilities 

to maintain certification by EPA under 

40 CFR 82.164. (See 88 FR 72275, 

October 19, 2023). However, if such a 

facility stores the ignitable spent 

refrigerant for more than 10 days in the 

normal course of transportation,148 the 

same requirements regarding 

speculative accumulation and the risks 

of fire and explosions that EPA 

identified in the proposal concerning 

off-site facilities receiving and 

accumulating ignitable spent 

refrigerants would still apply (88 FR 

72275–72276, October 19, 2023). Thus, 

in the final rule EPA is including 

clarifying language to explain that 

persons who receive ignitable spent 

refrigerants from off-site, and are not a 

transfer facility that stores the 

refrigerants for less than 10 days before 

sending the refrigerant to another site to 

be recycled for reuse must: (1) Meet the 

emergency preparedness and response 

requirements of 40 CFR part 261, 

subpart M; and (2) not speculatively 

accumulate the ignitable spent 

refrigerant per 40 CFR 261.1(c). This 

could include those in the reverse 

supply chain (e.g., distributors or 

wholesalers) or final processors who 

receive disposable cylinders and remove 

heels and consolidate them before 

discarding the cylinder (see section 

IV.G.1). 

Comment: Finally, one commenter 

suggested a number of technical 

corrections and editorial clarifications 

to the proposed regulatory language for 

the alternative RCRA standards 

including a suggestion that EPA remove 

the term ‘‘alternative,’’ since the new 

requirements are not optional.149

Response: EPA has made revisions to 

the language in response to these 

suggestions. In regard to the comment 

requesting that EPA remove the 

description of the new RCRA standards 

as ‘‘alternative,’’ EPA agrees with the 

comment that they are not optional for 

persons who wish to recycle ignitable 

spent refrigerant for reuse. However, the 

new standards do provide an alternative 

to the requirements for hazardous waste 

disposal at 40 CFR parts 262 through 

270, and the term was used extensively 

in the proposed rule and 

communications materials. Thus, EPA is 

maintaining the description of the new 

40 CFR part 266, subpart Q, as 

‘‘alternative standards’’ to distinguish 

them from the RCRA hazardous waste 

disposal standards, but has removed the 

term from the subpart Q standards 

themselves. For more information on 

public comments on the proposed 

RCRA alternative standards, and EPA’s 

responses, please see RCRA Alternative 

Standards for Ignitable Spent 

Refrigerants: Response to Comments 

Document available in the docket. 

b. Scope of the Final RCRA Alternative 

Standards 

The RCRA alternative standards at 40 

CFR part 266, subpart Q, apply to HFCs 

and substitutes that do not belong to 

flammability Class 3. Class 3 refrigerants 

are highly flammable refrigerants that 

include, but are not limited to, any of 

the following chemicals: butane, 

isobutane, methane, propane, and/or 

propylene. The alternative standards are 

limited to lower flammability 

substitutes (Class 1, 2 and 2L) 150

because of the lower risk of fire from the 

collection and recycling for reuse of 

these refrigerants, and the greater 

market value of these refrigerants, 

which supports the conclusion that 

these spent refrigerants will be recycled 

for reuse and not stockpiled, 

mismanaged, or abandoned. In the 

context of hazardous waste recycled 

under RCRA, EPA has found that a low 

market value for a reclaimed product 

can increase the likelihood of 

mismanagement and abandonment 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82825 

151EPA-Certified Refrigerant Reclaimers https://

www.epa.gov/section608/epa-certified-refrigerantreclaimers. Last updated June 13, 2024. 

occurring during hazardous waste 

recycling activities. 

EPA did not receive any comments on 

the proposed definition of ‘‘lower 

flammability spent refrigerant’’ but, in 

order to provide greater clarity and 

simplify implementation, in lieu of 

referring to the ANSI/ASHRAE 

standard, EPA is including in the 

regulatory definition the list of specific 

chemicals that are considered Class 3 

‘‘highly flammable’’ refrigerants and 

therefore are not lower flammability 

refrigerants. 

c. Requirements of the RCRA 

Alternative Standards 

The specific standards EPA is 

finalizing for ignitable spent refrigerants 

being recycled for reuse for further use 

in equipment of the same owner, or by 

the owner of the recovery equipment in 

compliance with MVAC standards in 40 

CFR part 82, subpart B, are (1) the 

ignitable spent refrigerants are 

recovered (i.e., removed from an 

appliance and stored in an external 

container) and/or recycled for reuse 

using equipment that is certified for that 

type of refrigerant under 40 CFR 82.36 

or 40 CFR 82.158; and (2) the ignitable 

spent refrigerants are not speculatively 

accumulated as defined in 40 CFR 

261.1(c). 

The specific standards that EPA is 

finalizing for facilities receiving 

refrigerant from off-site to be recycled 

for reuse are (1) the reclaimer must 

maintain certification by EPA under 40 

CFR 82.164; (2) the facility must meet 

the applicable emergency preparedness 

and response requirements of 40 CFR 

part 261, subpart M; and (3) the 

ignitable spent refrigerants must not be 

speculatively accumulated as defined in 

40 CFR 261.1(c). These requirements are 

included as part of the RCRA alternative 

standard in order to ensure that the 

ignitable spent refrigerants are 

legitimately recycled for reuse in a way 

that is protective of human health and 

the environment. For facilities that 

receive ignitable spent refrigerant from 

off-site and store the refrigerant for more 

than 10 days and then send the 

refrigerant on to a reclaimer to be 

recycled for reuse: (1) The facility must 

meet the applicable emergency 

preparedness and response 

requirements of 40 CFR part 261, 

subpart M; and (2) the ignitable spent 

refrigerants must not be speculatively 

accumulated as defined in 40 CFR 

261.1(c). 

The requirement that the recovery 

and/or recycling equipment be certified 

for that type of refrigerant and appliance 

under 40 CFR 82.36 (for MVAC 

systems), or 40 CFR 82.158 (for 

recycling for reuse in appliances by the 

same owner) specifically addresses the 

ignitability hazard during refrigerant 

recovery and recycling for reuse at 

MVAC recycling operations in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart B, or for recycling for reuse in 

appliances by the same owner. In 

particular, appendix B4 to subpart F of 

40 CFR part 82—Performance and 

Safety of Flammable Refrigerant 

Recovery and/or Recycling Equipment— 

requires all recovery and/or recycling 

equipment to be tested to meet 

standards for the test apparatus, test gas 

mixtures, sampling procedures, 

analytical techniques, and equipment 

construction that will be used to 

determine the performance and safety of 

refrigerant recovery. 

The requirement that the spent 

refrigerant regulated under the new 

alternative standards not be 

speculatively accumulated per 40 CFR 

261.1(c) will help prevent overaccumulation, mismanagement, and 

abandonment of the spent refrigerant. 

Restrictions on speculative 

accumulation have been an important 

element of the RCRA hazardous waste 

recycling regulations since they were 

originally promulgated on January 4, 

1985 (50 FR 634 through 637). 

According to this regulatory provision, 

hazardous secondary materials as 

defined in 40 CFR 260.10 (which would 

include ignitable spent refrigerants) are 

accumulated speculatively if the person 

accumulating them cannot demonstrate 

that the material is potentially 

recyclable. Further, the person 

accumulating the hazardous secondary 

material must demonstrate that during a 

calendar year (beginning January 1), the 

amount of such material that is recycled 

or transferred to a different site for 

recycling is at least 75 percent by weight 

or volume of the amount of the 

hazardous secondary material present at 

the beginning of the calendar year 

(January 1). Hazardous secondary 

materials to be recycled must be placed 

in a storage unit with a label indicating 

the first date that the material began to 

be accumulated, or the accumulation 

period must be documented through an 

inventory log or other appropriate 

method. Otherwise, the hazardous 

secondary material is considered to be 

speculatively accumulated and not 

eligible for the alternative standards in 

40 CFR part 266, subpart Q. 

Facilities that are unable to comply 

with the speculative accumulation time 

limits do have the option of petitioning 

EPA for a variance per 40 CFR 260.31(a), 

using the procedures in 40 CFR 260.33, 

to extend the timeframe for one year. 

However, as noted in the discussion of 

public comments in section IV.H.3.a of 

this preamble, EPA is aware that the 

availability of ignitable spent 

refrigerants may be limited during the 

early years of the HFC phasedown, and 

accordingly is delaying the compliance 

date for speculative accumulation at 

reclamation facilities until calendar year 

2029. Therefore, up until January 1, 

2029, reclamation facilities may 

accumulate ignitable spent refrigerants 

without recycling them for reuse as long 

as the other requirements of the RCRA 

alternative standards are met. The 

speculative accumulation limits would 

then begin to apply during calendar year 

2029. In other words, by December 31, 

2029, reclaimers must reclaim 75 

percent of the inventory of ignitable 

spent refrigerants that was present on 

January 1, 2029. If they will be unable 

to meet this deadline, they may submit 

a petition for an extension under 40 CFR 

260.31 using the procedures in 40 CFR 

260.33, or they must manage their 

inventory of ignitable spent refrigerants 

as RCRA hazardous waste. 

The requirement that facilities 

receiving refrigerant from off-site to be 

recycled for reuse maintain certification 

by EPA under 40 CFR 82.164 helps 

ensure that the recycler is experienced 

in proper refrigerant reclamation 

techniques and will manage the spent 

refrigerant in a manner that minimizes 

releases, with an explicit limit under the 

CAA section 608 rules of no more than 

1.5 percent of the refrigerant released 

during the reclamation process (see 40 

CFR 82.164(a)(3)). The certification 

requirement also helps with the 

transparency of the RCRA alternative 

standards since the list of EPA-certified 

refrigerant reclaimers is publicly 

available on EPA’s website.151 In 

addition, these facilities are certified 

reclaimers under CAA section 608 and 

must follow recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements per 40 CFR 

82.164(d) including (1) maintaining 

records of the names and addresses of 

persons sending them material for 

reclamation and the quantity of the 

material (the combined mass of 

refrigerant and contaminants) sent to 

them for reclamation; and (2) reporting 

annually the quantity of material sent to 

them for reclamation by refrigerant type, 

the mass of refrigerant reclaimed by 

refrigerant type, and the mass of waste 

products. Finally, EPA-certified 

refrigerant reclaimers must verify that 

each batch of reclaimed refrigerant 

meets the specifications in the 

regulations (40 CFR 82.164(a)(2)), which 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82826 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

152Per 40 CFR 260.10, ‘‘hazardous secondary 

materials’’ means a secondary material (e.g., spent 

material, by-product, or sludge) that, when 

discarded, would be identified as hazardous waste 

under 40 CFR part 261. Ignitable spent refrigerant 

meets this definition. 

helps ensure that the reclamation 

process is legitimate recycling under the 

RCRA regulations. 

EPA notes that reclaimed refrigerant 

that does not meet the required 

specifications would be considered an 

off-specification (‘‘off-spec’’) 

commercial chemical product under 40 

CFR 261.2(c). If there is an allowable 

use for the off-spec reclaimed refrigerant 

and the material is used as an effective 

substitute for commercial product, it 

may be exempt from RCRA under the 

use/reuse provisions of 40 CFR 261.2(e). 

If the off-spec reclaimed refrigerant goes 

to further legitimate reclamation, it 

could also be exempt from RCRA under 

40 CFR 261.2(c)(3). If the ignitable, offspec reclaimed refrigerant cannot be 

either legitimately reused or further 

reclaimed, it would need to be managed 

as a hazardous waste. 

EPA further notes that persons who 

reclaim HFCs that are listed as regulated 

substances under the AIM Act must 

meet the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 

84.31(a) and 84.31(i). 

Finally, including the requirement 

that facilities receiving refrigerant to be 

recycled for reuse, or that store the 

refrigerant for more than 10 days before 

sending it on to be recycled for reuse, 

must meet the RCRA standards under 40 

CFR part 261, subpart M, Emergency 

Preparedness and Response for 

Management of Excluded Hazardous 

Secondary Materials, addresses the risks 

posed specifically by ignitable spent 

refrigerants, which are a subset of 

hazardous secondary materials.152

Facilities receiving ignitable spent 

refrigerants from other parties for 

recycling for reuse will be subject to this 

additional emergency preparedness 

requirement because these third-party 

recyclers will receive ignitable spent 

refrigerants from multiple sources and 

are likely to store greater volumes for 

longer time periods than companies that 

recycle for reuse in appliances by the 

same owner or as part of an MVAC 

refrigerant recovery and recycling 

system in compliance with 40 CFR part 

82, subpart B. These emergency 

preparedness and response 

requirements include maintaining 

appropriate emergency equipment onsite, having access to alarm systems, 

maintaining needed aisle space, making 

arrangements with local emergency 

authorities, and having a designated 

emergency coordinator who is 

responsible for responding in the event 

of an emergency. This requirement will 

help protect human health and the 

environment in the event of a fire or 

other emergency at the facility. Under 

the final rule, all facilities receiving 

ignitable spent refrigerant from off-site, 

except for 10-day transfer facilities, 

must meet the emergency preparedness 

and response requirements under 40 

CFR 261.410 and 40 CFR 261.420, 

which include general personnel 

training requirements for facilities (40 

CFR 261.420(g)). 

4. RCRA Very Small Quantity Generator 

Wastes 

Very Small Quantity Generators 

(VSQGs) generate less than 100 

kilograms of hazardous waste per month 

and one kilogram or less per month of 

acutely hazardous waste and are subject 

to a limited set of Federal RCRA Subtitle 

C hazardous waste regulations, provided 

that they comply with the conditions set 

forth in 40 CFR 262.14. Among those 

conditions is that the VSQG must either 

treat and dispose of its hazardous waste 

in an on-site facility or ensure delivery 

to an off-site facility listed in 40 CFR 

262.14(a)(5). Included in this list is a 

facility that (1) beneficially uses or 

reuses, or legitimately recycles or 

reclaims, its waste; or (2) treats its waste 

prior to beneficial use or reuse, or 

legitimate recycling or reclamation. 

For ignitable spent refrigerant 

regulated under the new RCRA 

alternative standards, EPA is finalizing 

a conforming change to 40 CFR 

262.14(a)(5) to require that these 

refrigerants be sent to a facility that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 

266, subpart Q if sent off-site for 

recycling. This revision incorporates 

into the RCRA regulations that VSQGs’ 

ability to send ignitable spent 

refrigerants for recycling for reuse is 

limited to facilities that meet EPA’s 

certification requirements in 40 CFR 

82.164. This revision does not affect 

refrigerants not subject to the new RCRA 

alternative standards (e.g., ignitable 

spent refrigerants that are not sent offsite to be recycled for reuse). 

EPA notes that while this change is 

more stringent than the current RCRA 

regulations, VSQGs would experience 

no additional burden since under the 

CAA section 608 rules, all reclaimers 

receiving used ODS refrigerants or nonexempt substitute refrigerants from offsite for reclamation must meet EPA’s 

certification requirements in 40 CFR 

82.164. 

5. RCRA Regulation of Exports and 

Imports of Certain Ignitable Spent 

Refrigerants 

The RCRA alternative standards are 

limited to ignitable spent refrigerants 

that are recycled for reuse in the United 

States, and they require that off-site 

recycling for reuse be performed at an 

EPA-certified reclaimer per 40 CFR 

82.164. Therefore, ignitable spent 

refrigerants intended for export would 

not qualify for the RCRA alternative 

standards, and would instead be 

regulated under the full RCRA Subtitle 

C requirements, including the relevant 

hazardous waste export requirements in 

40 CFR part 262, subpart H. 

Ignitable spent refrigerants that are 

imported would qualify for alternative 

RCRA standards, as long as the 

imported refrigerants meet the 

requirements of the RCRA alternative 

standards, including being recycled for 

reuse at an EPA-certified reclaimer per 

40 CFR 82.164. This provision does not 

amend, reopen or otherwise affect any 

of the requirements for regulated 

substances established under the AIM 

Act that are codified at 40 CFR part 84, 

subpart A. 

6. Applicability of Alternative Standard 

in RCRA-Authorized States 

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA 

may authorize a State hazardous waste 

program to operate in lieu of the Federal 

program within the State. Following 

authorization, EPA maintains its 

enforcement authorities, although 

authorized States have primary 

enforcement responsibility for their 

authorized programs. The standards and 

requirements for state authorization are 

found in 40 CFR part 271. 

Prior to the enactment of the HSWA, 

an authorized state hazardous waste 

program operated entirely in lieu of the 

Federal program in that state. The 

Federal requirements no longer applied 

in the authorized state, and EPA could 

not issue permits for any facilities in 

that state. When new, more stringent, or 

broader Federal requirements were 

promulgated, the state was obligated to 

adopt equivalent authorities under state 

law within specified time-frames. 

However, new requirements did not 

take effect in an authorized state until 

the state adopted such equivalent 

authorities, and these requirements did 

not become part of the authorized 

program enforceable by EPA until EPA 

authorized them. 

In contrast, with the enactment of 

RCRA section 3006(g), which was added 

by HSWA, new Federal requirements 

and prohibitions imposed pursuant to 

HSWA authority take effect in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82827 

153Another example of an instance where there 

is no change in ownership is the off-site servicing 

and recharge of MVAC systems for a fleet of trucks 

that are owned by the same company. 

154SAE International, 2012. SAE J2099: Standard 

of Purity for Recycled R–134a (HFC–134a) and R– 

1234yf (HFO–1234yf) for Use in Mobile Airconditioning Systems. 

authorized states at the same time that 

they take effect in unauthorized States. 

EPA is directed by section 3006(g) to 

implement HSWA-based requirements 

and prohibitions in authorized States 

until EPA authorizes equivalent State 

authorities. While States must still 

adopt state-law equivalents to HSWAbased requirements and prohibitions to 

retain final authorization, until the 

States do so, and EPA authorizes the 

state-law equivalents, EPA implements 

and enforces these provisions in 

authorized States. 

Authorized states are required to 

modify their programs when EPA 

promulgates Federal requirements that 

are more stringent or broader in scope 

than existing Federal requirements. 

RCRA section 3009 allows the States to 

impose standards more stringent than 

those in the Federal program (see also 

40 CFR 271.1). If EPA promulgates a 

Federal requirement that is less 

stringent or narrower in scope than an 

existing requirement or of equivalent 

stringency, authorized States may, but 

are not required to, adopt a new 

equivalent requirement regardless of 

whether or not it is promulgated under 

HSWA authority. 

7. Effect on State Authorization 

The RCRA regulations described in 

this final rule are promulgated under 

the authority of HSWA and are more 

stringent than the existing Federal 

regulations. Thus, the standards will be 

applicable on the rule’s effective date in 

all States and will be implemented and 

enforced by EPA until the States receive 

authorization. These RCRA regulations 

add a new subpart, Q, to 40 CFR part 

266, Standards for the Management of 

Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific 

Types of Hazardous Waste Management 

Facilities, and are being finalized under 

the authority of HSWA due to their 

purpose of reducing air emissions from 

the management of ignitable spent 

refrigerants, in accordance with EPA’s 

mandate to control air emissions from 

hazardous waste management, as may 

be necessary to protect human health 

and the environment, per RCRA section 

3004(n), which was promulgated under 

HSWA. In addition, the changes to the 

VSQG Regulations in 40 CFR 262.14 are 

being promulgated under RCRA section 

3001(d)(4), also a HSWA provision. 

The final alternative standard 

establishes a ‘‘cradle-to-cradle’’ 

management system for ignitable spent 

refrigerants being recycled for reuse and 

includes requirements that are more 

stringent than the current applicable 

RCRA recycling requirements in 40 CFR 

261.6(c), which exempts the recycling 

process itself from RCRA regulation. 

This final management system includes 

the requirement that refrigerant be 

recovered and/or recycled for reuse in 

appliances by the same owner using 

equipment that is certified for that type 

of refrigerant and appliance under 40 

CFR 82.36 or 82.158, and that the 

recovered refrigerant be sent off-site to 

be recycled for reuse at a facility 

certified by EPA under 40 CFR 82.164. 

Both of these provisions are more 

stringent than the existing RCRA 

recycling requirements. In addition, the 

revisions to the VSQG regulations in 40 

CFR 262.14 specify that VSQGs’ ability 

to send ignitable spent refrigerant for 

recycling for reuse is limited to facilities 

that meet EPA’s certification 

requirements in 40 CFR 82.164 and are 

more stringent than the current 

standard. These certifications in 40 CFR 

82.164 involve a number of 

requirements for reclamation that are 

more stringent than those under the 

RCRA hazardous waste program, 

including an explicit limit of no more 

than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant 

released during the reclamation process 

(see 40 CFR 82.164(a)(3)). In addition, 

these certified reclaimers must follow 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements per 40 CFR 82.164(d), 

including (1) maintaining records of the 

names and addresses of persons sending 

them material for reclamation and the 

quantity of the material (the combined 

mass of refrigerant and contaminants) 

sent to them for reclamation and (2) 

reporting annually the quantity of 

material sent to them for reclamation by 

refrigerant type, the mass of refrigerant 

reclaimed by refrigerant type, and the 

mass of waste products. Finally, EPAcertified refrigerant reclaimers must 

verify that each batch of reclaimed 

refrigerant meets the specifications in 

the regulations (40 CFR 82.164(a)(2)), 

which helps ensure that the reclamation 

process is legitimate recycling under the 

RCRA regulations. These alternative 

standards are designed to function as a 

system that is better tailored to the 

reclamation of ignitable spent 

refrigerants than the RCRA requirements 

in 40 CFR 262–270, and when 

considered as a whole are more 

stringent when compared to the 

previously applicable RCRA recycling 

requirements. 

Moreover, as stated above, authorized 

States are required to modify their 

programs when EPA promulgates 

Federal regulations that are more 

stringent or broader in scope than the 

authorized State regulations. Because 

the revisions in this rule are considered 

to be more stringent than the existing 

Federal requirements, authorized States 

must modify their programs to adopt 

regulations equivalent to the provisions 

contained in this final RCRA rule. 

I. MVAC Servicing and Reprocessed 

Material 

EPA did not propose, and therefore is 

not establishing requirements focused 

on implementing subsection (h)(2)(B) 

for MVAC servicing facilities that 

currently reclaim or recycle recovered 

MVAC refrigerant in this action. As 

stated at proposal, EPA understands that 

under current industry practices, a 

variety of things might occur once 

refrigerant has been recovered from an 

MVAC system. For example, in some 

situations, MVAC servicing facilities 

recover refrigerant from the MVAC, 

recycle it consistent with EPA’s 

regulations under CAA section 609, and 

return the recycled refrigerant to the 

same MVAC for continued use by the 

same owner.153 In other circumstances, 

however, EPA understands that the 

recovered MVAC refrigerant is recycled 

and used in servicing a different MVAC 

system with a different owner (e.g., to 

charge or recharge such a system), 

thereby in effect selling or transferring 

the refrigerant to a new owner. See 40 

CFR 82.34(d)(2). Additionally, the 

Agency understands that there are 

circumstances where refrigerant 

recovered from MVAC systems is 

reclaimed before it is reused, sold, or 

transferred to a new owner. 

The servicing and repair of MVAC 

systems with HFCs and HFC substitutes 

(e.g., HFO–1234yf and R–744 (CO2)) 

have long been subject to certain 

requirements that are separate from 

those that apply for the servicing and 

repair of stationary appliances. 

Regulations under CAA section 609 

require that section 609-certified 

technicians use equipment approved 

pursuant to the standards at 40 CFR 

82.36 to service and repair MVAC 

systems. Under those existing 

regulations, recovered refrigerant can 

either be recycled on-site or off-site 

using approved equipment designed to 

both recover and recycle refrigerant 

certified to meet SAE J2099.154 SAE 

J2099 establishes the minimum level of 

refrigerant purity (e.g., 98 percent for 

HFO–1234yf) required for the 

certification of on-site recovery and 

recycling machines per SAE J2843 and 

SAE J2788. Refrigerant from reclamation 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82828 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

155March 6, 2023, EPA meeting with Mobile Air 

Climate Systems (MACS) Association and SAE 

International. Meeting materials available in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606) for this 

rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov. 

156Letter to EPA from AHRI, Alliance for 

Automotive Innovation, Alliance for Responsible 

Atmospheric Policy, and MACS dated June 9, 2023. 

Available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606) for this rulemaking at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

facilities that is used for the purpose of 

recharging MVACs must be at or above 

the standard of purity (i.e., 99.5 percent) 

level defined in AHRI Standard 700, 

and EPA understands that such 

reclamation typically occurs off-site. See 

40 CFR 82.32(e)(2). 

Due to the longstanding practice of 

on-site recycling of single-component 

MVAC refrigerants, some industry 

stakeholders 155 questioned the need to 

reclaim recovered MVAC refrigerant to 

meet the purity level described in AHRI 

Standard 700–2016 as specified in the 

definition of the terms ‘‘reclaim’’ and 

‘‘reclamation’’ in subsection (b)(9) of the 

Act. They noted that equipment 

certified to meet SAE J2099 is rated to 

clean and separate material in 

contaminated refrigerant to a 98 percent 

purity level, which provides the same 

level of performance and durability as 

virgin refrigerant for purposes of use in 

MVACs. They also pointed out the 

ambiguity in the phrase ‘‘(or an 

appropriate successor standard adopted 

by the Administrator)’’ in the definition 

of ‘‘reclaim’’ and ‘‘reclamation’’ in the 

AIM Act. While there may be a variety 

of situations that could lead to the 

adoption of a successor standard by the 

Administrator within the meaning of 

subsection (b)(9), in EPA’s view one 

such circumstance would be if AHRI 

published a subsequent standard or 

addendum regarding the reprocessing of 

a recovered regulated substance to a 

specified purity standard and the 

analytical methodology to verify the 

purity of that regulated substance, and 

that standard were adopted by the 

Administrator as a successor standard. 

EPA is aware that AHRI is in 

consultations with SAE International, 

the Mobile Air Climate Systems 

Association (MACS), and other industry 

stakeholders to develop a standard (or 

update an existing standard) that may be 

more appropriate for MVAC servicing 

than AHRI Standard 700–2016.156 If 

such a standard is finalized, EPA 

intends to review it, and any supporting 

information, and consider what 

implications it might have for potential 

approaches that the Agency might 

consider in future rulemakings to 

implement subsection (h)(2)(B) for 

MVAC systems. Additionally, the 

Agency could consider establishing its 

own purity standard and analytical 

methodology for verification of the 

purity of recovered regulated 

substances, as well as specifying 

minimum equipment requirements for 

MVAC systems under subsection (h). 

Among other things, such a standard 

could be based on consideration of 

input from stakeholders and consensus 

standards bodies. EPA could consider 

adopting any such standard in a future 

rulemaking. In light of the time needed 

to develop such standards (whether 

developed by EPA or standard-setting 

organizations) and for EPA to consider 

whether they are appropriate for the 

Agency to adopt as successor standards 

in the context of subsection (h), as well 

as the implications that such standards 

might have on the regulations that EPA 

might propose to implement subsection 

(h)(2)(B) for MVAC systems, EPA did 

not propose such regulations. Instead, 

EPA intends to issue proposed 

regulations for this sector at a later date, 

once it has additional clarity on the 

development of such a successor 

standard and its likely content. 

Additionally, the Agency may need to 

consider potential approaches for the 

recycling and/or reclaiming of MVAC 

refrigerant blends, which may include 

regulated substances and/or substitutes 

for regulated substances, particularly 

given use of blends would be a 

significant departure from industry past 

practice for MVAC systems. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

they support the AIM Act and engaged 

early with EPA to share their ongoing 

process for ‘‘phasing out HFCs.’’ The 

commenter stated that their members 

fully support the goals of phasing HFCs 

out of their vehicles sold in the United 

States, and that their member 

companies have been undergoing this 

transition for many years. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments and their support of the AIM 

Act. To the extent that these comments 

relate to EPA actions under other 

provisions of the AIM Act, such as the 

HFC phasedown or restrictions under 

subsection (i) of the AIM Act, they are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking and 

thus require no further response. 

Comment: Three commenters 

supported the Agency’s decision to not 

issue requirements under subsection 

(h)(2)(B) for MVAC servicing facilities. 

One commenter noted that the MVAC 

sector is unique, with regulations under 

40 CFR part 82, subpart B, allowing 

recovered and recycled refrigerant to be 

returned to the same MVAC for 

continued use by the same owner or 

used to service a different MVAC 

system. Another commenter stated that 

implementing requirements under the 

AIM Act for the MVAC sector or 

requiring the return of refrigerant heel 

in disposable cylinders to reclaimers 

would have a significant cost impact 

with limited environmental benefits. 

The commenter further stated that SAE 

standards already require section 609- 

certified technicians to recover the 

refrigerant heel in disposable cylinders 

and that refrigerant heel amounts are 

less than one pound under SAE J2788 

standards specifications performed in 

laboratory testing. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments. EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing requirements in this 

rulemaking under subsection (h)(2)(B) of 

the AIM Act for MVAC servicing 

facilities that currently reclaim or 

recycle recovered MVAC refrigerant. 

Thus, EPA need not further address the 

points in these comments related to 

such requirements. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed support of EPA’s decision to 

give time for SAE, AHRI, MACS, other 

industry stakeholders, and/or other 

entities to consider a new purity 

standard for MVAC systems. One 

commenter noted that the ‘‘appropriate 

successor standard’’ provision under the 

AIM Act would allow the current 

practice of on-site recycling of MVAC 

refrigerant prior to transfer of ownership 

to continue through either a modified 

version of AHRI 700 or, preferably, an 

updated version of SAE J2099. Another 

commenter stated that they supported 

the Agency’s decision to defer to AHRI 

and SAE to develop an updated 

standard or standards and mentioned 

that AHRI has a long track record of 

developing robust industry standards 

and is best poised to update Standard 

700–2016. One commenter stated that 

SAE is currently reviewing and revising 

SAE J2099 to address concerns in the 

auto sector about using purity-based 

refrigerant compositions rather than 

performance-based metrics as a basis for 

decisions on whether a vehicle must be 

recovered, or if the material can be 

recycled. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments. As noted previously, EPA 

did not propose and is not finalizing 

requirements under subsection (h)(2)(B) 

of the AIM Act for MVAC servicing 

facilities that currently reclaim or 

recycle recovered MVAC refrigerant in 

this rulemaking. Thus, EPA need not 

further address the points in these 

comments related to such requirements. 

Further, as explained earlier in this 

section, EPA intends to consider issuing 

such proposed regulations for this sector 

at a later date. The Agency reminds 

stakeholders that the regulatory 

provisions under CAA sections 608 and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82829 

157 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

158 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

159 40 CFR 2.205. 

160This approach of making categorical 

determinations for a class of information is a wellestablished Agency practice. Prior examples of rules 

where EPA has made such categorical 

determinations include Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Required Under the 

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and 

Amendments to Special Rules Governing Certain 

Information Obtained Under the Clean Air Act (76 

FR 30817) (May 26, 2011); Control of Air Pollution 

From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and 

Vehicle Standards (88 FR 4296) (January 24, 2023); 

and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS 

Annual Rules (87 FR 39600) (July 1, 2002). 

161Argus Leader, 139 S. Ct. at 2366. 

162 Id. at 2363. 

163 Id. (internal citations omitted). 

164 Id. (internal citations omitted). 

165 ‘‘Exemption 4 After the Supreme Court’s 

Ruling in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader 

Media and Accompanying Step-by-Step Guide,’’ 

Office of Information Policy, U.S. DOJ, (October 4, 

2019). Available at: https://www.justice.gov/oip/ 

exemption-4-after-supreme-courts-ruling-foodmarketing-institute-v-argus-leader-media. 

166See id.; see also ‘‘Step-by-Step Guide for 

Determining if Commercial or Financial 

Information Obtained from a Person is Confidential 

under Exemption 4 of the FOIA,’’ Office of 

Information Policy, U.S. DOJ, (updated October 7, 

2019). Available at: https://www.justice.gov/oip/ 

step-step-guide-determining-if-commercial-orfinancial-information-obtained-person-confidential. 

609 continue to apply and cover both 

servicing and end-of-life for MVAC 

systems. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA should require 100 percent 

reclaimed refrigerant in all small 

containers of MVAC refrigerant by 2027, 

consistent with CARB’s Small Container 

of Automotive Refrigerant regulation. 

The commenter stated that after 

conversations will stakeholders, they 

anticipate that there will be enough 

supply of reclaimed HFC–134a to meet 

demand for the refrigerant. 

Response: EPA responds that the 

Agency did not propose and is not 

finalizing use of 100 percent reclaimed 

refrigerant in small containers of MVAC 

refrigerant. For reasons explained in 

section IV.E, the requirements related to 

the servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs in the final rule are 

limited to stationary equipment. 

V. How is EPA treating data reported 

under this rule? 

Consistent with EPA’s commitment to 

transparency in program 

implementation, as well as to 

proactively encourage compliance, 

support enforcement of program 

requirements and enable third-party 

engagement to complement EPA’s 

enforcement efforts, The Agency is 

finalizing requirements for the treatment 

and release of data that it will collect. 

EPA is finalizing certain categorical 

emission data and confidentiality 

determinations for individual reported 

data elements that EPA will collect 

through this rulemaking. This action 

identifies certain information categories 

that must be submitted to EPA and will 

be subject to disclosure to the public 

without further notice because the 

information has been determined to be 

either ‘‘emission data’’ under 40 CFR 

2.301(a), or the Agency has found that 

the information does not meet the 

standard for confidential treatment 

under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA). EPA has also 

identified certain other categories of 

information that may be entitled to 

confidential treatment. For information 

EPA is not determining in this 

rulemaking to be emission data or not 

otherwise entitled to confidential 

treatment, EPA will apply the 40 CFR 

part 2 process for establishing case-bycase confidentiality determinations. As 

explained further in the following 

discussion, the emission data and 

confidentiality determinations in this 

action are intended to increase the 

efficiency with which the Agency 

responds to FOIA requests and to 

provide consistency in the treatment of 

the same or similar information. 

Establishing these determinations 

through this rulemaking provides 

predictability for both information 

requesters and submitters. The emission 

data and confidentiality determinations 

in this rule will also increase 

transparency, as well as supporting 

compliance with, and enforcement of, 

the program’s requirements. 

A. Background on Determinations of 

Whether Information Is Entitled to 

Treatment as Confidential Information 

1. Confidential Treatment of Reported 

Information 

Regulated entities that must submit 

information to EPA frequently claim 

that some or all of that information is 

entitled to confidential treatment and 

therefore exempt from disclosure under 

Exemption 4 of the FOIA.157 Exemption 

4 exempts from disclosure ‘‘trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information 

obtained from a person [that is] 

privileged or confidential.’’ 158 In order 

for information to meet the 

requirements of Exemption 4, EPA must 

find that the information is either: (1) A 

trade secret, or (2) commercial or 

financial information that is: (a) 

Obtained from a person, and (b) 

privileged or confidential. 

Generally, when the Agency has 

information that it intends to disclose 

publicly that is covered by a claim of 

confidentiality under FOIA Exemption 

4, EPA has a process to make case-bycase or class determinations under 40 

CFR part 2 to evaluate whether such 

information qualifies for confidential 

treatment under the exemption.159 160 In 

this action, EPA is providing clarity 

concerning certain categorical emission 

data and confidentiality determinations 

for some information that must be 

submitted to EPA under these 

requirements. For those determinations, 

that information would be subject to 

disclosure to the public without further 

notice. 

