[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73098-73212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22529]
[[Page 73097]]
Vol. 88
Tuesday,
No. 204
October 24, 2023
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 84
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of Certain
Hydrofluorocarbons Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act
of 2020; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 73098]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 84
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643; FRL-8831-02-OAR]
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of
Certain Hydrofluorocarbons Under the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing
regulations to implement certain provisions of the American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act, as enacted on December 27, 2020. This rulemaking
restricts the use of hydrofluorocarbons in specific sectors or
subsectors in which they are used; establishes a process for submitting
technology transitions petitions; establishes recordkeeping and
reporting requirements; and addresses certain other elements related to
the effective implementation of the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act. These restrictions on the use of hydrofluorocarbons
address petitions granted on October 7, 2021, and September 19, 2022.
DATES: This rule is effective December 26, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Cain, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Atmospheric Protection (Mail Code 6205A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1566; email address:
[email protected]. You may also visit EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction for further information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' ``the Agency,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Acronyms and
abbreviations that are used in this rulemaking that may be helpful
include:
AC--Air Conditioning
ACIM--Automatic Commercial Ice Machine
AHAM--Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
AHRI--Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
AIM Act--American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020
ANSI--American National Standards Institute
AR4--Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
CAA--Clean Air Act
CARB--California Air Resources Board
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CBP--U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CDR--Chemical Data Reporting
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CH4--Methane
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
DOE--U.S. Department of Energy
DX--Direct Expansion
EAV--Equivalent Annualized Value
e-GGRT--Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
EEAP--Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency
EPA--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FDA--U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FR--Federal Register
GDP--Gross Domestic Product
GHG--Greenhouse Gas
GHGRP--Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
GWP--Global Warming Potential
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HCFO--Hydrochlorofluoroolefin
HCPA--Household and Commercial Products Association
HD--Heavy-duty
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
IAM--Integrated Assessment Model
IAPMO--International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical
Officials
ICC--International Code Council
ICR--Information Collection Request
IIAR--International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
IPR--Industrial Process Refrigeration
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IT--Information Technology
ITEF--Information Technology Equipment Facilities
IWG--Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases
LD--Light-duty
LFL--Lower Flammability Limit
MAC--Marginal Abatement Cost
MDPV--Medium-duty Passenger Vehicle
MMTCO2e--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MMTEVe--Million Metric Tons of Exchange Value Equivalent
MVAC--Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
MY--Model Year
N2O--Nitrous oxide
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NAMA--National Automatic Merchandising Association
NATA--National Air Toxics Assessment
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NRTL--Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
OEM--Original Equipment Manufacturer
ODS--Ozone-depleting Substance
OMB--U.S. Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFAS--Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PFC--Perfluorocarbon
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
PTAC--Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner
PTHP--Packaged Terminal Heat Pump
PV--Present Value
RACHP--Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA--Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTOC--Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical
Options Committee
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SC-GHG--Social Cost of GHGs
SC-HFCs--Social Costs of Hydrofluorocarbons
SF6--Sulfur Hexafluoride
SMRE--Semiconductor Manufacturing and Related Equipment
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
TEAP--Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
TFA--Trifluoroacetic Acid
TLV-TWA--Threshold Limit Value-Time-Weighted Average
TOC--Technical Options Committee
TRI--Toxics Release Inventory
TSD--Technical Support Document
UL--Underwriters Laboratories Inc
VOCs--Volatile Organic Compounds
VRF--Variable Refrigerant Flow
WMO--World Meteorological Organization
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. What is the purpose of this regulatory action?
B. What is the summary of this regulatory action?
C. What is the summary of the costs and benefits of this action?
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?
III. Background
A. What are HFCs?
B. How do HFCs affect public health and welfare?
IV. What is the petition process under the technology transitions
program?
A. What must be included in a technology transitions petition?
B. What happens after a petition is submitted?
C. Can I revise or resubmit my petition?
V. How is EPA considering negotiated rulemaking?
A. Summary of the AIM Act's Directive on Negotiated Rulemaking
B. How does EPA intend to consider negotiating with stakeholders
under the AIM Act?
VI. How is EPA restricting the use of HFCs?
A. What definitions is EPA establishing in subsection (i)?
B. How is EPA restricting the use of HFCs in the sector or
subsector in which they are used?
C. Applicability
1. What is EPA's statutory authority for this action?
2. What uses is EPA restricting in this rule?
3. What uses are not covered in the final rule?
[[Page 73099]]
D. How is EPA addressing restrictions on the use of HFCs
requested in petitions granted?
1. Petitions Granted on October 7, 2021
2. How is EPA addressing additional petitions that cover similar
sectors and subsectors?
3. Petitions Granted on September 19, 2022
E. Subsection (i)(4) Factors for Determination
1. How is EPA considering best available data?
2. How is EPA considering the availability of substitutes?
3. How is EPA considering overall economic costs and
environmental impacts, as compared to historical trends?
4. How is EPA considering the remaining phasedown period for
regulated substances?
5. How did EPA determine the degree of the restrictions for each
sector and subsector?
F. For which sectors and subsectors is EPA establishing
restrictions on the use of HFCs?
1. Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps
2. Foams
3. Aerosols
VII. What are the labeling requirements?
VIII. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
A. What reporting is EPA requiring?
1. What is the frequency and timing of reporting?
2. When do reporters need to begin reporting?
B. What recordkeeping is EPA requiring?
IX. What are the costs and benefits of this action?
A. Assessment of Costs and Additional Benefits Utilizing
Transition Options
B. Scoping Analysis of Imports of Products
X. How is EPA evaluating environmental justice?
XI. Judicial Review
XII. Severability
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
Incorporation by Reference
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. Executive Summary
A. What is the purpose of this regulatory action?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing
regulations to implement certain provisions of the American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act of 2020, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7675 (AIM Act or
the Act). The AIM Act authorizes EPA to address hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) in three main ways: phasing down HFC production and consumption
through an allowance allocation program; \1\ promulgating certain
regulations for purposes of maximizing reclamation and minimizing
releases of HFCs from equipment; and facilitating sector-based
transitions to next-generation technologies. This rulemaking focuses on
the third area--facilitating the transition to next-generation
technologies by restricting use of HFCs in the sectors or subsectors in
which they are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA has issued regulations establishing and codifying a
framework for phasing down HFC production and consumption through an
allowance allocation program, ``Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons:
Establishing the Allowance Allocation and Trading Program Under the
American Innovation and Manufacturing Act'' (86 FR 55116, October 5,
2021). That rule is referred to as the ``Allocation Framework Rule''
throughout this document. EPA finalized a separate rulemaking to
update certain aspects of that regulatory framework (see final rule
at 88 FR 46836, July 20, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsection (i) of the Act, entitled ``Technology Transitions,''
authorizes EPA, by rulemaking, to restrict the use of regulated
substances (used interchangeably with ``HFCs'' in this document) in
sectors or subsectors where the regulated substances are used.\2\ The
Act also includes provisions for the public to petition EPA to initiate
such a rulemaking. On October 7, 2021, and September 19, 2022, EPA
granted 12 petitions and partially granted one petition (hereby
referred to as ``granted petitions'') requesting restrictions on the
use of HFCs in various sectors and subsectors (86 FR 57141, October 14,
2021). The Act directs EPA to promulgate a final rule within two years
after the date on which the Agency grants a petition. This rulemaking,
in part, addresses the granted petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Act lists 18 saturated HFCs, and by reference any of
their isomers not so listed, that are covered by the statute's
provisions, referred to as ``regulated substances'' under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking further addresses the framework for how EPA intends
to implement its authority to restrict the use of HFCs in sectors and
subsectors where they are used. It includes provisions to support
implementation of, compliance with, and enforcement of statutory and
regulatory requirements under subsection (i) of the Act. To provide the
public with additional information about this new program, this
document also includes a description of how EPA intends to implement
certain aspects of the program, such as the processing of petitions to
restrict the use of HFCs in sectors and subsectors in which they are
used under subsection (i) of the Act.