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in 

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus 

Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) 

(Argus Leader) addresses the meaning of 

‘‘confidential’’ within the context of 

FOIA Exemption 4. The Court held that 

‘‘[a]t least where commercial or 

financial information is both 

customarily and actually treated as 

private by its owner and provided to the 

government under an assurance of 

privacy, the information is ‘confidential’ 

within the meaning of Exemption 4.’’ 161

The Court identified two conditions 

‘‘that might be required for information 

communicated to another to be 

considered confidential.’’ 162 Under the 

first condition, ‘‘information 

communicated to another remains 

confidential whenever it is customarily 

kept private, or at least closely held, by 

the person imparting it.’’ 163 The second 

condition provides that ‘‘information 

might be considered confidential only if 

the party receiving it provides some 

assurance that it will remain secret.’’ 164

The Court found the first condition 

necessary for information to be 

considered confidential within the 

meaning of Exemption 4, but did not 

address whether the second condition 

must also be met. 

Following the issuance of the Court’s 

opinion in Argus Leader, the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) issued 

guidance concerning the confidentiality 

prong of Exemption 4, articulating ‘‘the 

newly defined contours of Exemption 

4’’ post- Argus Leader.165 Where the 

government provides an express or 

implied indication to the submitter 

prior to or at the time the information 

is submitted to the government that the 

government would publicly disclose the 

information, then the submitter 

generally cannot reasonably expect 

confidentiality of the information upon 

submission, and the information is not 

entitled to confidential treatment under 

Exemption 4.166 Information will not be 

kept confidential and will be disclosed 

publicly if it is determined to not be 

entitled to confidential treatment in this 

rule. This is aligned with the Supreme 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82830 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

167See comment number EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0085 at 25. 

168Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climatehfcs-reduction/hfc-data-hub. 

169CAA section 114(c); 42 U.S.C. 7414(c). 

Court’s decision, and the subsequent 

DOJ guidance that the government’s 

assurances that a submission will be 

treated as not confidential should 

dictate the expectations of submitters. 

Based on the finalized determinations, 

submitters are on notice before they 

submit any information that EPA has 

determined that the identified data 

elements outlined in Tables 2, 3, and 4 

below, as well as in the memorandum 

provided in the docket for this action 

titled Confidentiality Determinations 

and Emission Data Designations for 

Data Elements in the Final Rule, will 

not be entitled to confidential treatment 

upon submission and may be released 

by the Agency without further notice. 

As a result, submitters do not have a 

reasonable expectation that the 

information will be treated as 

confidential; rather, they have the 

reasonable expectation that the 

information will be disclosed. 

As described further below, EPA is 

making categorical confidentiality 

determinations for some of the data that 

will be submitted to EPA because these 

data contain information that is not 

entitled to confidential treatment. The 

reason this information is not entitled to 

confidential treatment is that either it is 

not the type of information that 

submitters customarily keep private or 

closely held, it is already publicly 

available, or it is discernible 

information that is self-evident or 

readily observable through reverse 

engineering by a third party. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA’s requirements with respect to 

confidential data are responsible and 

appropriate. Another commenter 

recommended that EPA consider the 

scope, cost, and effort for the Agency to 

publish and maintain such information 

and that EPA consider modifying its 

publications to be on an annual or other 

basis if the burden of publication 

becomes too great to maintain. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

general support for the proposal. The 

Agency did consider scope and cost for 

data collection in the information 

collection request (ICR) available in the 

docket of this final rulemaking. As 

noted above, the Agency is committed 

to data transparency and intends to 

maintain and publish (e.g., post on 

EPA’s website) with an appropriate 

frequency. 

Comment: A few commenters 

discussed the proposed container 

tracking data elements. One commenter 

stated that EPA peremptorily proposed 

to find that certain categorical 

information is either ‘‘emission data’’ 

and should be treated as such pursuant 

to 40 CFR 2.301(a) or that this type of 

information does not qualify for 

confidential treatment under Exemption 

4 of the FOIA. The commenter further 

stated that this would treat the covered 

information as releasable without 

further notification to the submitter. 

This commenter disagreed with these 

proposed determinations and with 

EPA’s proposed conclusion that data 

elements associated with the proposed 

tracking system were not the type of 

information that is customarily closely 

held or kept private by companies. The 

commenter also disagreed with EPA’s 

proposed conclusion that this 

information meets the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘emissions data’’ within 40 

CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). Another commenter 

supported the proposed rule’s data 

collection requirements and encouraged 

EPA to expand the public availability of 

data on the composition and volumes of 

refrigerants on the U.S. market, 

including expanded transparency 

requirements for virgin producers in 

order to facilitate EOL fractionation and 

reclamation. 

Response: EPA interprets the first 

comment to relate to the proposed 

confidentiality determinations for the 

data elements related to the container 

tracking requirements that were 

included in section V.C of the proposal. 

As discussed in section I.B, the Agency 

is not finalizing container tracking 

requirements at this time and thus is not 

making final determinations on the 

confidential treatment of those data 

elements in this rulemaking. 

Accordingly, the Agency need not 

respond to comments regarding the 

proposed confidentiality determinations 

for the container tracking system in this 

rulemaking. However, EPA notes that 

the commenter has presented only 

general objections to EPA’s proposed 

determinations that these data elements 

were emissions data or did not qualify 

for confidential treatment, and the 

comment did not identify which 

particular data elements it views as 

entitled to confidential treatment or not 

qualifying as emissions data. The 

commenter also did not provide any 

information to support their assertions 

that the proposed determinations would 

result in the ‘‘disclosure of much 

information that is not public’’ 167 and 

that would result in harm; moreover, the 

commenter provided no substantiation 

to show that this information is 

customarily treated as confidential. This 

lack of specificity would impede EPA’s 

effort to evaluate the commenter’s 

concerns with respect to any particular 

data elements. Insofar as commenters 

disagree with proposed determinations 

that information is not entitled to 

confidential treatment, they should 

highlight the particular data element or 

elements where they disagree with the 

proposed determination and provide 

information regarding how that data 

element is customarily and actually 

treated by them and by their industry 

sector to support their assertions. 

Without such information, EPA is 

unable to fully assess the commenters’ 

concerns, particularly when the data 

elements include information where 

EPA can discern no apparent reason for 

thinking that the information would 

typically be treated as confidential by 

the submitter (e.g., information that is 

already publicly available or is not 

generally claimed as confidential by the 

industry sector). Further, the fact that 

only one commenter objected to the 

proposed determinations may indicate 

that the information is not customarily 

closely held or kept private. 

EPA acknowledges the other 

commenter’s support of the data 

collection requirements and availability 

of public data to extent that it is covered 

in this final rule. Data regarding 

production is outside the scope of this 

rule but may already be available at the 

HFC data hub.168

2. Emission Data Under Section 114 of 

the Clean Air Act 

The AIM Act provides that, 

‘‘[s]ections 113, 114, 304, and 307 of the 

CAA (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.).’’ The CAA 

states that ‘‘[a]ny records, reports or 

information obtained under [section 

114] shall be available to the public.’’ 169

Thus, the CAA begins with a 

presumption that information submitted 

to EPA will be available to be disclosed 

to the public. It then provides a narrow 

exception to that presumption for 

information that ‘‘would divulge 

methods or processes entitled to 

protection as trade secrets.’’ The CAA 

further narrows this exception by 

excluding ‘‘emission data’’ from the 

category of information eligible for 

confidential treatment. While the CAA 

does not define ‘‘emission data,’’ EPA 

has done so by regulation at 40 CFR 

2.301(a)(2)(i). 

EPA releases, on occasion, some of 

the information submitted under CAA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82831 

170 5 U.S.C. 552. 171 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). 

section 114 to parties outside of the 

Agency of its own volition, through 

responses to requests submitted under 

the FOIA,170 or through civil litigation. 

Generally, when the Agency has 

information that it intends to disclose 

publicly and that is covered by a claim 

of confidentiality under FOIA 

Exemption 4, EPA has a process to make 

case-by-case or class determinations 

under 40 CFR part 2. This process 

includes an evaluation of whether such 

information is or is not emission data, 

and whether it otherwise qualifies for 

confidential treatment under FOIA 

Exemption 4.171 The regulations at 40 

CFR 2.301 define emission data. 

In this action, EPA is applying the 

regulatory definition of ‘‘emission data’’ 

in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i) and finding that 

certain categories of source information 

are not entitled to confidential treatment 

because they qualify as emission data. 

By finalizing these determinations, that 

information is subject to disclosure to 

the public without further notice. As 

relevant to the determinations that are 

being finalized in this action, a ‘‘source’’ 

for purposes of the definition in 40 CFR 

2.301 is generally the equipment 

covered by a regulatory requirement, 

such as a refrigerant-containing 

appliance or fire suppression 

equipment. EPA’s broad general 

definitions of emission data also 

exclude certain information related to 

products still in the research and 

development phase or products not yet 

on the market except for limited 

purposes. Thus, for example, 40 CFR 

2.301(a)(2)(ii) excludes information 

related to ‘‘any product, method, device, 

or installation (or any component 

thereof) designed and intended to be 

marketed or used commercially but not 

yet so marketed or used.’’ This specific 

exclusion from the definition of 

emission data is limited in time. Data 

related to this exclusion are not 

implicated in this rulemaking because 

data reported under this rule relate to 

equipment currently in use. 

B. Data Elements Reported to EPA 

Under the Leak Repair Provisions 

Consistent with EPA’s commitment to 

transparency in program 

implementation, EPA has reviewed the 

data elements in the chronically leaking 

appliance report and the other ad hoc 

reports required under the leak repair 

requirements to see if information under 

the umbrella of those data elements 

could be considered entitled to 

confidential treatment. EPA is treating 

certain data elements under the leak 

repair provisions as not entitled to 

confidential treatment. Tables 2 and 3 

outline individual data elements that 

will not be handled as confidential, 

emission data, or otherwise not entitled 

to confidential treatment. Additional 

information on these determinations is 

provided in the memorandum titled 

Confidentiality Determinations and 

Emission Data Designations for Data 

Elements in the Final Rule, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

There may be additional reasons not to 

release individual data elements 

determined to not be entitled to 

confidential treatment, for example if it 

is personally identifiable information 

(PII). The Agency will separately 

determine whether any data should be 

withheld from release for reasons other 

than business confidentiality before data 

are released. 

TABLE 2—DETERMINATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY STATUS FOR DATA ELEMENTS RELATED TO REPORTS ON CHRONICALLY

LEAKING APPLIANCES

Description of data element Confidentiality status and rationale a

Identification information (owner or operator, facility name, facility address where appliance is located).No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Appliance ID or description (for facilities with multiple appliances) ......... No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Refrigerant-containing appliance type (comfort cooling or other, IPR, or 

commercial refrigeration).

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Refrigerant type ........................................................................................ No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Full charge of appliance (pounds) ............................................................ No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Annual percent refrigerant loss ................................................................ No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Dates of refrigerant addition ..................................................................... No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Amounts of refrigerant added ................................................................... No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Date of last successful follow-up verification test .................................... No confidential treatment/Emission data.

Explanation of cause of refrigerant losses (Narrative) ............................. No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Description of the repair actions taken (Narrative) .................................. No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Whether a retrofit or retirement plan has been developed for the appliance, and, if so, the anticipated date of retrofit or retirement.No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

aEPA provides rationale of the confidentiality determination in the memorandum titled Confidentiality Determinations and Emission Data Designations for Data Elements in the Final Rule entitled ‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes under Subsection (h) of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020’’, which is available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2022–0606) of this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov. 

TABLE 3—DETERMINATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY STATUS FOR DATA ELEMENTS RELATED TO OTHER LEAK REPAIR

NOTIFICATIONS AND EXTENSION REQUESTS

Description of data element Confidentiality status and rationale a

Extension of time to complete repairs: Identification and address of the facility; the name of the owner 

or operator of the refrigerant-containing appliance; the leak rate; the method used to determine the 

leak rate and full charge; the date the refrigerant-containing appliance exceeded the applicable leak 

rate; the location of leak(s) to the extent determined to date; any repairs that have been performed 

thus far, including the date that repairs were completed; the reasons why more than 30 days (or 

120 days if an industrial process shutdown is required) are needed to complete the repairs; and an 

estimate of when the repairs will be completed. If the estimated completion date is to be extended, 

a new estimated date of completion and documentation of the reason for that change must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of identifying that the completion date must be extended.

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82832 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—DETERMINATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY STATUS FOR DATA ELEMENTS RELATED TO OTHER LEAK REPAIR

NOTIFICATIONS AND EXTENSION REQUESTS—Continued 

Description of data element Confidentiality status and rationale a

Relief from the obligation to retrofit or retire a refrigerant-containing appliance: The date that the requirement to develop a retrofit or retirement plan was triggered; the leak rate; the method used to 

determine the leak rate and full charge; the location of the leak(s) identified in the leak inspection; a 

description of repair work that has been completed; a description of the repairs that have not been 

completed; a description of why repairs were not conducted within the applicable time frame; and a 

statement signed by an authorized company official that all identified leaks will be repaired and an 

estimate of when those repairs will be completed (not to exceed one year from date of the plan).

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Extension of time to complete the retrofit or retirement of a refrigerant-containing appliance: Identification of the refrigerant-containing appliance; name of the owner or operator; the leak rate; the method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the date the refrigerant-containing appliance exceeded the applicable leak rate; the location of leak(s) to the extent determined to date; any repairs 

that have been finished thus far, including the date that repairs were finished; a plan to finish the 

retrofit or retirement of the refrigerant-containing appliance; the reasons why more than one year is 

necessary to retrofit or retire the refrigerant-containing appliance; the date of notification to EPA; 

and an estimate of when retrofit or retirement work will be finished.

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Notification of exclusion of purged refrigerants that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations: 

The identification of the facility and a contact person, including the address and telephone number; 

a description of the refrigerant-containing appliance, focusing on aspects relevant to the purging of 

refrigerant and subsequent destruction; a description of the methods used to determine the quantity 

of refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being kept by the owners or operators where the appliance is located; the frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and a description of the control device, and its destruction efficiency.

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

aEPA provides the rationale for the confidentiality determination in the memorandum titled Confidentiality Determinations and Emission Data 

Designations for Data Elements in the Final Rule entitled ‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Substitutes under Subsection (h) of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020’’, which is available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2022–0606) of this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Information contained within these 

data elements would categorically not 

be eligible for confidential treatment 

because it is either readily apparent or 

easily ascertainable by an outsider (e.g., 

owner name, facility name, facility 

address where appliance is located, 

appliance ID or description, and 

appliance type (comfort cooling, IPR, or 

commercial refrigeration)) or it is 

considered emission data under 40 CFR 

2.301 (e.g., refrigerant type, full charge 

of appliance, annual percent refrigerant 

loss, dates of refrigerant addition, 

amounts of refrigerant added, date of 

last successful follow-up verification 

test, explanation of cause of refrigerant 

losses, repair actions taken, and whether 

a retrofit or retirement plan been 

developed for the appliance, and, if so, 

the anticipated date of retrofit or 

retirement); or it fits into both 

categories. Similarly, the items included 

in a request for an extension for leak 

repair, request for relief from the 

obligation to retrofit or retire an 

appliance, request for an extension of 

time to complete the retrofit or 

retirement of an appliance, and 

notification of exclusion of purged 

refrigerants that are destroyed from 

annual leak rate calculations are 

likewise not eligible for confidential 

treatment because this information is 

readily ascertainable or easily 

observable by an outside entity, or is 

considered emission data under 40 CFR 

2.301, or both. EPA notes that in these 

provisions, the source of the emissions 

would be the regulated equipment, and 

in the case of all of these notifications 

these data are necessary to determine 

the identity, amount, frequency, 

concentration, or other characteristics 

(to the extent related to air quality) of 

any emission that has been emitted by 

the source and/or information necessary 

to determine the identity, amount, 

frequency, concentration, or other 

characteristics (to the extent related to 

air quality) of the emissions which, 

under the leak repair provisions, the 

source was authorized to emit; and a 

general description of the location and/ 

or nature of the source to the extent 

necessary to identify the source and to 

distinguish it from other sources 

(including, to the extent necessary for 

such purposes, a description of the 

device, installation, or operation 

constituting the source). 

C. Data Elements Related to Fire 

Suppression 

As described in section IV.F of this 

document, EPA is finalizing reporting 

requirements related to the use of 

regulated substances in the fire 

suppression sector. These reporting 

requirements allow for the monitoring 

of program implementation and of 

compliance with the requirements. 

EPA is requiring that certain entities 

in the fire suppression sector provide 

data to EPA that are similar to the data 

they already voluntarily collect and 

report to HEEP as mentioned in section 

IV.F. Relevant reporting entities covered 

under this requirement include entities 

that perform first fill of equipment, 

service (e.g., recharge) equipment, and/ 

or recycle regulated substances. 

Relevant entities include companies, 

such as equipment manufacturers, 

distributors, agent suppliers, or 

installers. EPA is finalizing that the 

covered entities report annually: (1) The 

quantity of each regulated substance 

held in inventory on-site broken out by 

recovered, recycled, and virgin; (2) the 

quantity of material (the combined mass 

of regulated substance and 

contaminants) by regulated substance 

sold and/or recycled for the purpose of 

installation of new equipment and 

servicing (e.g., recharge) of fire 

suppression equipment; (3) the total 

mass of each regulated substance sold 

and/or recycled; and (4) the total mass 

of waste products sent for disposal, 

along with information about the 

disposal facility if waste is not 

processed by the reporting entity. Table 

4 presents a more granular description 

of these data elements, together with 

their confidentiality status. There may 

be additional reasons not to release 

individual data elements determined to 

not be entitled to confidential treatment, 

for example if they are PII. The Agency 

will separately determine whether any 

data should be withheld from release for 

reasons other than business 

confidentiality before data are released. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82833 

EPA has determined that these data 

are emission data as described at 40 CFR 

2.301 because they provide a general 

description of the location and/or nature 

of the source to the extent necessary to 

identify the source and to distinguish it 

from other sources. As a separate 

alternative basis, EPA has determined 

that these data are not entitled to 

confidential treatment because they are 

not closely held as confidential by the 

submitter. Additional information on 

the rationale for these determinations is 

provided in a memorandum entitled 

Confidentiality Determinations and 

Emission Data Designations for Data 

Elements in the Final Rule, available in 

the docket for this action. 

TABLE 4—DETERMINATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY STATUS FOR DATA ELEMENTS RELATED TO REPORTS ON FIRE

SUPPRESSION

Description of data element Confidentiality status and rationale a

Identification information (owner name, facility name, facility address where equipment is located) ...... No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

For each regulated substance, quantity of material (the combined mass of regulated substance and 

contaminants) sold for the purpose of installation of new fire suppression equipment and servicing 

and/or repair of existing fire suppression equipment.

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

For each regulated substance, quantity of material (the combined mass of regulated substance and 

contaminants) in inventory onsite for the purpose of installation of new fire suppression equipment 

and servicing and/or repair of existing fire suppression equipment broken out by recovered, recycled, and virgin.

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Total mass of each regulated substance sold for the purpose of installation of new fire suppression 

equipment and servicing and/or repair of existing fire suppression equipment.

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Total mass of each regulated substance in inventory onsite for the purpose of installation of new fire 

suppression equipment and servicing and/or repair of existing fire suppression equipment broken 

out by recovered, recycled, and virgin.

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

Total mass of waste products the reporting entity sent for disposal, along with information about the 

disposal facility if waste is not processed by the reporting entity.

No confidential treatment/Emission data. 

aEPA provides rationale of the confidentiality determination in the memorandum titled Confidentiality Determinations and Emission Data Designations for Data Elements in the Final Rule entitled ‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes under Subsection (h) of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020’’, which is available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2022–0606) of this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov. 

VI. What are the costs and benefits of 

this action? 

A. Background 

EPA is providing information on the 

costs and benefits for the provisions 

related to managing regulated 

substances and their substitutes in this 

rule. The analyses, presented in the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD and 

the RIA addendum, are contained in the 

docket to this rule and are intended to 

provide the public with information on 

the relevant costs and benefits of this 

action and to comply with Executive 

Orders. The RIA addendum includes 

estimates of the SC–HFCs in order to 

quantify climate benefits, for the 

purpose of providing useful information 

to the public and to comply with E.O. 

12866. Although EPA is using the SC of 

HFCs for purposes of that assessment, 

this action does not rely on those 

estimates as a record basis for the 

Agency action, and EPA would reach 

the conclusions made in this final rule 

even in the absence of the social costs 

of HFCs. 

The climate benefits and compliance 

costs stemming from this final rule 

include those related to: 

(1) the provisions on leak repair, leak 

detection, ALD systems, and 

recordkeeping and reporting related to 

these provisions; 

(2) the amendments to the RCRA 

hazardous waste regulations; 

(3) requirements regarding the 

management of disposable cylinders for 

HFCs; 

(4) requiring the servicing and/or 

repair of certain refrigerant-containing 

equipment with reclaimed HFCs, along 

with recordkeeping requirements 

verifying that reclaimed refrigerant 

contains no more than 15 percent, by 

weight, virgin HFCs; and 

(5) minimizing emissions of HFCs 

from certain types of fire suppression 

equipment including the service, repair, 

or initial charging of such equipment 

with recycled HFCs. 

As detailed in the RIA addendum, 

EPA finds that in some cases specific 

provisions of the rule would result in 

compliance costs for industry, while in 

other cases they may result in cost 

savings. Provisions that result in a net 

cost savings may still be considered part 

of the economic benefits attributable to 

this rule, under the assumption that 

these activities would not otherwise be 

undertaken at the same scale or rate of 

adoption in the absence of regulation. 

More discussion of these assumptions 

and supporting literature may be found 

in section 3.2.2 of the Allocation 

Framework Rule RIA. 

From the Agency’s analyses, EPA 

provides the costs and benefits 

associated with the management of 

regulated substances and their 

substitutes under the AIM Act as well as 

those associated with the RCRA 

alternative standard requirements for 

hazardous waste. These analyses—as 

summarized below—highlight economic 

cost and benefits, including benefits 

from leak repair and emissions 

reductions. 

Given that the provisions EPA is 

finalizing concern HFCs, which are 

subject to the overall phasedown of 

production and consumption under the 

AIM Act, EPA relied on its previous 

estimates of the impacts of already 

finalized AIM Act rules as a starting 

point for the assessment of costs and 

benefits of this rule. Specifically, the 

Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 

55116, October 5, 2021), the 2024 

Allocation Rule (88 FR 46836, July 20, 

2023), and the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule (88 FR 73098, October 

24, 2023) are assumed as a baseline for 

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 Rule RIA, 

the 2024 Allocation Rule RIA 

Addendum, and the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule RIA Addendum 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘Allocation 

and 2023 Technology Transitions 

Rules’’ in this discussion). Climate 

benefits presented in the RIA addendum 

are based on changes (increases or 

reductions) in HFC emissions compared 

to the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82834 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

172As detailed in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions RIA Addendum, EPA analyzed both a 

base case and high additionality scenario towards 

compliance with that rule. The discussion here 

utilizes the 2023 Technology Transitions high 

additionality case for comparison purposes to 

provide a conservative assessment. Further details 

are provided in the RIA addendum for this rule and 

the Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. 

173 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases, United States Government (IWG 

2021), 86FR 24669, available at https://

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbon

MethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 174National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 

The National Academies Press, 2017, doi: 10.17226/ 

24651. 

175Standards of Performance for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and 

Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector Climate Review (87 FR 74702, 

December 6, 2022). 176Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

environmental-economics/scghg. 177 In the 2023 Technology Transitions RIA 

Addendum, EPA analyzed a ‘‘base case’’ and a 

‘‘high additionality’’ scenario. The former is used to 

analyze the base case scenario for this rule. See the 

RIA addendum and the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD for additional details. 

compliance case 172 (i.e., after 

consideration of the Allocation 

Framework Rule, the 2024 Allocation 

Rule, and the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule). 

EPA estimated the climate benefits for 

this rule using a set of estimates of the 

social cost of each HFC (SC–HFC, or 

collectively referred to as SC–HFCs) that 

is affected by the 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 net benefit of avoiding that 

increase. In principle, the SC–HFC 

includes the value of all climate change 

impacts (both negative and positive), 

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. The SC–HFC, therefore, 

reflects the societal value of reducing 

emissions of the gas in question by one 

metric ton and is the appropriate value 

to use in conducting benefit-cost 

analyses of policies that affect HFC 

emissions. In practice, data and 

modeling limitations restrain the ability 

of SC–HFC estimates to include all 

physical, ecological, and economic 

impacts of climate change, implicitly 

assigning a value of zero to the omitted 

climate damages. The estimates are, 

therefore, a partial accounting of climate 

change impacts and likely 

underestimate the marginal benefits of 

abatement. 

The monetization of climate benefits 

in this analysis uses the same HFCspecific SC–HFC estimates as used in 

the proposal RIA and in the estimation 

of the benefits in prior AIM Act analyses 

including the Allocation Framework 

Rule RIA. That is, for the primary 

benefits analysis in the final RIA 

addendum, EPA uses SC–HFC estimates 

that are consistent with the 

methodology underlying estimates of 

the social cost of other GHGs (carbon 

dioxide (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), 

and nitrous oxide (SC–N2O)), 

collectively referred to as SC–GHG, 

presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 

Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

(IWG).173 These SC–GHG estimates were 

recommended for use until updated 

estimates are available that reflect recent 

advances in the scientific literature on 

climate change and its economic 

impacts and incorporate 

recommendations made by the National 

Academies of Science, Engineering, and 

Medicine.174 As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, EPA 

agrees with the explanation in the TSD 

that it is appropriate for agencies to use 

the same set of four values drawn from 

the SC–GHG distributions based on 

three discount rates as were used in 

regulatory analyses between 2010 and 

2016 and subject to public comment (2.5 

percent, three percent, and five percent), 

plus a fourth value, selected as the 95th 

percentile of estimates based on a three 

percent discount rate. EPA also agrees 

with the explanation provided in the 

February 2021 TSD that the use of the 

social rate of return on capital (seven 

percent under the 2003 Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A–4 guidance) to discount the 

future benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions inappropriately 

underestimates the impacts of climate 

change for the purposes of estimating 

the social cost of GHGs. For purposes of 

capturing uncertainty around the SC– 

HFC estimates applied in this analysis, 

we emphasize the importance of all four 

values for each HFC affected by the rule. 

In addition, in an Appendix to the 

final RIA addendum, EPA presents the 

monetized climate benefits of the final 

rule using a new set of SC–HFC 

estimates that reflects recent advances 

in the scientific literature and addresses 

the National Academies’ updating 

recommendations. The methodology 

underlying these updated SC–HFC 

estimates is consistent with the SC– 

GHG estimates used in EPA’s 2023 RIA 

for the Final Oil and Gas New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS)/ 

Emissions Guidelines (EG) Rulemaking, 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 

and Emissions Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector 

Climate Review.’’ Specifically, the draft 

updated methodology incorporates new 

literature and research consistent with 

the National Academies’ near-term 

recommendations on socioeconomic 

and emissions inputs, climate modeling 

components, discounting approaches, 

and treatment of uncertainty, and an 

enhanced representation of how 

physical impacts of climate change 

translate to economic damages in the 

modeling framework based on the best 

and readily adaptable damage functions 

available in the peer reviewed literature. 

As EPA noted in the proposal for this 

rule, EPA presented and solicited public 

comment on this updated methodology 

within a sensitivity analysis in the 

regulatory impact analysis of EPA’s 

November 2022 supplemental proposal 

for oil and natural gas emissions 

standards.175 EPA also conducted an 

external peer review of the 

accompanying technical report that 

explains the methodology underlying 

the new set of estimates. Complete 

information about the public comments 

and external peer review, including the 

peer reviewer selection process, the 

final report with individual 

recommendations from peer reviewers, 

and EPA’s response to both public 

comments and peer reviewer 

recommendations is available on EPA’s 

website,176 as well as in the RIA 

addendum for this rule. 

B. Estimated Costs and Benefits of the 

Final Rule 

1. Total Incremental Costs and Benefits 

of the Final Rule 

As discussed above, the HFC 

Allocation and 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rules serve as the status quo 

from which incremental impacts of this 

final rule are evaluated. As detailed in 

the RIA and subsequent RIA addenda 

for these previous rules, EPA modeled 

multiple potential compliance pathways 

to meeting the requirements of these 

rulemakings. In one scenario, EPA 

assumed that industry would comply 

with previous AIM Act regulations as 

outlined in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule RIA Addendum 177

without undertaking some 

improvements to leak repair and 

refrigerant recovery practices in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82835 

178Unless stated otherwise, costs and benefits in 

this section are presented in 2022 dollars. 

response to these previous rulemakings 

and as a means of achieving the overall 

HFC phasedown cap. Because these 

improvements are not required to meet 

previous AIM Act regulations, in the 

Agency’s base case scenario for the 

estimated incremental impacts of the 

ER&R rule, EPA has also included them 

in the baseline. However, since whether 

industry undertakes such improvements 

is ultimately uncertain, EPA has also 

provided an alternative scenario in the 

RIA addendum where some improved 

leak repair and refrigerant recovery 

practices are included in the baseline, 

thus illustrating a potential lower bound 

of incremental impacts. 

The present value of the net benefits 

of the final ER&R rule is equal to the 

sum of the net costs or benefits of the 

various provisions in each year from 

2026 through 2050, discounted to 2024 

(the year in which this rule is being 

finalized). In the base case, EPA 

estimates the provisions of this rule will 

result in cumulative incremental 

emissions reductions of approximately 

120 MMTCO2e from 2026 through 2050, 

and the present value of economic 

benefits of avoiding the damages 

associated with those emissions is 

estimated at $8.4 billion (discounted to 

2024 using a three percent discount 

rate).178 EPA estimates the present value 

of compliance costs associated with this 

rulemaking to be $1.5 billion at a two 

percent discount rate, $1.3 billion at a 

three percent discount rate, or $0.9 

billion at a seven percent discount rate. 

When including the economic benefits 

of avoided climate damages, the net 

benefits of the rule are therefore 

estimated to range from $6.9 billion 

(two percent discount rate for 

compliance costs) to $7.5 billion (seven 

percent discount rate for compliance 

costs). These estimates are summarized 

in Table 5 below along with annual, 

undiscounted values for select years. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED ANNUAL VALUES, PRESENT VALUES, AND EQUIVALENT ANNUALIZED VALUES SELECT YEARS FOR THE 2026 THROUGH 2050 TIMEFRAME FOR ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET

BENEFITS FOR THE ER&R RULE (MILLIONS OF 2022$, DISCOUNTED TO 2024)—BASE CASE SCENARIO abcdefg

Year Climate 

benefits 

Costs Net benefits 

2026 .......................................................................................... $428 $92 $336 

2030 .......................................................................................... 676 102 574 

2035 .......................................................................................... 613 86 526 

2040 .......................................................................................... 466 67 399 

2045 .......................................................................................... 315 51 264 

2050 .......................................................................................... 263 52 211 

Discount rate 3% 2% 3% 7% 2% 3% 7% 

Present value f ........................................................................... $8,356 $1,499 $1,335 $884 $6,857 $7,021 $7,471 

Equivalent annualized value (EAV)f ......................................... 480 77 77 76 403 403 404 

aBenefits include only those related to climate. Climate benefits are based on changes (reductions) in HFC emissions and are calculated using 

four different estimates of the social cost of HFCs (SC–HFCs): model average at 2.5 percent, three percent, and five percent discount rates; 95th 

percentile at three percent discount rate. For presentational purposes of this table, the benefits associated with the average SC–HFC are shown at 

a three percent discount rate. More details can be found in the RIA addendum for the final rule. b Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. 

cThe annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated as if they occur over a 25-year period. 

dThe present value (PV) for the net benefits column is found by taking the difference between the PV of climate benefits at three percent and the 

PV of costs discounted at seven percent, three percent or two percent. Because the SC–HFC estimates reflect net climate change damages in 

terms of reduced consumption (or monetary consumption equivalents), the use of the social rate of return on capital (seven percent under OMB 

Circular A–4 (2003)) to discount damages estimated in terms of reduced consumption would inappropriately underestimate the impacts of climate 

change for the purposes of estimating the SC–HFC. e Costs represent compliance with the regulations and include potential savings from reducing refrigerant purchases. See the RIA addendum and 

the Economic Impact and Benefits TSD for additional information. fPresent value and EAV are for the years 2026 through 2050. 

gBenefits presented in this table do not include potential savings from amended RCRA regulations, which are separate from the regulations 

under subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act. See Table 6 below for an estimate of combined AIM Act and RCRA net benefits. 

The provisions that contribute to the 

total net benefits of the final rule are 

those covering leak inspections, leak 

repair, installation of ALD systems, 

reduced emissions and use of recycled 

HFCs in the fire suppression sector, 

management and ultimate evacuation of 

disposable cylinders, and the required 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs, and all associated 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. Estimated costs, benefits, 

and resulting net benefits are provided 

by type of provision in Table 6 below. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF PRESENT VALUE COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS BY REGULATORY PROVISION (MILLIONS

OF 2022$, DISCOUNTED TO 2024)—BASE CASE SCENARIO

Provision 

Climate 

benefits 

(3%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(2%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(3%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(7%) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

2% costs) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

3% costs) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

7% costs) 

Leak Repair And ALD ..................... $6,176 $1,285 ............... $1,146 ............... $760 .................. $4,891 ............... $5,031 ............... $5,417. 

Fire Suppression ............................. 14 $15 .................... $13 .................... $7 ...................... ($1) .................... $1 ...................... $7. 

Cylinder Management ..................... 2,165 ($195) ................ ($169) ................ ($101) ................ $2,360 ............... $2,335 ............... $2,266. 

Use of Reclaimed HFCs for Servicing a.

.............. $43 .................... $38 .................... $23 .................... ($43) .................. ($38) .................. ($23). 

Recordkeeping & Reporting ............ .............. $350 .................. $308 .................. $195 .................. ($350) ................ ($308) ................ ($195). 

Total (AIM Act) b .............................. 8,356 $1,499 ............... $1,335 ............... $884 .................. $6,857 ............... $7,021 ............... $7,471. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82836 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

179EPA. 2024. EPA’s Vintaging Model 

representing the Allocation Framework Rule as 

modified by the 2024 Allocation Rule RIA 

Addendum. VM IO file_v4.4_02.04.16_Final TT 

Rule 2023 High Addition.xls. 

180As discussed in section I.C. of this preamble, 

the RIA addendum for this rule assumes that in 

some cases cost savings may accrue to industry as 

a result of regulatory measures. In some cases, 

measures are assumed to result in a net cost to 

regulated entities, while in other cases, measures 

are assumed to result in a net savings. More details 

on these assumptions are included in the RIA 

addendum. For additional discussion on market 

failures that may lead to forgone savings to industry 

in the absence of regulatory measures, please see 

section I.C. of this preamble as well as section 3.2.2 

of the Allocation Rule RIA. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF PRESENT VALUE COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS BY REGULATORY PROVISION (MILLIONS

OF 2022$, DISCOUNTED TO 2024)—BASE CASE SCENARIO—Continued 

Provision 

Climate 

benefits 

(3%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(2%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(3%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(7%) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

2% costs) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

3% costs) 

Net benefits 

(3% benefits, 

7% costs) 

RCRA Alternative Standard Requirements c.

.............. $0 to ($40) ......... $0 to ($35) ......... $0 to ($22) ......... $0 to $40 ........... $0 to $35 ........... $0 to $22. 

Total (AIM Act + RCRA) b ........ .............. $1,459 to $1,499 $1,300 to $1,335 $863 to $884 ..... $6,857 to $6,897 $7,021 to $7,056 $7,471 to $7,493. 

aAs detailed in the RIA addendum, reclaim requirements may lead to additional emissions reductions by inducing increased recovery of refrigerant at servicing and 

disposal that may otherwise be released or vented. In the base case scenario, EPA does not estimate an increase in these avoided emissions beyond baseline assumptions. See the RIA addendum for additional analysis related to this assumption. b Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. 

c RCRA alternative standard requirements are part of the RCRA regulations, which are separate from the regulations under subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act. Potential RCRA-related benefits presented in this table are included here for informational purposes. 

2. Estimating Costs and Benefits Based 

on Affected Equipment and Appliances 

As detailed in the RIA addendum, the 

number, charge sizes, leak rates, and 

other characteristics of affected RACHP 

and fire suppression equipment, and the 

benefits realized through the 

requirements of this rulemaking, were 

estimated using EPA’s Vintaging 

Model.179 For example, for RACHP 

equipment covered by the rule’s leak 

repair and ALD system provisions, the 

requirements are assumed to lead to 

leaking systems being repaired earlier 

than they otherwise would have been, 

leading to reduced emissions of HFCs. 

The reduction in HFC emissions results 

in climate benefits due to reduced 

climate forcing as calculated by 

multiplying avoided emissions by the 

social cost of each SC–HFC. 

In the years 2026 through 2050, the 

final rule’s leak repair and ALD system 

provisions in particular would prevent 

an estimated 88.5 MMTCO2e in HFC 

emissions, and the present value of the 

economic benefit of avoiding the 

damages associated with those 

emissions is estimated at $6.2 billion (in 

2022 dollars, discounted to 2024 using 

a three percent discount rate). These 

benefits, as well as those resulting from 

other provisions contained in the final 

ER&R rule, are estimated to decrease 

over time due to the HFC phasedown 

and the transition out of the higherGWP HFCs, lowering the average GWP 

of avoided future emissions. For 

example, it is estimated that the leak 

repair and ALD system provisions 

would prevent approximately 5.6 

MMTCO2e of HFC emissions in 2030, 

which decreases to approximately 3 

MMTCO2e of HFC emissions in 2040. 

Some provisions contained in the 

final rule are also estimated to yield cost 

savings.180 For example, reducing HFC 

emissions due to fixing leaks earlier 

would also be anticipated to lead to 

savings for system owner/operators, as 

less new refrigerant would need to be 

purchased to replace leaked refrigerant. 

In 2026, it is estimated that the 

proposed leak repair and ALD system 

provisions would lead to savings of 

approximately $19.5 million (in 2022 

dollars). 

The compliance costs of the leak 

repair and inspection requirements in 

particular include the costs of 

purchasing and operating ALD systems, 

costs of required inspections, and the 

costs of repairing leaks earlier than 

would have been necessary without the 

provisions. When combined with the 

refrigerant savings, in the years 2026 

through 2050, these provisions would 

result in net compliance costs with a 

present value estimated at $1.15 billion 

(2022 dollars, discounted to 2024 at a 

three percent discount rate). More 

details on underlying assumptions for 

these estimates can be found in the RIA 

addendum for the final rule and its 

accompanying appendices. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the regulations put in place by EPA will 

provide health benefits to technicians 

and their consumers. The commenter 

also stated that there will be 

environmental benefits since the HFC 

Phasedown Program encourages 

recycling HFCs to reduce GHG 

production rates. 

The commenter also noted that for 

this transition, States are providing 

incentive programs to help companies 

adjust to the new standards proposed by 

EPA. The commenter mentioned that 

California and Delaware have programs 

to increase the use of low-GWP 

refrigerants. The commenter stated that 

this is a great way to show support for 

the proposed rule because it is evident 

that businesses will lose a significant 

portion of funding with the transition to 

eco-friendly refrigerants. 

The commenter further stated that 

they wished the proposed rule had more 

data on the environmental and health 

impacts of not switching to more ecofriendly HFCs instead of ‘‘briefly’’ 

discussing it. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s support for this rule. EPA’s 

modeling for this rule focused on how 

the rule would impact GHG emissions 

and the HFC marketplace. The Agency 

acknowledges the comments on the 

environmental benefits of the HFC 

Phasedown Program and moreover the 

global HFC phasedown under the 

Montreal Protocol’s Kigali Amendment 

but notes that this is outside the scope 

for this rulemaking, as EPA did not 

propose to revise regulations to phase 

down HFCs in this rulemaking. In 

response to comments on State HFCmanagement programs, EPA 

acknowledges the presence of state-level 

HFC management programs and has 

referenced some of those programs at 

various points in this rulemaking, for 

informational purposes and additional 

context. For example, EPA cited CARB’s 

refrigerant management program when 

discussing charge-size thresholds for 

ALD systems in section IV.D.1. EPA 

further notes that requirements and 

incentives of such State programs are 

also outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, as those are developed and 

implemented by State regulators rather 

than EPA. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the costs in EPA’s costs and benefits 

analysis for entering records is grossly 

underestimated, and a more accurate 

estimate would be 10 minutes. The 

commenter asserted that the 10-minute 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82837 

estimate includes the assumption that 

the service contractor is recording 

entries correctly the first time and the 

record-keeping software loads 

immediately. The commenter 

additionally stated that due to the 

number of small appliances that will be 

added to the recordkeeping burden, 

recordkeeping burden will increase by 

50 to 100 percent. 

Response: EPA notes that the 

commenter is not specific in regard to 

which particular record entry cost 

assumption they claim is an 

underestimate. EPA has included 

estimated recordkeeping and reporting 

costs as a part of total estimated 

compliance costs in the RIA addendum. 

These estimates include cost burden 

assumptions derived from the ICR (EPA 

ICR Number 2778.01, https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OAR-2022-0606-0025), which 

estimated labor hours ranging from 

minutes to up to 40 hours per 

requirement, depending on the specific 

recordkeeping or reporting requirement. 

EPA has not received specific data or 

information indicating that any of these 

assumptions need to be revised upward 

in any particular case, and the comment 

does not provide any information or 

data to support the assertion that 10 

minutes would be a more accurate 

assumption for the estimate with which 

they disagree with. Nonetheless, based 

on the provisions EPA is finalizing in 

this rule, the Agency has adjusted the 

ICR for the final rule accordingly (EPA 

ICR Number 2778.02), available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. Regarding 

the recordkeeping burden for small 

appliances, EPA acknowledges that the 

inclusion of refrigerant-containing 

appliances with charge sizes of 15 

pounds or more for the leak repair 

provisions in this rulemaking may 

increase recordkeeping burden 

compared to the recordkeeping burden 

if the ER&R regulations were to only 

cover equipment with charge sizes of 50 

pounds or more. EPA’s rationale for the 

15-pound charge size is discussed in 

section IV.C.2 of the preamble. 

Comment: Another commenter 

expressed concern that if finalized in its 

current form, the proposed rule would 

place significant and disproportionate 

burdens on the grocery industry and 

other retailers, and that new compliance 

and administrative burdens created by 

the proposed rule would lead to 

increased costs of doing business, which 

would ultimately be passed on to 

consumers. The commenter stated that 

the proposed new requirements would 

have significant costs that are not 

accounted for in the Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD or in the RIA 

addendum to the Allocation Framework 

Rule RIA. The commenter noted several 

drivers of compliance costs: 

• Tight compliance timeframes that 

will necessitate allocation of personnel 

and financial resources. 

• Increased demand for and limited 

supply of reclaimed and/or recycled 

HFCs. 

• Increased demand for and limited 

supply of ALD systems. 

• The installation, training, and 

maintenance costs associated with ALD 

installation. 

• The need to re-train technicians and 

maintenance personnel. 

• Required retrofit or retirement of 

appliances with leaks that cannot be 

repaired in accordance with the 

proposed repair standard. 

The commenter further stated that the 

Technology Transitions regulatory 

program will place a significant strain 

on supply chains and technicians, 

driving up costs, and that EPA’s 

proposal to impose additional sweeping, 

mandatory system repair requirements 

in the near future will further drive a 

surge in demand for technicians, 

equipment, and refrigerants. The 

commenter added that the proposed 

new requirements, and their varying 

compliance timeframes, applicability 

thresholds, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements, will introduce 

administrative complexity, and that this 

additional burden is particularly 

pronounced for the commenter’s 

members which are managing 

compliance for different sites in 

multiple States, each with different 

types of regulated appliances. 

The commenter further asserted that 

the requirements in the proposed rule 

were unnecessary and would add 

significant regulatory burdens for little 

practical gain. The commenter 

suggested that as the phasedown will 

create a limited supply of HFCs in 

future years, businesses will already be 

well-incentivized to conduct repairs, 

minimize leaks, and use reclaimed 

HFCs, meaning that the regulatory 

mandates proposed are unnecessary. 

The commenter claimed that the costs 

and administrative burdens associated 

with the proposed rule are not justified 

for equipment that will be obsolete by 

the end of the HFC phasedown 

mandated in the AIM Act. 

Response: Congress directed the 

Agency in subsection (h)(1) of the AIM 

Act to promulgate certain regulations, 

and that the authority conveyed under 

subsection (h) is separate from, but in 

addition to, authority Congress 

conveyed under other provisions of the 

Act. EPA is establishing the ER&R 

program to implement subsection (h), 

consistent with the directive given by 

Congress. Further, as discussed in 

greater detail throughout this preamble, 

this rulemaking is designed to serve the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1) 

of the AIM Act of maximizing 

reclamation, minimizing the release of 

regulated substances from equipment, 

and ensuring the safety of technicians 

and consumers. EPA did not propose 

and is not making any changes to the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule; 

comments with respect to the costs of 

that rule are out of scope for this rule 

and require no further response. 

However, EPA notes that the updated 

analysis of the costs of the ER&R Rule 

incorporated the effects of the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule as the 

baseline from which incremental costs 

and benefits were estimated. 

While EPA has included estimates of 

the costs and benefits of this rulemaking 

in the RIA addendum (and reevaluated 

the costs and benefits of the final rule 

under two principal scenarios and 

provided sensitivity analyses around 

these estimates), to provide the public 

with information on the relevant costs 

and benefits of this action and to 

comply with Executive Orders, that 

analysis does not form a basis or 

rationale for any of the provisions 

promulgated in this rulemaking. To the 

extent that EPA has considered the 

results of analyses of the impacts of the 

provisions of the ER&R program in this 

rulemaking, those results are reflected 

in the Economic Impact and Benefits 

TSD. Further, while certain provisions 

of the AIM Act do expressly mention 

the consideration of certain costs, such 

as subsections (i)(4)(B) and (i)(4)(C), in 

this rulemaking, the Agency is neither 

addressing those provisions nor 

reopening regulations already 

promulgated under that separate 

authority. Nothing in the AIM Act 

requires EPA to consider costs or 

identify any particular cost-based metric 

or analytical approach for use in 

evaluating and establishing regulations 

to implement subsection (h). Subsection 

(h)(1) does, however, identify particular 

purposes that the regulations 

promulgated under that subsection are 

to serve, and EPA has focused on 

serving those purposes in adopting the 

requirements in this rulemaking. EPA 

further responds that many of the 

potential drivers of compliance costs 

cited by the commenter are uncertain; 

however, EPA has nonetheless 

endeavored to include such drivers in 

its assessment of compliance costs to 

the extent practicable and based on best 

available data as detailed in the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. For 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82838 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

example, regarding costs associated 

with ALD systems, as noted in the RIA 

addendum, EPA has included the 

capital expenditure to purchase the 

hardware (e.g., detector, sensors), plus 

installation costs and operations and 

maintenance costs associated with 

annual system maintenance, 

certification, and data tracking/storage. 

EPA has also included potential costs 

associated with retrofit or retirement of 

equipment with leaks that cannot be 

repaired, as detailed in the RIA 

addendum and Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD. Finally, regarding the 

need to re-train technicians and 

personnel, EPA has included labor costs 

associated with ALD, leak inspection 

and repair, cylinder management, and 

fire suppression activities required by 

this rule. EPA acknowledges that regular 

training is an integral part of the job 

requirements of affected technicians and 

personnel. The comments did not 

provide, and EPA is not aware of, data 

indicating that training requirements 

contained in this rule would translate 

into increased labor hours or labor rate 

assumptions beyond those already 

included in the analysis contained in 

the RIA addendum and Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD. 

Regarding compliance timeframes, 

EPA notes that for many of the 

provisions contained in the final rule 

they have been extended relative to 

those contained in the proposed 

rulemaking, which has the effect of 

partially mitigating potential fast cash 

outlays related to compliance deadlines, 

allowing such costs to be spread over 

additional time, and allowing additional 

time for identifying suppliers, obtaining 

equipment, adjusting supply chains, or 

acquiring technicians and other 

personnel training as needed, as well as 

other steps that are necessary for 

compliance. 

Regarding supply of reclaimed HFCs, 

EPA has provided data based on results 

from its Vintaging Model in both the 

proposed and final rule RIA addendum 

on the amount of reclaimed refrigerant 

that would be required to meet the 

requirements of the rule. EPA notes that 

this amount is significantly lower in the 

final rule, principally because the 

Agency is not finalizing, at this time, 

requirements for the initial charge of 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs and also because EPA 

is not finalizing, at this time, the 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in one of the four 

proposed RACHP subsectors. Although 

EPA responds to one comment 

providing analysis on supply of 

reclaimed refrigerants in section IV.E.1, 

this commenter did not provide data to 

EPA indicating that there would be a 

shortfall in supply of reclaimed 

refrigerant, nor does EPA anticipate 

such a shortfall based on estimated 

supply and demand of refrigerant using 

the Vintaging Model. For more 

information regarding supply of 

reclaimed HFCs, see responses to 

comments in section IV.E.1 and IV.E.2. 

Regarding supply of ALD systems, 

EPA has extended the compliance 

deadline for the installation and use of 

ALD systems for both new and existing 

IPR and commercial refrigeration 

appliances above 1,500 pounds. EPA 

has also narrowed the scope of affected 

existing IPR and commercial 

refrigeration refrigerant-containing 

appliances to such appliances that were 

installed after January 1, 2017. This will 

ensure that there is an adequate supply 

of ALD systems for entities affected by 

the ALD installation and use 

requirements in this final rule. Further 

discussion on the supply of ALD 

systems can be found in section IV.D.1. 

Although the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule is not addressed or 

reopened in this final rule, as the 

commenter claimed, provisions of that 

rule may lead retailers in the future to 

use alternatives that would not be 

subject to the provision of this rule. 

(e.g., alternatives that do not include a 

regulated substance or otherwise have a 

GWP equal to or below 53). Based on its 

analysis, EPA finds that the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule has the 

effect of reducing estimated compliance 

costs associated with the final ER&R 

Rule. As industry transitions away from 

higher-GWP HFCs in response to the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule it is 

expected to reduce the overall amount 

of equipment effected by the final ER&R 

Rule requirements (i.e., appliances that 

use an HFC or substitute for an HFC 

with a GWP greater than 53). However, 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the requirements are 

unnecessary and notes that the 

justification for the requirements are 

explained in the sections of the 

preamble discussing the respective 

requirements, as well as in the relevant 

sections of the proposal. EPA also 

disagrees with the commenters’ 

assertions that the requirements will 

result in little practical gain. EPA’s 

analysis describing the benefits of these 

requirements can be found in the RIA 

addendum and the Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD for this rule. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertions that equipment 

covered under this rule’s provisions will 

become obsolete due to the HFC 

phasedown under the AIM Act, and that 

the rule’s provisions are therefore 

adding unnecessary regulatory burden 

without providing additional benefits. 

Provisions promulgated in this 

rulemaking have compliance dates 

beginning between 2026–2030 and 

cover a broad range of new and existing 

equipment that will use regulated 

substances or substitutes for a regulated 

substance with GWPs greater than 53 

after the last phasedown step is 

scheduled to occur in 2036. While these 

compliance dates overlap with the 

compliance timelines established for 

new equipment under the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, some new 

refrigerant-containing equipment 

purchased after the applicable 

compliance date for the sector or 

subsector in the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule will still use regulated 

substances or substitutes with GWPs 

greater than 53 and thus will be subject 

to the regulations established under the 

ER&R program. Additionally, existing 

equipment that is not subject to 

requirements under the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule will still 

be subject to the ER&R program’s 

provisions until the end of its useful 

life. Thus, by promulgating regulations 

intended to maximize reclamation and 

minimize release of HFCs from 

equipment in this rulemaking, EPA is 

addressing equipment, practices, and 

activities that are not specifically 

addressed under other AIM Act 

programs. 

Comment: Two commenters opposed 

EPA’s use of climate benefits in the 

analysis. The commenters claimed that 

the purpose of the AIM Act is to 

promote American manufacturing, not 

to regulate GHGs, and stated that the 

statute itself never mentions GHGs or 

climate change, which the commenters 

stated was for good reason, since the 

divisiveness of climate change policy 

prevented Congress and the Executive 

from reaching consensus on any policy 

explicitly directed at climate change. 

Instead, the commenters asserted that 

the law (as evident in the title 

‘‘ ‘Innovation and Manufacturing’ ’’) 

focused on the economic benefits to 

certain U.S. chemical manufacturers, 

including fostering innovation in the 

chemicals industry. The commenters 

further pointed to EPA’s statement that 

the social cost of carbon is not a record 

basis for the Agency action, which they 

alleged to be an acknowledgement that 

EPA cannot legally take climate benefits 

into account. One of the commenters 

stated that EPA expressly disclaims any 

reliance on the ‘‘High Additionality’’ 

scenario as the legal basis of the 

proposed rule. 

This commenter further claimed that 

there is zero benefit from mandating the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82839 

181The comments emphasize the appearance of 

the terms ‘‘innovation’’ and ‘‘manufacturing’’ in the 

title of the AIM Act, but ‘‘headings and titles are 

not meant to take the place of the detailed 

provisions of the text.’’ Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. 

Balt. & O.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528 (1947). 

use of reclaim gas in various RACHP 

subsectors, citing Table 8 of the 

proposed rule, and that EPA glosses 

over the lack of any benefit in its costbenefit analysis for the reclaim 

provisions. The commenter further 

claimed that contrary to its duty to use 

reasoned decision making, EPA fails to 

engage in any substantive discussion of 

why an agency would adopt a rule (such 

as the reclaim mandate) that has no 

benefits that the government can legally 

promote. The commenter claimed that 

the AIM Act is not a climate law, that 

climate change is not part of the AIM 

Act, and that climate change cannot be 

considered as a justification for 

implementing regulations under the 

statute. The commenter concluded that 

EPA has failed to explain why a 

regulation with no economic or 

environmental benefit should be added 

to the regulatory burden on the 

refrigerant sector, and that the rule is 

arbitrary and capricious. 

The other commenter stated that 

EPA’s cost-benefit analysis improperly 

considers assumed climate benefits and 

foreign benefits while failing to consider 

overwhelming cost-benefit imbalances 

to U.S. manufacturers, and that 

adequate data was not gathered from 

impacted industries. The commenter 

asserted that climate benefits were not 

Congress’ goal, that climate change is 

not part of the AIM Act and may not be 

considered as a justification for 

implementing regulations under the 

statute, and that given the statutes [sic] 

sole focus on American manufacturing, 

EPA’s use of cost-benefit analysis of 

climate change benefits to justify the 

refrigerant management requirements is 

based on improper considerations. 

Accordingly, the commenter stated EPA 

should remove the discussion of climate 

benefits from the rulemaking record and 

rely solely on the core cost-benefit 

considerations, which they asserted 

overwhelmingly militate against the 

proposed rulemaking. The commenter 

stated that the rulemaking proposal 

makes clear that the costly burden on 

refrigeration users would not be 

justified, except if EPA uses the asserted 

benefits of climate change as a 

justification for the rule. Further, the 

commenter claimed that EPA may not 

use supposed climate benefits for 

foreign countries or residents of foreign 

countries as a basis for regulation of 

domestic industries, citing E.E.O.C. v. 

Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 254 

(1991). 

The commenter also claimed that 

EPA’s cost-benefit analysis is 

incomplete, and that since the purpose 

of the AIM Act, and therefore EPA’s 

rulemaking, is focused solely on 

American innovation and 

manufacturing, EPA must assess the 

costs and benefits of the proposed HFC 

management rule in relation to the 

proposed rule’s potential impact on the 

U.S. manufacturing sector. The 

commenter stated that this analysis 

should include an assessment of how 

certain chemical producers of HFC 

substitutes are benefiting from the AIM 

Act in general and the management rule 

in particular, and that EPA’s analysis 

should disclose how the chemical 

industry that produces substitute 

chemicals as replacements for HFCs 

currently used in IPR and other 

refrigeration equipment might benefit as 

a result of the government’s intervention 

into the refrigerant sector through 

product bans. A third commenter stated 

that the value proposition of 

implementing the proposed rule is 

significant but suggested that a further 

analysis of the $3.7 billion that EPA 

estimated in total costs is needed. 

Response: With regard to reasons 

explained in greater detail in the prior 

response and elsewhere in this 

rulemaking, the Agency has included 

estimates of the costs and benefits of 

this rulemaking in the RIA addendum 

(and reevaluated the costs and benefits 

of the final rule under two principal 

scenarios and provided sensitivity 

analyses around these estimates), to 

provide the public with information on 

the relevant costs and benefits of this 

action and to comply with Executive 

Orders, that analysis does not form a 

basis or rationale for any of the 

provisions EPA is promulgating in this 

rulemaking. The Agency did not rely on 

the ‘‘High Additionality’’ scenario 

performed for the proposed rule, just as 

it did not rely on any other scenario 

performed, as a basis or rationale for 

this rulemaking. Likewise, we are not 

relying on any scenario performed for 

the final rule to justify the regulations 

finalized in this rule. To the extent these 

comments assume that this rule is based 

on the monetized climate benefits 

reflected in the RIA addendum, those 

assumptions are based on a mistaken 

premise. As explained in the proposal 

and in section I.C of this preamble, 

while EPA included estimated climate 

benefits in the RIA addendum that were 

calculated using SC–HFCs, EPA did not 

rely on those estimates of the monetized 

climate benefits of the estimated HFC 

emissions reductions as a record basis 

for the Agency’s action and would reach 

the conclusions in this rule even in the 

absence of the SC–HFCs. In clarifying 

the role of these analyses in the decision 

making for this rule, EPA is not taking 

any position on what SC–HFC benefits 

it could or could not take into account 

as a legal matter, but rather is simply 

describing, as a factual matter, its 

approach in this rule. In addition, as 

explained throughout this preamble, 

this rulemaking is designed to serve the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1) 

of the AIM Act of maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing the release 

of regulated substances and ensuring the 

safety of technicians and consumers. To 

the extent that these comments are 

intended to suggest that EPA cannot 

consider effects on GHG emissions in 

promulgating regulations under 

subsection (h), that position is at odds 

with the plain text of the Act. For 

example, as explained previously, HFCs 

are potent GHGs and subsection (h)(1) 

directs EPA to establish certain 

regulations for purposes which include 

minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment.181 Thus, subsection (h)(1) 

on its face authorizes EPA to regulate 

certain GHGs and to focus on 

minimizing certain sources of emissions 

of those GHGs, indicating that Congress 

intended for EPA to address these GHG 

emissions under subsection (h). 

With respect to the commenter’s 

assertion that EPA may not rely on 

climate benefits for foreign countries or 

residents of foreign countries as a basis 

for regulating domestic industries, EPA 

responds that it is not clear what 

relevance this assertion has to this 

rulemaking. As noted previously, EPA is 

not relying on the quantification of 

climate benefits in the RIA addendum 

as a record basis for this rulemaking. 

Further, while the commenter cites 

E.E.O.C. v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 

U.S. 244, 254 (1991), it is unclear what 

bearing that decision is to convey with 

respect to this rule, as it addresses 

whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 applies extraterritorially to 

regulate the employment practices of 

United States employers who employ 

United States citizens abroad, and the 

commenters have offered no further 

explanation. To the extent the 

commenter was indicating that EPA 

may not use the global SC–HFC 

estimates in the RIA addendum, EPA 

addressed accounting for global 

damages in EPA’s ‘‘Report on the Social 

Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates 

Incorporating Recent Scientific 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82840 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

182Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/ 

files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_

final.pdf. 183Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-4009. 

184Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climatehfcs-reduction/hfc-data-hub. 

185 Inforum and JMS Consulting, 2018. Economic 

Impacts of U.S. Ratification of the Kigali 

Amendment. Available at: https://

www.alliancepolicy.org/site/usermedia/application/ 

6/Kigali_Economic_Report.pdf. 

Advances’’ (Nov. 2023).182 For 

additional discussion on this issue, EPA 

also refers the commenter to Appendix 

A of the response to public comments 

document available in the docket for 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 

and Emissions Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector 

Climate Review.’’ 183 With respect to the 

commenter’s position that there are 

‘‘zero benefits’’ from reclaim, EPA 

disagrees. In the RIA addendum and 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD, 

while we conservatively do not attribute 

emission reductions from such 

provisions, we do estimate a reduction 

in consumption of HFCs. Regardless, the 

purpose of these provisions is not to 

provide a specific benefit; rather, as 

already explained, the purpose is to 

help fulfill in a reasonable manner the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1), 

including the purpose of maximizing 

reclamation. 

Furthermore, the Agency refers the 

reader to some publicly available 

information which may be of interest to 

these commenters. Information on the 

production and consumption of HFCs is 

provided on EPA’s HFC Data Hub.184

While information on chemical 

producers’ ‘‘benefits’’ are not reportable 

under AIM Act regulations, EPA invites 

the commenter to refer to company 

reports including filings with the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission. 

For the manufacturing sector, EPA also 

directs the commenters to a 2018 

industry-commissioned study titled 

Economic Ratification of the Kigali 

Amendment,185 which found significant 

economic benefits in terms of increased 

manufacturing output and job creation. 

Lastly, regarding one commenter’s 

request for the Agency to conduct 

further analysis of the $3.7 billion in 

estimated costs, EPA has reevaluated 

the final rule and included information 

on the costs and benefits in the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. 

Although the commenter was not 

specific on what costs a further analysis 

should include, EPA has provided 

further information to comply with 

Executive Orders and has also included 

the RIA addendum in the docket, 

though the Agency is not relying on that 

as a fact basis for the decisions in the 

final rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

they did not carefully reproduce the 

estimated savings and benefits as would 

have been done if there had been more 

time for comments, but claimed that the 

estimated savings assumption ‘‘would 

not be expected to decrease over time, 

as the cost of refrigerant would not 

decrease with the average GWP.’’ The 

commenter suggested that it is possible 

that the cost of refrigerant will decrease 

over time as it has in the past and as 

there is more extensive use of nonfluorinated alternatives. 

Response: EPA agrees that the cost of 

refrigerants may decrease over time, but 

also notes it may increase over time as 

HFCs are phased down. In light of this 

uncertainty and for consistency and 

comparability with prior analyses, in 

the RIA addendum and Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD EPA has 

applied a constant cost for new 

refrigerant (of $4 per pound) equal to 

that used in previous analyses under the 

AIM Act. EPA further notes that a 

slightly higher cost (of $4.40 per pound) 

was applied for reclaimed refrigerant. 

More details on these assumptions and 

resulting estimated costs and benefits, 

and a sensitivity study of the cost of 

reclaimed refrigerant, can be found in 

the RIA addendum and Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD, which are 

available in the docket for this rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

they are a champion of LRM, a climate 

change mitigation strategy aimed at 

detecting and repairing refrigerant leaks; 

recovering, reclaiming, and destroying 

refrigerant; and designing and installing 

equipment with high energy efficiency 

and lower-GWP refrigerants. The 

commenter shared that LRM can have a 

profound climate impact, with the 

potential to mitigate 91 gigatons of CO2e 

globally by 2100, with a tenth of those 

emissions reductions happening in the 

United States. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s perspective. The Agency 

notes that several of the strategies 

mentioned by the commenter are similar 

to requirements being finalized in this 

rule. While outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, EPA also notes that the 

Agency has restricted the use of higher 

GWP substances in multiple RACHP, 

foams, and aerosol subsectors in the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule (88 

FR 73098, October 24, 2023). 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA confirm the impacts of the 

technology transitions mandates that 

were considered in the proposed rule, 

and if they were not considered, the 

commenter requests that EPA reconsider 

the impacts of technology transitions in 

a supplemental rulemaking. 

Response: EPA responds that the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule was not 

final at the time of the proposed 

rulemaking and thus was not included 

in the baseline for the costs and benefits 

analysis completed for the proposal. 

However, given the 2023 Technology 

Transitions Rule has since been 

finalized, the impacts of that rule are 

assumed in the baseline for the costs 

and benefits analysis conducted for this 

final rule. These assumptions are 

detailed in the RIA addendum that is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Comment: Several commenters, in 

broad support of the proposal, stated 

that the rule’s requirements enhance 

LRM and implement activities and 

practices which assist in preventing 

leaks and encourage the recovery and 

reclamation of HFCs. The commenters 

highlighted their joint report ‘‘The 90 

Billion Ton Opportunity: Lifecycle 

Refrigerant Management.’’ One of the 

commenter’s stated that minimizing 

leaks from appliances and ensuring the 

recovery, reclamation, and destruction 

of refrigerants at EOL could avoid the 

emissions of 9.2 billion MTCO2e by 

2100 in the United States alone. The 

commenter stated that the widespread 

adoption of LRM globally could avoid 

emissions up to 91 billion MTCO2e by 

2100. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenters’ broad support for the rule. 

As described elsewhere in this 

preamble, this rule is designed to serve 

the purposes identified in subsection 

(h)(1) of the AIM Act, including 

minimizing releases of HFC from 

equipment and maximizing reclamation. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

owners and operators of systems of all 

sizes will incur economic benefits from 

promptly repairing leaks. The 

commenter stated that better 

maintenance of systems through leak 

repair will save owners and operators 

money by reducing the amount of HFC 

needed to service existing systems and 

ensure the viability of refrigerated 

products. 

Response: As it is consistent with the 

analysis that EPA prepared for the final 

rule, EPA agrees that owners and 

operators of equipment subject to this 

final rule may incur economic benefits 

through prompt leak repair. EPA 

provided an analysis of different charge 

size thresholds for leak repair in the 

draft TSD, Analysis of Economic Impact 

and Benefits of the Proposed Rule (see 

Appendix F of docket item number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–0606–0023 attachment 

2). Further discussion of the rationale 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82841 

for the 15-pound charge size threshold 

is explained in section IV.C.2. of this 

preamble. 

Comment: Another commenter 

expressed support for EPA’s proposed 

leak detection and repair requirements. 

The commenter noted that these 

proposed requirements will have 

positive benefits for the atmosphere and 

climate and will help ease demand for 

servicing gas. 

Response: As it is consistent with the 

analysis that EPA prepared for the final 

rule, EPA agrees with these statements. 

Comment: One commenter in support 

of the leak repair and ALD provisions in 

the proposal stated that many New York 

businesses would experience savings 

upwards of $13 million by 2025 by 

lowering overall refrigerant and energy 

costs. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s support for the leak repair 

and ALD requirements and agrees that 

refrigerant management will lead to 

savings on refrigerant and energy costs. 

Although EPA did not analyze the 

effects on New York or any other State 

individually, please see the Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD for an analysis 

of the country as a whole. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that lowering the charge threshold to 

five pounds would yield significant 

additional avoided GHG emissions. The 

commenter mentioned that most of the 

additional reductions are estimated to 

come from road transport refrigeration 

units, which, under the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, are not yet 

required to transition to low-GWP 

refrigerant alternatives and have high 

estimated annual leak rates. The 

commenter noted that road transport 

refrigeration units merit being subject to 

additional leak management 

requirements. Another commenter 

similarly stated that lowering the charge 

size threshold would provide additional 

emissions benefits from the road 

transport sector. The commenter further 

stated that a five-pound threshold 

would avoid emissions totaling 86 

MMTCO2e by 2050 with annual 

refrigerant savings of $1,080,000. 

Response: EPA explains the Agency’s 

decision to set a leak repair charge size 

threshold of 15 pounds rather than 5 

pounds in section IV.C.2 in this final 

rule. EPA provided estimates of the 

compliance costs and emissions 

reductions of the proposed leak repair 

and inspection requirements using 

various charge size thresholds in the 

RIA addendum and Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD associated with the 

proposed rule for informational 

purposes and to comply with Executive 

Orders. EPA notes that in these 

documents as updated for this final rule 

the Agency assessed the impacts of road 

transportation refrigeration units using 

reclaimed refrigerant for servicing or 

repair. Additionally, as a point of 

clarification, EPA notes that while the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule did 

not set a GWP limit for all refrigerated 

transport, it did ban many high-GWP 

blends containing regulated substances, 

including R–404A, which was the 

primary blend previously used, in 

certain refrigerated transport subsectors, 

beginning January 1, 2025. 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed concern that lowering the 

applicability threshold for the leak 

repair requirements would significantly 

increase costs for sources. One of the 

commenters mentioned that even EPA’s 

analysis indicated that lowering the 

threshold to 15 pounds, or even 30 

pounds, would not be cost-effective. 

Another commenter stated that with the 

15-pound threshold that EPA proposed, 

the number of covered appliances for 

one of its’ members’ enterprises would 

increase more than ten-fold (from 600 to 

6,100 individual units). The commenter 

claimed that such a dramatic increase in 

the number of covered appliances could 

result in approximately $1 billion in 

additional capital costs to the company 

over the next 10 years. The commenter 

further stated that another member 

estimates that conducting site surveys of 

all of its stores to identify newly 

covered appliances under the ‘‘15- 

pound threshold’’ would cost roughly 

$500 to $1,000 per site, depending on 

location and size. When multiplied 

across many sites, this would lead to 

significant costs just to identify newly 

covered equipment. The commenter 

stated that as a practical matter, 

regulating small, packaged units, VRF 

systems, and mini-splits would greatly 

increase the recordkeeping burden on 

owners and operators under the 

regulations, and would increase costs 

for inspections and carrying out retrofit 

and/or retirement plans. The commenter 

stated that many HVAC appliances 

contain multiple circuits within a unit, 

each with its own recordkeeping 

obligations and leak rates. This 

increases compliance costs and makes it 

more difficult to fix, repair, and/or 

retrofit appliances. 

EPA also received another comment 

similarly claiming that the rule would 

impose a financial burden to food 

retailers due to the increased number of 

affected appliances. Specifically, the 

commenter estimates that audits of 

stores to determine which appliances 

would be subject to the leak repair 

requirements would cost between 

$1,000 and $2,000 dollars per 

supermarket and upwards of $700 

dollars for convenience stores, further 

estimating a total cost of $258,872,850 

to the food retail industry. The 

commenter also expressed concern that 

many smaller appliances would need to 

be added to a company’s recordkeeping, 

because appliances not previously 

covered under CAA section 608 would 

not have had their full charge data 

captured. The commenter claimed that 

some companies may have voluntarily 

kept records of appliances under 50 

pounds, however these records would 

not have been kept with the same rigor 

as recordkeeping required under CAA 

section 608. The commenter estimates 

the costs of reweighing smaller 

refrigerant-containing appliances to 

determine full charge will cost 

individual stores a minimum of $1,287 

which industry-wide would result in an 

additional $81,534,800 in compliance 

costs. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the 15- 

pound charge size threshold as 

proposed for the leak repair 

requirements in this final rule after 

consideration of a number of factors, 

including information regarding where 

HFCs or their substitutes are currently 

being used in refrigerant-containing 

appliances and where they are expected 

to be used in the coming years. EPA also 

considered, for example, changes to the 

market for refrigerant-containing 

appliances over time, design elements of 

different types of refrigerant-containing 

appliances with different charge sizes 

and their respective propensity to leak 

(e.g., whether equipment is hermetically 

sealed), and whether refrigerantcontaining appliances at specific charge 

sizes are typically repaired or disposed 

of. As previously stated, in the RIA 

addendum and Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD for the proposed 

rulemaking the Agency assessed 

different thresholds. These assessments 

were prepared to provide additional 

information, increase transparency to 

the public, and comply with Executive 

Orders. EPA did not consider the costeffectiveness of a specific charge size 

threshold in its reasoning for finalizing 

the 15-pound charge size threshold for 

the leak repair provisions; however, for 

informational purposes the Agency 

provided the cost assessments at 

different charge thresholds in the Draft 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD 

associated with the NPRM. Further 

discussion on the charge size threshold 

for the leak repair provisions in this 

final rule can be found in section IV.C.2. 