B. What is the summary of this regulatory action?
EPA is establishing the process and information requirements for
submitting petitions under subsection (i) of the AIM Act and describing
how the Agency intends to evaluate those petitions. Upon receiving a
petition, the Agency will consider, to the extent practicable, the
factors listed in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act in making a
determination to grant or deny the petition. Consistent with the Act,
EPA considered these factors to the extent practicable in establishing
the restrictions on the use of HFCs in this rulemaking.
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs, whether neat or used in a
blend, with high global warming potentials (GWPs) within the
refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pump (RACHP), foam, and
aerosol sectors. EPA is prohibiting the manufacture, import, or
installation of certain equipment across approximately 40 subsectors,
either based on overall GWP limits or restrictions on use of specific
HFCs. The compliance dates for these restrictions vary depending on the
subsector ranging from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2028. The final
rule prohibits the sale, distribution, and export of factory completed
products that do not comply with the relevant restrictions three years
after the prohibition on manufacture and import. EPA is not regulating
at this time actions with respect to components needed to service or
repair existing systems. EPA is finalizing labeling, annual reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements for products and specified components
that are imported or domestically manufactured that use or are intended
to use an HFC.
C. What is the summary of the costs and benefits of this action?
EPA is providing a summary of the costs and benefits of restricting
use of HFCs consistent with this rule. The full analyses, presented in
the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020--Subsection
(i)(4) Factors for Determination: Costs and Environmental Impacts,
referred to in
[[Page 73100]]
this preamble as the Costs and Environmental Impacts technical support
document (TSD) and in a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) addendum to
the Allocation Framework RIA, are contained in the docket to this rule.
These analyses--as summarized below--highlight economic costs and
benefits, including benefits from HFC consumption and emission
reductions.
EPA relied on previous analyses conducted for the Allocation
Framework Rule (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021) and the 2024 Allocation
Rule, ``Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Allowance Allocation
Methodology for 2024 and Later Years'' (88 FR 46836, July 20, 2023), as
a starting point for the assessment of costs and benefits of this rule.
In this way, EPA analyzed the incremental impacts of this rule,
attributing benefits only insofar as they are additional to those
already assessed in the Allocation Framework RIA and 2024 Allocation
Rule RIA addendum (collectively referred to as ``Allocation Rules'' in
this discussion.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In a separate action, EPA has also issued a rule to amend
the production baseline downwards by 0.005% to reflect corrected
data (88 FR 44220, July 12, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional benefits of this rule relative to the Allocation
Rules may vary depending on the mix and timing of industry transitions
made to achieve compliance in affected subsectors. In its analysis of
the Allocation Rules, EPA estimated that regulated entities would adopt
specific technology transition options to achieve compliance with the
statutory allowance cap step-downs. Industry is already making many of
these transitions, and we expect that achieving the allowance cap step-
downs will require many of the same subsector-specific technology
transitions that are also required by this rule. However, this rule may
in some cases require regulated entities to further accelerate
transitions in specific subsectors, relative to what EPA previously
assumed in its analysis of the Allocation Rules. Conversely, entities
in a discrete set of subsectors not covered by this rule could
conceivably forgo or delay adopting abatement options that were assumed
to be undertaken to comply with the Allocation Rules.
Given this uncertainty, EPA analyzed two scenarios to represent the
range of potential incremental impacts resulting from this rule: a
``base case'' and ``high additionality case.'' Both scenarios use the
results from the Allocation Framework Rule as a starting point and
count benefits in terms of reductions of consumption and emissions only
in cases where this rule results in additional reductions in HFC
consumption. The ``base case'' represents a conservative assessment of
benefits and assumes that any industry activity not necessary for
compliance is excluded. In other words, the scenario excludes
consumption reductions not covered by a GWP restriction in this rule.
By contrast, the ``high additionality case'' is a less conservative
scenario and assumes that HFC consumption reduction activities not
covered by this rule would remain consistent with the Allocation
Framework Rule reference scenario (i.e., neither increase nor decrease
in response to this rule). Based on the results of these two scenarios,
which are detailed further in the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD
and the RIA addendum, EPA estimates that additional emission reductions
through 2050 would range from an annual average of 3 to 34 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) \4\ in
the base case and high additionality case, respectively. These emission
reductions generally lag the anticipated incremental consumption
reductions, which range from an annual average of 28 to 43
MMTCO2e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The exchange values provided in the AIM Act are numerically
equivalent to the 100-year integrated global warming potentials
provided in IPCC (2007). EPA provides values in CO2e and
notes that the same values would be used if expressed in exchange
value equivalents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 summarizes the reductions in both consumption and emissions
as described in the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD and the RIA
addendum for this final rule. The table shows the cumulative
incremental reductions--that is, the difference in reductions compared
with the Allocation Framework Rule reference scenario--from the final
rule over the time period 2025 through 2050. Both the base case and
high additionality case results show a net reduction in consumption and
emissions on a cumulative basis through 2050.
Table 1--Incremental Consumption and Emission Reductions in the Technology Transitions Rule Base Case and High
Additionality Case Compared to the Allocation Rule Reference Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative incremental consumption reductions (MMTCO2e)-- Cumulative incremental emission reductions (MMTCO2e)--
2025-2050 2025-2050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology transitions rule Technology transitions high Technology transitions Technology transitions
base case additionality case rule base case high additionality case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
720 1,113 83 876
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the base case is a reasonable projection of the potential
impacts of this rule, there is reason to believe that it is a
conservative one, and that the incremental emission reductions
associated with this final rule could be far greater than reflected in
the base case scenario. Previous regulatory programs to reduce chemical
use in the affected industries show that regulated entities do not
limit their response to the required compliance level; rather,
regulated entities may take additional actions that transform industry
practices for various reasons, including the anticipation of future
restrictions, strengthening their competitive position, and supporting
overall environmental goals. For example, U.S. production and
consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) during their phaseout
was consistently below the limits established under the Montreal
Protocol. For this reason, the high additionality case assumes certain
abatement options not covered by the final rule--but which were assumed
in the prior accounting of benefits for the Allocation Rules--continue
to be undertaken. Based on the two scenarios, on a cumulative basis
this rule is expected to yield incremental emission reductions ranging
from 83 to 876 MMTCO2e through 2050 (respectively, about 2
percent and 20 percent of the total emission reductions over that same
time period in the Allocation Rules analyses). In the RIA addendum, we
estimate the present value of these
[[Page 73101]]
incremental benefits to be between $3.01 billion and $50.4 billion in
2020 dollars.
EPA also estimates that this rule will result in potentially lower
compliance costs relative to those previously assessed for the
Allocation Rules. These additional savings stem largely from assumed
energy efficiency gains and lower cost refrigerants associated with the
technological transitions necessary to meet the requirements.\5\ The
present value of cumulative incremental costs or savings from 2025-2050
is estimated to be between $1 million in costs and $2.1 billion in
savings, when using a 7 percent discount rate, or between $1.6 billion
and $4.5 billion in savings, when using a 3 percent discount rate (in
2020 dollars). As with EPA's estimates of benefits for this rule, these
estimated costs or savings reflect only what is incremental to EPA's
previously estimated compliance pathway for the Allocation Rules.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As discussed in the RIA Addendum, incremental savings
estimated for this rule stem largely from more rapid and more
comprehensive transitions to cost-saving, lower-GWP technologies in
certain subsectors than was previously estimated for the HFC
Allocation Framework Rule. Similarly comprehensive transitions were
not assumed in the Allocation Rules analysis, since it assumed
that--absent regulatory requirements--newer technologies may still
face some industry inertia and shift less rapidly regardless of
potential energy savings or other benefits over time.