Regarding one commenter’s assertion 

that the rule would institute additional 

recordkeeping and compliance costs for 

certain HVAC appliances, the Agency 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82842 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

refers the commenter to further 

discussions on the exemption of 

refrigerant-containing appliances used 

in the residential and light commercial 

air conditioning and heat pumps 

subsector in section IV.C.2. EPA notes 

that several of the refrigerant-containing 

appliances the commenter describes 

(e.g., mini-splits) may be considered a 

part of the residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pumps sector and thus are exempt from 

the leak repair requirements in this final 

rule. EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ assessments of capital 

costs associated with complying with 

the leak repair provision and with the 

comments related to site surveys and 

store audits. Owners and operators will 

need to review an inventory of 

equipment and assess which equipment 

is subject to the rule’s leak repair 

requirements regardless of where the 

threshold is set. Supermarkets and other 

entities should be able to ascertain 

which appliances are at or above the 15- 

pound threshold. Furthermore, owners 

or operators most likely have records of 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

would allow them to determine if the 

full charge was at or above the 15-pound 

threshold. For instance, owner’s 

manuals might provide the OEM’s 

assessment of the full charge, or service 

records from when the equipment was 

installed and first filled or checked 

might provide the necessary 

information. The Agency understands 

that most stand-alone units would be 

below 15 pounds but to the extent that 

certain stand-alone units are above the 

15-pound threshold owners or operators 

should be able to easily determine the 

charge size and type of refrigerant being 

used via a manufacturer label. Further, 

if an owner or operator is using the 

same make and model of refrigerantcontaining appliance then they would 

not need to verify each individual 

appliance. Remote condensing units 

(e.g., supermarket cold rooms) may also 

have charge sizes at or above 15 pounds 

but as previously stated, previous 

records, manufacturer labels, and other 

information readily available should 

make the determination of the charge 

size for any such appliances 

uncomplicated. The recordkeeping for 

owners and operators is similar in 

nature to those required under the CAA 

section 608 regulations. Therefore, most 

owners and operators should already be 

familiar with the requirements being 

applied in the rule. The total estimated 

recordkeeping and reporting costs are 

provided in the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD and the assumptions for 

the various leak repair and inspection 

actions anticipated are likewise 

provided in Appendix A of the TSD. 

EPA does not anticipate that it would 

typically be necessary to conduct full 

store audits of appliances or reweigh 

appliances in the way the commenters 

suggest for these reasons. EPA notes that 

in this final rule, the Agency delayed 

the date by which an owner or operator 

must determine the full charge of 

appliances containing 15 or more 

pounds of refrigerant and keep records 

of such, from 60 days after publication 

until January 1, 2026, and that such 

change allows owners and operators to 

collect the required information in the 

normal course of business. Thus, EPA 

disagrees with the asserted cost 

estimates for determining which 

appliances are subject to leak repair 

under the final rule, even in the absence 

of voluntary recordkeeping of 

refrigerant-containing appliances which 

may be subject to the leak repair 

requirements. 

Comment: One commenter claimed 

that technician and equipment shortages 

and complexity of supermarket systems 

will make compliance with the one-year 

retrofit or retirement requirements 

difficult. The commenter also stated that 

the retrofits complying with the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule will 

further complicate compliance with the 

rule’s deadline. Thus, the commenter 

asserts that owners or operators will 

incur significant excess costs to meet 

the retrofit or retirement requirements 

in the rule. 

Response: EPA disagrees that 12 

months is not enough time for an owner 

or operator to implement their retrofit or 

retirement plan as required under this 

rule, and further notes that the rule 

allows owners or operators to seek 

extensions if certain criteria are met. 

Owners or operators have up to 30 days 

to repair commercial refrigeration 

appliances (or 120 days if an industrial 

process shutdown is required) and 

extensions can be requested if certain 

criteria are met. During the leak repair 

process an owner or operator would 

know if a refrigerant-containing 

appliance is unable to be repaired and 

would therefore require retrofit or 

retirement. As discussed in section 

IV.A.2, EPA under the definition of 

‘‘retrofit’’ being finalized in this rule, 

retrofitted refrigerant-containing 

appliances will not be required to 

transition to lower-GWP alternatives. 

The Agency, however, still encourages 

owners or operators that are retrofitting 

refrigerant-containing appliances to 

transition to a lower-GWP refrigerant. 

Further, in response to the commenter’s 

concerns with complying with the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, we note 

that restrictions on retrofits are not 

included in that rule and thus disagree 

with the commenters’ assertion that that 

rule would complicate compliance with 

this rule’s deadlines for retrofit or 

retirement plans. Additionally, the 

Agency notes that the commenter did 

not provide detailed information or data 

to support—or to allow EPA to more 

fully assess—the commenter’s claims 

regarding potential technician and 

equipment shortages and how these 

factors would affect compliance with 

the retrofit and retirement requirements 

in the final rule or lead to excess costs. 

Comment: The commenter 

recommended that EPA follow CARB’s 

leak repair timeline of 14 days from the 

initial detection of the leak to ensure 

that any detected leak is repaired in a 

timely fashion because this approach 

reduces both emissions and additional 

refrigerant costs to appliance owners 

and operators. 

Response: EPA agrees that the quicker 

a leak is repaired, the more emissions 

and additional refrigerant costs would 

be mitigated (up to the time that the 

entire charge has leaked out). EPA does 

not agree with the commenter that it 

would be appropriate to establish a 14- 

day repair timeline for the requirements 

in this rule. The amount of time 

provided to repair a leak and the 

reasoning for that decision is provided 

in section IV.C.3.b of this preamble. For 

analysis purposes, as explained in the 

RIA addendum and Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD, EPA estimated that 

leaks would be noticed and repaired 

early due to the provisions of this rule. 

Comment: Another commenter 

expressed support for EPA’s proposed 

leak detection and repair requirements. 

The commenter noted that these 

proposed requirements will have 

positive benefits for the atmosphere and 

climate and will help ease demand for 

servicing gas. 

Response: EPA agrees that leak 

detection and repair requirements will 

have a beneficial impact on the 

environment and has provided 

estimated benefits of these impacts in 

the Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. 

EPA agrees that the detection and repair 

of leaks is effective in reducing the 

quantity of gas necessary for servicing 

existing equipment. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA significantly underestimated the 

costs of installing ALD systems. The 

commenter stated that EPA’s cost 

estimates for direct ALD systems do not 

include all the types of costs that 

owners or operators will incur. The 

commenter recommended that EPA 

develop cost estimates that also 

consider the following: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82843 

• Reviewing the ALD system 

requirements, 

• preparing the process design for 

equipment installation, which includes 

safety and electrical reviews, 

• preparing bid packages and 

reviewing bids, 

• developing detailed mechanical 

designs (which would include the 

hardware/software needed to tie the 

systems to control houses and panels 

that may need to be modified), 

• project cost estimating, 

• management reviews, 

• construction contracting, 

• field installation, and 

• testing. 

With regards to indirect ALD systems, 

the commenter noted that EPA 

indicated that indirect systems have 

been installed in some retail stores but 

did not provide any information on 

applications in industrial facilities. The 

commenter suggested that the cost 

estimate for indirect ALD systems is 

orders of magnitude below what the 

actual costs will be because indirect 

ALD systems require specialized 

monitoring systems and require 

constant monitoring from complex logic 

systems to detect losses. The commenter 

also expressed concern that the TSD for 

ALDs did not include any references to 

discussions with equipment suppliers 

about actual fully installed appliances 

and recommended that EPA take steps 

to develop more realistic costs estimates 

before finalizing the proposed rule. The 

commenter also stated that EPA’s 

reference for the cost estimates, ‘‘Abt 

Associates, Supplemental Automatic 

Leak Detect System Draft Analysis, 

2023, prepared for EPA Stratospheric 

Protection Division,’’ was not included 

in the docket. 

Response: EPA responds that the 

commenter did not provide information 

on how their examples of costs apply to 

the costs associated with the installation 

and use of direct ALD systems nor did 

the commenter provide estimates of 

such costs. While EPA agrees to that 

project planning would need to take 

place to decide if an owner or operator 

would prefer to use and indirect or 

direct ALD system (including planning 

for the placement of refrigerant sensors) 

EPA disagrees that these actions would 

drastically increase the cost estimates 

provided in the RIA addendum and 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. 

Furthermore, some of the costs cited by 

the commenter like testing, installation, 

and construction contracting would 

reasonably fall under the installation 

cost estimates Unit Cost Assumptions 

Table in the RIA addendum and 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. 

Regarding the commenter’s statements 

on the installation and use of indirect 

ALD systems in industrial applications, 

EPA notes that the information provided 

on indirect systems installed in some 

retail stores in the TSD titled American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 

2020—Subsection (h): Automatic Leak 

Detection Systems was exemplary only 

and was not intended to represent all 

such installations. EPA provides 

information on the industries 

potentially affected by this rule both in 

the preamble to the proposed rule and 

the preamble to the final rule. A list by 

NAICS codes is also available in 

Appendix H of the Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD. A full list of 

applications in any subsector of the 

industry is not plausible and not 

required for this rule; owners and 

operators whose equipment falls under 

the scope of the requirements (e.g., full 

charge size of 1,500 pounds or more, 

installed on or after January 1, 2017) are 

required to install and use an ALD 

system in the time frame set out by the 

final rule. The Agency reiterates that 

estimates in the RIA addendum and 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD 

were provided for informational 

purposes and to comply with Executive 

Orders; the decision to require ALD 

systems for certain refrigerantcontaining appliances and allow owners 

or operators to choose whether to use a 

direct or indirect system, as explained 

in section IV.D.1 of this preamble, 

serves the purposes described in 

subsection (h)(1), including the purpose 

of minimizing the release of regulated 

substances from equipment. 

In addition, EPA notes that the 

commenter did not provide specific 

information on ‘‘realistic’’ costs that the 

commenter would have EPA incorporate 

into the final RIA addendum. EPA 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the cost estimates for the 

installation of an indirect ALD system is 

below the actual costs of installation of 

an indirect ALD system because existing 

refrigerant-containing appliances’ 

control modules do not have the 

capability to do the logic calculations 

necessary to detect leaks. Indirect ALD 

systems are software-based detection 

tools that communicate with existing 

hardware on the refrigerant-containing 

appliance to detect leaks. Since the 

Agency has changed the scope of 

applicability for existing refrigerantcontaining appliances for the ALD 

installation and use requirement from 

the proposal (specifically only 

refrigerant-containing appliances 

installed on or after January 1, 2017, are 

required to install an ALD) the control 

modules on these appliances should be 

advanced enough to functionally use an 

indirect ALD system. Additionally, if an 

owner or operator were to find that a 

particular ALD technology (direct or 

indirect) would not suit their 

refrigerant-containing appliance, they 

have the option of choosing another 

ALD technology to meet the rule’s 

requirements. Furthermore, the reasons 

for the requirements for ALD system, as 

explained in section IV.D.1 of this 

document, are not based on keeping 

below any specific cost; rather, it is 

based on serving the purposes described 

in subsection (h), as previously stated. 

Further discussion on the Agency’s 

rationale for requiring the use of ALD 

systems for certain refrigerantcontaining appliances can be found in 

section IV.D.1. In reference to the 

comment regarding EPA’s numbers used 

in Table A–4—Unit Cost Assumptions 

table found in the RIA addendum, EPA 

acknowledges the cited source was not 

included in the docket at proposal and 

notes that it has docketed the relevant 

information from the document and 

corrected the citation (titled 

Supplemental Information on 

Automatic Leak Detection Systems 

available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2022–0606)). The information used was 

accurately described and summarized in 

the draft RIA addendum for the 

proposed rule and likewise in the 

analysis for the final rule. 

Comment: A commenter requested a 

2,000-pound threshold if EPA maintains 

the ALD installation requirement for 

some appliances. The commenter 

asserted that EPA’s RIA suggested that 

thresholds below 2,000 pounds are not 

cost-effective. The commenter also 

asserted EPA should further evaluate 

the cost-effectiveness of a threshold 

higher than 2,000 pounds and, at a 

minimum, should not finalize any 

threshold below 2,000 pounds. 

Response: As discussed further in 

section IV.D.1 of this preamble, the 

Agency is finalizing the 1,500-pound 

threshold for IPR and commercial 

refrigeration appliances containing an 

HFC or substitute for an HFC with a 

GWP greater than 53 as proposed. In the 

RIA addendum and Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD for the proposed 

rulemaking, the Agency provided 

information on the costs and benefits of 

choosing a different threshold; however, 

EPA notes that the figures presented in 

the RIA are for informational purposes 

and to comply with Executive Orders 

and were not used as a record basis for 

deciding the threshold for ALD 

installation requirements. When 

deciding the charge size threshold for 

IPR and commercial refrigeration 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82844 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

186Available at: https://www.epa.gov/section608/ 

summary-refrigerant-reclamation-trends. 

appliances subject to this provision EPA 

considered the relative risks of leaks 

from larger refrigerant-containing 

appliances and the supply of ALD 

systems to facilitate compliance with 

the provision. With those 

considerations, EPA finds the 1,500- 

pound threshold appropriate for serving 

the purposes described in subsection 

(h)(1), including the purpose of 

minimizing the release of regulated 

substances from equipment. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the proposed rule would require carriers 

in the commercial airline industry that 

maintain large chiller systems at 

airports to install ALD systems at high 

costs. 

Response: EPA responds that the 

commenter did not provide any 

information or data to support their 

assertions regarding the effects of the 

costs associated with the installation 

and use of ALD systems for chillers at 

airports on the commercial airline 

industry, nor did they provide any 

information indicating how or why EPA 

should change the proposed rule to 

account for these costs. 

Comment: A commenter claimed that 

mandating leak searches and adding 

ALD further adds to consumer costs. 

Response: EPA responds that the 

commenter did not provide sufficient 

information to describe why or how the 

costs related the leak repair and ALD 

requirements would lead to more costs 

and thus be passed onto consumers. 

EPA understands that refrigerant and 

the maintenance of refrigerant systems 

are a small percentage of the overall 

costs of owning such refrigerantcontaining appliances. The effective 

repair of leaks and the earlier detection 

of leaks via ALD systems is anticipated 

to lead to more cost savings for owners 

and operators, as properly functioning 

refrigerant-containing appliances are 

more energy efficient and require fewer 

refrigerant additions. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA provided no proof that the 

objectives noted in the proposed rule for 

reclamation to bolster the current 

supply of HFCs with recovered and 

reclaimed refrigerants from existing 

systems, support a smooth transition to 

substitutes for HFCs, minimize 

disruption of the current capital stock of 

equipment by allowing its continued 

use with existing refrigerant supplies, 

avoid supply shortages of virgin 

refrigerants, and insulate the industry 

against price spikes that could affect the 

servicing of existing systems using HFCs 

can be achieved. The commenter also 

claimed that EPA’s claims of costsavings are contradicted by the RIA, 

which did not monetize any of the 

supposed benefits. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter and directs the reader to 

section IV.E of this preamble for 

additional information on the 

reclamation requirements. EPA notes 

that there was a 40 percent increase in 

the mass of HFCs reclaimed from 2021 

to 2022, and approximately a 20 percent 

increase from 2022 to 2023, which may 

be an indication that there will be 

additional shifts in the reclamation 

market.186 In EPA’s experience with the 

CFC and HCFC phaseouts, the Agency 

has seen continued use of reclaim, 

indicating that equipment was and, in 

many cases, still is operating utilizing 

refrigerants that have been phased out. 

Throughout those phaseouts, EPA has 

not seen any significant disruption or 

premature retirement of equipment due 

to refrigerant shortages, nor did the 

commenter provide any evidence 

thereof for the CFC and HCFC 

phaseouts, nor any reason to think such 

effects would occur for the HFC 

phasedown. 

In the RIA addendum and Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD, EPA has 

estimated the costs and benefits of the 

regulations. While the commenter seems 

to indicate that cost savings were not 

included in the analysis, EPA notes that 

cost savings associated with avoided 

refrigerant losses were included in the 

analysis conducted for both the 

proposed and final rule. More 

information on these assumptions can 

be found in section VI.B.2 of this 

preamble as well as the RIA addendum 

and Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the modeling conducted in support of 

the AIM Act regulations appears to rely 

on refrigerant recovery in disposal and 

servicing of appliances that may exceed 

what current regulations will achieve. 

The commenter cited the RIA for the 

allocation regulation and the RIA for the 

2023 Technology Transitions Rule, on 

the basis of which the commenter stated 

their understanding is that EPA may 

expect a 100 percent recovery rate. The 

commenter noted that despite the 

proposed rule’s multiple measures, the 

proposal has few provisions regarding 

the disposal side of refrigerant recovery 

or the recovery of refrigerants at EOL. 

The commenter stated that residential 

EOL disposal and recovery is not 

discussed in EPA reclaim market report 

provided in the docket, but residential 

appliances are an important source of 

HFC consumption and emissions. The 

commenter shared a concern that there 

is little incentive for individuals that 

may collect residential appliances, such 

as from a curbside, to properly recover 

refrigerants before transferring the 

equipment to a recycling or other 

disposal facility, and stated that entities 

that accept EOL equipment, like metal 

recovery facilities, may request that 

refrigerant be vented prior to disposal so 

that they are not subject to regulation, 

creating a gap in enforcement of existing 

regulations and undermining reclaim 

supply. The commenter stated that of 

the jurisdictions with refrigerant 

collection policies, Japan may have the 

most recovery and Japan’s government 

reports a 40 percent recovery rate. The 

commenter stated that based on 

information provided by EPA, the 

recovery rate in the United States is 

much lower than this and much lower 

than what may have been modeled in 

the AIM Act rulemakings. The 

commenter added that even the volume 

of HFCs contained within products 

exceeded the recovery rate in 2020 by 

seven times. The commenter further 

noted that one benefit of the proposed 

regulation is that by increasing the 

demand for reclaim, it also provides 

additional incentive for refrigerant 

recovery. However, the commenter 

stated that based on the industry report 

provided by EPA in the docket, the 

examples from other jurisdictions 

suggest that incentives are not enough to 

ensure a high rate of recovery. The 

commenter stated that EPA’s modeling 

assumptions may only be achievable 

through robust enforcement and 

incentives. 

Response: EPA confirms that the 

modeling conducted for the RIA and 

RIA addenda for the HFC Allocation 

and 2023 Technology Transitions rules 

do assume improvements to refrigerant 

recovery rates, during service and at 

disposal, in some of the potential 

compliance pathways. However, the rate 

of recovery assumed in this modeling 

was not 100 percent. To represent 

improvements to refrigerant recovery 

rates possible under the provisions of 

this final rule, in an alternate scenario 

EPA modeled an improvement in the 

emissions rates of all RACHP equipment 

(including residential) at disposal. 

Specifically, it was assumed that an 

emissions rate of three to four percent 

would be achieved for large and small 

RACHP equipment (in other words, 

three-four percent of equipment charge 

would still be emitted at EOL even with 

the improved recovery assumption). 

EPA notes that while this assumption 

was included in the compliance path for 

the Allocation Rule RIA, it was 

effectively treated as an uncertainty in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82845 

the subsequent 2023 Technology 

Transitions RIA Addendum, given that 

updated modeling results demonstrated 

that compliance with both rules could 

be achieved without improved recovery. 

As detailed in the associated RIA 

addendum, modeling conducted for this 

rule assumes that the prior improved 

recovery assumption would not occur in 

the ‘‘baseline’’ in order to conform with 

the base case analyzed for the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule. However, 

an alternative scenario has also been 

provided in the RIA addendum and the 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD in 

which improved recovery is assumed to 

otherwise occur in the absence of this 

regulation, thus illustrating a lower 

bound of potential incremental benefits. 

EPA welcomes additional data and 

technical information on this topic and 

will continue to monitor industry 

recovery and reclamation rates in order 

to potentially update its modeling 

assumptions in the future. Finally, EPA 

acknowledges that further 

improvements in recovery rates may be 

achievable through enforcement and 

incentives such as those mentioned by 

the commenter. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA is uncertain whether mandating the 

use of reclaimed HFCs would provide 

benefits in the form of additional HFC 

reductions. The commenter stated that 

EPA indicates that use of reclaimed 

HFCs in the RACHP subsector and fire 

suppression equipment ‘‘may not yield 

significant additional HFC consumption 

reductions, relative to what was 

previously modeled in the Allocation 

Framework Rule Reference Case,’’ while 

noting that EPA states that the ‘‘specific 

provision of this proposed rule would 

likely increase the use of recycled/ 

reclaimed HFCs beyond what was 

already accounted for in [the RIA].’’ The 

commenter claimed that EPA offers no 

quantification of this increase, and that 

such imprecise and qualified impacts do 

not provide a sufficient policy basis for 

the imposition of requirements that will 

impact the HFC market as envisioned by 

the AIM Act. 

The commenter also asserted that the 

proposed rule would create a captive 

market as opposed to one based on 

competition, thereby losing any 

economic incentives that could lower 

the cost of products to consumers. The 

commenter stated that EPA effectively 

requires OEMs to buy reclaimed HFCs 

in order to sell pre-charged HVACR 

equipment and technicians and others 

to buy reclaimed HFCs in order to ‘‘first 

fill’’ new equipment on-site. The 

commenter claimed that this creates a 

closed market given the finite amount of 

reclaimed HFCs available, citing EPA’s 

2023 reclaim report documenting that 

1,600 MT of R–410A was available in 

2022 as reclaim, which the commenter 

claimed, relative to estimated 2022 

demand for charging new R–410A AC 

equipment, represents less than four 

percent of new equipment demand. The 

commenter further claimed that in its 

analysis for the proposed rule, EPA has 

not considered that the finite amount 

available in 2022 was likely already 

sold, leaving other newly obligated 

parties to purchase required reclaimed 

HFCs from a market that already has a 

minimum value established for R–410A. 

The commenter claimed that this 

necessarily results in an unbalanced, 

artificial market of EPA’s creation. The 

commenter also stated that EPA has not 

analyzed the cost impact of such market 

conditions to the end consumer nor any 

potential adverse outcomes, including 

concentration of a finite amount of 

reclaimed HFCs within a relatively 

small number of suppliers. 

The commenter also claimed that EPA 

utilizes ‘‘regulatorily manufactured 

demand’’ to estimate actual demand for 

initial charge of reclaimed HFCs in 2028 

at 23,300 metric tons, and that by doing 

so EPA did not establish a ‘‘no action’’ 

base analysis. Instead, EPA forecasted 

existing demand by creating reclaim 

requirements meant to create this 

‘‘artificial demand.’’ The commenter 

then stated that EPA made a faulty 

assumption in assuming that market 

forces would not be sufficient to 

increase reclamation before the next 

phasedown of HFC production and 

consumption. The commenter claimed 

that EPA erroneously concluded that 

voluntary reclamation programs that 

‘‘worked in Europe’’ would not be 

sufficient to increase reclamation in the 

United States, and that EPA’s decision 

to institute regulations to increase 

reclamation is ‘‘at variance with the 

AIM Act . . . [and] arbitrary and 

capricious.’’ 

The commenter further stated that 

reclaim requirements for HFCs are also 

unnecessary based on the United States’ 

experience with the phaseout of ODS, as 

a reclamation market has allowed the 

continued use of ODS even in the 

absence of voluntary reclamation 

requirements. Furthermore, the 

commenter stated that the climate 

impact of refrigerant leaks is the same 

regardless of whether refrigerant is 

reclaimed or virgin, and that EPA has no 

basis for claiming that there will be a 

climate benefit from reclamation 

requirements or that reclamation will 

offset emissions from newly produced 

HFCs, either domestic or imported. The 

commenter stated that EPA’s own 

analysis has not proven that increased 

reclamation will provide additional 

benefits, citing quotations from the RIA 

addendum. The commenter instead 

concluded that ‘‘market distortion’’ is 

the most likely outcome, with some 

parts of the HFC marketplace impacted 

more heavily than others. 

The commenter additionally asserted 

that the RIA is inadequate to support 

EPA’s proposed direct intervention in 

the market. The commenter noted that 

EPA states in the RIA addendum that 

because ‘‘cost and emission estimates 

aren’t available specifically in the 

United States context, cost savings and 

benefits are not directly incorporated 

into the overall compliance costs and 

benefit estimates associated with the 

rulemaking [provisions on 

reclamation],’’ and states that to account 

for the uncertainty in EPA’s 

intervention in the market, EPA created 

two scenarios: (1) Where requirements 

to use reclaimed HFCs result in a shift 

of the use of available consumption and 

production allowances; and (2) a ‘high 

additionality’ case where some 

abatement of HFCs is assumed. The 

commenter stated that EPA then 

measured the costs and benefits of 

reclamation using a highly flawed 

methodology, and that EPA calculated 

the incremental cost differences of 

virgin production, destruction, and 

reclamation at $0.58 per kilogram. The 

commenter asserted that this 

methodology merely compared the cost 

of virgin production and destruction 

and then subtracted the cost of 

reclamation, and that this calculation is 

effectively meaningless in the context of 

what EPA actually proposed. 

The commenter also claimed that this 

analysis showed that there is already a 

strong economic incentive to reclaim 

HFCs instead of destroying them, 

because the estimated cost of 

production is $0.24 versus $0.04 for 

reclamation. The commenter further 

stated that the cost calculated does not 

actually reflect EPA’s proposal to 

substitute the use of reclaimed versus 

newly produced HFCs, and instead 

assumes that all newly produced HFCs 

would be destroyed without EPA’s 

proposed mandatory use of reclaimed 

HFCs, which the commenter describes 

as nonsensical. The commenter claimed 

that for EPA’s proposed use of 

reclaimed HFCs to have a market effect 

(e.g., if it is assumed that reclaimed 

HFCs will offset the production of virgin 

HFCs) then new production should be 

offset by 1:1 (or some other, lesser ratio) 

but any newly produced HFCs would 

logically not be concurrently destroyed. 

Rather, the commenter asserted, both 

the virgin HFC and the reclaimed HFC 

would eventually be destroyed, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

presumably at comparable rates, 

meaning that the calculated benefit of 

$0.58 would not exist along with any 

derived climate benefit. 

The commenter further stated that to 

the extent that EPA calculated the 

quantity of emissions prevented it 

appears to have assumed that 15 percent 

of HFCs would still be produced for 

blending into reclaimed HFCs and 

another 67 percent of HFCs would be 

lost in the reclamation process and 

eventual emissions of reclaimed HFCs. 

The commenter claimed that this would 

mean that EPA estimates that 18 percent 

of HFC production would be avoided 

due to the newly proposed requirements 

but claimed that EPA provided no basis 

for this assumption in the RIA. The 

commenter asserted that any claimed 

benefits to the climate must therefore be 

discounted due to a lack of explanation 

as to how such would occur. The 

commenter further claimed that EPA 

has not conducted sufficient analysis, 

and therefore cannot simply conclude 

that such benefits would occur, as the 

commenter states EPA appears to do. 

The commenter stated that EPA 

provided no TSD to support its 

reclamation proposal, unlike TSDs for 

ALD, fire suppression, and the cold 

chain, that the study cited (Yasaka et al. 

(2023)) was not provided in the docket, 

and that an additional report cited by 

EPA does not contain relevant 

calculations. The commenter stated that, 

for example, EPA cited but does not 

provide in the docket a report entitled 

‘‘The 90 Billion Ton Opportunity,’’ and 

that the available copy of this report on 

the web contains no calculations as to 

the amount of HFC releases avoided 

through mandatory reuse of HFCs. 

Response: EPA responds that, upon 

consideration of comments, in light of 

the provisions being finalized, and 

because of further analysis, many of the 

analytic assumptions mentioned by the 

commenter have been updated in the 

final rule RIA addendum and Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD. In the final 

RIA addendum and Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD, EPA only mentions 

the Yasaka et al. paper in passing and 

does not rely upon it or the calculations 

of costs of production, reclamation, and 

destruction in our calculations. Further, 

EPA no longer assumes the 67 percent 

loss with which the commenter took 

issue. EPA acknowledges that there is 

uncertainty regarding the degree to 

which some of the provisions contained 

in this final rule will lead to 

incremental reductions in HFC 

consumption and emissions when 

considering already in-place regulations 

and market forces. For these reasons, 

EPA has included multiple scenarios in 

the RIA addendum for the final rule. 

However, as detailed in the RIA 

addendum, even in EPA’s most 

conservative assessment of the 

incremental benefits of the final rule, 

significant incremental consumption 

and emissions reductions occur. 

Although EPA conservatively assumes 

the reclamation provisions do not 

provide additional emission reductions, 

the analysis finds those provisions 

reduce HFC consumption by over 150 

MMTCO2e through 2050. 

EPA disagrees that existing economic 

incentives for reclamation in the 

absence of this rulemaking would 

represent a flaw in the analysis. As 

noted elsewhere in the rule preamble, 

some market failure may exist that acts 

as a barrier to businesses’ adoption of 

the most profitable course. For example, 

market failures may exist where there 

are imperfect information or split 

incentives, such as decision-makers not 

knowing the percentage of energy use 

associated with different options. 

EPA also disagrees that the experience 

of the ODS phaseout provides any proof 

that a voluntary reclaim market for 

HFCs would materialize that would 

serve the same goals as this rule and 

that the requirements of the final rule 

are thus unnecessary. The consumption 

of halons and CFCs were completely 

phased out in 1994 and 1996, 

respectively, and likewise later for 

HCFCs on a species-specific schedule. 

Although the ODS phaseouts effectuated 

a type of reclamation market, as users 

would need to access used or stockpiled 

material to service their equipment, that 

market was not intended to meet 

specific statutory provisions with 

respect to reclamation. As the 

commenter notes with statistics 

regarding R–410A, such a reclamation 

market does not exist for all HFCs 

currently. Further, given that HFC 

production and consumption are phased 

down, not phased out, under the AIM 

Act, and given the express language in 

the AIM Act addressing reclamation, the 

comparison to the ODS history in this 

respect is not analogous with the goals 

of this final rule. 

EPA notes that the commenter’s 

assertions regarding the creation of 

potentially anticompetitive markets for 

reclaimed HFCs appear to be 

speculative. The commenter did not 

provide sufficient information to 

support their claims or analyze the 

specific details of their assertions, 

including information addressing how 

the rule would lead to such adverse 

outcomes given the numerous EPAcertified reclaimers that exist, and the 

opportunity for other entities to enter 

the reclaim market. Nor is EPA aware of 

such information or analyses in the 

record for this rule. In addition, the 

Agency is not finalizing, at this time, the 

proposed requirements for the initial fill 

of refrigerant-containing equipment to 

be done with reclaimed HFCs, thus 

potentially alleviating some of the 

commenter’s concerns. EPA has also 

responded to many of the commenter’s 

concerns regarding the market for 

reclaimed HFCs and has described the 

rationale for the requirements for 

reclaimed HFCs that are being finalized 

in this rule, in section IV.E.2 of this 

preamble. Regarding a ‘‘no action’’ 

analysis, EPA notes that the Agency 

provided a ‘‘Business as Usual’’ scenario 

in the 2021 Allocation Framework Rule 

RIA addendum. EPA further notes that 

the commenter seems to misunderstand 

the reason for preparing the RIA 

addendum. As noted elsewhere in this 

preamble, while EPA has included 

estimates of the costs and benefits of 

this rulemaking in the RIA addendum, 

to provide the public with information 

on the relevant costs and benefits of this 

action and to comply with Executive 

Orders, the analysis in the RIA 

addendum does not form a basis or 

rationale for any of the provisions EPA 

is promulgating in this rulemaking. 

Finally, in its analysis of the costs and 

benefits of this rule, EPA has not 

assumed that reclaimed HFCs are more 

cost-effective vis- a`-vis virgin HFCs due 

to avoided destruction costs. Such an 

assumption may be defensible, and EPA 

is aware of the study, referenced by the 

commenter, indicating that reclaimed 

HFCs may actually be more costeffective than virgin manufacture, when 

considering the full refrigerant lifecycle 

including destruction. While EPA 

referenced this study in the RIA 

addendum included with the proposed 

rule, for the final RIA addendum EPA 

has conservatively not included the 

potential savings cited by that study. 

Indeed, in its central base case analysis 

EPA has conservatively assumed a cost 

premium for reclaimed HFCs vis- a`- vis 

virgin HFCs of 10 percent. For 

informational purposes, we also 

provided a sensitivity analysis around 

this assumption. 

In response to the commenter’s claim 

that EPA should implement a voluntary 

refrigerant reclamation program instead 

of promulgating refrigerant regulations, 

EPA responds that the Agency is 

finalizing reclamation requirements to 

implement subsection (h)(1) and 

subsection (h)(2)(B) of the AIM Act, as 

stated in IV.E.1. Namely, EPA instituted 

reclamation provisions in order to 

maximize reclamation and minimize 

releases of HFCs consistent with (h)(1), 

and also to implement subsection 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82847 

187The docket entry for the RIA addendum for 

the proposed rule is available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR2022-0606-0023, and the Yasaka study is 

attachment 17. 

188The docket for materials referenced in the 

proposed rule is available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR2022-0606-0015. 

189 Yasaka, Yoshihito, et al. ‘‘Life-Cycle 

Assessment of Refrigerants for Air Conditioners 

Considering Reclamation and Destruction.’’ 

Sustainability, vol. 15, no.1, 2023, p. 473, 

doi:10.3390/su15010473. 

(h)(2)(B) of the AIM Act, which provides 

that a regulated substance used as a 

refrigerant shall be reclaimed before 

being sold or transferred to a new 

owner, except where such sale or 

transfer is solely for purposes of 

reclamation or destruction of the 

regulated substance. The commenter 

fails to provide any information or 

analysis to support a conclusion that a 

voluntary reclamation program would 

be as well suited to meeting the 

objectives of this rule as the program 

that EPA is establishing in this rule. 

In response to the commenter’s 

assertions regarding docketing, EPA 

included both sources that the 

commenter mentioned in the docket. 

Yasaka et al. (2023) is included in the 

docket as an attachment to the docket 

entry for the RIA addendum,187 while 

the study the commenter cites ‘‘The 90 

Billion Ton Opportunity’’ is included in 

a docketed list of references from the 

NPRM.188

Comment: Another commenter stated 

that EPA did not clearly and 

consistently identify the heel estimates 

used when assessing potential benefits 

of the proposed cylinder management 

requirements. The commenter stated 

that EPA’s environmental benefit 

analysis is contradictory, insufficiently 

supported, and does not rely on facts. 

Response: EPA has included 

information in the RIA addendum and 

Economic Impact and Benefits TSD for 

the final rule regarding the assumptions, 

including the estimated heel, used in 

The Agency’s analysis of the costs and 

benefits of the requirements for the 

management of disposable cylinders. 

Further, based on information from the 

commenter, EPA has provided 

sensitivity analyses of the related costs 

and benefits in Appendix K of the RIA 

addendum. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

there would be no benefit for reclaimers 

to recover refrigerant heels because 

there would be little refrigerant left in 

the cylinders, resulting in an expensive 

refrigerant from a cost per ounce 

perspective. Another commenter stated 

that EPA’s RIA addendum did not 

provide any estimates of the costs and 

benefits of the proposed container 

tracking system. The commenter stated 

that EPA cost estimates appear to be 

entirely based on the separate 

requirement regarding the recovery of 

cylinder heels. 