\6\ In the 2024 Allocation Rule RIA Addendum, EPA estimated
present value net savings for the period of 2022-2050 of $9 billion
discounted at 3 percent and $4.8 billion at 7 percent, in 2020
dollars, discounted to 2022. Estimated net savings for the TT Rule
are incremental to these prior estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 summarizes key findings from the RIA addendum, including
the present value (PV) and equivalent annualized value (EAV) of
cumulative incremental climate benefits, costs, and net benefits of
this rule over the 2025-2050 time period. Climate benefits are
discounted at 3 percent, and costs are presented using both a 3 percent
and 7 percent discount rate. The climate benefits and net benefits
findings were not used for decisional purposes and are provided for
informational and illustrative purposes only.
Table 2--PV and EAV of Cumulative Incremental Climate Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for 2025 Through 2050
[Millions of 2020$, discounted to 2022] a b c d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base case High additionality case
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Annual costs Net benefits (3% Incremental Annual costs Net benefits (3%
climate (negative values are benefits, 3% or 7% climate (negative values are benefits, 3% or 7%
Discount rate benefits savings) costs) \e\ benefits savings) costs) \e\
(3%) -------------------------------------------- (3%) -------------------------------------------
------------- -------------
3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV.................................... $3,013 ($4,549) ($2,073) $7,561 $5,086 $50,406 ($1,601) $1 $52,007 $50,405
EAV................................... 184 (278) (215) 462 399 3,081 (98) 0 3,179 3,081
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits include only those related to climate. Climate benefits are based on changes in HFC emissions and are calculated using four different
estimates of the SC-HFCs (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). For
purposes of this table, we show the effects associated with the model average at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not have a single
central SC-HFC point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-HFC estimates. As
discussed in Chapter 5 of the RIA addendum a consideration of climate effects calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and
lower, is also warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts.
\b\ Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
\c\ The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated as if they occur over a 26-year period from 2025 to 2050.
\d\ The PV for the 7% net benefits column is found by taking the difference between the PV of climate benefits at 3% and the PV of costs discounted at
7%. Due to the intergenerational nature of climate impacts the social rate of return to capital, estimated to be 7 percent in Office of Management and
Budget's Circular A-4, is not appropriate for use in calculating PV of climate benefits.
Some of the information regarding projected impacts of this rule,
including cost estimates and anticipated environmental impacts, was
considered by EPA in its assessment of certain factors listed in
subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act.\7\ The cost and benefit information
relied upon by EPA in its consideration of the subsection (i)(4)
factors is compiled in the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD. As
discussed in section VI.E, EPA chose to use certain cost and
environmental benefit information that it had generated in conducting
its RIA addendum in considering certain factors under subsection
(i)(4), but we expect that in future rulemakings we may consider
different types of information to address the (i)(4) factors. In
assessing the (i)(4) factors for this rule, as summarized in the Costs
and Environmental Impacts TSD, EPA considered estimates of costs of the
action, without incorporating the social costs of HFCs (SC-HFCs), and
estimates of cumulative consumption and emission reductions for 2025-
2050 of 720 to 1,113 MMTCO2e and 83 to 876
MMTCO2e, respectively. The analysis demonstrates net
positive incremental environmental impacts (i.e., HFC consumption and
emission reductions) and cost savings relative to the compliance
pathway evaluated for the Allocation Rules. However, there was no
specific quantitative threshold for positive incremental impacts used
to evaluate the subsection (i)(4) factors. Rather, in its review, to
the extent practicable, of the overall economic costs and environmental
impacts, as compared to historical trends, the Agency issued the final
restrictions after considering the general findings that: a) there are
in fact positive incremental impacts expected from this rule, and b)
that the overall impact of the regulations implemented under the AIM
Act to date (including both the Allocation Rules and this rule) remains
net positive in terms of overall costs and environmental impacts.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act contains a list of factors
that the statute directs EPA to consider, to the extent practicable,
when carrying out a rulemaking or making a determination to grant or
deny a petition.
\8\ We note, however, that subsection (i)(4)(C) plainly does not
require a finding that the environmental impacts of a rule exceed
the economic costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although EPA is using SC-HFCs for purposes of some of the analysis
in the RIA addendum, this action does not rely on those estimates of
these costs as a record basis for the Agency action, and EPA would
reach this rule's conclusions even in the absence of the social costs
of HFCs.
Additional information on this analysis can be found in section IX
of this preamble and in the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD and RIA
addendum contained in the docket.
[[Page 73102]]
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this rule if you manufacture,
import, export, sell, distribute, or install equipment that uses or is
intended to use HFCs, such as refrigeration and air-conditioning
systems, foams, and aerosols. Potentially affected categories, by North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, are included in
Table 3.
Table 3--NAICS Classification of Potentially Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code NAICS industry description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
238220................... Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning
Contractors.
311812................... Commercial Bakeries.
321999................... All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product
Manufacturing.
322299................... All Other Converted Paper Product
Manufacturing.
324191................... Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease
Manufacturing.
324199................... All Other Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing.
325199................... All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing.
325211................... Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing.
325412................... Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing.
325414................... Biological Product (except Diagnostic)
Manufacturing.
325998................... All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and
Preparation Manufacturing.
326150................... Urethane and Other Foam Product.
326299................... All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing.
327999................... All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral
Product Manufacturing.
332812................... Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and
Silverware), and Allied Services to
Manufacturers.
332999................... All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal
Product Manufacturing.
333415................... Air[dash]Conditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and Industrial
Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.
333511................... Industrial Mold Manufacturing.
333912................... Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing.
333999................... All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose
Machinery Manufacturing.
334419................... Other Electronic Component Manufacturing.
335220................... Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.
336120................... Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing.
336212................... Truck Trailer Manufacturing.
336214................... Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing.
3363..................... Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing.
3364..................... Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing.
336411................... Aircraft Manufacturing.
336611................... Ship Building and Repairing.
336612................... Boat Building.
336992................... Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank
Component Manufacturing.
337214................... Office Furniture (Except Wood) Manufacturing.
339112................... Surgical and Medical Instrument
Manufacturing.
339113................... Surgical Appliance and Supplies
Manufacturing.
339999................... All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing.
423120................... Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant
Wholesalers.
423450................... Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and
Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
423610................... Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring
Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant
Wholesalers.
423620................... Household Appliances, Electric Housewares,
and Consumer Electronics Merchant
Wholesalers.
423690................... Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant
Wholesalers.
423720................... Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies
(Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers.
423730................... Warm Air Heating and Air[dash]Conditioning
Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
423740................... Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers.
423830................... Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant
Wholesalers.
423840................... Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
423850................... Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies
Merchant Wholesalers.
423860................... Transportation Equipment and Supplies (except
Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers.
423990................... Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant
Wholesalers.
424690................... Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant
Wholesalers.
424820................... Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage
Merchant Wholesalers.
443142................... Electronics Stores.
444190................... Other Building Material Dealers.
445110................... Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except
Convenience) Stores.
445131................... Convenience Retailers.
445298................... All Other Specialty Food Retailers.
449210................... Appliance Stores, Household-Type.
453998................... All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers
(except Tobacco Stores).
45711.................... Gasoline Stations With Convenience Stores.
481111................... Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
531120................... Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except
Miniwarehouses).
541330................... Engineering Services.
541380................... Testing Laboratories.
541512................... Computer Systems Design Services.
541519................... Other Computer Related Services.
541620................... Environmental Consulting Services.
562111................... Solid Waste Collection.
[[Page 73103]]
562211................... Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal.
562920................... Materials Recovery Facilities.
621498................... All Other Outpatient Care Centers.
621999................... All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health
Care Services.
72111.................... Hotels (Except Casino Hotels) and Motels.
72112.................... Casino Hotels.
72241.................... Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages).
722513................... Limited-Service Restaurants.
722514................... Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets.
722515................... Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars.
81119.................... Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance.
811219................... Other Electronic and Precision Equipment
Repair and Maintenance.
811412................... Appliance Repair and Maintenance.
922160................... Fire Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA expects could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
entity may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the regulatory text at the end of this document. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?
On December 27, 2020, the AIM Act was enacted as section 103 in
Division S, Innovation for the Environment, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7675). Subsection
(k)(1)(C) of the Act provides that Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 113,
114, 304, and 307 apply to the AIM Act and any regulations EPA
promulgates under the AIM Act as though the AIM Act were part of title
VI of the CAA. Accordingly, this rulemaking is subject to CAA section
307(d) (see 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(I)) (CAA section 307(d) applies to
``promulgation or revision of regulations under subchapter VI of this
chapter (relating to stratosphere and ozone protection)'').
The AIM Act authorizes EPA to address HFCs by providing new
authorities in three main areas: phasing down the production and
consumption of listed HFCs; managing these HFCs and their substitutes;
and facilitating the transition to next-generation technologies by
restricting use of these HFCs in the sector or subsectors in which they
are used. This rulemaking focuses on the third area: the transition to
next-generation technologies by restricting use of these HFCs in the
sector or subsectors in which they are used.
In subsection (k)(1)(A), the AIM Act provides EPA with the
authority to promulgate necessary regulations to carry out EPA's
functions under the Act, including its obligations to ensure that the
Act's requirements are satisfied. Subsection (i) of the AIM Act,
``Technology Transitions,'' provides that ``the Administrator may by
rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a graduated schedule, the use of
a regulated substance in the sector or subsector in which the regulated
substance is used.'' 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(1). The Act lists 18 saturated
HFCs, and by reference any of their isomers not so listed, that are
covered by the statute's provisions, referred to as ``regulated
substances'' under the Act.\9\ (42 U.S.C. 7675(c)(1)). EPA is also
authorized to designate additional substances that meet certain
criteria as regulated substances (42 U.S.C. 7675(c)(3)). EPA has not so
designated any additional substances, and the list of 18 regulated
substances can also be found in appendix A of 40 CFR part 84. Through
this rule, EPA is restricting the use of certain HFCs, whether neat or
used in a blend, in specific sectors or subsectors, based on EPA's
consideration of the factors listed in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As noted previously in this document, ``regulated
substance'' and ``HFC'' are used interchangeably in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rulemaking restricting the use of regulated substances in sectors
or subsectors can be initiated by EPA on its own accord, or a person
may petition EPA to promulgate such a rule. Specifically, subsection
(i)(3)(A) states, ``A person may petition the Administrator to
promulgate a rule under [subsection (i)(1)] for the restriction on use
of a regulated substance in a sector or subsector.'' Where the Agency
grants such a petition submitted under subsection (i), the statute
requires that ``the Administrator shall promulgate a final rule not
later than 2 years after the date on which the Administrator grants the
petition.'' (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)(C)(ii)). This rule addresses the
granted petitions under subsection (i).
Furthermore, prior to proposing a rule, subsection (i)(2)(A)
directs EPA to consider negotiating with stakeholders in the sector or
subsector subject to the potential rule in accordance with negotiated
rulemaking procedures established under subchapter III of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code (5 U.S.C. 563, commonly known as the
``Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990''). A brief discussion on EPA's
consideration of using negotiated rulemaking procedures and its
decision not to use such procedures prior to proposal can be found in
section VI.B of the proposed rule (87 FR 76775; December 15, 2022,
hereafter ``proposed rule'').
EPA is also finalizing measures designed to assist with enforcement
and to help ensure compliance with the HFC use restrictions, including
recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling requirements. Reporting is also
necessary to inform EPA of the transitions that are occurring in those
sectors and subsectors addressed by this rule. EPA notes that
subsection (k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act states that section 114 of the CAA
applies to the AIM Act and rules promulgated under it as if the AIM Act
were included in title VI of the CAA. Thus, section 114 of the CAA,
which provides authority to the EPA Administrator to require
recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out provisions of the CAA, also
applies to and supports this rulemaking.
Subsection (i)(6) of the AIM Act states that ``[n]o rule under this
subsection may take effect before the date that is 1 year after the
date on which the
[[Page 73104]]
Administrator promulgates the applicable rule under this subsection.''
EPA interprets this provision as applying to the establishment of
restrictions on use of HFCs under subsection (i)(1) of the Act.
Therefore, EPA is establishing compliance dates for the restrictions on
the manufacture and import of products and installation of systems that
are at least one year from the date this rule is promulgated, in
accordance with this statutory provision.
The provisions pertaining to program administration and petitions
processing (i.e., Sec. 84.62) do not include a delayed compliance
date, and those provisions will come into effect 60 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. This approach is
based on an interpretation that subsection (i)(6) does not apply to
those administrative provisions because ``applicable rules'' in (i)(6)
are limited to rules that apply use restrictions under (i)(1). As a
practical matter, the regulated industry to which a use restriction
rule is being applied may need a full year to come into compliance with
that restriction. While a petitioner may need some amount of time to
collect the information needed in a petition, 60 days is a reasonable
timeframe in which to do so. EPA did not receive comments on this
approach.
III. Background
A. What are HFCs?
HFCs are anthropogenic \10\ fluorinated chemicals that have no
known natural sources. HFCs are used in a variety of applications such
as refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing agents, solvents,
aerosols, and fire suppression. HFCs are potent greenhouse gases (GHGs)
with 100-year GWPs (a measure of the relative climatic impact of a GHG)
that can be hundreds to thousands of times that of carbon dioxide
(CO2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ While the overwhelming majority of HFC production is
intentional, EPA is aware that HFC-23 can be a byproduct associated
with the production of other chemicals, including but not limited to
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22 and other fluorinated gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC use and emissions have been growing worldwide due to the global
phaseout of ODS under the Montreal Protocol and the increasing use of
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment globally.\11\ HFC
emissions had previously been projected to increase substantially over
the next several decades. In 2016, in Kigali, Rwanda, countries agreed
to adopt an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, known as the Kigali
Amendment, which provides for a global phasedown of the production and
consumption of HFCs. The United States ratified the Kigali Amendment on
October 31, 2022. Global adherence to the Kigali Amendment would
substantially reduce future emissions, leading to a peaking of HFC
emissions before 2040.12 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, GAW Report No. 278, 509 pp.,
WMO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022.pdf.
\12\ Ibid.
\13\ A recent study estimated that global compliance with the
Kigali Amendment is expected to lower 2050 annual emissions by 3.0-
4.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric observations of most currently measured HFCs confirm
their abundances are increasing at accelerating rates. Total emissions
of HFCs increased by 23 percent from 2012 to 2016 \14\ and a further 19
percent from 2016 to 2020.\15\ The four most abundant HFCs in the
atmosphere, in GWP-weighted terms, are HFC-134a, HFC-125, HFC-23, and
HFC-143a.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, World Meteorological
Organization, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project--Report
No. 58, 588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf.
\15\ WMO, 2022.
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFCs excluding HFC-23 accounted for a radiative forcing of 0.025 W/
m\2\ in 2016 rising to 0.037 W/m\2\ in 2020. This radiative forcing was
projected to increase by an order of magnitude to 0.25 W/m\2\ by 2050.
If the Kigali Amendment were to be fully implemented, it would be
expected to reduce the future radiative forcing due to HFCs (excluding
HFC-23) to 0.13 W/m\2\ in 2050 which is a reduction of about 50 percent
compared with the radiative forcing projected in the business-as-usual
scenario of uncontrolled HFCs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Velders, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are hundreds of possible HFC compounds. The 18 HFCs listed as
regulated substances by the AIM Act are some of the most commonly used
HFCs (neat and in blends) and have high impacts as measured by the
quantity of each substance emitted multiplied by their respective
GWPs.\18\ These 18 HFCs are all saturated, meaning they have only
single bonds between their atoms and therefore have longer atmospheric
lifetimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The AIM Act uses exchange values which are numerically
equivalent to the 100-year GWP of the chemical as given in the
Errata to Table 2.14 of the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, HFCs are used primarily in refrigeration and
air-conditioning equipment in homes, commercial buildings, and
industrial operations (~75 percent of total HFC use in 2018) and in air
conditioning in vehicles and refrigerated transport (~8 percent).