An additional commenter stated that 

there is no benefit to forcing empty 

disposable cylinders to outside facilities 

and that tracking cylinders will increase 

costs. 

Response: EPA has estimated the 

costs and benefits of requirements to 

manage disposable cylinders and heels 

in the RIA addendum and Economic 

Impact and Benefits TSD for the final 

rule. EPA is not finalizing the cylinder 

tracking requirements at this time, and 

thus costs related to those provisions are 

not included in the costs from the 

aforementioned RIA addendum and 

TSD. EPA notes that for consistency 

with previous regulations under the 

AIM Act, the Agency assumed the value 

of the recovered heel is $4 per pound. 

That said, EPA expects that given the 

HFC phasedown that is underway, those 

costs could increase over time, 

providing more value to those 

recovering the heels. The reasons for 

establishing these requirements related 

to disposable cylinders and heels are 

explained in section IV.G of this 

document. 

Comment: One commenter also stated 

that there will be a cost impact 

throughout the supply chain to handle 

the logistics and tracking required to 

recover a likely small amount of HFCs. 

The commenter expressed concern with 

the net environmental impact of 

reclaiming the heel refrigerant from 

disposable cylinders in the MVAC 

sector after considering the transport, 

handling, and reclamation energy 

required to extract the remaining 

refrigerant, and the commenter urged 

EPA to consider all factors involved in 

the net environmental benefit of heel 

reclamation before implementing the 

rule. 

Response: EPA has estimated the 

costs and benefits of the requirements to 

manage disposable cylinders and send 

heels for reclamation in the RIA 

addendum and Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD for the final rule. EPA’s 

assessment included additional costs 

related to transport and the labor costs, 

plus overhead, for handling and 

transporting such cylinders. While EPA 

acknowledge there are energy use 

implications in reclaiming materials, the 

Agency noted in the draft RIA 

addendum to the proposed rule a study 

(Yasaka et al., 2023) 189 that shows, 

overall, the use of reclaimed refrigerant 

leads to net reductions in energy 

compared to the production of virgin 

material. To be conservative and 

because these results were based on data 

from Japan and Europe, EPA does not, 

however, use those findings to increase 

the benefits assessed from the avoided 

emissions estimated based on the 

requirements of the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the proposed cylinder management 

and tracking requirements do not appear 

to be based on a complete and legally 

sufficient analysis of the best available 

data. As such, the commenter stated that 

that EPA may have significantly 

overstated the environmental benefits. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

that the proposed rule requiring 

machine readable tracking identifiers on 

all containers of HFCs that could be 

used for the servicing, repair, or 

installation of refrigerant-containing 

equipment, including both refillable and 

disposable cylinders, and the 

requirement to record specific data 

during the movement of these cylinders 

will impose significant costs and 

investment by all industry stakeholders. 

Response: EPA responds that it is not 

finalizing the cylinder tracking 

requirements at this time, and thus costs 

and benefits related to those provisions 

are not included in the RIA addendum 

and the Economic Impact and Benefits 

TSD for the final rule. EPA has 

explained the data used to assess the 

costs and benefits of the requirement to 

manage disposable cylinders and send 

heels to reclaimers in the RIA 

addendum and the Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD. Further, EPA has 

used information provided by the 

commenters to perform sensitivity 

analyses of the Agency’s estimate, and 

notes that in all cases examined, there 

are environmental benefits, and the 

savings outweigh the costs even without 

considering the monetized climate 

benefits (i.e., even without applying SC– 

HFC values to the emission reductions). 

However, as noted previously in this 

preamble, while EPA included estimates 

of the costs and benefits of this 

rulemaking in the RIA addendum to 

provide the public with information on 

the relevant costs and benefits of this 

action and to comply with Executive 

Orders, the analysis in the RIA 

addendum does not form a basis or 

rationale for any of the provisions EPA 

is promulgating in this rulemaking. 

Further, although EPA is using the 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’s action. EPA would reach the 

conclusions in this rule even in the 

absence of the SC–HFCs. EPA’s reasons 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

for establishing the requirements related 

to disposable cylinders are explained in 

section IV.G of this preamble. 

Comment: Another commenter stated 

that the container requirements would 

likely have the greatest impact on the 

smallest firms in the industry with the 

fewest resources to spare. The 

commenter stated that any increased 

costs associated with the container 

provisions will ultimately be passed on 

to consumers, regardless of whether the 

initial impact is absorbed by contractors 

or distributors. 

Response: In Appendix G of the RIA 

addendum, EPA performed an 

assessment under the guidelines of the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 and found that the 

rulemaking can be presumed not to have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE). Further, to the extent that 

the comment pertains to the proposed 

cylinder tracking requirements, EPA 

notes that it is not finalizing the 

cylinder tracking requirements at this 

time. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the implementation of the proposed 

rule’s requirements would unduly 

burden disadvantaged communities. 

The commenter stated that it may not be 

economically viable to retrofit, retire, or 

replace an existing system to comply 

with the mandates in the proposed rule 

due to the complex and integrated 

nature of grocery store refrigeration 

systems. The commenter also 

mentioned that rural and poor 

communities are more likely to have 

older stores with older systems that leak 

at a higher rate than average and with 

tighter profit margins that make it hard 

for store owners to pay for extensive 

repairs, retrofits, or replacements of 

their refrigeration systems. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

expenses associated with system 

maintenance under the proposed 

requirements would also increase the 

chances that store owners would be 

unable to keep less profitable stores 

open and those stores that remain open 

would be forced to raise food prices in 

disadvantaged areas and, in some 

situations, exacerbate the ‘‘food desert’’ 

problem in certain areas of the country. 

The commenter also stated that the 

proposed requirements to use only 

reclaimed refrigerants would push 

additional costs onto the retail food 

sector which is already struggling due to 

low profit margins and inflation. The 

commenter claimed that these high 

costs may also cause more frequent and 

longer repairs, which lead to store 

shutdowns, greater food safety risk, and 

potential removals of refrigerated 

sections altogether. The commenter 

stated that such an increased financial 

burden will likely impact older stores, 

and those either owned by or residing 

in minority and already economically 

stressed communities. 

Another commenter stated that the 

premature retirement of certain 

equipment would lead to a 

disproportionate burden on poorer 

communities that are unable to replace 

their equipment. The commenter stated 

that EPA did not evaluate the 

implications of this part of its proposed 

rule on poor communities and users. 

The commenter further stated that these 

issues and the environmental burdens 

caused by disposal of prematurely 

obsolete equipment should also be 

considered. 

Lastly, a separate commenter stated 

that EPA must analyze how increased 

costs on the baking sector and other 

food production sectors that use 

refrigeration will contribute to increased 

food price inflation and basket of goods 

impacts generally. The commenter 

stated that EPA must also analyze how 

these increased cost pressures might 

impact food prices cumulatively when 

considered together with what they 

characterized as other inflationary 

pressures, such as EPA’s biodiesel and 

renewable diesel mandates under the 

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS). 

Response: EPA recognizes the 

importance of the food cold chain and 

food retailers servicing various 

communities, including avoiding food 

deserts. However, EPA disagrees that 

the requirements finalized in this rule 

will result in undue burden and store 

closures or the loss of access to food. 

Store owners may replace broken or 

inefficient HFC components and save 

money by repairing leaks in their 

existing systems. With regard to the 

comments concerning passing on costs 

by raising the prices of retail food, EPA 

reiterates that the overall HFC 

phasedown will impact the costs of HFC 

refrigerants in the future. The 

commenter did not provide detailed 

information on how specific elements of 

this rule would result in costs that 

would be passed on to the consumer 

and in particular how that would differ 

from the longstanding ODS 

requirements or existing HFC 

requirements. Additionally, some of the 

requirements in this final rule have been 

modified from the proposal, and some 

of those modifications have the effect of 

easing burden. For example, the 

requirements for ALD systems include 

those existing commercial refrigeration 

equipment with charge sizes of 1,500 

pounds or more that were installed on 

or after January 1, 2017, whereas the 

proposal included all existing systems 

with charge sizes of 1,500 pounds or 

more. Overall, the refrigerant 

management provisions help to 

maintain the health of appliances. This 

can be crucial for refrigerant-containing 

appliances in the RACHP subsectors 

that are relevant to handling food 

products, such as supermarket systems, 

where the intended function is to ensure 

food products are maintained at 

appropriate temperatures to avoid 

spoilage and food waste. Successful 

repair of leaks and avoiding leaks are a 

few ways to help ensure that these 

appliances are operating efficiently, as 

intended, and can help to avoid 

unnecessary food waste. 

EPA appreciates concern over food 

costs; however, with the delayed 

compliance dates for the reclaim 

requirements, the Agency anticipates 

that this will give the market time to 

adjust to the changes. In the RIA 

addendum, EPA conservatively 

assumed that reclaimed refrigerant 

would cost 10 percent more than virgin 

refrigerant. Based on consideration of a 

public comment from a reclaimer stating 

that virgin and reclaimed refrigerant are 

the same price, the Agency has also 

included a sensitivity analysis under 

that assumption. 

In response to the comment on the 

baking sector, the commenter did not 

provide sufficient information to 

support their claims or analyze the 

specific details of their assertion that the 

‘‘rule will contribute to increased food 

prices and basket of goods impacts, 

generally.’’ Nor is EPA aware of such 

information or analyses in the record for 

this rule. EPA estimated the overall 

costs and benefits of the rule in the RIA 

addendum and the Economic Impact 

and Benefits TSD, and to the extent the 

baking sector is affected by the rule, 

those estimates include those costs and 

benefits that will be directed towards 

that sector. Evaluation of ‘‘other 

inflationary pressures,’’ including the 

commenters’ assertions of such impacts 

from the Renewable Fuel Standard, is 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking 

and so is not included in the RIA 

addendum or the Economic Impact and 

Benefits TSD. Moreover, the commenter 

has not provided any information to 

indicate that such inflationary pressures 

would affect this rule differently than 

the baseline scenarios. 

VII. How is EPA considering 

environmental justice? 

As part of the RIA addendum for the 

final rulemaking, EPA updated the 

environmental justice analysis that was 

previously conducted for the proposed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82849 

190EPA recognizes that Executive Order 14096 

(88 FR 25251, April 21, 2023) provides a new 

terminology and a new definition for environmental 

justice. For additional information, see https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/ 

2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitmentto-environmental-justice-for-all. 

191See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘Environmental Justice.’’ Available at: https://

www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. 

192The criteria for meaningful involvement are 

contained in EPA’s May 2015 document ‘‘Guidance 

on Considering Environmental Justice During the 

Development of an Action.’’ Environmental 

Protection Agency, 17 Feb. 2017. Available at: 

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

guidance-considering-environmental-justice-duringdevelopment-action. 

193The 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-assessingenvironmental-justice-regulatory-analysis. 

194Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing 

Regulatory Review, January 20, 2021. Available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

presidential-actions/2021/01/20/modernizingregulatory-review/. 

195Office of Management & Budget, Circular No. 

A–94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for BenefitCost Analysis of Federal Programs 17–18, 

November 9, 2023. Available at: https://

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ 

CircularA-94.pdf. 

196Technical 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. 

197EPA recognizes that new terminology and a 

new definition for environmental justice were 

established in Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, 

April 21, 2023). When the analysis of the proposed 

rule was performed, EPA was operating under prior 

guidance available here: https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2015-06/documents/considering-ej-inrulemaking-guide-final.pdf. 

198As discussed in the RIA addendum, EPA used 

data from reports required under Section 608 of the 

Clean Air Act, EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online (ECHO) database, and information 

provided by company websites to identify facilities 

that are active HFC reclaimers. 

rule. The updated environmental justice 

analysis utilized the same analytical 

approach used previously, along with 

the addition of more reclamation 

facilities identified since publication of 

the proposed rule. 

Executive Order 14096, signed April 

21, 2023, builds on the prior executive 

orders to further advance environmental 

justice (88 FR 25251), including 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 

14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021) 

which establish Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. 

EPA defines 190 environmental justice 

as 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.’’ 191

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.192 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 for both the 

baseline and regulatory options, using 

the best available information (both 

quantitative and qualitative) to inform 

the decision-maker and the public.193

In addition, the Presidential 

Memorandum on Modernizing 

Regulatory Review calls for procedures 

to ‘‘take into account the distributional 

consequences of regulations, including 

as part of any 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.’’ 194 OMB 

Circular A–4 provides details regarding 

identifying relevant groups and 

approaches to analyzing distributional 

effects.195 EPA also released its June 

2016 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory 

Analysis’’ (2016 Technical Guidance) 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.196

For this action, EPA conducted an 

environmental justice analysis.197 For 

this analysis, EPA used a methodology 

similar to that used as part of the 

Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 

55116, October 5, 2021), the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule (88 FR 

73174, October 24, 2023), and the 

proposal of this rule, for consistency 

and because these rules have in 

common that they affect the industries 

involved in using HFCs, although there 

are some differences in the nature of 

those effects and the entities affected. 

The information provided in this 

section is for informational purposes 

only; EPA is not relying on the 

information in this section as a record 

basis for this action. EPA evaluated 

communities surrounding the 38 

identified HFC reclamation facilities 198

and followed the analytical approach 

used in the Allocation Framework Rule 

RIA. This update uses information from 

the AirToxScreen 2019 dataset. 

The analysis shows that communities 

near the 38 identified HFC reclamation 

facilities are generally more diverse than 

the national average with respect to race 

and ethnicity. While the median income 

of these communities is slightly higher 

than the national average, there are 

more low-income households. Across 

the 38 facilities, total respiratory risk 

and total cancer risk are higher than the 

national average (total cancer risk is 

between 28 and 29 for the communities 

near the facilities, compared to 26 for 

the national average, and total 

respiratory risk is 0.34 compared to the 

national average of 0.31). The risk for 

those closer to the facilities appears 

slightly lower than for those at greater 

distances (5- and 10-mile radii). 

This rule is expected to result in 

benefits in the form of reduced GHG 

emissions. The analysis conducted for 

this rule also estimates that a portion of 

these benefits would be incremental to 

emissions reductions that were 

anticipated under the Allocation 

Framework Rule and the 2023 

Technology Transitions Rule, thus 

further reducing the risks of climate 

change associated with the emissions 

avoided through this rule. 

While providing additional overall 

climate benefits, this rule may also 

result in changes in emissions of air 

pollutants or other chemicals which are 

potential byproducts of HFC 

reclamation processes at affected 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

199Statements made in this section on the 

environmental justice analysis draw support from 

the following citations: Banzhaf, Spencer, Lala Ma, 

and Christopher Timmins. 2019. Environmental 

justice: The economics of race, place, and pollution. 

Journal of Economic Perspectives; HernandezCortes, D. and Meng, K.C., 2020. Do environmental 

markets cause environmental injustice? Evidence 

from California’s carbon market (No. w27205). 

NBER; Hu, L., Montzka, S.A., Miller, B.R., Andrews, 

A.E., Miller, J.B., Lehman, S.J., Sweeney, C., Miller, 

S.M., Thoning, K., Siso, C. and Atlas, E.L., 2016. 

Continued emissions of carbon tetrachloride from 

the United States nearly two decades after its 

phaseout for dispersive uses. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences; Mansur, E. and 

Sheriff, G., 2021. On the measurement of 

environmental inequality: Ranking emissions 

distributions generated by different policy 

instruments.; U.S. EPA. 2011. Plan EJ 2014. 

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental 

Justice.; U.S. EPA. 2015. Guidance on Considering 

Environmental Justice During the Development of 

Regulatory Actions. May 2015.; USGCRP. 2016. The 

Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the 

United States: A Scientific Assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Washington, DC. 

facilities. The market for reclaimed 

HFCs could drive changes in potential 

risk for communities living near these 

facilities, but the changes in emissions 

that could have local effects are 

uncertain. Further, the nature and 

location of the emission changes are 

uncertain. Moreover, there is 

insufficient information at this time 

about which facilities will change 

reclamation processes. Given limited 

information at this time, it is unclear to 

what extent this rule will impact 

existing disproportionate adverse effects 

on communities living near HFC 

reclamation facilities.199 The Agency 

will continue to evaluate the impacts of 

this rulemaking on affected 

communities, including communities 

with environmental justice concerns, 

and consider further action, as 

appropriate, to protect health in 

communities affected by HFC 

reclamation. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for EPA’s approach on 

environmental justice and noted that 

ensuring safety for technicians and 

consumers will benefit all end users. 

The commenter noted areas for EPA’s 

consideration regarding impacts on lowand medium-income families in its 

comments, including allowing some 

flexibility with retrofit and retirement 

requirements and considering using 

some of EPA’s budget to fund the 

purchase of recovery equipment for 

small contractors serving low- and 

medium-income communities. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s general support for the 

approach the Agency has taken for its 

environmental justice analysis. EPA 

acknowledges the commenter’s 

suggestion that portions of the Agency 

budget be redirected to support the 

purchase of recovery equipment. The 

Agency notes that to date, funds have 

not been appropriated for such a 

purpose. EPA clarifies that leak repair 

requirements do not apply to residential 

RACHP equipment, and that EPA is not 

requiring refrigerant-containing 

appliances to be retrofitted to a lowerGWP refrigerant. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

there needs to be greater awareness of 

the environmental impacts for those 

who work with HFC refrigerants and to 

those who advocate for environmental 

justice. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s support for greater 

awareness of environmental impacts in 

this area. EPA notes that the discussion 

of environmental justice in this action 

may help increase awareness of these 

issues. 

VIII. How is EPA responding to other 

comments on the proposed rule? 

Comment: One commenter stated 

there is no authority in the AIM Act (or 

in the CAA) for mandating facilities 

install leak detection systems to be used 

in the normal operation of equipment 

between servicing. The commenter 

stated that the Agency’s assertion that 

leak detection is ‘‘an activity regarding 

the servicing or repair of equipment’’ 

stretches the actual languages used by 

Congress beyond their intent and cannot 

be legally supported. The commenter 

also mentioned that EPA does not have 

the authority to penalize facility owners 

(or equipment owners) for 

mismanagement of refrigerant resulting 

from errors made by certified service 

providers, nor does EPA have the power 

to regulate loss of refrigerant during 

normal operations. While the 

commenter generally agreed with EPA’s 

regulation and best practices for 

technicians, they claimed the proposed 

rule does not indicate how that 

authority extends to the regulation of 

facility owners. Accordingly, the 

commenter stated the Agency legally 

may only require leak detection and 

prevention during the time that service 

providers are maintaining refrigeration 

systems. Further, the commenter stated 

that EPA has previously recognized that 

refrigeration equipment will inherently 

lose refrigerant charge over time and 

that refrigeration and air conditioning 

equipment does often leak. If taken to its 

logical conclusion, the overly broad 

interpretation of the section 608 rules 

and the proposed rule to encompass 

normal operation, in theory, would also 

extend liability to equipment 

manufacturers whose appliances would 

violate the venting prohibition by 

merely selling equipment into 

commerce because the equipment might 

leak and require replacement of 

refrigerant. Thus, EPA lacks authority to 

impose liability for normal operation of 

refrigeration equipment, it cannot 

impose liability for replacement of 

refrigerant that is lost routinely during 

normal operation. 

Another commenter stated that EPA 

should acknowledge that the Agency 

has no authority under the AIM Act or 

CAA section 608 to penalize facility or 

equipment owners for management of 

refrigerant resulting from errors made by 

service providers or regulate the loss of 

refrigerant during normal operations. 

The commenter cites the use of the term 

‘‘maintenance’’ in section 608(c), but 

not in 608(a), as justification that 

Congress intended EPA to regulate 

servicing of equipment by technicians, 

rather than equipment by facility 

owners. The commenter further stated 

that if section 608 is interpreted to 

encompass normal operation of 

equipment, an equipment manufacturer 

would violate the venting prohibition by 

selling equipment into commerce, 

because their equipment might leak. 

Further, the commenter stated that if 

EPA lacks authority to ‘‘impose liability 

for normal operation of refrigeration 

equipment’’ the Agency cannot hold 

others liable for replacement of 

refrigerant that is lost in routine 

operation. The commenter concluded 

that EPA’s authority is limited under 

section 608 to regulating ‘‘intentional or 

negligent venting’’ by service providers 

during servicing, and that the same 

applies to EPA’s authority under the 

AIM Act. 

The commenter claimed that even if 

EPA could impose penalties for 

refrigerant release during normal 

operation, section 608 and subsection 

(h) do not enable EPA to impose 

monetary penalties on facilities owners, 

unless the owner was using its own 

personnel to service equipment. The 

commenter cited EPA’s prior refrigerant 

management rule under section 608 as 

overstepping the Agency’s authority to 

impose the venting prohibition on 

actions taken over the course of 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of equipment. The commenter 

further stated that the AIM Act does not 

give the Agency the authority to regulate 

facility owners or compel them to install 

leak detection systems to be used in 

normal operation of equipment. 

Response: With regards to one 

commenter’s assertions that the AIM 

Act did not give EPA the authority to 

require facilities to install leak detection 

systems that would be used in normal 

operations or authority to regulate 

owners or operators, the Agency 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82851 

200The Agency recognizes that refrigerantcontaining appliances may lose refrigerant charge 

over time. However, manufacturers of refrigerantcontaining equipment have made great strides in 

manufacturing equipment less prone to leaks. 

Nevertheless, refrigerant-containing equipment, 

especially with larger charge sizes, could leak 

significant amounts of refrigerant before a leak is 

detected. 

201EPA further notes that this comment states 

that it incorporates by reference prior comments 

submitted on prior proposed rules under CAA 

section 608. EPA notes that in order to merit a 

response, comments on a proposed rule must be 

stated with specificity, so that the Agency can 

identify the commenter’s concern or requested 

alteration to the rule at issue. A commenter’s 

statement, such as the statement in this comment, 

that they are incorporating prior comments or 

arguments, without any further explanation of how 

those prior comments or arguments relate to the 

proposed rule or how the Agency should change its 

proposal, do not require a response. 

disagrees with the commenter’s claims. 

As discussed throughout this notice, 

subsection (h)(1) directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations to control, 

where appropriate, any practice, 

process, or activity regarding the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment, for purposes 

including maximizing reclamation and 

minimizing the release of HFCs from 

equipment. As explained elsewhere in 

this notice, EPA interprets this language 

to encompass practices, processes, and 

activities that occur before, during, and 

after servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment. EPA 

understands this provision to authorize 

both the leak repair provisions 

described in section IV.C and the 

required use of ALD as described in 

IV.D because the requirements govern 

practices, processes, or activities 

regarding the servicing, repair, disposal, 

or installation of equipment. 

Determining that equipment is leaking 

is a critical first step in understanding 

that it needs servicing or repair, or 

perhaps to be disposed of and replaced, 

depending on whether or not the leak 

can be repaired. The ALD equipment 

that must be installed and operated 

under this requirement will inform 

equipment owners and operators when 

the equipment is leaking, and EPA 

expects that this knowledge will lead to 

earlier repairs, which in turn will 

prevent releases of HFCs (and 

potentially costly refrigerant losses). 

Thus, installing and operating an ALD 

system is a ‘‘process, practice or activity 

regarding servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment’’ because 

taking these steps will alert the 

equipment owner or operator when 

servicing or repair of equipment may be 

required. Accordingly, there is a direct 

connection between installing and 

operating the ALD system and servicing 

or repair (or in some cases, disposal) of 

equipment. 

EPA agrees with the comment that 

subsection (h) conveys authority to 

regulate technicians’ activities during 

servicing and repair, but contrary to the 

commenter’s view, nothing in the text of 

subsection (h) suggests that EPA is 

precluded from also regulating activities 

during normal operations that are 

within the scope of subsection (h) or 

from regulating equipment owner or 

operators. Moreover, imposing such 

restrictions could limit EPA’s ability to 

ensure that the regulations under 

subsection (h) achieve the stated 

purposes in the statute because 

activities that occur during normal 

operations, or that are taken by 

equipment owners or operators, will 

affect efforts to maximize reclamation, 

minimize releases 200 from equipment, 

and ensure the safety of technicians and 

consumers. Further, the statutory phrase 

for what EPA regulations under (h)(1) 

may control—‘‘any process, practice or 

activity regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment’’ 

(emphasis added)—indicates that 

Congress did not limit EPA to only 

regulate processes, practices or activities 

during servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment. Indeed, the 

authority to regulate to ‘‘control . . . 

activities regarding servicing’’ includes 

authority to require that servicing be 

done, including to address refrigerant 

losses that occur during normal 

operation of equipment. Further EPA 

notes that it considers servicing to 

include a range of activities involved in 

preserving equipment in the normal 

working order, as some form of ongoing 

and routine servicing is necessary for 

proper functioning of equipment. 

To the extent these comments relate 

to EPA’s regulations under CAA section 

608, they are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking as the Agency did not 

reopen the section 608 rules as part of 

this rulemaking and thus require no 

further response.201 However, aspects of 

this rule are analogous to similar EPA 

rules under CAA section 608, which 

apply to owners and operators. For 

example, in the preamble to the 1993 

CAA 608 final rule, EPA explained that 

it had made ‘‘additions to the scope 

section to clarify that the rule covers 

refrigerant reclaimers, appliance 

owners, and manufacturers of 

appliances and recycling and recovery 

equipment in addition to persons 

servicing, repairing, maintaining, and 

disposing of appliances.’’ 58 FR 28707 

(emphasis added); see also 58 FR 28681. 

EPA explained that the rule required the 

owner of the equipment to either 

authorize the repair of substantial leaks 

or develop the equipment retirement/ 

retrofit plan within 30 days of 

discovering a leak above the standard 

and that the owner has the legal 

obligation to ensure that repairs are 

made to equipment where the leak rate 

exceeds the standard. See 81 FR 82272. 

For similar reasons as under section 

608, including the role of the equipment 

owner and operator in determining 

whether to authorize repair of a leak or 

whether to retire or retrofit the 

equipment, this final rule finds it 

reasonable to include the owners and 

operators among the regulated entities, 

consistent with the Agency’s practice 

under the CAA Title VI. EPA has found 

this approach to be workable, and using 

the same approach in this final rule 

should be familiar to entities that have 

experience implementing the CAA 608 

rules, reduce confusion, and facilitate 

compliance. For this reason, and also 

given the role of equipment owners and 

operators in making decisions about the 

servicing, repair, disposal, and 

installation of equipment, EPA 

concludes that it is appropriate to 

structure the regulations so that 

equipment owners and operators may be 

held responsible for certain violations, 

even if the actions of a technician may 

play a role in the violation, rather than 

adopt the commenter’s view, which 

could improperly shield owners and 

operators from liability even if a 

decision or action they took resulted in 

or contributed to the violation. Further, 

EPA notes that while certain aspects of 

its experience in implementing certain 

requirements under CAA section 608 

inform this rulemaking and while there 

are certain analogies between this rule 

and requirements established under 

CAA section 608, it has also been clear 

that AIM subsection (h) and CAA 

section 608 are separate and distinct 

statutory authorities, and that this rule 

is established under AIM subsection (h), 

such that the text and purposes of that 

provision govern this action. While 

there are some similarities in statutory 

text between AIM subsection (h) and 

CAA section 608, there are also 

meaningful differences to consider. 

Thus, to the extent that commenters 

suggest that a limitation they perceive in 

CAA section 608 would also somehow 

simply apply to EPA’s authority under 

the AIM Act, without further evaluation 

of the relevant provisions of the AIM 

Act, EPA disagrees. 

EPA disagrees with commenters’ 

assertions that it does not have authority 

under subsection (h) of the AIM Act to 

regulate the loss of refrigerant during 

normal operations or to regulate or 

penalize facility owners or equipment 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

operators, including imposing penalties 

on them for violations of requirements 

under the AIM Act. Under subsection 

(h), for purposes including maximizing 

reclaiming and minimizing the release 

of a regulated substance from 

equipment, Congress directed the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

to control practices, processes, or 

activities regarding the servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves a regulated substance and 

the reclaiming of a regulated substance 

used as a refrigerant. As explained in 

prior sections of this document, 

establishes regulations that apply to 

HFCs and or a substitute for an HFC 

with a GWP greater than 53 to control 

practices, processes, or activities 

regarding servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment. Accordingly, 

the requirements established under this 

rule are within the scope of EPA’s 

authority under subsection (h). For 

example, as explained in section IV.C.3 

in this notice, EPA is establishing leak 

repair requirements that control 

practices, processes, or activities 

regarding servicing or repair of 

appliances and that provide persons 

engaged in such activities with 

additional clarity and certainty on how 

to ensure that their actions comport 

with the requirements established in 

this action. While many of these 

requirements regulate the activities of 

the person working on equipment, e.g., 

those performing the leak repair, 

Congress did not limit EPA’s authority 

under (h)(1) to only regulating activities 

that are performed directly on 

equipment or only those persons or 

entities who are directly working on 

equipment, but rather, as noted 

previously, authorized EPA to regulate a 

broader scope of processes, practices or 

activities regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment. 

EPA interprets the direction under 

subsection (h)(1) to include authority to 

regulate equipment owners and 

operators, as they make decisions and 

have control over processes, practices or 

activities regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment, 

and their decisions and actions will 

affect efforts to maximize reclamation, 

minimize releases from equipment and 

ensure the safety of technicians and 

consumers. Even if an owner or operator 

is not using their own personnel to 

service equipment, their decisions and 

actions could affect compliance with the 

requirements under this rule, such as 

the timing of leak repair activities and 

the extent to which leaks are repaired. 

Further, with respect to EPA’s 

authority to impose penalties on owners 

and operators, EPA responds that 

subsection (k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act 

provides that certain sections of the 

CAA, including section 113, 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. Among other things, 

section 113(a)(3) of the CAA, entitled 

‘‘EPA enforcement of other 

requirements’’ authorizes the EPA 

Administrator to take certain measures 

if the Administrator ‘‘finds that any 

person has violated, or is in violation of, 

any . . . requirement or prohibition of 

. . . subchapter VI of this chapter, 

including, but not limited to, a 

requirement or prohibition of any rule 

. . . promulgated under [that] 

subchapter[ ].’’ Similarly, the 

Administrator’s enforcement authorities 

under section 113 of the CAA also 

include the assessment of monetary 

civil penalties ‘‘against any person’’ if 

the Administrator finds that ‘‘such 

person’’ has violated or is violating any 

requirement or prohibition of Title VI of 

the CAA, ‘‘including, but not limited to, 

a requirement or prohibition of any 

rule’’ promulgated under Title VI. These 

provisions apply to the AIM Act and 

this rule by operation of subsection 

(k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act. Facility owners 

or operators are within the broad 

definition of ‘‘person’’ in section 302(e) 

of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA has 

authority to enforce the requirements 

and prohibitions of this rule against 

facility owners or operators, consistent 

with section 113 of the CAA. While, as 

noted previously, this action is separate 

and distinct from EPA’s rules under 

CAA section 608, EPA further observes 

that, as described further in section IV.D 

above, this approach to applying 

regulatory requirements to owners and 

operators is similar to and consistent 

with EPA’s approach to requirements in 

analogous rules under CAA section 608, 

which also include requirements that 

apply to owners and operators. 

EPA also disagrees with commenters’ 

assertion that EPA does not have 

authority under subsection (h) of the 

AIM Act to regulate activities during 

normal operations. Such restrictions 

could limit EPA’s ability to ensure that 

the regulations under subsection (h) 

achieve the stated purposes in the 

statute because activities that occur 

during normal operations will affect 

efforts to maximize reclamation, 

minimize releases from equipment and 

ensure the safety of technicians and 

consumers. Further, the statutory phrase 

for what EPA regulations under (h)(1) 

may control—‘‘any process, practice or 

activity regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment’’ 

(emphasis added)—indicates that 

Congress did not limit EPA to only 

regulate processes, practices, or 

activities during servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment. 

Indeed, the authority to regulate to 

‘‘control . . . activities regarding 

servicing [or] repair’’ includes authority 

to require that servicing or repair be 

done, including to address refrigerant 

losses that occur during normal 

operation of equipment. Further EPA 

notes that it considers servicing to 

include a range of activities involved in 

keeping equipment in the normal 

working order, as some form of ongoing 

and routine servicing is necessary for 

proper functioning of equipment. 

EPA responds to other comments 

regarding leak repair in section IV.C 

above and regarding the use of ALD 

systems in section IV.D.1 above. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

EPA’s authority to regulate sources on 

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the 

western and central Gulf of Mexico 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 84, and asked 

EPA to confirm that OCS sources in 

those two areas are excluded from the 

applicability of the proposed regulations 

in 40 CFR part 84. The commenter 

stated that 40 CFR part 55 delineates the 

EPA’s air programs applicable to the 

OCS and that under 40 CFR 55.3(a) the 

scope of this part extends to all OCS 

sources except those west of 87.5 

degrees longitude. The commenter also 

claimed that under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) 

the Department of the Interior (DOI) has 

the authority to administer programs 

and rules relating to the OCS, including 

those related to air quality, and asserted 

that that authority is not shared with 

EPA, citing California v. Kleppe, 604 

F.2d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 1979). The 

commenter further stated that section 

328 of the CAA sets EPA’s regulatory 

authority in the OCS, limiting that 

authority to sources east of longitude 87 

degrees 30 minutes. The commenter 

stated that the intent of the AIM Act and 

the proposed rule were to regulate air 

quality and emissions related to HFCs 

and concluded that there is overlap 

between EPA’s authority under the AIM 

Act and the DOI’s authority. The 

commenter stated that EPA’s proposed 

regulations to track, record, and provide 

information regarding the sale and 

distribution of HFCs are ‘‘similar to 

requirements in 43 U.S.C. [section] 

1348(b)(3) for lease and permit holders 

to provide ‘documents and records 

which are pertinent to . . . 

environmental protection, as may be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82853 

202See comment number EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0098 at 2. 

203See comment number EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0606–0098 at 2–3. 

requested’ under OCSLA.’’ 202 The 

commenter further stated that AIM Act 

subsection (h) provides EPA broad 

authority to promulgate regulations but 

that ‘‘the AIM Act is silent on the 

question of OCS sources and in (k)(1)(C) 

expressly applies sections of title VI of 

the CAA to EPA’s authority’’ in the 

proposed regulations. The commenter 

further stated that the AIM Act ‘‘does 

not alter the existing division of 

jurisdiction between the EPA and DOI 

with regard to air quality regulations 

applicable to OCS sources’’ and that, 

‘‘[a]ccordingly, . . . 40 CFR part 84 is 

not applicable to the western and 

central [Gulf of Mexico],’’ 203 and the 

regulation of sale and distribution of 

HFCs does not extend to those areas 

without a grant of similar authority to 

the DOI and the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) under the AIM 

Act. The commenter acknowledged that 

40 CFR part 84 would apply to the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico, given that 

BOEM has not been delegated authority 

over air quality in this specific area. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s broad assertions that EPA 

does not have authority under the AIM 

Act to issue regulations pertaining to 

HFCs and their substitutes related to 

offshore operations in the western and 

central Gulf of Mexico. EPA also 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertions that the regulations finalized 

in this action under subsection (h) of the 

AIM Act are not applicable in the 

western and central Gulf of Mexico and 

that OCS sources situated in the western 

and central Gulf of Mexico are excluded 

from these regulations. The commenter 

cites California v. Kleppe, 604 F.2d 

1187, 1193–94 (9th Cir. 1979) 

(‘‘Kleppe’’) for the proposition that DOI 

has ‘‘sole’’ authority to promulgate air 

quality regulations for OCS sources, 

which is not shared with EPA. But 

Kleppe addresses DOI’s authorities over 

offshore activities as those authorities 

existed in 1979, long before both the 

1990 Amendments to the CAA, which 

authorized EPA to regulate air emissions 

from OCS sources (42 U.S.C. 7627, Pub. 