Smaller amounts are used in foam products (~11 percent), aerosols (~4
percent), fire protection systems (~1 percent), and solvents (~1
percent).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Calculations based on EPA's Vintaging Model, which
estimates the annual chemical emissions from industry sectors that
historically used ODS, including refrigeration and air conditioning,
foam blowing agents, solvents, aerosols, and fire suppression. The
model uses information on the market size and growth for each end
use, as well as a history and projections of the market transition
from ODS to substitutes. The model tracks emissions of annual
``vintages'' of new equipment that enter into operation by
incorporating information on estimates of the quantity of equipment
or products sold, serviced, and retired or converted each year, and
the quantity of the compound required to manufacture, charge, and/or
maintain the equipment. Additional information on these estimates is
available in U.S. EPA, April 2016. EPA Report EPA-430-R-16-002.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimated in the Allocation Rules that phasing down HFC
production and consumption according to the schedule provided in the
AIM Act will avoid cumulative consumption of 3,156 million metric tons
of exchange value equivalent (MMTEVe) of HFCs in the United States for
the years 2022 through 2036 (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021). Annual
avoided consumption was estimated at 42 MMTCO2e in 2022 and
282 MMTCO2e in 2036. To calculate the climate benefits
associated with consumption abatement, the consumption changes were
expressed in terms of emission reductions. EPA estimated that for the
years 2022-2050 that action will avoid emissions of 4,560
MMTCO2e of HFCs in the United States. The annual avoided
emissions are estimated at 22 MMTCO2e in the year 2022 and
171 MMTCO2e in 2036. More information regarding these
estimates is provided in the Allocation Framework RIA in the docket.
B. How do HFCs affect public health and welfare?
Elevated concentrations of GHGs including HFCs are and have been
warming the planet, leading to changes in the Earth's climate including
changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation,
and extreme weather events; rising seas; and retreating snow and ice.
The changes taking place in the atmosphere as a
[[Page 73105]]
result of the well-documented buildup of GHGs due to human activities
are changing the climate at a pace and scale that threatens human
health, society, and the natural environment. This section provides
some scientific background on climate change to offer additional
context for this rulemaking and to help the public understand the
environmental impacts of GHGs such as HFCs.
Extensive additional information on climate change is available in
the scientific assessments and the EPA documents that are briefly
described in this section, as well as in the technical and scientific
information supporting them. One of those documents is EPA's 2009
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (74 FR 66496, December 15,
2009).\20\ In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found
under section 202(a) of the CAA that elevated atmospheric
concentrations of six key well-mixed GHGs--CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs,
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--
``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and
welfare of current and future generations'' (74 FR 66523, December 15,
2009), and the science and observed changes have confirmed and
strengthened the understanding and concerns regarding the climate risks
considered in the Finding. The 2009 Endangerment Finding, together with
the extensive scientific and technical evidence in the supporting
record, documented that climate change caused by human emissions of
GHGs (including HFCs) threatens the public health of the U.S.
population. It explained that by raising average temperatures, climate
change increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated
with increased deaths and illnesses (74 FR 66497, December 15, 2009).
While climate change also increases the likelihood of reductions in
cold-related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases in heat
mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold mortality in the
U.S. (74 FR 66525, December 15, 2009). The 2009 Endangerment Finding
further explained that compared with a future without climate change,
climate change is expected to increase tropospheric ozone pollution
over broad areas of the U.S., including in the largest metropolitan
areas with the worst tropospheric ozone problems, and thereby increase
the risk of adverse effects on public health (74 FR 66525, December 15,
2009). Climate change is also expected to cause more intense hurricanes
and more frequent and intense storms of other types and heavy
precipitation, with impacts on other areas of public health, such as
the potential for increased deaths, injuries, infectious and waterborne
diseases, and stress-related disorders (74 FR 66525, December 15,
2009). Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most
vulnerable to these climate-related health effects (74 FR 66498,
December 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In describing these 2009 Findings in this notice, EPA is
neither reopening nor revisiting them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Endangerment Finding also documented, together with the
extensive scientific and technical evidence in the supporting record,
that climate change touches nearly every aspect of public welfare \21\
in the U.S. including: changes in water supply and quality due to
increased frequency of drought and extreme rainfall events; increased
risk of storm surge and flooding in coastal areas and land loss due to
inundation; increases in peak electricity demand and risks to
electricity infrastructure; predominantly negative consequences for
biodiversity and the provisioning of ecosystem goods and services; and
the potential for significant agricultural disruptions and crop
failures (though offset to some extent by carbon fertilization). These
impacts are also global and may exacerbate problems outside the U.S.
that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the
United States (74 FR 66530, December 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The CAA states in section 302(h) that ``[a]ll language
referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to,
effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials,
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and
deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as
effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,
whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with
other air pollutants.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, the Administrator similarly issued Endangerment and Cause
or Contribute Findings for GHG emissions from aircraft under section
231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (81 FR 54422, August 15, 2016).\22\ In the 2016
Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that the body of
scientific evidence amassed in the record for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding compellingly supported a similar endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) and also found that the science assessments
released between the 2009 and the 2016 Findings ``strengthen and
further support the judgment that GHGs in the atmosphere may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and
future generations'' (81 FR 54424, August 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In describing these 2016 Findings in this notice, EPA is
neither reopening nor revisiting them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2016 Endangerment Finding, the climate has continued to
change, with new records being set for several climate indicators such
as global average surface temperatures, GHG concentrations, and sea
level rise. Moreover, heavy precipitation events have increased in the
Eastern United States, while agricultural and ecological drought has
increased in the Western United States along with more intense and
larger wildfires.\23\ These and other trends are examples of the risks
discussed in the 2009 and 2016 Endangerment Findings that have already
been experienced. Additionally, major scientific assessments continue
to demonstrate advances in our understanding of the climate system and
the impacts that GHGs have on public health and welfare both for
current and future generations. According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, ``it is
unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and
land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere
and biosphere have occurred.'' \24\ These updated observations and
projections document the rapid rate of current and future climate
change both globally and in the United States.25 26 27 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ An additional resource for indicators can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators.
\24\ IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L.
Connors, C. Pe[aacute]an, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb,
M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K.
Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelek[ccedil]i, R. Yu and B. Zhou
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press: 4.
\25\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.
Available at: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov.
\26\ IPCC, 2021.
\27\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
2019. Climate Change and Ecosystems. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17226/25504.
\28\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State
of the Climate: Global Climate Report for Annual 2020, published
online January 2021. Available at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73106]]
IV. What is the petition process under the technology transitions
program?
Subsection (i)(3) of the AIM Act states that a person may petition
EPA to promulgate a rule to restrict the use of a regulated substance
in a sector or subsector in accordance with the Agency's authority to
issue such a rule under subsection (i)(1) of the AIM Act. If EPA
receives a petition under subsection (i)(3), the AIM Act states that
``[t]he Administrator shall grant or deny a petition . . . not later
than 180 days after the date of receipt of the petition'' (42 U.S.C.
7675(i)(3)(B)) and make the petition available to the public no later
than 30 days after receiving the petition (42 U.S.C.
7675(i)(3)(C)(iii)). For petitions that are denied, EPA must publish in
the Federal Register an explanation of the denial (42 U.S.C.
7675(i)(3)(C)(i)). If EPA grants a petition, the statute requires EPA
to promulgate a final rule not later than two years from the date the
Agency grants the petition (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)(C)(ii)).
This section describes the process for submitting a petition under
subsection (i) to the Agency, which includes direction on how
technology transition provisions should be submitted to EPA; the
necessary content of petitions; and how EPA will respond once petitions
are received. EPA received comments in support of the Agency's
interpretation of the petition process under the AIM Act. Commenters
did not suggest any changes to the proposed petition process. EPA is
finalizing the petition process as proposed.
Subsection (i)(3)(A) of the AIM Act states that ``a person may
petition the Administrator to promulgate a rule under [subsection
(i)(1) of the AIM Act] for the restriction on use of a regulated
substance in a sector or subsector, which shall include a request that
the Administrator negotiate with stakeholders . . .'' EPA views
``person'' for the purpose of a technology transitions petition
submittal as having the same meaning as how the term is defined in 40
CFR 84.3 (the definition established in the Allocation Framework Rule);
that is, to mean ``any individual or legal entity, including an
individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality,
political subdivision of a State, Indian Tribe; any agency, department,
or instrumentality of the United States; and any officer, agent, or
employee thereof.'' Using this definition in 40 CFR 84.3 for purposes
of petition submittal under subsection (i) ensures consistency of how
this term is used across these two regulatory programs developed under
the AIM Act. This definition of ``person'' also captures the Agency's
intended meaning of this term for purposes of the Technology
Transitions program. Therefore, any person who fits the Allocation
Framework Rule definition may submit a technology transitions petition
to EPA. We further note that the plain text of subsection (i)(3)(A)
also limits this provision to requests for restrictions on the use of a
regulated substance in a sector or subsector. Other types of requests--
such as exemptions from existing or anticipated restrictions--are
therefore not properly presented under the (i)(3)(A) petition process,
although parties are always welcome to communicate to the Agency
informally, to provide comments on a proposed rule that considers such
restrictions on use, or to generally petition for rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedures Act.
All the petitions considered in this rulemaking were submitted to
EPA via email. EPA is requiring that future petitions also be submitted
electronically. The Agency's preferred method is for petitioners to use
the email address that is available on EPA's web page at: https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/technology-transition-petitions-under-aim-act.
A. What must be included in a technology transitions petition?
EPA is requiring standard content that must be included in a
technology transitions petition. Standardizing the information
requirements will assist petitioners in preparing their petitions and
enhance EPA's ability to review and respond to them promptly. A
technology transitions petition must include the elements described in
the following paragraphs.
Petitions must indicate either a GWP limit or the specific name(s)
of the regulated substance(s) or blend(s) that use the regulated
substance(s) to be restricted and their GWPs. Petitioners specifying
specific regulated substances should use as the GWP the exchange values
for the regulated HFCs listed in subsection (c) of the AIM Act and
codified as appendix A to 40 CFR part 84.\29\ For blends containing
regulated substances, petitioners should identify all components of the
blend using the composition-identifying designation as listed in
American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 34-
2022,\30\ Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants (e.g.,
HFC-134a, hydrofluoroolefin (HFO-1234ze(E)). If blends are not listed
in ASHRAE Standard 34, petitioners should provide the nominal
composition of the blend, specifying all components with the ASHRAE
Standard 34 designation for the components. If the components or
substances are not listed in ASHRAE Standard 34, petitioners should
provide the chemical name, the applicable CAS Registry Number, and the
chemical formula and structure (e.g., CHF=C=CF2 rather than
C3F3H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ EPA noted in section III.A of this preamble that the
exchange values for the regulated HFCs listed in subsection (c) of
the AIM Act are numerically identical to the 100-year GWPs of each
substance, as given in the Errata to Table 2.14 of the IPCC's Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4) and Annexes A, C, and F of the Montreal
Protocol. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4-wg1-errata.pdf.
\30\ Hereafter referred to as ASHRAE Standard 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is providing a table at 40 CFR 84.64 listing the GWPs of
commonly used constituents to allow petitioners to determine the GWP of
blends containing regulated substances for purposes of this rulemaking.
EPA also intends to maintain a list of commonly used blends containing
HFCs and the GWPs of those blends at EPA's Technology Transitions web
page. EPA is using the following hierarchy to identify the GWPs of
these constituents. For the regulated substances used in the blend, and
as previously noted, EPA is using the exchange value provided in
subsection (c) of the AIM Act and codified as appendix A to 40 CFR part
84 as the GWP. For purposes of this rulemaking EPA is using the 100-
year GWP values from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) for all
substances or components of blends. For hydrocarbons listed in Table 2-
15 of AR4, EPA is using the net GWP value. For substances for which no
GWP is provided in AR4, EPA is using the 100-year GWP listed in World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) 2022.\31\ EPA proposed using the 2018
edition but to use the best available data, EPA is finalizing the use
of the most up-to-date version of this report at the time of the
publication of this rule. For any substance not listed in these
sources, EPA is using the GWP of the substance in Table A-1 to subpart
A of 40 CFR part 98, as it exists on October 24, 2023, the date this
rule is published in the Federal Register as a final rule, if such
substance is specifically listed in that table. EPA proposed GWPs for
two substances that might be used as components of blends that are not
listed in those three sources: trans-dichloroethylene (HCO-1130(E)) and
hydrochlorofluoroolefin (HCFO-
[[Page 73107]]
1224yd(Z)) at five \32\ and one,\33\ respectively, for purposes of this
rulemaking. EPA is finalizing those GWPs as proposed. For any other
substance not listed in the above three source documents, EPA is using
the default GWPs as shown in Table A-1 to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98,
as it exists on the date this final rule is published in the Federal
Register. Lastly, if the substance is not listed in any of the other
sources, EPA is using the GWP of that constituent described in a
listing of an acceptable substitute under EPA's SNAP program. In any
case where a GWP value is preceded with a less than (<), very less than
(<<), greater than (>), approximately (~), or similar symbol in the
source document, which is used to determine the GWP, EPA is using the
value shown. The GWP of a blend would then be calculated as the sum of
the nominal composition (in mass proportions) of each component
multiplied by the GWP of each component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ WMO, 2022.
\32\ 81 FR 32244 (May 23, 2016).
\33\ 84 FR 64766 (November 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event that the hierarchy outlined in this section does not
provide a GWP (i.e., the substance in question is not listed in the
three documents, is not one of the two for which EPA is establishing
GWPs, is not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98 and
does not fit within any of the default GWPs provided in Table A-1 to
subpart A of 40 CFR part 98), EPA proposed that the petitioner should
use a GWP of zero. One commenter suggested that using a value of zero
would result in an artificially lower GWP value. Although EPA
anticipates this situation to be rare, and unlikely to materially
affect the status of a blend, the Agency is not assuming a value of
zero for as yet unknown constituents in this final rule. Rather, EPA
will take a more conservative approach and exclude that component, and
its mass proportion, from the calculation of GWP.
Petitioners must also indicate the sector or subsector for which
restrictions on use of the regulated substance would apply. EPA is not
limiting sectors or subsectors to a specific list, recognizing there
may be additional uses of HFCs today or that may be developed in the
future, and thus additional sectors or subsectors for which it could be
appropriate to restrict use.
Petitioners must specify a date that the requested restrictions
would go into effect and provide information explaining why the date is
appropriate. Petitioners should recognize that subsection (i)(6) of the
AIM Act restricts the effective date of rules promulgated under
subsection (i) to no earlier than one year after the date of the final
rule.
Before proposing a rule for the use of a regulated substance for a
sector or subsector under subsection (i)(1), subsection (i)(2)(A)
directs EPA to consider negotiating with stakeholders in accordance
with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (i.e., negotiated rulemaking
procedure). Subsection (i)(3)(A) requires petitioners to ``include a
request that the Administrator negotiate with stakeholders in
accordance with paragraph (2)(A)'' (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)(A)). EPA
sought comment on whether it is reasonable for the Agency to interpret
subsection (i)(3) as requiring petitioners to address whether EPA use
the negotiated rulemaking procedure, rather than requiring them to
affirmatively request that the Agency pursue negotiated rulemaking.