L. 101–549, Title VIII, Sec. 801 (‘‘OCS 

air pollution’’), November 15, 1990), 

and Congress’s 2020 enactment of the 

AIM Act, which authorized EPA to 

promulgate regulations to address HFCs 

(42 U.S.C. 7675, Pub. L. 116–260, 

Division S, Sec. 103 (‘‘American 

Innovation and Manufacturing’’), 

December 27, 2020). Kleppe therefore 

does not speak to EPA’s current 

authorities under either the CAA or the 

AIM Act. Additionally, while the 

commenter states that aspects of this 

rule are ‘‘similar to’’ DOI’s authorities to 

seek records and documents under 

OCSLA, it fails to identify any conflict 

between these requirements or to 

provide any other support for a 

conclusion that the relevant provisions 

cannot all be given effect. 

This rule implements Congress’s 

direction in subsection (h)(1) of the AIM 

Act for EPA to establish regulations ‘‘to 

control, where appropriate, any 

practice, process or activity regarding 

the servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment’’ that involves 

an HFC or a substitute for an HFC, or 

the reclaiming of an HFC or a substitute 

for an HFC used as a refrigerant, for 

purposes of maximizing reclamation, 

minimizing releases of HFCs from 

equipment, and ensuring the safety of 

technicians and consumers. The AIM 

Act, which was enacted separately from 

the CAA, does not exclude any 

geographic area within the United States 

from the scope of EPA’s authorities 

under in the Act. In fact, certain 

provisions of the Act clearly indicate 

that the Act applies throughout the 

United States. For example, subsection 

(b)(6) of the AIM Act defines the term 

‘‘import’’ to mean ‘‘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.’’ 

The commenters cite certain 

geographic restrictions on EPA’s 

authority to regulate air pollution from 

OCS sources under CAA section 328 

and EPA’s implementing regulations in 

40 CFR part 55, suggesting that EPA’s 

regulatory authority over emissions 

sources in the Gulf of Mexico is limited 

to ‘‘sources east of longitude 87 degrees 

30 minutes’’ (or 87.5 degrees longitude) 

under these statutory and regulatory 

provisions. Section 328 of the CAA, 

however, pertains only to EPA’s 

authorities under the CAA with respect 

to ‘‘OCS sources’’ and has no bearing on 

EPA’s independent authorities under 

the AIM Act and other Federal statutes. 

In addition to the AIM Act, which, by 

its terms, applies to activities such as 

production and consumption of HFCs, 

restrictions on use of HFCs in the 

sectors or subsectors in which they are 

used, and practices, processes, or 

activities regarding servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of equipment 

that involves an HFC or a substitute for 

an HFC, or the reclaiming of an HFC or 

a substitute for an HFC used as a 

refrigerant, the Deepwater Port Act 

directs that Federal laws apply to 

deepwater ports ‘‘and to activities 

connected, associated, or potentially 

interfering with the use or operation of 

any such port, in the same manner as if 

such port were an area of exclusive 

Federal jurisdiction located within a 

State. . . .’’ 33 U.S.C. 1518(a)(1). Thus, 

any deepwater port or associated 

activity that would be subject to the 

AIM Act if located onshore remains 

subject to these requirements offshore, 

both in the Gulf of Mexico and in other 

waters over the OCS. The requirements 

of the AIM Act, the Deepwater Port Act, 

and other Federal laws apply by their 

terms to sources located offshore, 

independent of the authorities and 

limitations specified in CAA section 328 

with respect to OCS sources. 

The commenter’s reference to section 

(k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act provides no 

support for a claim that EPA’s 

authorities under the AIM Act are 

limited by CAA section 328. Section 

(k)(1)(C) 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 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. 

These provisions of the CAA pertain to 

Federal and citizen enforcement, EPA’s 

information-gathering authorities, and 

judicial review of EPA’s actions under 

the CAA. By directing that these 

provisions apply to the AIM Act and 

any implementing regulations 

promulgated by EPA to implement the 

AIM Act, Congress provided EPA and 

citizens with the same enforcement and 

information-gathering authorities that 

the CAA provides and vested the United 

States Courts of Appeals with 

jurisdiction to review challenges to 

EPA’s final actions under the AIM Act, 

in the same manner as under the CAA. 

CAA section 328 (42 U.S.C. 7627), by 

contrast, authorizes EPA to ‘‘establish 

requirements to control air pollution 

from Outer Continental Shelf sources’’ 

in specific offshore areas. Section 328 is 

not included among the CAA provisions 

expressly identified in section (k)(1)(C) 

of the AIM Act, and there is no 

indication in either the CAA or the AIM 

Act that Congress intended for EPA’s 

regulatory authorities with respect to 

OCS sources under CAA section 328 to 

apply to or limit its authorities with 

respect to HFCs or HFC substitutes 

under the AIM Act. 

The AIM Act itself creates no 

exemption for emissions sources in the 

western and central Gulf of Mexico from 

its requirements. Establishing an 

exemption from the requirements of this 

rule for sources in the western and 

central Gulf of Mexico could create an 

unequal framework rather than fairly 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

applying regulations under the AIM Act 

subsection (h) to similarly situated 

sources, including those in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico, which the commenter 

concedes would be subject to these 

rules. 

EPA further notes that this ER&R rule 

implements provisions under 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act. To the 

extent this comment relates to the 

application of EPA’s rules under CAA 

Title VI or other particular aspects of the 

AIM Act or regulations under Part 84, 

those topics are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking and thus require no further 

response. 

Regarding the commenter’s statement 

about the tracking, recordkeeping, and 

reporting of information regarding sale 

and distribution of HFCs, as noted 

previously in this preamble, EPA is not 

finalizing the proposed provisions for 

container tracking of HFCs that could be 

used in the servicing, repair, and/or 

installation of refrigerant-containing or 

fire suppression equipment. Thus, any 

concerns pertaining to that aspect of the 

proposal are not relevant to this action. 

However, EPA is establishing a discrete 

reporting requirement to better 

understand the use of reclaimed HFCs 

in the subsectors covered in this 

rulemaking, as described in section 

IV.E.2 above. EPA additionally notes 

that the other recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions established under 

this rule provide no exemption for 

offshore sources, and remain applicable 

by their terms, consistent with the 

discussion earlier in this response to 

comment.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA’s statutory authority and specific 

legislative guidance indicated the 

importance of interpreting similar 

authorities to avoid unreasonable 

outcomes and thus understood 

subsection (h)(2) to mean that in 

developing regulations for equipment 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation ‘‘EPA should prioritize, and 

may only have the authority to 

prioritize, the exploration of 

opportunities for refrigerant 

reclamation.’’ The commenter stated 

that this interpretation aligns with the 

Agency’s mission and ensures a 

responsible and sustainable approach to 

refrigerant management, while ensuring 

that there is adequate access to 

refrigerant supply to meet demand. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s interpretation of 

subsection (h)(2). Subsection (h)(1) of 

the AIM Act provides EPA authority to 

promulgate regulations to control, 

where appropriate, any practice, 

process, or activity regarding the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment that involves 

HFCs or their substitutes, or the 

reclaiming of HFCs or their substitutes 

used as refrigerants. Subsection 

(h)(2)(A) of the Act provides that the 

Administrator ‘‘shall consider the use of 

authority available . . . under this 

section to increase opportunities for the 

reclaiming of regulated substances used 

as refrigerants.’’ Subsection (h)(2)(B) of 

the Act provides that a ‘‘regulated 

substance used as a refrigerant that is 

recovered shall be reclaimed before the 

regulated substance is sold or 

transferred to a new owner, except 

where the recovered regulated substance 

is sold or transferred to a new owner 

solely for the purposes of being 

reclaimed or destroyed.’’ While 

subsection (h)(2)(A) requires that the 

Agency consider the potential to 

increase opportunities for reclamation 

of regulated substances used as 

refrigerants, nothing in this statutory 

language limits the use of EPA’s 

authorities for other purposes or 

requires that the Agency reach a certain 

result based on such consideration. 

Nothing in the text of either subsection 

(h)(2)(A) or (B) suggests that it is 

intended to modify the grant of 

regulatory authority in subsection (h)(1) 

or dictate the Agency’s priorities in 

implementing subsection (h)(1). Further, 

such an interpretation of subsection 

(h)(2) could unduly restrict EPA’s 

ability to fully implement the regulatory 

authority granted in subsection (h)(1), 

for example in promulgating regulations 

consistent with that provision that are 

focused on the purposes identified in 

subsection (h)(1) of minimizing releases 

of HFCs from equipment and ensuring 

the safety of technicians and consumers. 

Notwithstanding EPA’s disagreement 

with the commenters’ interpretation of 

(h)(2), the Agency notes it has 

considered various uses of its authority 

in this rulemaking that could increase 

opportunities for reclamation of HFCs 

used as refrigerants and that several 

aspects of this final rule that are focused 

on maximizing reclamation of HFCs 

could also increase opportunities for 

reclamation. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed support for the development 

of new requirements for technician 

training and certification. Some 

commenters also expressed support for 

continuing education requirements, 

recertification requirements, and 

developing new requirements for 

already certified technicians. Other 

commenters expressed support for new 

requirements for technicians obtaining 

certifications for the first time but 

opposed requirements for already 

certified technicians. Some commenters 

stated that requirements for technician 

training and certification would ensure 

that technicians are up to date relative 

to changes in the industry, are properly 

trained for the installation and servicing 

of equipment, can handle flammability 

and safety concerns such as those 

associated with new refrigerants, and 

are aware of regulatory requirements 

related to HFCs such as the prohibition 

on venting. Some commenters also 

stated that technician and certification 

requirements would encourage recovery 

and reclamation, protect facility owners 

and operators, reduce emissions, ensure 

a smooth transition, promote adoption 

of new refrigerants, change the culture 

in the industry to reinforce the use of 

proper methods, and enhance 

compliance. Some commenters 

mentioned that current requirements are 

inadequate to ensure that HFCs are 

managed correctly. 

Other commenters expressed 

opposition to the development of new 

requirements for technician training and 

certification. Some commenters stated 

that such requirements would add 

compliance burdens without 

environmental and safety benefits, that 

such requirements would exceed EPA’s 

authority, that technicians do not want 

to be forced to take a test, that certain 

entities would profit off of the 

certification requirements, that 

requirements would impose added costs 

on technicians, that requirements would 

dissuade potential HVAC professionals 

from entering the industry, that existing 

government and industry requirements 

are sufficient, and that already certified 

technicians should not be subject to 

new requirements. One commenter 

suggested that EPA encourage but not 

mandate training and certification, and 

another commenter expressed openness 

to more training but opposed any more 

EPA requirements. 

Response: EPA acknowledges these 

comments. As discussed in section I.B 

above in this action, EPA also issued in 

conjunction with the proposed rule an 

ANPRM seeking information on 

approaches for establishing 

requirements for technician training 

and/or certification. EPA explained in 

that notice that it was not proposing and 

will not be finalizing a technician 

training and certifying program on 

which it sought advance comment. 

Accordingly, EPA explained that the 

Agency did not intend to respond to any 

advance information received. However, 

EPA intends to consider those 

comments as part of a potential future 

notice and comment rulemaking to 

establish a training and/or certification 

program. Therefore, EPA is not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82855 

addressing technician training in this 

final rulemaking and accordingly is not 

responding to comments on the ANPRM 

in this action. However, EPA is 

establishing requirements for fire 

suppression technician training, as 

described in section IV.F.2.d. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that EPA must take additional steps, on 

its own and in conjunction with other 

Federal agencies, to level the playing 

field for reclaimers. For example, the 

commenter stated that EPA should 

revise its implementation of the SNAP 

program to curtail patent or contractual 

limitations on reclamation. Among 

other comments related to the 

Allocation Program, the commenter 

stated that EPA should use 

administrative consequences in 

additional scenarios including to 

entities engaged in market 

manipulation, patent misconduct, and 

‘‘unfair trade practices’’ and that all 

allowances revoked pursuant to 

administrative consequences should be 

reallocated to EPA-certified reclaimers. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

EPA should change the provision in the 

Framework Allocation Rule allowing 

HFCs contained in equipment to be 

imported without expending 

allowances. The commenter further 

stated that EPA should assign a GWP 

value of zero to all refrigerants 

reclaimed in the U.S. by EPA-certified 

reclaimers, establish a ‘‘life-cycle 

adjusted GWP’’ value for all refrigerants 

to reflect their actual reclaim rate, and 

use that adjusted GWP value for 

purposes of all AIM Act regulatory 

programs, as well as establish a recycle 

or release rate for every SNAP-approved 

product. The commenter also 

recommended that EPA develop a rule 

providing that refrigerants that do not 

meet a 15% reclaim rate could be 

designated as unacceptable substitutes 

under SNAP. 

The commenter further suggested that 

EPA should require all recovered 

refrigerant to be exclusively returned to 

EPA-certified reclaimers and should 

update the certification requirements for 

reclaimers. The commenter also stated 

that EPA should establish a mechanism 

for reclaimers or third parties to seek 

EPA intervention to prevent or call 

attention to anticompetitive practices 

that harm the reclaim market. The 

commenter further recommended that 

EPA should create a unified reporting 

portal for EPA-certified reclaimers. The 

commenter asserted that EPA should 

enhance its engagement with DOC and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

address anticompetitive behavior by 

virgin refrigerant producers and ensure 

a level playing field, especially 

regarding antidumping and 

countervailing duties and the 2016 

Blends Order. Finally, the commenter 

suggested that State and local 

government agencies and regulatory 

bodies consider imposing fees on all 

newly manufactured HFC/HFO 

refrigerant products and stated that EPA 

should support this effort. 

Response: Regarding the commenter’s 

points on patent or contractual 

limitations on reclamation, providing 

mechanisms for reclaimers related to 

anticompetitive practices, 

implementation of the SNAP program, 

and requested listings as unacceptable 

under EPA’s SNAP program, these 

comments are outside the scope of this 

final rule promulgated under the AIM 

Act and thus require no further 

response. The commenter’s suggestions 

for changes to the administrative 

consequences under the Allocation 

Program as well as the requested 

changes to the regulations established 

by the Framework Allocation Rule and 

codified at 40 CFR part 84, subpart A 

are also outside the scope of this final 

rule and thus require no further 

response. Regarding commenter’s points 

regarding assigned GWP values, EPA 

responds that subsection (c) of 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. These 

exchange values are codified in EPA’s 

regulations as appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 84, and this rulemaking did not 

propose, and is not finalizing, new or 

revised exchange values for any 

regulated substances. By their terms, the 

exchange values listed in subsection (c) 

of the AIM Act and codified at appendix 

A to 40 CFR part 84 apply to regulated 

substances regardless of whether the 

substance is newly manufactured or 

reclaimed, and they are based on 

physical properties of the compound 

itself that are the same for a substance, 

regardless of whether it is virgin or 

reclaimed. Further, to the extent that 

commenters on this rule are using 

terminology that is used under the 

Allowance Allocation Program in ways 

that diverge from how the Agency uses 

those terms or seeking modifications to 

requirements under that program, EPA 

is not making any changes to the 

Allowance Allocation Program in this 

rule. Under the regulations at 40 CFR 

84.5(b)(1) the quantity of consumption 

allowances that must be expended for 

an import of a regulated substance must 

be equal to the exchange-value weighted 

equivalent of the regulated substances 

imported. EPA is not changing that 

requirement for any regulated substance 

in this rulemaking. 

Regarding comments recommending 

that EPA should require that all 

recovered refrigerant be exclusively 

returned to EPA-certified reclaimers, 

there may be instances where this may 

not be appropriate or practical (e.g., the 

same owner recovers refrigerant and 

transfers to another location). EPA is, 

however, requiring that disposable 

cylinders that were used in the 

servicing, repair, or installation of 

refrigerant-containing equipment or fire 

suppression equipment be sent to a 

reclaimer, fire suppression recycler, 

final processor for removal of the heel 

as discussed in section IV.G.1. Further, 

as discussed in section IV.E.1 above, 

EPA is also establishing labeling and 

recordkeeping requirements, as 

proposed, and prohibiting the sale, 

identification, or reporting of refrigerant 

as being reclaimed if the HFC 

component of the resulting refrigerant 

contains more than 15 percent, by 

weight, of virgin HFC. EPA proposed 

and is requiring that certified reclaimers 

affix this label to reclaimed HFCs being 

sold or distributed or offered for sale or 

distribution beginning January 1, 2026. 

EPA also proposed and is finalizing that 

beginning January 1, 2026, certified 

reclaimers generate a record to certify 

that the reclaimed refrigerant does not 

exceed 15 percent, by weight, of virgin 

HFCs. Such records must be maintained 

for three years. 

IX. Judicial Review 

The AIM Act regulations promulgated 

herein may be challenged in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. Pursuant to section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for 

judicial review of the AIM Act 

regulations must be filed in that court 

within 60 days after the date notice of 

this final action is published in the 

Federal Register. Any person seeking to 

challenge both the AIM Act regulations 

and the RCRA regulations must file the 

challenge to the AIM Act regulations 

within 60 days after the date notice of 

this final action is published in the 

Federal Register. 

The AIM Act provides that certain 

sections of the CAA ‘‘shall apply to’’ the 

AIM Act and to ‘‘any rule, rulemaking, 

or regulation 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 be filed in the United 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82856 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the 

Agency action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final action taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) when such action 

is locally or regionally applicable, but 

such action is ‘‘based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect.’’ 

The AIM Act regulations promulgated 

herein are ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations’’ within the meaning of CAA 

section 307(b)(1). These regulations 

define and interpret terms under the 

AIM Act and establish regulatory 

requirements applicable across the 

entire United States to implement 

subsection (h) of the AIM Act, including 

requirements to control practices, 

processes, or activities regarding the 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of equipment that involves 

a regulated substance, a substitute for a 

regulated substance, the reclaiming of a 

regulated substance used as a 

refrigerant, or the reclaiming of a 

substitute for a regulated substance used 

as a refrigerant, as well as regulatory 

requirements for labeling, 

recordkeeping, and reporting, for 

purposes including maximizing 

reclamation and minimizing releases of 

regulated substances from equipment. 

Accordingly, under section 307(b)(1) of 

the CAA, petitions for judicial review of 

these AIM Act regulations must be filed 

in the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia by 

December 10, 2024. 

EPA’s RCRA regulations promulgated 

herein may be challenged in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. Section 7006(a)(1) 

of RCRA provides that ‘‘a petition for 

review of action of the Administrator in 

promulgating any regulation, or 

requirement under this chapter . . . 

may be filed only in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, and such petition shall be 

filed within ninety days from the date 

of such promulgation . . . .’’ 

Accordingly, petitions for judicial 

review of the RCRA regulations 

promulgated herein must be filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia by January 9, 2025. 

Any person seeking to challenge both 

the AIM Act regulations and the RCRA 

regulations must file the challenge to 

the RCRA regulations within 90 days 

after the date notice of this final action 

is published in the Federal Register. 

X. Severability 

As noted previously, in this Federal 

Register notice we are providing notice 

of two sets of regulations: one under the 

AIM Act and another under RCRA. 

Accordingly, as explained in the 

proposal and in other sections of this 

notice, as well as in the following 

paragraphs for clarity, this notice of 

final rulemaking is multifaceted and 

addresses many separate issues for 

independent reasons. For example, the 

AIM Act regulations include definitions 

and interpretations of terms under the 

AIM Act; new requirements, including 

provisions that address maximizing the 

reclamation and minimizing the release 

of HFCs from equipment under 

subsection (h) of that Act; and labeling, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements to support the 

enforcement of the new provisions. EPA 

has separately considered and adopted 

the elements of the AIM Act regulations, 

including leak repair of refrigerantcontaining appliances; reclaimed HFCs 

for the servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment; 

recycled HFCs in fire suppression 

equipment; emissions reductions in the 

fire suppression sector; and removal of 

HFCs from disposable cylinders before 

discarding them. Each of these 

requirements is supported by a separate 

analysis and rationale, based on 

independent consideration of issues 

such as the particular processes, 

practices, or activities that are relevant 

to and controlled by the requirement 

and how the requirements relate to the 

purposes identified in subsection (h)(1). 

These requirements also address 

different sectors and subsectors (RACHP 

and fire suppression). EPA intends for 

requirements for each of these topics to 

be able to stand independently from one 

another and has designed them 

accordingly. For example, the leak 

repair requirements for refrigerantcontaining appliances are designed to 

operate independently from the 

requirements for servicing, repair, 

disposal, or installation of fire 

suppression equipment, as they address 

different types of equipment and are 

each independently intended to further 

serve the purposes of maximizing the 

reclamation and minimizing the release 

of HFCs from equipment. Similarly, 

while the requirements for the servicing 

and/or repair of certain refrigerantcontaining equipment with reclaimed 

HFCs and the requirements for recycled 

HFCs in the fire suppression sector also 

serve those same purposes, they do so 

by addressing processes, practices, or 

activities regarding the servicing, repair, 

installation, or disposal of equipment 

that differ both from those addressed by 

the leak repair requirements for 

refrigerant-containing appliances and 

those addressed by the emissions 

reductions requirements for fire 

suppression equipment, as well as from 

one another. Likewise, while the 

requirements for removal of HFCs from 

disposable cylinders also help serve the 

purpose of maximizing reclamation, this 

portion of the AIM Act regulations is 

not integral to the adoption of the 

standards for what constitutes reclaimed 

HFC refrigerant, requirements for the 

servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment with 

reclaimed HFCs, or other requirements. 

In this notice of final rulemaking, EPA 

is also amending regulations under 

RCRA, which are separate from the 

regulations under subsection (h)(1) of 

the AIM Act, to establish alternative 

standards for ignitable spent refrigerants 

when recycled for reuse, as the term 

‘‘recycle’’ is to be used under RCRA. 

These standards are established under a 

different set of statutory authorities than 

the AIM Act regulations, and they are 

part of an independent and distinct 

regulatory regime. While we intend for 

the AIM Act regulations and the 

separate RCRA regulations described in 

this notice of final rulemaking to 

operate independently of one another 

and to be severable from each other, we 

are providing notice of both sets of 

regulations simultaneously because both 

the RCRA regulations concerning the 

recovery and recycling of certain 

ignitable spent refrigerants and the AIM 

Act regulations concerning recovery and 

reclamation of refrigerants may be of 

interest to some of the same 

stakeholders. 

Thus, EPA has independently 

considered and adopted the RCRA 

regulations (including the element for 

the RCRA alternative standards for 

ignitable spent refrigerants when 

recycled for reuse) and the AIM Act 

regulations (including but not limited to 

the elements of the ER&R program 

related to leak repair of refrigerantcontaining appliances; reclaimed HFCs 

for the servicing and/or repair of certain 

refrigerant-containing equipment; 

recycled HFCs in fire suppression 

equipment; emissions reductions in the 

fire suppression sector; and removal of 

HFCs from disposable cylinders before 

discarding them), and these elements of 

these regulations are severable from the 

others. If a court were to invalidate any 

one of these elements, EPA intends the 

remainder of the provisions to remain 

effective, as the Agency has designed 

the elements of both the AIM Act 

regulations and the RCRA regulations to 

function sensibly and separately, and 

finds each portion appropriate, even if 

one or more other provisions has been 

set aside. Moreover, this discussion is 

not intended to be exhaustive, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82857 

should not be viewed as an intention by 

EPA to consider other requirements not 

explicitly listed here as not severable 

from other requirements. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

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 the OMB 

for Executive Order 12866 review. 

Documentation of any changes made in 

response to the Executive Order 12866 

review is available in the docket. EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action. This analysis, Final Regulatory 

Impact Analysis Addendum: Analysis of 

the Economic Impact and Benefits of the 

Proposed Rule: American Innovation 

and Manufacturing (AIM) Act 

Subsection H Management of Regulated 

Substances (Docket Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2022–0606), is also available in 

the docket and is summarized in section 

I.C and section VI of this preamble. 

Estimated costs, benefits, and resulting 

net benefits are provided by type of 

provision in table 10 below. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF PRESENT VALUE COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS BY REGULATORY PROVISION (MILLIONS

OF 2022$, DISCOUNTED TO 2024)—BASE CASE SCENARIO

Provision 

Climate 

benefits 

(3%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(2%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(3%) 

Costs 

(savings) 

(7%) 

Net 

benefits 

(3% benefits, 

2% costs) 

Net 

benefits 

(3% benefits, 

3% costs) 

Net 

benefits 

(3% benefits, 

7% costs) 

Leak Repair And ALD ................. $6,176 $1,285 ............... $1,146 ............... $760 .................. $4,891 ............... $5,031 ............... $5,417. 

Fire Suppression ......................... 14 $15 .................... $13 .................... $7 ...................... ($1) .................... $1 ...................... $7. 

Cylinder Management ................. 2,165 ($195) ................ ($169) ................ ($101) ................ $2,360 ............... $2,335 ............... $2,266. 

Use of Reclaimed HFCs for Servicing a.

.................. $43 .................... $38 .................... $23 .................... ($43) .................. ($38) .................. ($23). 

Recordkeeping & Reporting ........ .................. $350 .................. $308 .................. $195 .................. ($350) ................ ($308) ................ ($195). 

Total (AIM Act) b .......................... 8,356 $1,499 ............... $1,335 ............... $884 .................. $6,857 ............... $7,021 ............... $7,471. 

RCRA Alternative Standard Requirements c.

.................. $0 to ($40) ......... $0 to ($35) ......... $0 to ($22) ......... $0 to ($40) ......... $0 to ($35) ......... $0 to ($22). 

Total (AIM Act + RCRA) b ............ .................. $1,459 to $1,499 $1,300 to $1,335 $863 to $884 ..... $6,857 to $6,897 $7,021 to $7,056 $7,471 to $7,493. 

aAs detailed in the RIA addendum, reclaim requirements may lead to additional emissions reductions by inducing increased recovery of refrigerant at servicing and 

disposal that may otherwise be released or vented. In the base case scenario, EPA does not estimate an increase in these avoided emissions beyond baseline assumptions. See the RIA addendum for additional analysis related to this assumption. b Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. 

c RCRA alternative standard requirements are part of the RCRA regulations, which are separate from the regulations under subsection (h)(1) of the AIM Act. Potential RCRA-related benefits presented in this table are included here for informational purposes. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to the OMB under the PRA. 

The ICR document that EPA prepared 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2778.02. You can find a copy of the ICR 

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 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. 

EPA is establishing certain labeling 

requirements for containers of reclaimed 

HFCs. EPA is also establishing 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for owners or operators of 

applicable refrigerant-containing 

appliances that contain HFCs or certain 

substitutes for HFCs to support 

compliance with the leak repair 

provisions, as well as recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for the fire 

suppression provisions for HFCs. 

Additionally, where ALD systems are 

required, EPA is establishing that 

owners or operators maintain records 

regarding the annual calibration or audit 

of the system. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Respondents and affected entities will 

be individuals or companies that own, 

operate, service, repair, recycle, dispose, 

or install equipment containing HFCs or 

their substitutes addressed by this final 

rule, as well as individuals or 

companies that recover, recycle, or 

reclaim HFCs or such substitutes. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (AIM Act and section 114 of 

the CAA). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

781,563. 

Frequency of response: Quarterly, 

annually, and as needed depending on 

the nature of the report. 

Total estimated burden: 222,268 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $17,069,893 (per 

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs. This 

includes $2,131,844 avoided per year 

for reclamation reporting and 

recordkeeping related to the RCRA 

alternative standards. 

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 title 40 

of the 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. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE) under the RFA. The small 

entities subject to the requirements of 

this action include those that may use 

as refrigerant, use as a fire suppression 

agent, reclaim, or recycle HFCs. EPA 

estimates that approximately 493 of the 

767,568 potentially affected small 

entities (∼0.06%) could incur costs in 

excess of one percent of annual sales/ 

revenue and that approximately 12 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82858 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

small entities (<0.01%) could incur 

costs in excess of three percent of 

annual sales/revenue. Because there is 

not a substantial number of small 

entities that may experience a 

significant impact, it can be presumed 

that this action will have no SISNOSE. 

Details of this analysis are presented in 

the Economic Impact and Benefits TSD. 

(Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0606). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not 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. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on Tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 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 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 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 a significant regulatory 

action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866, and EPA contends that the 

environmental health or safety risk 

addressed by this action has a 

disproportionate effect on children. 

Accordingly, the Agency has evaluated 

the environmental health or safety 

effects of climate change on children. 

Greenhouse gases, including HFCs, 

contribute to climate change. Certain 

populations and life stages, including 

children, the elderly, and the poor, are 

most vulnerable to climate-related 

health effects. The results of this 

evaluation are contained in the 

assessment literature cited in EPA’s 

2009 and 2016 Endangerment Findings. 

The assessment literature since 2016 

strengthens these conclusions by 

providing more detailed findings 

regarding these groups’ vulnerabilities 

and the projected impacts they may 

experience. 

This action is preferred over other 

regulatory options analyzed because the 

GHG emissions reductions resulting 

from implementation of this rule will 

further reduce risks to children’s health 

associated with the avoided emissions. 

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 equipment 

containing regulated substances or 

certain substitutes for 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 

reclamation facilities and the 

characteristics of nearby communities to 

evaluate these impacts in the context of 

this final rulemaking. Based on this 

analysis, EPA finds evidence of 

environmental justice concerns near 

HFC reclamation facilities from 

cumulative exposure to existing 

environmental hazards in these 

communities. 

The analysis shows that communities 

near the 38 identified HFC reclamation 

facilities are generally more diverse than 

the national average with respect to race 

and ethnicity. While the median income 

of these communities is slightly higher 

than the national average, there are 

more low-income households. Across 

the 38 facilities, total respiratory risk 

and total cancer risk are slightly 

elevated compared to the national 

average. 

This rule is expected to result in 

benefits in the form of reduced GHG 

emissions. The analysis conducted for 

this rule also estimates that a portion of 

these benefits would be incremental to 

emissions reductions that were 

anticipated under the Allocation 

Framework Rule alone, thus further 

reducing the risks of climate change 

associated with those emissions. 

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. While providing additional 

overall climate benefits, this rule may 

also result in changes in emissions of air 

pollutants or other chemicals that are 

potential byproducts of HFC 

reclamation processes at affected 

facilities. The market for reclaimed 

HFCs could drive changes in potential 

risk for communities living near these 

facilities due to the changes in 

emissions that could have local effects 

is uncertain. However, the nature and 

location of the emission changes are 

uncertain. Moreover, there is 

insufficient information at this time 

about which facilities will change 

reclamation processes. Given limited 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82859 

information at this time, it is unclear to 

what extent this rule will impact 

existing disproportionate adverse effects 

on communities living near HFC 

reclamation facilities. The Agency will 

continue to evaluate the impacts of this 

rulemaking on affected communities, 

including communities with 

environmental justice concerns, and 

consider further action, as appropriate, 

to protect health in communities 

affected by HFC reclamation. The 

information supporting this Executive 

Order review is contained in section VII 

of this preamble. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the 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 meets the criteria set 

forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 84 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Chemicals, 

Climate change, Emissions, Reclaiming, 

Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 262 

Environmental protection, Exports, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling, 

Packaging and containers, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 266 

Environmental protection, Energy, 

Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 270 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Indians—lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control, 

Water supply. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 84, 

261, 262, 266, 270, and 271 as follows: 

PART 84—PHASEDOWN OF 

HYDROFLUOROCARBONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 84 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 116–260, Division S, 

Sec. 103. 

■ 2. Add subpart C, consisting of 

§§ 84.100 through 84.120, to read as 

follows: 

Subpart C—Management of Regulated 

Substances 

Sec. 

84.100 Purpose. 

84.102 Definitions. 

84.104 Prohibitions. 

84.106 Leak repair. 

84.108 Automatic leak detection systems. 

84.110 Emissions from fire suppression 

equipment. 

84.112 Reclamation. 

84.114 Exemptions. 

84.116 Requirements for disposable 

cylinders. 

84.118 Treatment of data submitted under 

40 CFR part 84, subpart C. 

84.120 Relationship to other laws. 

§ 84.100 Purpose. 

The purpose of the regulations in this 

subpart is to implement subsection (h) 

of 42 U.S.C. 7675, including with 

respect to establishing requirements to 

control practices, processes, or activities 

regarding the servicing, repair, disposal, 

or installation of equipment, for 

purposes of maximizing reclaiming, 

minimizing the release of regulated 

substances from equipment, and 

ensuring the safety of technicians and 

consumers. 

§ 84.102 Definitions. 

For the terms not defined in this 

subpart but that are defined in § 84.3, 

the definitions in § 84.3 shall apply. For 

the purposes of this subpart C: 

Certified technician means a 

technician that has been certified per 

the provisions at 40 CFR 82.161. 

Comfort cooling means the refrigerantcontaining appliances used for air 

conditioning to provide cooling in order 

to control heat and/or humidity in 

occupied facilities including but not 

limited to residential, office, and 

commercial buildings. Comfort cooling 

appliances include but are not limited 

to chillers, commercial split systems, 

dual-function heat pumps, and 

packaged roof-top units. 

Commercial refrigeration means the 

refrigerant-containing appliances used 

in the retail food and cold storage 

warehouse subsectors. Retail food 

appliances include the refrigerantcontaining appliances found in 

supermarkets, convenience stores, 

restaurants, and other food service 

establishments. Cold storage includes 

the refrigerant-containing appliances 

used to store meat, produce, dairy 

products, and other perishable goods. 

Component, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

a part of the refrigerant circuit within an 

appliance including but not limited to 

compressors, condensers, evaporators, 

receivers, and all of its connections and 

subassemblies. 

Custom-built means that the 

industrial process refrigeration 

equipment or any of its components 

cannot be purchased and/or installed 

without being uniquely designed, 

fabricated and/or assembled to satisfy a 

specific set of industrial process 

conditions. 

Disposal, as it relates to refrigerantcontaining equipment, means the 

process leading to and including: 

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping, 

or placing of any discarded refrigerantcontaining equipment into or on any 

land or water; 

(2) The disassembly of any refrigerantcontaining equipment for discharge, 

deposit, dumping, or placing of its 

discarded component parts into or on 

any land or water; 

(3) The vandalism of any refrigerantcontaining equipment such that the 

refrigerant is released into the 

environment or would be released into 

the environment if it had not been 

recovered prior to the destructive 

activity; 

(4) The disassembly of any refrigerantcontaining equipment for reuse of its 

component parts; or 

(5) The recycling of any refrigerantcontaining equipment for scrap. 

Disposal, as it relates to fire 

suppression equipment, means the 

process leading to and including: 

(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping, 

or placing of any fire suppression 

equipment into or on any land or water; 

(2) The disassembly of any fire 

suppression equipment for discharge, 

deposit, dumping, or placing of its 

discarded component parts into or on 

any land or water; or 

(3) The disassembly of any fire 

suppression equipment for reuse of its 

component parts. 

Equipment means any device that 

contains, uses, detects, or is otherwise 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82860 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

connected to or associated with a 

regulated substance or substitute for a 

regulated substance, including any 

component, system, refrigerantcontaining appliance, and fire 

suppression equipment. 

Fire suppression equipment means 

any device that is connected to or 

associated with a regulated substance or 

substitute for a regulated substance, 

including blends and mixtures, 

consisting in part or whole of a 

regulated substance or a substitute for a 

regulated substance, and that is used for 

fire suppression purposes. This term 

includes any such equipment, 

component, or system. This term does 

not include military equipment used in 

deployable and expeditionary 

situations. This term also does not 

include space vehicles as defined in 40 

CFR 84.3. 

Fire suppression technician means 

any person who in the course of 

servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment could be reasonably 

expected to violate the integrity of the 

fire suppression equipment and 

therefore release fire suppressants into 

the environment. 