Several commenters responded in support of EPA's interpretation that
petitioners must simply address whether EPA should consider negotiated
rulemaking in their petition and not that they must request a
negotiated rulemaking. Most petitions addressed in this rule complied
with the statute's requirement to request that EPA use negotiated
rulemaking; however, those petitioners unanimously expressed a
preference that EPA not use this procedure in promulgating its
restrictions. Allowing petitioners to express their views as to whether
EPA should engage in negotiated rulemaking for a subsection (i)
rulemaking, as opposed to requiring them to request something they may
disagree with, provides more value to EPA as we consider, per
subsection (i)(2)(A), whether to use the negotiated rulemaking
procedure before proposing a restriction under subsection (i).
Otherwise, EPA could be misled as to the petitioners' views and could
elect to use the negotiated rulemaking procedure when no stakeholder
sought that outcome. The unwarranted use of time and resources to
undergo that procedure could be counterproductive to meeting the
statutory deadlines to complete a final rule. Petitioners must provide
an explanation of their position on the use of the negotiated
rulemaking procedure and any considerations that would either support
or disfavor the use of that process. If a petition is granted, EPA
intends to consider the petitioner's statement on negotiated rulemaking
as it determines whether to use the procedure.
Petitioners must also submit, to the extent practicable,
information related to the ``Factors for Determination'' listed in
subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act to facilitate EPA's review of the
petition. Given the relatively short 180-day statutory timeframe for
EPA to grant or deny a petition, this requirement will ensure that
information is available to EPA at the start of its review, to the
extent the petitioner has relevant available information. EPA may deny
a petition where no information has been provided that would allow the
Agency to act on the petition. Therefore, petitioners must, to the
extent practicable, provide best available data on substitutes that
could be used in lieu of the petitioned substance(s), addressing the
subfactors (e.g., technological achievability, safety, commercial
demands, etc.) that may affect the availability of those substitutes.
Other relevant information includes estimates of the economic costs and
environmental impacts of the petitioner's requested restriction on use
in the sector or subsector. In particular, providing EPA with a sense
of the scale of impacts (e.g., whether the suggested restriction would
have a significant environmental impact, or whether the suggested
restriction would be likely to impose costs or savings on regulated
entities or consumers) using best available, quantitative, accurate
data to support that assessment will be more likely to result in a
timely, well-reasoned response to the petitioner's request. One
commenter suggested that EPA require that petitions include information
on the expected outcome of requests made in the petition with respect
to the consumption and emissions of regulated substances. The commenter
indicated that this could be done by sharing assumptions regarding
equipment charge size, leak rate, lifespan, and national sales. While
EPA agrees that this information may be useful for assessing
petitioners' requests as they relate to environmental impacts and other
(i)(4) factors, the Agency disagrees that this information should be a
mandatory element of the petitions, as many petitioners may not know
the expected outcome of their petition requests as it relates to the
consumption and emissions of regulated substances.
B. What happens after a petition is submitted?
Subsection (i)(3)(C)(iii) instructs EPA to make petitions publicly
available within 30 days after receipt. EPA intends to continue to post
technology transitions petitions at www.regulations.gov, in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289, as well as on the Agency's website at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/technology-transition-petitions-under-aim-act. Making the petitions available
[[Page 73108]]
allows the public to provide additional data and relevant material to
aid in EPA's evaluation of petitions, based on the factors specified in
subsection (i) of the AIM Act.
In accordance with the statutory directive, EPA intends to act on
petitions no later than 180 days after the date of receipt of the
petition. In making a determination to grant or deny a petition,
subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act requires EPA to consider, to the
extent practicable:
1. The best available data;
2. The availability of substitutes for use of the regulated
substance that is the subject of the rulemaking or petition, as
applicable, in a sector or subsector, taking into account technological
achievability, commercial demands, affordability for residential and
small business consumers, safety, consumer costs, building codes,
appliance efficiency standards, contractor training costs, and other
relevant factors, including the quantities of regulated substances
available from reclaiming, prior production, or prior import;
3. Overall economic costs and environmental impacts, as compared to
historical trends; and
4. The remaining phase-down period for regulated substances under
the final rule issued under subsection (e)(3) of the AIM Act, if
applicable.
Subsection (i)(4) applies both to EPA's action on subsection (i)
petitions and to EPA's rulemakings under subsection (i). Requiring EPA
to grant or deny petitions within 180 days of receipt inherently limits
the scope and depth of any potential analysis. EPA's timeframe for
promulgating a rule subject to a granted petition is two years from the
date of a petition grant, and in undertaking a rulemaking the Agency
will undoubtedly be able to perform a more in-depth analysis of the
(i)(4) factors. Granting a petition under subsection (i) of the AIM Act
therefore does not necessarily mean the Agency will propose or finalize
requirements identical to a petitioner's request. Rather, granting a
petition means that the requested restriction warrants further
consideration through rulemaking. During this rulemaking process, EPA
will determine what restrictions on the use of HFCs to propose and
finalize based on multiple considerations, including its consideration
of the ``Factors for Determination'' listed in subsection (i)(4) to the
extent practicable. This approach provides interested stakeholders with
the opportunity to review and comment on a regulatory proposal
restricting the use of HFCs prior to restrictions going into effect.
C. Can I revise or resubmit my petition?
Receipt of a completed petition triggers two statutory deadlines:
the posting of the petition within 30 days and the granting or denying
of the petition within 180 days. Because there is little purpose in EPA
continuing to take action on the original petition when the petitioner
has revised (i.e., makes edits to an original request) or resubmitted
(i.e., makes edits to an original request and presents it as a new
petition) it, EPA's view is that a petition revision or resubmittal
made by petitioners is typically intended to supersede or replace the
original petition and would thus restart these timelines. However,
depending on the timing of the resubmission and the nature of the
revision and the request, EPA may be able to act more quickly on a
revised or resubmitted petition, for example, if the Agency had already
developed familiarity with the request through its consideration of the
original petition. Therefore, EPA intends to address petition revisions
and resubmittals on a case-by-case basis. If petitioners do not intend
for their submission to supersede or replace their original petition,
rather they are submitting information to revise or augment their
initial petition without significantly altering its scope, they should
be clear that they are submitting supplemental or clarifying
information regarding their petitions to the docket related to
petitions under consideration. On a case-by-case basis the Agency will
consider and act accordingly on supplemental or clarifying information
as part of its consideration of the initial petition. If EPA finds that
in fact what was submitted constitutes a new petition or revised
petition, new timelines will apply. In making a determination to grant
or deny petitions, EPA plans to consider relevant and timely
information provided in this docket, as the Agency did with the granted
petitions that led to this rulemaking, including information provided
by petitioners and from other stakeholders, for those petitions under
review. Once a petition is granted or denied, any revised or
resubmitted petitions will likely be treated as a new petition.
V. How is EPA considering negotiated rulemaking?
This section provides a summary of the AIM Act's directive to
consider negotiating with stakeholders prior to proposing a rule under
subsection (i) of the Act. This section also provides information
regarding how EPA intends to consider negotiating with stakeholders for
future rulemakings.
A. Summary of the AIM Act's Directive on Negotiated Rulemaking
Prior to proposing a rule, subsection (i)(2)(A) of the Act directs
EPA to consider negotiating with stakeholders in the sector or
subsector subject to the potential rule in accordance with negotiated
rulemaking procedures established under the ``Negotiated Rulemaking Act
of 1990.'' If EPA makes a determination to use the negotiated
rulemaking procedures, subsection (i)(2)(B) requires that EPA, to the
extent practicable, give priority to completing that rulemaking over
completing rulemakings under subsection (i) that are not using that
procedure. For additional information on negotiated rulemaking
procedures, see 5 U.S.C. 563. If EPA does not use the negotiated
rulemaking process, subsection (i)(2)(C) requires the Agency to publish
an explanation of the decision to not use that procedure before
commencement of the rulemaking process.