Follow-up verification test, as it 

relates to a refrigerant-containing 

appliance, means those tests that 

involve checking the repairs to an 

appliance after a successful initial 

verification test and after the appliance 

has returned to normal operating 

characteristics and conditions to verify 

that the repairs were successful. 

Potential methods for follow-up 

verification tests include but are not 

limited to the use of soap bubbles as 

appropriate, electronic or ultrasonic 

leak detectors, pressure or vacuum tests, 

fluorescent dye and black light, infrared 

or near infrared tests, and handheld gas 

detection devices. 

Full charge, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

the amount of refrigerant required for 

normal operating characteristics and 

conditions of the appliance as 

determined by using one or a 

combination of the following four 

methods: 

(1) Use of the equipment 

manufacturer’s determination of the full 

charge; 

(2) Use of appropriate calculations 

based on component sizes, density of 

refrigerant, volume of piping, and other 

relevant considerations; 

(3) Use of actual measurements of the 

amount of refrigerant added to or 

evacuated from the appliance, including 

for seasonal variances; and/or 

(4) Use of an established range based 

on the best available data regarding the 

normal operating characteristics and 

conditions for the appliance, where the 

midpoint of the range will serve as the 

full charge. 

Industrial process refrigeration means 

complex customized refrigerantcontaining appliances that are directly 

linked to the processes used in, for 

example, the chemical, pharmaceutical, 

petrochemical, and manufacturing 

industries. This sector also includes 

industrial ice machines, appliances 

used directly in the generation of 

electricity, and ice rinks. Where one 

appliance is used for both industrial 

process refrigeration and other 

applications, it will be considered 

industrial process refrigeration 

equipment if 50 percent or more of its 

operating capacity is used for industrial 

process refrigeration. 

Initial verification test, as it relates to 

a refrigerant-containing appliance, 

means those leak tests that are 

conducted after the repair is finished to 

verify that a leak or leaks have been 

repaired before refrigerant is added back 

to the appliance. 

Installation means the process of 

setting up equipment for use, which 

may include steps such as completing 

the refrigerant circuit, including 

charging equipment with a regulated 

substance or substitute for a regulated 

substance, or connecting cylinders 

containing a regulated substance or a 

substitute for a regulated substance to a 

total flooding fire suppression system, 

such that the equipment can function 

and is ready for use for its intended 

purpose. 

Leak inspection, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

the examination of an appliance to 

detect and determine the location of 

refrigerant leaks. Potential methods 

include but are not limited to ultrasonic 

tests, gas-imaging cameras, bubble tests 

as appropriate, or the use of a leak 

detection device operated and 

maintained according to manufacturer 

guidelines. Methods that determine 

whether the appliance is leaking 

refrigerant but not the location of a leak, 

such as standing pressure/vacuum 

decay tests, sight glass checks, viewing 

receiver levels, pressure checks, and 

charging charts, must be used in 

conjunction with methods that can 

determine the location of a leak. 

Leak rate, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means the rate at 

which an appliance is losing refrigerant, 

measured between refrigerant charges. 

The leak rate is expressed in terms of 

the percentage of the appliance’s full 

charge that would be lost over a 12- 

month period if the current rate of loss 

were to continue over that period. The 

rate must be calculated using one of the 

following methods. The same method 

must be used for all appliances subject 

to the leak repair requirements located 

at an operating facility. 

(1) Annualizing Method—(i) Step 1. 

Take the number of pounds of 

refrigerant added to the appliance to 

return it to a full charge, whether in one 

addition or in multiple additions related 

to same leak, and divide it by the 

number of pounds of refrigerant the 

appliance normally contains at full 

charge; 

(ii) Step 2. Take the shorter of the 

number of days that have passed since 

the last day refrigerant was added or 365 

days and divide that number by 365 

days; 

(iii) Step 3. Take the number 

calculated in Step 1 and divide it by the 

number calculated in Step 2; and 

(iv) Step 4. Multiply the number 

calculated in Step 3 by 100 to calculate 

a percentage. This method is 

summarized in the following formula: 

Formula 1 to paragraph (1)(iv) 

(2) Rolling Average Method—(i) Step 

1. Take the sum of the pounds of 

refrigerant added to the appliance over 

the previous 365-day period (or over the 

period that has passed since the last 

successful follow-up verification test 

showing all identified leaks in the 

appliance were repaired, if that period 

is less than one year); 

(ii) Step 2. Divide the result of Step 

1 by the pounds of refrigerant the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2ER11OC24.003</GPH>

Leak rate pounds of refrigerant added 365 days/year 

(.% per year) • pounds « refrigerant x shorter of: # days since X 100% 

in full chafge refrigerant last added or 365 days 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82861 

appliance normally contains at full 

charge; and 

(iii) Step 3. Multiply the result of Step 

2 by 100 to obtain a percentage. This 

method is summarized in the following 

formula: 

Formula 2 to paragraph (2)(iii) 

Mothball, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means to evacuate 

refrigerant from an appliance, or the 

affected isolated section or component 

of an appliance, to at least atmospheric 

pressure, and to temporarily shut down 

that appliance. 

Motor vehicle means any vehicle 

which is self-propelled and designed for 

transporting persons or property on a 

street or highway, including but not 

limited to passenger cars, light-duty 

vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles. This 

definition does not include a vehicle 

where final assembly of the vehicle has 

not been completed by the original 

equipment manufacturer. 

Motor vehicle air conditioners 

(MVAC) means mechanical vapor 

compression refrigerant-containing 

appliances used to cool the driver’s or 

passenger’s compartment of any motor 

vehicle. This definition is intended to 

have the same meaning as in 40 CFR 

82.32. 

MVAC-like appliance means a 

mechanical vapor compression, opendrive compressor refrigerant-containing 

appliance with a full charge of 20 

pounds or less of refrigerant used to 

cool the driver’s or passenger’s 

compartment of off-road vehicles. This 

includes, but is not limited to, the airconditioning appliances found on 

agricultural or construction vehicles. 

This definition is intended to have the 

same meaning as in 40 CFR 82.152. 

Normal operating characteristics and 

conditions, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means appliance 

operating temperatures, pressures, fluid 

flows, speeds, and other characteristics, 

including full charge of the appliance, 

that would be expected for a given 

process load and ambient condition 

during normal operation. Normal 

operating characteristics and conditions 

are marked by the absence of atypical 

conditions affecting the operation of the 

appliance. 

Owner or operator means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, or controls 

any equipment, or who controls or 

supervises any practice, process, or 

activity that is subject to any 

requirement pursuant to this subpart. 

Recover means the process by which 

a regulated substance, or where 

applicable, a substitute for a regulated 

substance, is (1) removed, in any 

condition, from equipment and (2) 

stored in an external container, with or 

without testing or processing the 

regulated substance or substitute for a 

regulated substance. 

Recycling, when referring to fire 

suppression or fire suppressants, means 

the testing and/or reprocessing of 

regulated substances used in the fire 

suppression sector to certain purity 

standards. 

Refrigerant means any substance, 

including blends and mixtures, 

consisting in part or whole of a 

regulated substance or a substitute for a 

regulated substance that is used for heat 

transfer purposes and provides a cooling 

effect. 

Refrigerant circuit, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

the parts of an appliance that are 

normally connected to each other (or are 

separated only by internal valves) and 

are designed to contain refrigerant. 

Refrigerant-containing appliance 

means any device that contains and uses 

a regulated substance or substitute for a 

regulated substance as a refrigerant 

including but not limited to any air 

conditioner, MVAC, MVAC-like 

appliance, refrigerator, chiller, or 

freezer. For such devices with multiple 

circuits, each independent circuit is 

considered a separate appliance. 

Refrigerant-containing equipment 

means equipment as defined in this 

subpart that contains, uses, or is 

otherwise connected to or associated 

with a regulated substance or substitute 

for a regulated substance that is used as 

a refrigerant. This definition includes 

refrigerant-containing components and 

refrigerant-containing appliances. This 

term does not include military 

equipment used in deployable and 

expeditionary situations. This term also 

does not include space vehicles as 

defined in 40 CFR 84.3. 

Repackager means an entity that 

transfers regulated substances, either 

alone or in a blend, from one container 

to another container prior to sale or 

distribution or offer for sale or 

distribution. An entity that services 

system cylinders for use in fire 

suppression equipment and returns the 

same regulated substances to the same 

system cylinder it was recovered from 

after the system cylinder is serviced is 

not a repackager. 

Repair, as it relates to a particular leak 

in a refrigerant-containing appliance, 

means making adjustments or other 

alterations to that refrigerant-containing 

appliance that have the effect of 

stopping leakage of refrigerant from that 

particular leak. 

Reprocess means using procedures 

such as filtering, drying, distillation, 

and other chemical procedures to 

remove impurities from a regulated 

substance or a substitute for a regulated 

substance. 

Retire, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means the 

removal of the refrigerant and the 

disassembly or impairment of the 

refrigerant circuit such that the 

appliance as a whole is rendered 

unusable by any person in the future. 

Retrofit, as it relates to a refrigerantcontaining appliance, means to convert 

an appliance from one refrigerant to 

another refrigerant. Retrofitting includes 

the conversion of the appliance to 

achieve system compatibility with the 

new refrigerant and may include, but is 

not limited to, changes in lubricants, 

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

appliance components. 

Seasonal variance, as it relates to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance, means 

the removal of refrigerant from an 

appliance due to a change in ambient 

conditions caused by a change in 

season, followed by the subsequent 

addition of an amount that is less than 

or equal to the amount of refrigerant 

removed in the prior change in season, 

where both the removal and addition of 

refrigerant occurs within one 

consecutive 12-month period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2ER11OC24.004</GPH>

pounds of refrigerant added over past 365 days 

(or since the last successful follow-up verification test showing all identified 

Leak rate = leaks in the appliance were repaired, if that period is less than one year) 

(%peryear) pounds of remgerant in full charge 
82862 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Stationary refrigerant-containing 

equipment means refrigerant-containing 

equipment, as defined in this subpart, 

that is not an MVAC or an MVAC-like 

appliance, as defined in this subpart. 

Substitute for a regulated substance 

means a substance that can be used in 

equipment in the same or similar 

applications as a regulated substance, to 

serve the same or a similar purpose, 

including but not limited to a substance 

used as a refrigerant in a refrigerantcontaining appliance or as a fire 

suppressant in fire suppression 

equipment, provided that the substance 

is not a regulated substance or an ozonedepleting substance. 

Technician, as it relates to any person 

who works with refrigerant-containing 

appliances, means any person who in 

the course of servicing, repair, or 

installation of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance (except MVACs) could be 

reasonably expected to violate the 

integrity of the refrigerant circuit and 

therefore release refrigerants into the 

environment. Technician also means 

any person who in the course of 

disposal of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance (except small appliances as 

defined in 40 CFR 82.152, MVACs, and 

MVAC-like appliances) could be 

reasonably expected to violate the 

integrity of the refrigerant circuit and 

therefore release refrigerants from the 

appliances into the environment. 

Activities reasonably expected to violate 

the integrity of the refrigerant circuit 

include but are not limited to: Attaching 

or detaching hoses and gauges to and 

from the appliance; adding or removing 

refrigerant; adding or removing 

components; and cutting the refrigerant 

line. Activities such as painting the 

appliance, rewiring an external 

electrical circuit, replacing insulation 

on a length of pipe, or tightening nuts 

and bolts are not reasonably expected to 

violate the integrity of the refrigerant 

circuit. Activities conducted on 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

have been properly evacuated pursuant 

to 40 CFR 82.156 are not reasonably 

expected to release refrigerants unless 

the activity includes adding refrigerant 

to the appliance. Technicians could 

include but are not limited to installers, 

contractor employees, in-house service 

personnel, and owners and/or operators 

of refrigerant-containing appliances. 

Virgin regulated substance means any 

regulated substance that has not had any 

bona fide use in equipment. 

§ 84.104 Prohibitions. 

(a) Sale of recovered refrigerant. No 

person may sell, distribute, or transfer to 

a new owner, or offer for sale, 

distribution, or transfer to a new owner, 

any regulated substance used as a 

refrigerant in stationary refrigerantcontaining equipment consisting in 

whole or in part of recovered regulated 

substances, unless the recovered 

regulated substance: 

(1) Has been reclaimed by a person 

who has been certified as a reclaimer 

under 40 CFR 82.164 and has been 

reclaimed by being reprocessed to all of 

the specifications in appendix A to 40 

CFR part 82, subpart F that are 

applicable to that regulated substance 

and verified to meet these specifications 

using the analytical methodology 

prescribed in section 5 of appendix A to 

40 CFR part 82, subpart F; or 

(2) Is sold, distributed, or transferred 

to a new owner, or offered for sale, 

distribution, or transfer to a new owner 

solely for the purposes of being 

reclaimed or destroyed. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 84.106 Leak repair. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to refrigerant-containing appliances 

with a full charge of 15 or more pounds 

of refrigerant where the refrigerant 

contains: 

(1) A regulated substance, 

(2) A substitute for a regulated 

substance that has a global warming 

potential greater than 53, based on the 

global warming potentials listed in table 

1 of § 84.64(b). 

(3) Notwithstanding the criteria in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, 

the requirements of this section do not 

apply to: 

(i) Appliances (as defined in 40 CFR 

82.152) containing solely an ozonedepleting substance as listed in 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart A as a refrigerant; 

(ii) Refrigerant-containing appliances 

used for the residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pump subsector. 

(4) The requirements of this section 

apply as of January 1, 2026. 

(b) Leak rate calculation. Persons 

adding or removing refrigerant from a 

refrigerant-containing appliance must, 

upon conclusion of that installation, 

service, repair, or disposal, provide the 

owner or operator with documentation 

that meets the applicable requirements 

of paragraph (l)(2) of this section. The 

owner or operator must calculate the 

leak rate every time refrigerant is added 

to an appliance unless the addition is 

made immediately following a retrofit, 

installation of a new refrigerantcontaining appliance, or qualifies as a 

seasonal variance. 

(1) Where an owner or operator is 

using the annualizing method to 

calculate a leak rate for a refrigerantcontaining appliance for the first time 

after January 1, 2026, the calculation 

should substitute 365 days as the 

number of days since last refrigerant 

addition. 

(2) Where an owner or operator is 

using the rolling average method to 

calculate a leak rate for a refrigerantcontaining appliance for the first time 

after January 1, 2026, the calculation 

should substitute pounds of refrigerant 

added since January 1, 2026. 

(3) An owner or operator may switch 

to a different leak rate calculation 

methodology only if the following 

requirements are met: 

(i) The owner or operator has 

purchased or otherwise acquired an 

operating facility with one or more 

refrigerant-containing appliance(s) 

which was previously using a different 

leak rate calculation methodology than 

the methodology being used at other 

facilities owned or operated by the 

owner or operator; 

(ii) The owner or operator has 

determined the refrigerant-containing 

appliance(s) at any operating facility for 

which the leak rate calculation 

methodology would change are not 

exceeding the applicable leak rate in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section under 

either of the leak rate calculation 

methodologies ; and 

(iii) The owner or operator must 

retain a record of this change as 

described in paragraph (l)(3) of this 

section. 

(c) Requirement to address leaks 

through repair, or retrofitting or retiring 

a refrigerant-containing appliance. (1) 

Owners or operators must repair leaks 

in refrigerant-containing appliances 

with a leak rate over the applicable leak 

rate in this paragraph in accordance 

with paragraphs (d) through (f) of this 

section unless the owner or operator 

elects to retrofit or retire the refrigerantcontaining appliance in compliance 

with paragraphs (h) and (i) of this 

section. If the owner or operator elects 

to repair leaks but fails to bring the leak 

rate below the applicable leak rate, the 

owner or operator must create and 

implement a retrofit or retirement plan 

in accordance with paragraphs (h) and 

(i) of this section. Repairs must be 

conducted by a certified technician, as 

defined in this subpart. 

(2) Leak rates: 

(i) 20 percent leak rate for commercial 

refrigeration appliances; 

(ii) 30 percent leak rate for industrial 

process refrigeration appliances; and 

(iii) 10 percent leak rate for comfort 

cooling appliances, refrigerated 

transport appliances, or other 

refrigerant-containing appliances with a 

full charge of 15 or more pounds of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82863 

refrigerant not covered by paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

(d) Appliance repair. Owners or 

operators must identify and repair leaks 

in accordance with this paragraph 

within 30 days (or 120 days if an 

industrial process shutdown is required) 

of when refrigerant is added to a 

refrigerant-containing appliance 

exceeding the applicable leak rate in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(1) A certified technician must 

conduct a leak inspection, as described 

in paragraph (g) of this section, to 

identify the location of leaks. 

(2) Leaks must be repaired such that 

the leak rate of the refrigerantcontaining appliance is brought below 

the applicable leak rate. This must be 

confirmed by the leak rate calculation 

performed upon the next refrigerant 

addition. Leak repairs will be presumed 

to be successful if, over the 12-month 

period after the date of a successful 

follow-up verification test, there is no 

further refrigerant addition or if the leak 

inspections required under paragraph 

(g) and/or automatic leak detection 

systems required by § 84.108 do not find 

any leaks in the appliance. Repairs of 

leaks must be documented by both an 

initial and a follow-up verification test 

or tests. 

(3) The time frames in paragraphs (d) 

through (f) of this section are 

temporarily suspended when an 

appliance is mothballed. The time will 

resume on the day additional refrigerant 

is added to the refrigerant-containing 

appliance (or component of a 

refrigerant-containing appliance if the 

leaking component was isolated). 

(e) Verification tests. The owner or 

operator must conduct both initial and 

follow-up verification tests on each leak 

that was repaired under paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(1) Initial verification test. Unless 

granted additional time, an initial 

verification test must be performed 

within 30 days (or 120 days if an 

industrial process shutdown is required) 

of a refrigerant-containing appliance 

exceeding the applicable leak rate in 

paragraph (c) of this section. An initial 

verification test must demonstrate that 

for leaks where repair attempts were 

made, the adjustments or alterations to 

the refrigerant-containing appliance 

have held. 

(i) For repairs that can be completed 

without the need to open or evacuate 

the refrigerant-containing appliance, the 

test must be performed after the 

conclusion of the repairs and before any 

additional refrigerant is added to the 

refrigerant-containing appliance. 

(ii) For repairs that require the 

evacuation of the refrigerant-containing 

appliance or portion of the refrigerantcontaining appliance, the test must be 

performed before adding any refrigerant 

to the refrigerant-containing appliance. 

(iii) If the initial verification test 

indicates that the repairs have not been 

successful, the owner or operator may 

conduct as many additional repairs and 

initial verification tests as needed 

within the applicable time period. 

(2) Follow-up verification test. A 

follow-up verification test must be 

performed within 10 days of the 

successful initial verification test or 10 

days of the refrigerant-containing 

appliance reaching normal operating 

characteristics and conditions (if the 

refrigerant-containing appliance or 

isolated component was evacuated for 

the repair(s)). Where it is unsafe to be 

present or otherwise impossible to 

conduct a follow-up verification test 

when the system is operating at normal 

operating characteristics and conditions, 

the verification test must, where 

practicable, be conducted prior to the 

system returning to normal operating 

characteristics and conditions. 

(i) A follow-up verification test must 

demonstrate that leaks where repair 

attempts were made are repaired. If the 

follow-up verification test indicates that 

the repairs have not been successful, the 

owner or operator may conduct as many 

additional repairs and verification tests 

as needed to bring the refrigerantcontaining appliance below the leak rate 

within the applicable time period and to 

verify the repairs. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(f) Extensions to the appliance repair 

deadlines. Owners or operators are 

permitted more than 30 days (or 120 

days if an industrial process shutdown 

is required) to comply with paragraphs 

(d) and (e) of this section if they meet 

the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (4) of this section or the 

refrigerant-containing appliance is 

mothballed. Extension requests must be 

signed by an authorized company 

official. The request will be considered 

approved unless EPA notifies the 

owners or operators otherwise. 

(1) One or more of the following 

conditions must apply: 

(i) The refrigerant-containing 

appliance is located in an area subject 

to radiological contamination or 

shutting down the refrigerant-containing 

appliance will directly lead to 

radiological contamination. Additional 

time is permitted to the extent needed 

to conduct and finish repairs in a safe 

working environment. 

(ii) Requirements of other applicable 

Federal, State, local, or Tribal 

regulations make repairs within 30 days 

(or 120 days if an industrial process 

shutdown is required) impossible. 

Additional time is permitted to the 

extent needed to comply with the 

pertinent regulations. 

(iii) Components that must be 

replaced are not available within 30 

days (or 120 days if an industrial 

process shutdown is required). 

Additional time is permitted up to 30 

days after receiving delivery of the 

necessary components, not to exceed 

180 days (or 270 days if an industrial 

process shutdown is required) from the 

date the refrigerant-containing 

appliance exceeded the applicable leak 

rate. 

(2) Repairs to leaks that the technician 

has identified as significantly 

contributing to the exceedance of the 

leak rate and that do not require 

additional time must be completed and 

verified within the initial 30-day repair 

period (or 120-day repair period if an 

industrial process shutdown is 

required); 

(3) The owner or operator must 

document all repair efforts and the 

reason for the inability to make all 

necessary repairs within the initial 30- 

day repair period (or 120-day repair 

period if an industrial process 

shutdown is required); and 

(4) The owner or operator must 

request an extension from EPA 

electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, within 30 

days (or 120 days if an industrial 

process shutdown is required) of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance 

exceeding the applicable leak rate in 

paragraph (c) of this section. Extension 

requests must include: Identification 

and address of the facility; the name of 

the owner or operator of the refrigerantcontaining appliance; the leak rate; the 

method used to determine the leak rate 

and full charge; the date the refrigerantcontaining appliance exceeded the 

applicable leak rate; the location of 

leak(s) to the extent determined to date; 

any repairs that have been performed 

thus far, including the date that repairs 

were completed; the reasons why more 

than 30 days (or 120 days if an 

industrial process shutdown is required) 

are needed to complete the repairs; an 

estimate of when the repairs will be 

completed; and a signature from an 

authorized company official. If the 

estimated completion date is to be 

extended, a new estimated date of 

completion and documentation of the 

reason for that change must be 

submitted to EPA within 30 days of 

identifying that the completion date 

must be extended. The owner or 

operator must keep a dated copy of 

these submissions. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82864 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(g) Leak inspections. (1) The owner or 

operator must conduct a leak inspection 

in accordance with the following 

schedule on any refrigerant-containing 

appliance exceeding the applicable leak 

rate in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

(i) For commercial refrigeration and 

industrial process refrigeration 

appliances with a full charge of 500 or 

more pounds, leak inspections must be 

conducted once every three months 

after the date of a successful follow-up 

verification test, until the owner or 

operator can demonstrate through the 

leak rate calculations required under 

paragraph (b) of this section that the 

appliance has not leaked in excess of 

the applicable leak rate for four quarters 

in a row. 

(ii) For commercial refrigeration and 

industrial process refrigeration 

appliances with a full charge of 15 or 

more pounds but less than 500 pounds, 

leak inspections must be conducted 

once per year after the date of a 

successful follow-up verification test, 

until the owner or operator can 

demonstrate through the leak rate 

calculations required under paragraph 

(b) of this section that the appliance has 

not leaked in excess of the applicable 

leak rate for one year. 

(iii) For comfort cooling appliances 

and other appliances not covered by 

paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, leak inspections must be 

conducted once per year after the date 

of a successful follow-up verification 

test, until the owner or operator can 

demonstrate through the leak rate 

calculations required under paragraph 

(b) of this section that the appliance has 

not leaked in excess of the applicable 

leak rate for one year. 

(2) Leak inspections must be 

conducted by a certified technician 

using method(s) determined by the 

certified technician to be appropriate for 

that refrigerant-containing appliance. 

(3) All visible and accessible 

components of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance must be inspected, with the 

following exceptions: 

(i) Where components are insulated, 

under ice that forms on the outside of 

equipment, underground, behind walls, 

or are otherwise inaccessible; 

(ii) Where personnel must be elevated 

more than two meters above a support 

surface; or 

(iii) Where components are unsafe to 

inspect, as determined by site 

personnel. 

(4) Quarterly or annual leak 

inspections are not required on 

refrigerant-containing appliances, or 

portions of refrigerant-containing 

appliances, continuously monitored by 

an automatic leak detection system that 

is audited or calibrated annually. An 

automatic leak detection system may 

directly detect refrigerant in air, monitor 

its surrounding in a manner other than 

detecting refrigerant concentrations in 

air, or monitor conditions of the 

appliance. An automatic leak detection 

system being used for this purpose must 

meet the requirements for automatic 

leak detection systems in § 84.108(c) 

through (g) and § 84.108(i). 

(i) When an automatic leak detection 

system is only being used to monitor 

portions of a refrigerant-containing 

appliance, the remainder of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance 

continues to be subject to any applicable 

leak inspection requirements. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(h) Retrofit or retirement plans. (1) 

The owner or operator must create a 

retrofit or retirement plan within 30 

days of: 

(i) A refrigerant-containing appliance 

leaking above the applicable leak rate in 

paragraph (c) of this section if the owner 

or operator intends to retrofit or retire 

rather than repair leaks; 

(ii) A refrigerant-containing appliance 

leaking above the applicable leak rate in 

paragraph (c) of this section if the owner 

or operator fails to take any action to 

identify or repair leaks; or 

(iii) A refrigerant-containing 

appliance continues to leak above the 

applicable leak rate after having 

conducted the required repairs and 

verification tests under paragraphs (d) 

and (e) of this section. 

(2) A retrofit or retirement plan must, 

at a minimum, contain the following 

information: 

(i) Identification and location of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance; 

(ii) Type and full charge of the 

refrigerant used in the refrigerantcontaining appliance; 

(iii) Type and full charge of the 

refrigerant to which the refrigerantcontaining appliance will be converted, 

if retrofitted; 

(iv) Itemized procedure for converting 

the refrigerant-containing appliance to a 

different refrigerant, including changes 

required for compatibility with the new 

refrigerant, if retrofitted; 

(v) Plan for the disposition of 

recovered refrigerant; 

(vi) Plan for the disposition of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance, if 

retired; and 

(vii) A schedule, not to exceed one 

year, for completion of the appliance 

retrofit or retirement. 

(3) The retrofit or retirement plan 

must be signed by an authorized 

company official, dated, accessible at 

the site of the refrigerant-containing 

appliance in paper copy or electronic 

format, and available for EPA inspection 

upon request. 

(4) All identified leaks must be 

repaired as part of any retrofit under 

such a plan. 

(5) A retrofit or retirement plan must 

be implemented as follows: 

(i) Unless granted additional time, all 

work performed in accordance with the 

plan must be finished within one year 

of the plan’s date (not to exceed 12 

months from when the plan was 

finalized as required in paragraph (h)(1) 

of this section). 

(ii) The owner or operator may 

request that EPA relieve it of the 

obligation to retrofit or retire a 

refrigerant-containing appliance if the 

owner or operator can establish within 

180 days of the plan’s date that the 

refrigerant-containing appliance no 

longer exceeds the applicable leak rate 

and if the owner or operator agrees in 

writing to repair all identified leaks 

within one year of the plan’s date 

consistent with paragraphs (h)(4) and 

(h)(5)(i) of this section. The owner or 

operator must submit to EPA the retrofit 

or retirement plan as well as the 

following information: The date that the 

requirement to develop a retrofit or 

retirement plan was triggered; the leak 

rate; the method used to determine the 

leak rate and full charge; the location of 

the leak(s) identified in the leak 

inspection; a description of the repairs 

that have been completed; a description 

of repairs that have not been completed; 

a description of why repairs were not 

conducted within the time frames 

required under paragraphs (d) and (f) of 

this section; and a statement signed by 

an authorized company official that all 

identified leaks will be repaired and an 

estimate of when those repairs will be 

completed (not to exceed one year from 

date of the plan). The request will be 

considered approved unless EPA 

notifies the owner or operator within 60 

days of receipt of the request that it is 

not approved. 

(i) Extensions to the one-year retrofit 

or retirement schedule. Owners or 

operators may request more than one 

year to comply with paragraph (h) of 

this section if they meet the 

requirements of this paragraph. The 

request will be considered approved 

unless EPA notifies the owners or 

operators within 60 days of receipt of 

the request that it is not approved. The 

request must be submitted to EPA 

electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, within 

seven months of discovering the 

refrigerant-containing appliance 

exceeded the applicable leak rate. The 

request must include the identification 

of the refrigerant-containing appliance; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82865 

name of the owner or operator; the leak 

rate; the method used to determine the 

leak rate and full charge; the date the 

refrigerant-containing appliance 

exceeded the applicable leak rate; the 

location of leaks(s) to the extent 

determined to date; any repairs that 

have been finished thus far, including 

the date that repairs were finished; a 

plan to finish the retrofit or retirement 

of the refrigerant-containing appliance; 

the reasons why more than one year is 

necessary to retrofit or retire the 

refrigerant-containing appliance; the 

date of notification to EPA; a signature 

from an authorized company official; 

and an estimate of when the retrofit or 

retirement will be finished. A dated 

copy of the request must be available 

on-site in either electronic or paper 

copy. If the estimated completion date 

is to be revised, a new estimated date of 

completion and documentation of the 

reason for that change must be 

submitted to EPA electronically, using 

the Agency’s applicable reporting 

platform, within 30 days. Additionally, 

the time frames in paragraph (h) of this 

section and this paragraph (i) are 

temporarily suspended when a 

refrigerant-containing appliance is 

mothballed. The time will resume 

running on the day additional 

refrigerant is added to the refrigerantcontaining appliance (or component of 

a refrigerant-containing appliance if the 

leaking component was isolated). 

(1) Extensions available to industrial 

process refrigeration. Owners or 

operators of industrial process 

refrigeration appliances may request 

additional time beyond the one-year 

period in paragraph (h) of this section 

to finish the retrofit or retirement under 

the following circumstances: 

(i) Requirements of other applicable 

Federal, State, local, or Tribal 

regulations make a retrofit or retirement 

within one year impossible. Additional 

time is permitted to the extent needed 

to comply with the pertinent 

regulations; 

(ii) The new or the retrofitted 

equipment is custom-built as defined in 

this subpart and the supplier of the 

appliance or one of its components has 

quoted a delivery time of more than 30 

weeks from when the order is placed. 

The appliance or appliance components 

must be installed within 120 days after 

receiving delivery of the necessary 

parts; 

(iii) The equipment or component is 

located in an area subject to radiological 

contamination and creating a safe 

working environment will require more 

than 30 weeks; or 

(iv) After receiving an extension 

under paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section, 

owners or operators may request 

additional time if necessary to finish the 

retrofit or retirement of the refrigerantcontaining appliance. The request must 

be submitted to EPA before the end of 

the ninth month of the initial extension 

and must include the same information 

submitted for that extension, with any 

necessary revisions. A dated copy of the 

request must be available on-site in 

either electronic or paper copy. The 

request will be considered approved 

unless EPA notifies the owners or 

operators within 60 days of receipt of 

the request that it is not approved. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(j) Chronically leaking appliances. 

Owners or operators of refrigerantcontaining appliances containing 15 or 

more pounds of refrigerant that leak 125 

percent or more of the full charge in a 

calendar year must submit a report 

containing the information required in 

paragraph (m)(4) of this section to EPA 

by March 1 of the subsequent year. 

(k) Purged refrigerant. In calculating 

annual leak rates, purged refrigerant that 

is destroyed at a verifiable destruction 

efficiency of 98 percent or greater will 

not be counted toward the leak rate. 

(l) Recordkeeping. All records 

identified in this paragraph must be 

kept for at least three years in electronic 

or paper format, unless otherwise 

specified. 

(1) By January 1, 2026, or upon 

installation for refrigerant-containing 

appliances installed on or after January 

1, 2026, owners or operators must 

determine the full charge of all 

refrigerant-containing appliances with 

15 or more pounds of refrigerant and 

maintain the following information for 

each appliance until three years after 

the appliance is retired: 

(i) The identification of the owner or 

operator of the refrigerant-containing 

appliance; 

(ii) The address where the appliance 

is located; 

(iii) The full charge of the refrigerantcontaining appliance and the method 

for how the full charge was determined; 

(iv) If using method 4 (using an 

established range) for determining full 

charge, records must include the range 

for the full charge of the refrigerantcontaining appliance, its midpoint, and 

how the range was determined; 

(v) Any revisions of the full charge, 

how they were determined, and the 

dates such revisions occurred; and 

(vi) The date of installation. 

(2) Owners or operators must 

maintain a record including the 

following information for each time a 

refrigerant-containing appliance with a 

full charge of 15 or more pounds is 

installed, serviced, repaired, or disposed 

of, when applicable. 

(i) The identity and location of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance; 

(ii) The date of the installation, 

service, repair, or disposal performed; 

(iii) The part(s) of the refrigerantcontaining appliance being installed, 

serviced, repaired, or disposed; 

(iv) The type of installation, service, 

repair, or disposal performed for each 

part; 

(v) The name of the person 

performing the installation, service, 

repair, or disposal; 

(vi) The amount and type of 

refrigerant added to, or in the case of 

disposal removed from, the appliance; 

(vii) The full charge of the refrigerantcontaining appliance; and 

(viii) The leak rate and the method 

used to determine the leak rate (not 

applicable when disposing of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance, 

following a retrofit, installing a new 

refrigerant-containing appliance, or if 

the refrigerant addition qualifies as a 

seasonal variance). 

(3) Owners or operators must 

maintain the following records of 

changes to the leak rate calculation 

method after a change in ownership or 

acquisition specified in paragraph (b)(3) 

of this section: 

(i) Basic identification information 

(i.e., owner or operator, facility name, 

facility address where appliance is 

located, and appliance ID or 

description); 

(ii) The date the operating facility 

referenced in paragraph (b)(3)(i) was 

purchased or otherwise acquired; 

(iii) The leak rates for all refrigerantcontaining appliances at any operating 

facility for which the leak rate 

calculation methodology would change, 

listing the results for each leak rate 

calculation methods (the annualizing 

method and the rolling average method) 

separately; 

(iv) The date the new leak rate 

calculation method is adopted; and 

(v) The leak rate calculation method 

the owner or operator is using after the 

change. 

(4) If the installation, service, repair, 

or disposal is done by someone other 

than the owner or operator, that person 

must provide a record containing the 

information specified in paragraph 

(l)(2)(i) through (l)(2)(vi) of this section, 

when applicable, to the owner or 

operator. 

(5) Owners or operators must keep 

records of leak inspections that include 

the date of inspection, the method(s) 

used to conduct the leak inspection, a 

list of the location of each leak that was 

identified, and a certification that all 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82866 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

visible and accessible parts of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance were 

inspected. The certified technicians 

conducting the leak inspections must, 

upon conclusion of that service, provide 

the owner or operator of the refrigerantcontaining appliance with 

documentation that meets these 

requirements. 

(6) If using an automatic leak 

detection system, the owner or operator 

must maintain records regarding the 

installation and the annual audit and 

calibration of the system, a record of 

each date the monitoring system 

identified a leak, and the location of the 

leak. 

(7) Owners or operators must 

maintain records of the dates and results 

of all initial and follow-up verification 

tests. Records must include the location 

of the refrigerant-containing appliance, 

the date(s) of the verification tests, the 

location(s) of all repaired leaks that 

were tested, the type(s) of verification 

test(s) used, and the results of those 

tests. The certified technicians 

conducting the initial or follow-up 

verification tests must, upon conclusion 

of that service, provide the owner or 

operator of the appliance with 

documentation that meets these 

requirements. 

(8) Owners or operators must 

maintain retrofit or retirement plans 

developed in accordance with 

paragraph (h) of this section. 

(9) Owners or operators must 

maintain retrofit and/or retirement 

extension requests submitted to EPA in 

accordance with paragraph (i) of this 

section. 

(10) Owners or operators that suspend 

the deadlines in this section by 

mothballing a refrigerant-containing 

appliance must keep records 

documenting when the appliance was 

mothballed and when additional 

refrigerant was added to the appliance 

(or isolated component). 

(11) Owners or operators who exclude 

purged refrigerants that are destroyed 

from annual leak rate calculations must 

maintain records to support the amount 

of refrigerant claimed as sent for 

destruction. Records must be based on 

a monitoring strategy that provides 

reliable data to demonstrate that the 

amount of refrigerant claimed to have 

been destroyed is not greater than the 

amount of refrigerant actually purged 

and destroyed and that the 98 percent 

or greater destruction efficiency is met. 

Records must include flow rate, 

quantity or concentration of the 

refrigerant in the vent stream, and 

periods of purge flow. Records must 

include: 

(i) The identification of the facility 

and a contact person, including the 

address and telephone number; 

(ii) A description of the refrigerantcontaining appliance, focusing on 

aspects relevant to the purging of 

refrigerant and subsequent destruction; 

(iii) A description of the methods 

used to determine the quantity of 

refrigerant sent for destruction and type 

of records that are being kept by the 

owners or operators where the 

appliance is located; 

(iv) The frequency of monitoring and 

data-recording; and 

(v) A description of the control 

device, and its destruction efficiency. 

(12) Owners or operators that exclude 

additions of refrigerant due to seasonal 

variance from their leak rate calculation 

must maintain records stating that they 

are using the seasonal variance 

flexibility and documenting the amount 

added and removed under paragraph 

(l)(2) of this section. 

(13) Owners or operators that submit 

reports to EPA in accordance with 

paragraph (m) of this section must 

maintain copies of the submitted reports 

and any responses from EPA. 

(m) Reporting. All notifications must 

be submitted electronically using the 

Agency’s applicable reporting platform. 

(1) Owners or operators must notify 

EPA electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, in 

accordance with paragraph (f) of this 

section when seeking an extension of 

time to complete repairs. 

(2) Owners or operators must notify 

EPA electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, in 

accordance with paragraph (h)(5)(ii) of 

this section when seeking relief from the 

obligation to retrofit or retire an 

appliance. 

(3) Owners or operators must notify 

EPA electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, in 

accordance with paragraph (i) of this 

section when seeking an extension of 

time to complete the retrofit or 

retirement of an appliance. 

(4) Owners or operators must report to 

EPA electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, the 

following information in accordance 

with paragraph (j) of this section for any 

refrigerant-containing appliance 

containing 15 or more pounds of 

refrigerant that leaks 125 percent or 

more of the full charge in a calendar 

year: 

(i) Basic identification information 

(i.e., owner or operator, facility name, 

facility address where appliance is 

located, and appliance ID or 

description); 

(ii) Refrigerant-containing appliance 

type (comfort cooling or other, 

industrial process refrigeration, or 

commercial refrigeration); 

(iii) Refrigerant type; 

(iv) Full charge of appliance (pounds); 

(v) Annual percent refrigerant loss; 

(vi) Dates of refrigerant addition; 

(vii) Amounts of refrigerant added; 

(viii) Date of last successful follow-up 

verification test; 

(ix) Explanation of cause refrigerant 

losses; 

(x) Description of repair actions taken; 

(xi) Whether a retrofit or retirement 

plan has been developed for the 

refrigerant-containing appliance and if 

so, the anticipated date of retrofit or 

retirement; and 

(xii) A signed statement from an 

authorized company official. 

(5) When excluding purged 

refrigerants that are destroyed from 

annual leak rate calculations, owners or 

operators must notify EPA 

electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, within 60 

days after the first time the exclusion is 

used by the facility where the appliance 

is located. The report must include the 

information included in paragraph 

(l)(11) of this section and must be signed 

by an authorized company official. 

§ 84.108 Automatic leak detection 

systems. 

(a) Owners or operators of refrigerantcontaining appliances used for 

industrial process refrigeration or 

commercial refrigeration with a full 

charge of 1,500 pounds or greater of a 

refrigerant containing a regulated 

substance or a substitute for a regulated 

substance with a global warming 

potential greater than 53 must install 

and use an automatic leak detection 

system in accordance with this section. 

(1) If the refrigerant in a refrigerantcontaining appliance contains a 

substitute for a regulated substance, 

whether the global warming potential of 

the substitute is greater than 53 will be 

determined as described in 

§ 84.106(a)(2). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b)(1) Owners and operators of 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

are subject to the requirements under 

paragraph (a) of this section and that are 

installed on or after January 1, 2026, 

must install and use an automatic leak 

detection system upon installation of 

the refrigerant-containing appliance or 

within 30 days of installation of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance. 

(2) Owners and operators of 

refrigerant-containing appliances that 

are subject to the requirements under 

paragraph (a) of this section and that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82867 

were installed on or after January 1, 

2017, and before January 1, 2026, must 

install and use an automatic leak 

detection system by January 1, 2027. 

(c) Automatic leak detection systems 

must be installed in accordance with 

manufacturer instructions. 

(d) Automatic leak detection systems 

must be audited and calibrated 

annually. 

(e) Automatic leak detection systems 

are required to monitor components 

located inside an enclosed building or 

structure. 

(f) For automatic leak detection 

systems that directly detect the presence 

of a refrigerant in air, the system must: 

(1) Have sensors or intakes placed so 

that they will continuously monitor the 

refrigerant concentrations in air in 

proximity to the compressor, 

evaporator, condenser, and other areas 

with a high potential for a refrigerant 

leak; 

(2) Accurately detect a concentration 

level of 10 parts per million of vapor of 

the specific refrigerant or refrigerants 

used in the refrigerant-containing 

appliance(s); and 

(3) Alert the owner or operator when 

a refrigerant concentration of 100 parts 

per million of vapor of the specific 

refrigerant or refrigerants used in the 

appliance(s) is reached. 

(g) For automatic leak detection 

systems that monitor conditions of the 

refrigerant-containing appliance, the 

system must automatically alert the 

owner or operator when measurements 

indicate a loss of 50 pounds of 

refrigerant or 10 percent of the full 

charge, whichever is less. 

(h) When an automatic leak detection 

system alerts an owner or operator of a 

leak as described in this section, owners 

and operators of refrigerant-containing 

appliances using automatic leak 

detection systems must comply with the 

requirements either in paragraph (h)(1) 

or in (h)(2) of this section and must also 

comply with paragraph (h)(3) of this 

section where applicable: 

(1) Calculate the leak rate within 30 

days (or 120 days where an industrial 

process shutdown would be necessary) 

of an alert and, if the leak rate is above 

the applicable leak rate as described in 

§ 84.106(c)(2), comply with the full suite 

of leak repair provisions in § 84.106; or 

(2) Preemptively repair the identified 

leak(s) before adding refrigerant to the 

appliance and then calculate the leak 

rate within 30 days (or 120 days where 

an industrial process shutdown would 

be necessary) of an alert. If the leak rate 

is above the applicable leak rate as 

described in § 84.106(c)(2), the owner or 

operator must comply with the full suite 

of leak repair provisions in § 84.106. 

(3) Where a refrigerant-containing 

appliance using an automatic leak 

detection system is found to be leaking 

above the applicable leak rate as 

described in § 84.106(c)(2), and the 

automatic leak system is only being 

used to monitor portions of an 

appliance, the remainder of the 

appliance continues to be subject to any 

applicable leak inspection requirements, 

as described in § 84.106(g). 

(i) Recordkeeping. The owner or 

operator must maintain records for at 

least three years in electronic or paper 

format, unless otherwise specified, 

regarding: 

(1) The installation of the automatic 

leak detection system; 

(2) The annual audit and calibration 

of the system; 

(3) A record of each date the 

automatic leak detection system triggers 

an alert; and 

(4) The location of the leak(s) which 

resulted in the alarm. 

§ 84.110 Emissions from fire suppression 

equipment. 

(a) As of January 1, 2026, no person 

installing, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of fire suppression equipment 

containing a regulated substance may 

knowingly vent or otherwise release 

into the environment any regulated 

substances used in such equipment. 

(1) Release of regulated substances 

during testing of fire suppression 

equipment is not subject to the 

prohibition under this paragraph (a) if 

the following four conditions are met: 

(i) Equipment employing suitable 

alternative fire suppression agents are 

not available; 

(ii) Release of fire suppression agent 

is essential to demonstrate equipment 

functionality; 

(iii) Failure of the system or 

equipment would pose great risk to 

human safety or the environment; and 

(iv) A simulant agent cannot be used 

in place of the regulated substance for 

testing purposes. 

(2) The prohibition under this 

paragraph (a) does not apply to 

qualification and development testing 

during the design and development 

process of fire suppression equipment 

containing regulated substances when 

such tests are essential to demonstrate 

equipment functionality and when a 

suitable simulant agent cannot be used 

in place of the regulated substance for 

testing purposes. 

(3) The prohibition under this 

paragraph (a) does not apply to the 

emergency release of regulated 

substances for the legitimate purpose of 

fire extinguishing, explosion inertion, or 

other emergency applications for which 

the fire suppression equipment was 

designed. 

(b) As of January 1, 2026, no owner 

or operator of fire suppression 

equipment containing regulated 

substances shall allow the release of 

regulated substances to occur as a result 

of failure to maintain such fire 

suppression equipment. 

(c) As of January 1, 2030, recycled 

regulated substances must be used for 

the initial installation of new fire 

suppression equipment, including both 

total flooding systems and streaming 

applications, that is installed in the 

United States. As of January 1, 2026, 

recycled regulated substances must be 

used for the servicing and/or repair of 

existing fire suppression equipment in 

the United States, including both total 

flooding systems and streaming 

applications. Notwithstanding the prior 

sentences, if the fire suppression 

equipment does not use any regulated 

substance, this requirement does not 

apply. If the fire suppression equipment 

uses a regulated substance in 

combination with other fire suppression 

agents, this requirement will only apply 

to the regulated substance used. 

(d) Any person who employs fire 

suppression technicians who install, 

service, repair, or dispose of fire 

suppression equipment containing 

regulated substances shall train 

technicians hired on or before January 1, 

2026, on emissions reduction of 

regulated substances by June 1, 2026. 

Fire suppression technicians hired after 

January 1, 2026, shall be trained 

regarding emissions reduction of 

regulated substances within 30 days of 

hiring, or by June 1, 2026, whichever is 

later. 

(1) The fire suppression technician 

training shall include an explanation of 

the purpose of the training requirement 

and also address the following: 

(i) The significance of minimizing 

releases of regulated substances and 

ensuring technician safety; 

(ii) An overview of regulated 

substances and environmental concerns 

with regulated substances, including 

discussion of other federal, State, local, 

or Tribal fire, building, safety, and 

environmental codes and standards; 

(iii) A review of relevant regulations 

concerning regulated substances, 

including the requirements of this 

subpart that apply with respect to fire 

suppression equipment; and 

(iv) Specific technical instruction 

relevant to avoiding unnecessary 

emissions of regulated substances 

during the servicing, repair, disposal, or 

installation of fire suppression 

equipment at the different types of 

facilities where the technician might 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82868 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

perform such work on fire suppression 

equipment. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) As of January 1, 2026, no person 

shall dispose of fire suppression 

equipment containing regulated 

substances except by either recovering 

the regulated substances themselves 

before sending the equipment for 

disposal or by leaving the regulated 

substances in the equipment and 

sending it for disposal to a facility, such 

as a fire suppression equipment 

manufacturer, a distributor, or a fire 

suppressant recycler. 

(f) As of January 1, 2026, no person 

shall dispose of regulated substances 

used as a fire suppression agent except 

by sending it for recycling to a fire 

suppressant recycler or a reclaimer 

certified under 40 CFR 82.164, or by 

arranging for its destruction using one of 

the controlled processes listed in 

§ 84.29. 

(1) Any person using a device to 

recover, store, and/or transfer regulated 

substances used in fire suppression 

equipment must: evacuate the device 

used to recover, store, and/or transfer 

regulated substances prior to each use to 

prevent contamination, arrange for 

destruction of the recovered regulated 

substances as necessary; and collect and 

dispose of wastes from the recycling 

process. 

(2) Any person using recovery and 

recycling equipment to recover 

regulated substances from fire 

suppression equipment must: 

(i) Operate and maintain recovery and 

recycling equipment in accordance with 

manufacturer specifications to ensure 

that the equipment performs as 

specified; 

(ii) Repair leaks in storage, recovery, 

recycling, and/or charging equipment 

used with regulated substances before 

use; and 

(iii) Ensure that cross-contamination 

does not occur through the mixing of 

regulated substances that may be 

contained in similar cylinders. 

(g)(1) As of January 1, 2026, any 

person who performs first fill of fire 

suppression equipment, service (e.g., 

recharge) of fire suppression equipment, 

and/or recycles regulated substances 

recovered from fire suppression 

equipment, such as equipment 

manufacturers, distributors, agent 

suppliers, or installers that recycle 

regulated substances, must submit a 

report to EPA annually covering the 

prior year’s activity from January 1 

through December 31. The first annual 

report must be submitted to the Agency 

on February 14, 2027, and subsequent 

annual reports must be submitted by 

February 14 of each subsequent year. 

Each annual report must be submitted 

electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform. Each 

annual report must contain basic 

identification information (i.e., owner 

name, facility name, facility address 

where equipment is located) and the 

following information for each regulated 

substance: the quantity of material (the 

combined mass of regulated substance 

and contaminants) sold for the purpose 

of installation of new fire suppression 

equipment and servicing and/or repair 

of existing fire suppression equipment; 

the quantity of material (the combined 

mass of regulated substance and 

contaminants) in inventory onsite for 

the purpose of installation of new fire 

suppression equipment and servicing 

and/or repair of existing fire 

suppression equipment broken out by 

recovered, recycled, and virgin; the total 

mass of each regulated substance sold 

for the purpose of installation of new 

fire suppression equipment and 

servicing and/or repair of existing fire 

suppression equipment; the total mass 

of each regulated substance in inventory 

onsite for the purpose of installation of 

new fire suppression equipment and 

servicing and/or repair of existing fire 

suppression equipment broken out by 

recovered, recycled, and virgin; and the 

total mass of waste products the 

reporting entity sent for disposal, along 

with information about the disposal 

facility if waste is not processed by the 

reporting entity. A copy of the 

submitted reports must be maintained 

for three years in either electronic or 

paper format. If any entity reports 

information to EPA under § 84.31(j) that 

is also required to be reported under 

this paragraph, to the extent the 

information reported under § 84.31(j) 

overlaps with the information that must 

be reported under this paragraph, in lieu 

of reporting the same information twice, 

the entity may refer to the 

corresponding information reported 

under § 84.31(j) and explain how it 

satisfies the reporting requirements in 

completing the reporting under this 

paragraph. 

(2) As of January 1, 2026, any person 

who employs fire suppression 

technicians who service, repair, install, 

or dispose of fire suppression 

equipment containing regulated 

substances must maintain an electronic 

or paper copy of the fire suppression 

technician training used to meet the 

requirements in paragraph (d) of this 

section and make that copy available to 

EPA upon request. These entities must 

document that they have provided 

training to personnel as specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section and must 

maintain these records for three years 

after each training in either electronic or 

paper format. 

(3) As of January 1, 2026, owners and 

operators of fire suppression equipment 

containing regulated substances must 

maintain records documenting that 

regulated substances are recovered from 

the fire suppression equipment before it 

is sent for disposal as specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. Such 

records must be maintained for three 

years after the relevant equipment is 

sent for disposal in either electronic or 

paper format. 

§ 84.112 Reclamation. 

(a) Reclamation Standard. As of 

January 1, 2026, no person may sell, 

identify, or report refrigerant as being 

reclaimed for use in the installation, 

servicing, or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment if the regulated 

substance component of the resulting 

refrigerant contains more than 15 

percent, by weight, of virgin regulated 

substance. 

(b) Bona fide use. No person may sell, 

identify, or report refrigerant as being 

reclaimed if it contains any recovered 

regulated substance that has not had 

bona fide use in equipment, unless that 

refrigerant was removed from the heel 

or residue of a container that had a bona 

fide use in the servicing, repair, or 

installation of refrigerant-containing 

equipment. 

(c) Labeling. As of January 1, 2026, 

reclaimers certified under 40 CFR 

82.164 must affix a label to any 

container they fill that is being sold or 

distributed or offered for sale or 

distribution and that contains reclaimed 

regulated substances to certify that the 

contents do not exceed 15 percent, by 

weight, of virgin regulated substances. 

(1) The label must read: ‘‘The contents 

of this container do not exceed the limit 

of 15 percent, by weight, on virgin 

regulated substance per 40 CFR 

84.112(a).’’ 

(2) The label must be: 

(i) In English; 

(ii) Durable and printed or otherwise 

labeled on, or affixed to, an external 

surface of the container; 

(iii) Readily visible and legible; 

(iv) Able to withstand open weather 

exposure without a substantial 

reduction in visibility or legibility; and 

(v) Displayed on a background of 

contrasting color. 

(d) Recordkeeping. As of January 1, 

2026, reclaimers certified under 40 CFR 

82.164 must generate a record to certify 

that the reclaimed regulated 

substance(s) being used to fill a 

container that will be sold or distributed 

or offered for sale or distribution do not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82869 

exceed 15 percent, by weight, of virgin 

regulated substances. 

(1) The record must be generated 

electronically, in a format specified by 

EPA. 

(2) The record must contain the 

following information: 

(i) The name, address, contact person, 

email address, and phone number of the 

reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 82.164 

who is making the certification; 

(ii) The date the container was filled 

with reclaimed regulated substance(s); 

(iii) The amount and name of the 

regulated substance(s) in the 

container(s); 

(iv) Certification that the contents of 

the container are from a batch where the 

amount of virgin regulated substance(s) 

does not exceed 15 percent, by weight, 

of the total regulated substance(s); 

(v) The unique serial number 

associated with the container(s) filled 

from the batch; 

(vi) Identification of the batch of 

reclaimed regulated substance(s) used to 

fill the container(s); and 

(vii) The percent, by weight, of virgin 

regulated substance(s) in the batch used 

to fill the container(s). 

(3) The record must be maintained by 

the reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 

82.164 for three years. 

(e) Servicing and/or repair. As of 

January 1, 2029, the servicing and/or 

repair of refrigerant-containing 

equipment that contains a regulated 

substance must be done with reclaimed 

refrigerant that meets the requirements 

of 84.112(a)–(c) of this section if such 

equipment is in one or more of the 

following subsectors: 

(1) Supermarket systems; 

(2) Refrigerated transport; and 

(3) Automatic commercial ice makers. 

(f) Reporting. (1) Reclaimers, 

distributors, and wholesalers of 

reclaimed refrigerants that contain 

regulated substances that are sold or 

distributed for the intended purpose of 

servicing and/or repair of refrigerantcontaining equipment in the subsectors 

listed in paragraph (e) of this section 

must submit a report to EPA 

electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, by 

February 14, 2027, covering activity 

from January 1 through December 31, 

2026 and containing the following 

information: name and address of the 

company; contact person, email address, 

and phone number of the responsible 

party; the quantity of reclaimed 

refrigerant containing regulated 

substance(s) by the name and mass of 

reclaimed refrigerant(s); and indication 

of the specific subsector(s) where the 

reclaimed refrigerant(s) containing 

regulated substance(s) are sold or 

distributed. 

(2) Reclaimers, distributors, and 

wholesalers of reclaimed refrigerants 

that contain regulated substances that 

are sold or distributed for the intended 

purpose of servicing and/or repair of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in the 

subsectors listed in paragraph (e) of this 

section must submit a report to EPA 

electronically, using the Agency’s 

applicable reporting platform, by 

February 14, 2028, covering activity 

from January 1 through December 31, 

2027 and containing the following 

information: name and address of the 

company; contact person, email address, 

and phone number of the responsible 

party; the quantity of reclaimed 

refrigerant containing regulated 

substance(s) by the name and mass of 

reclaimed refrigerant(s); and indication 

of the specific subsector(s) where the 

reclaimed refrigerant(s) containing 

regulated substance(s) are sold or 

distributed. 

§ 84.114 Exemptions. 

(a) Notwithstanding the other 

provisions of this subpart, the 

regulations under this subpart do not 

apply to a regulated substance or a 

substitute for a regulated substance that 

is contained in a foam. 

(b) Notwithstanding the other 

provisions of this subpart, the 

regulations under this subpart do not 

apply to two applications, missioncritical military end uses and on board 

aerospace fire suppression, as listed at 

§ 84.13(a), for a year or years for which 

that application receives an applicationspecific allowance as defined at § 84.3. 

§ 84.116 Requirements for disposable 

cylinders. 

(a) As of January 1, 2028, any person 

who uses a disposable cylinder must 

send such disposable cylinder for 

further processing to remove the heel, as 

described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section, when: 

(1) The disposable cylinder contains a 

regulated substance(s); 

(2) The disposable cylinder was used 

in the servicing, repair, or installation of 

refrigerant-containing equipment or fire 

suppression equipment; and 

(3) The person does not intend to use 

the disposable cylinder in future 

servicing, repair, or installation of 

refrigerant-containing equipment or fire 

suppression equipment. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(e) and (g) in this section, disposable 

cylinders that meet the criteria in 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of 

this section must be sent to: 

(1) A reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 

82.164; 

(2) A fire suppressant recycler, if the 

disposable cylinder was used in the 

servicing, repair, or installation of fire 

suppression equipment; 

(3) A final processor, such as a 

landfill operator or a scrap metal 

recycler, who is capable of removing the 

heel from disposable cylinders; or 

(4) A refrigerant supplier (including 

but not limited to distributors and 

wholesalers), who is capable of 

removing the heel from disposable 

cylinders. 

(c) Regulated substance(s) removed 

from heels of disposable cylinders by 

those entities identified in paragraphs 

(b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section, where 

those removed heels are or are not 

aggregated into a larger container, must 

be sent to a reclaimer certified under 40 

CFR 82.164 or a fire suppressant 

recycler. 

(1) Regulated substance(s) removed 

from heels of disposable cylinders that 

exhibit ignitability characteristics (per 

40 CFR 261.21), where those removed 

heels are or are not aggregated into a 

larger container, must be sent to a 

reclaimer certified under 40 CFR 82.164 

that is in compliance with the 

requirements at 40 CFR part 266, 

subpart Q. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(d) As of January 1, 2028, an entity as 

described in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), 

(b)(3), or (b)(4) of this section who 

receives a disposable cylinder meeting 

the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 

and (a)(3) of this section must remove 

all remaining contents from the 

disposable cylinder prior to discarding 

the disposable cylinder. 

(e) Disposable cylinders that that meet 

the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 

and (a)(3) of this section may be 

discarded to a final processor without 

meeting the requirements in paragraphs 

(b) and (d) of this section, when: 

(1) The heel was removed by a 

certified technician; 

(2) The heel of the used disposable 

cylinder has been evacuated to a 

vacuum of 15 in-Hg prior to discarding 

the cylinder; 

(3) The certified technician provides a 

certification statement, which certifies 

that the heel was evacuated to a vacuum 

of 15 in-Hg; states the name and address 

of the certified technician who 

evacuated the cylinder(s) and the date 

the cylinder(s) was/were evacuated; and 

is signed by the certified technician who 

evacuated the cylinder(s); and 

(4) The certified technician discarding 

the cylinder to the final processor must 

provide the signed certification 

statement described in paragraph (e)(3) 

of this section to the final processor 

(which may include a landfill operator 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82870 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

or scrap metal recycler) when they 

discard the cylinder to the final 

processor. 

(f) Recordkeeping. A final processor 

who receives a disposable cylinder as 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section must maintain a record of the 

signed statement for three years. 

(g) Small cans of refrigerant that 

contain no more than two pounds of 

refrigerant and that qualify for the 

exemption described in 40 CFR 

82.154(c)(1)(ix) are not subject to the 

requirements in paragraphs (b) through 

(f) of this section. 

§ 84.118 Treatment of data submitted 

under 40 CFR part 84, subpart C 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in 

this section, 40 CFR 2.201 through 2.215 

and 2.301 do not apply to data 

submitted under this subpart that EPA 

has determined through rulemaking to 

be either of the following: 

(1) Emission data, as defined in 40 

CFR 2.301(a)(2), determined in 

accordance with section 114(c) and 

307(d) of the Clean Air Act; or 

(2) Data not otherwise entitled to 

confidential treatment. 

(b) Except as otherwise provided in 

paragraph (d) of this section, 40 CFR 

2.201 through 2.208 and 2.301(c) and (d) 

do not apply to data submitted under 

this subpart that EPA has determined 

through rulemaking to be entitled to 

confidential treatment. EPA shall treat 

that information as confidential in 

accordance with the provisions of 40 

CFR 2.211, subject to paragraph (d) of 

this section and 40 CFR 2.209. 

(c) Upon receiving a request under 5 

U.S.C. 552 for data submitted under this 

subpart that EPA has determined 

through rulemaking to be entitled to 

confidential treatment, the relevant 

Agency official shall furnish the 

requestor a notice that the information 

has been determined to be entitled to 

confidential treatment and that the 

request is therefore denied. The notice 

shall include or cite to the appropriate 

EPA determination. 

(d) A determination made through 

rulemaking that information submitted 

under this subpart is entitled to 

confidential treatment shall continue in 

effect unless, subsequent to the 

confidentiality determination through 

rulemaking, EPA takes one of the 

following actions: 

(1) EPA determines through a 

subsequent rulemaking that the 

information is emission data or data not 

otherwise entitled to confidential 

treatment; or 

(2) The Office of General Counsel 

issues a final determination, based on 

the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), 

stating that the information is no longer 

entitled to confidential treatment 

because of change in the applicable law 

or newly discovered or changed facts. 

Prior to making such final 

determination, EPA shall afford the 

business an opportunity to submit 

comments on pertinent issues in the 

manner described by 40 CFR 2.204(e) 

and 2.205(b). If, after consideration of 

any timely comments submitted by the 

business, the Office of General Counsel 

makes a revised final determination that 

the information is not entitled to 

confidential treatment, the relevant 

agency official will notify the business 

in accordance with the procedures 

described in 40 CFR 2.205(f)(2). 

§ 84.120 Relationship to other laws. 

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. 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, 6924(y), and 6938. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 4. In § 261.6, revise paragraph (a)(2) 

introductory text, and add paragraph 

(a)(2)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 261.6 Requirements for recyclable 

materials. 

(a) * * * 

(2) The following recyclable materials 

are not subject to the requirements of 

this section but are regulated under 

subparts C through Q of part 266 of this 

chapter and all applicable provisions in 

parts 268, 270, and 124 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(v) Ignitable spent refrigerants 

recycled for reuse (40 CFR part 266, 

subpart Q). 

* * * * * 

Subpart M—Emergency Preparedness 

and Response for Management of 

Excluded Hazardous Secondary 

Materials 

■ 5. In § 261.400, revise the introductory 

text and add paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 261.400 Applicability. 

The requirements of this subpart 

apply to (1) those areas of an entity 

managing hazardous secondary 

materials excluded under § 261.4(a)(23) 

and/or (24) where such materials are 

generated or accumulated on site, and 

(2) facilities regulated under the 

standards at 40 CFR part 266, subpart Q 

that receive ignitable spent refrigerant 

from off-site and that are not transfer 

facilities that store the refrigerants for 

less than ten (10) days. 

* * * * * 

(c) Facilities receiving refrigerant from 

off-site under 40 CFR part 266, subpart 

Q that are not transfer facilities that 

store the refrigerants for less than ten 

(10) days must comply with §§ 261.410 

and 261.420. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 261.420, revise the section 

heading and introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 261.420 Contingency planning and 

emergency procedures for facilities 

generating or accumulating more than 6,000 

kg of hazardous secondary material or 

receiving ignitable spent refrigerants 

A generator or an intermediate or 

reclamation facility that generates or 

accumulates more than 6,000 kg of 

hazardous secondary material, or a 

facility receiving refrigerant from off-site 

under 40 CFR part 266, subpart Q, that 

is not a transfer facility that stores the 

refrigerants for less than ten (10) days 

must comply with the following 

requirements: 

* * * * * 

PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE 

TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 262 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922– 

6925, 6937, 6938 and 6939g. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 8. In § 262.14, revise paragraph 

(a)(5)(vi) to read as follows: 

§ 262.14 Conditions for exemption for a 

very small quantity generator. 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(vi) A facility which: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82871 

(A)(1) Beneficially uses or reuses, or 

legitimately recycles or reclaims its 

waste; or 

(2) Treats its waste prior to beneficial 

use or reuse, or legitimate recycling or 

reclamation; and 

(B) For ignitable spent refrigerants 

regulated under 40 CFR part 266 subpart 

Q, meets the requirements of that 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC 

HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC 

TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 266 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1006, 2002(a), 3001– 

3009, 3014, 3017, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 

6922, 6924–6927, 6934, and 6937. 

■ 10. Add subpart Q, consisting of 

§§ 266.600 through 266.602, to read as 

follows: 

Subpart Q—Ignitable Spent 

Refrigerants Recycled for Reuse 

Sec. 

266.600 Purpose and applicability. 

266.601 Definitions for this subpart. 

266.602 Standards for ignitable spent 

refrigerant recycled for reuse under this 

subpart. 

§ 266.600 Purpose and applicability. 

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to 

reduce emissions of ignitable spent 

refrigerants to the lowest achievable 

level by maximizing the recovery and 

safe recycling for reuse of such 

refrigerants during the service, repair, 

and disposal of appliances. 

(b) The requirements of this subpart 

operate in lieu of parts 260 through 270 

of this chapter and apply to lower 

flammability spent refrigerants, as 

defined in § 266.601, where the 

refrigerant exhibits the hazardous waste 

characteristic of ignitability per § 261.21 

of this chapter and is being recycled for 

reuse in the United States. 

(c) These requirements do not apply 

to other ignitable spent refrigerants. 

Ignitable spent refrigerants not subject 

to this subpart are subject to all 

applicable requirements of parts 260 

through 270 of this chapter when 

recovered (i.e., removed from an 

appliance and stored in an external 

container) and/or disposed of. 

§ 266.601 Definitions for this subpart. 

For the purposes of this subpart, the 

following terms have the meanings 

given below: 

(a) Refrigerant has the same meaning 

as defined in 40 CFR 82.152. 

(b) Ignitable spent refrigerant is a used 

refrigerant that cannot be reused 

without first being processed, and that 

exhibits the hazardous characteristic of 

ignitability per § 261.21 of this chapter. 

Used refrigerants that can be 

legitimately reused without processing 

are not spent refrigerant. 

(c) Recycle for reuse, when referring 

to an ignitable spent refrigerant, means 

to process the refrigerant to remove 

contamination and prepare it to be used 

again. ‘‘Recycle for reuse’’ does not 

include recycling that involves burning 

for energy recovery or use in a manner 

constituting disposal as defined in 

§ 261.2(c) of this chapter, or sham 

recycling as defined in § 261.2(g) of this 

chapter. 

(d) Lower flammability spent 

refrigerant means a spent refrigerant 

that is not considered highly flammable. 

Highly flammable refrigerants include 

but are not limited to the following 

chemicals: butane, isobutane, methane, 

propane, and/or propylene. 

§ 266.602 Standards for ignitable spent 

refrigerant recycled for reuse under this 

subpart. 

(a) Persons who recover (i.e., remove 

from an appliance and store in an 

external container) and/or recycle 

ignitable spent refrigerants for reuse 

either for further use in equipment of 

the same owner, or in compliance with 

motor vehicle air conditioner (MVAC) 

standards in 40 CFR part 82, subpart B, 

or who send recovered refrigerant offsite to be recycled for reuse must: 

(1) Recover and/or recycle for reuse 

the ignitable spent refrigerant using 

equipment that is certified for that type 

of refrigerant and appliance under 

§§ 82.36 and/or 82.158 of this chapter; 

and 

(2) Not speculatively accumulate the 

ignitable spent refrigerant per § 261.1(c) 

of this chapter. 

(b) Persons who receive ignitable 

spent refrigerants from off-site, and are 

not a transfer facility that stores the 

refrigerants for less than ten (10) days 

before sending the refrigerant to another 

site to be recycled for reuse, must: 

(1) If recovering the refrigerant, 

recover the ignitable spent refrigerant 

using equipment that is certified for that 

type of refrigerant and appliance under 

§ 82.36 of this chapter; 

(2) Meet the applicable emergency 

preparedness and response 

requirements of 40 CFR part 261, 

subpart M; and 

(3) Not speculatively accumulate the 

ignitable spent refrigerant per § 261.1(c) 

of this chapter. 

(c) Persons receiving ignitable spent 

refrigerant from off-site to be recycled 

for reuse under this subpart must: 

(1) Maintain certification by EPA 

under § 82.164 of this chapter; 

(2) Meet the applicable emergency 

preparedness and response 

requirements of 40 CFR part 261, 

subpart M; and 

(3) Starting with the calendar year 

beginning January 1, 2029, not 

speculatively accumulate the ignitable 

spent refrigerant per § 261.1(c) of this 

chapter. 

PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED 

PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE 

HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT 

PROGRAM 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 270 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 

6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974. 

Subpart A—General Information 

■ 12. In § 270.1, add paragraph (c)(2)(xi) 

to read as follows: 

§ 270.1 Purpose and scope of the 

regulations in this part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(xi) Recyclers of ignitable spent 

refrigerants subject to regulation under 

40 CFR part 266, subpart Q. 

* * * * * 

PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

AUTHORIZATION OF STATE 

HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 271 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926, 

and 6939g. 

Subpart A—Requirements for Final 

Authorization 

■ 14. In § 271.1 amend paragraph (j)(2) 

by: 

■ a. In table 1 adding the entry 

‘‘December 10, 2024’’ in chronological 

order. 

■ b. In table 2 adding the entry 

‘‘December 10, 2024’’ in chronological 

order. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(2) * * * 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
82872 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date 

*******

December 10, 2024 ...................... Standards for the Management of 

Ignitable Spent Refrigerants Recycled for Reuse.

[Federal Register citation of the 

final rule].

[Date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register]. 

1These regulations implement HSWA only to the extent that they apply to tank systems owned or operated by small quantity generators, establish leak detection requirements for all new underground tank systems, and establish permitting standards for underground tank systems that 

cannot be entered for inspection. 2These regulations, including test methods for benzo(k)fluoranthene and technical standards for drip pads, implement HSWA only to the extent 

that they apply to the listing of Hazardous Waste No. F032, and wastes that are hazardous because they exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic. 

These regulations, including test methods for benzo(k)fluoranthene and technical standards for drip pads, do not implement HSWA to the extent 

that they apply to the listings of Hazardous Waste Nos. F034 and F035. 3The following portions of this rule are not HSWA regulations: §§ 264.19 and 265.19 for final covers. 

4The following portions of this rule are not HSWA regulations: §§ 260.30, 260.31, 261.2. 

5These regulations implement HSWA only to the extent that they apply to the standards for staging piles and to §§ 264.1(j) and 264.101(d) of 

this chapter. 

TABLE 2—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 

Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation Federal Register reference 

*******

December 10, 2024 ...................... Standards for the Management of 

Ignitable Spent Refrigerants Recycled for Reuse.

3001(d)(4) 3004(n) ........................ [Federal Register citation of the 

final rule]. 

1 Note that the effective date was changed to Jan. 29, 1986 by the Nov. 29, 1985 rule. 

2 Note that the effective date was changed to Sept. 22, 1986 by the Mar. 24, 1986 rule. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21967 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2