B. How does EPA intend to consider negotiating with stakeholders under
the AIM Act?
Prior to proposing this rulemaking, EPA issued a document informing
the public of the Agency's consideration of using the negotiated
rulemaking procedure and the Agency's decision to not use these
procedures for this rulemaking (86 FR 74080, December 29, 2021). The
Agency found that using negotiated rulemakings was not in the best
interest of the public and thus decided not to use negotiated
rulemaking. In making this decision, EPA considered information
provided by the petitions, including statements made by petitioners on
the use of negotiated rulemaking procedures, and information provided
by other stakeholders on the petitions. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act
of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 563, provides seven criteria that the head of an
agency should consider when determining whether a negotiated rulemaking
is in the public interest. These criteria are informative for purposes
of making a determination under AIM Act subsection (i) of whether to
use the procedures set out in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act for
proposed rulemakings and therefore, also considered these criteria in
its decision.
Going forward, EPA intends to use a similar process in making its
determination on whether to use negotiated rulemaking procedures for
any rulemaking being considered under subsection (i) in response to
granted
[[Page 73109]]
petitions. This includes reviewing the petitions themselves and
statements from petitioners on the use of negotiated rulemaking
procedures, considering information provided by stakeholders commenting
on petitions, and considering the seven criteria listed in the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 563, that the head of an
agency should consider when determining whether a negotiated rulemaking
is in the public's interest. For rulemakings initiated by EPA (i.e.,
not in response to granted petitions), EPA anticipates that our review
would focus on just these seven criteria.
Furthermore, where appropriate, EPA will also consider recent
Agency actions and decisions related to restrictions on the use of HFCs
in sectors and subsectors for its consideration on using negotiated
rulemaking procedures. For example, EPA received four petitions that
were not included in the Agency's consideration of using negotiated
rulemaking procedures for petitions granted on October 7, 2021.\34\
However, these petitions requested restrictions on the use of HFCs in
the same sectors and subsectors covered by petitions granted on October
7, 2021, for which EPA made a determination not to use negotiated
rulemaking. Subsection (i)(2)(A) states that, ``[b]efore proposing a
rule for a sector or subsector under paragraph (1), the Administrator
shall consider negotiating with stakeholders in the sector or subsector
subject to the potential rule . . .'' EPA will not issue a separate
notice to consider using negotiated rulemaking for these four petitions
because these petitions were received well ahead of this final action,
and the requested restrictions are in the same sectors and subsectors
contained in petitions granted on October 7, 2021, for which the Agency
considered and decided not to use negotiated rulemaking procedures.
Nothing in these four petitions caused EPA to reconsider that decision.
Therefore, it is unnecessary for the Agency to reconsider whether to
use negotiated rulemaking procedures for this rulemaking. EPA
encourages future petitioners to consider petitions under review or
recently granted before submitting a new petition and to consider
submitting information to the docket for an existing petition in lieu
of submitting a new petition on the same uses of HFCs that are already
under consideration by the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ These petitions were received from AHRI and IIAR and are
discussed in section VI.D of this preamble. Copies of these
petitions are located at www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289, or at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/technology-transition-petitions-under-aim-act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter requested that EPA conduct a negotiated rulemaking in
instances where the Agency grants a petition but then would seek to
propose more stringent aspects of the request, such as an earlier
compliance date or lower GWP limit. EPA disagrees with this comment. A
decision by the Agency to grant, or partially grant, a petition under
subsection (i) of the AIM Act does not mean the Agency must propose
requirements identical to a petitioner's request. Rather, granting a
petition means that the requested restriction warrants further
consideration through rulemaking. Furthermore, given the interests of
all stakeholders including potentially other petitioners, it would not
be appropriate to consider a negotiated rulemaking only when EPA is
considering a more stringent proposal. EPA therefore may consider
whether any deviation from a petition merits a negotiated rulemaking in
its analysis of the public's interest, but a deviation on its own is
insufficient to require the Agency to do so.
VI. How is EPA restricting the use of HFCs?
This section details the Agency's restrictions on the use of HFCs
in accordance with the granted petitions, including defining terms that
are new to 40 CFR part 84; describing the form and applicability of the
prohibitions; providing EPA's interpretation and application of the
``Factors for Determination'' contained in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM
Act; and listing the specific restrictions on the use of HFCs by sector
and subsector.
A. What definitions is EPA establishing in subsection (i)?
The Allocation Framework Rule established regulatory definitions at
40 CFR part 84, subpart A to implement the regulatory phasedown of HFCs
under the AIM Act. To maintain consistency, except as otherwise
explained in this rule, EPA intends to use terms in this rulemaking,
and in the new subpart B established by this rule, as they were defined
in the Allocation Framework Rule. Thus, for terms not defined in this
subpart but that are defined in 40 CFR 84.3, the definitions in 40 CFR
84.3 shall apply. EPA is also establishing definitions for new terms
that are applicable to 40 CFR part 84, subpart B and do not have a
counterpart in the definitions under 40 CFR part 84, subpart A.
1. Export, Exporter, Import, and Importer
A few terms (export, exporter, and importer) currently exist in 40
CFR 84.3 in the context of bulk regulated substances. EPA is
establishing definitions under subpart B for those terms to clarify how
they apply under subpart B to regulated substances that are used in
equipment subject to this rule.
Export. For purposes of subpart B, EPA is defining this term to
mean the transport of a product or specified component using a
regulated substance from inside the United States or its territories to
persons outside the United States or its territories, excluding United
States military bases and ships for onboard use.
Exporter. For purposes of subpart B, EPA is defining this term to
mean the person who contracts to sell any product or specified
component using a regulated substance for export or transfers a product
or specified component using a regulated substance to an affiliate in
another country.
Importer. For purposes of subpart B, EPA is defining this term to
mean any person who imports any product or specified component using or
intended for use with a regulated substance into the United States.
Importer includes the person primarily liable for the payment of any
duties on the merchandise or an authorized agent acting on his or her
behalf. The term also includes:
(1) The consignee;
(2) The importer of record;
(3) The actual owner; or
(4) The transferee, if the right to withdraw merchandise from a
bonded warehouse has been transferred.
This definition of importer, specifically paragraphs (3) and (4),
varies in non-substantive ways from that in subpart A of 40 CFR part 84
to align with the definition of ``importer'' at 19 CFR 101.1. No
difference in interpretation between subparts is intended. As EPA
explained in the Allocation Framework Rule, whether products using or
containing HFCs are admitted into or exiting from a foreign-trade zone
or other duty deferral program under U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) regulations does not affect whether they are being imported or
exported for purposes of part 84. See 86 FR 55133 (October 5, 2021)
(discussing definitions of export and import under 40 CFR 84.3).
Comment: Some commenters requested that EPA narrow the scope of the
term ``import'' to exclude a transportation vehicle in international
service, such as refrigerated containers
[[Page 73110]]
that are imported into the United States and intended for export.
Another commenter requested that the definition of import include
equipment that was intended to be imported by the date but was delayed
by weather or port delays.
Response: EPA disagrees with these suggestions. Congress defined
``import'' for purposes of the AIM Act in subsection (b)(6) as ``to
land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt to land on, bring
into, or introduce into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, regardless of whether that landing, bringing, or
introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the
customs laws of the United States.'' The Agency did not propose to
redefine that term in this subpart. EPA addresses the concern raised by
the first commenter in Section VI.C.2.a. Furthermore, to be consistent
with subpart A of part 84, EPA considers the date of import to be the
time a ship berths for vessel arrivals, border crossings for land
arrivals, and first point of terminus in U.S. jurisdiction for arrivals
via air. Determining an importer's intent for their timing, which
frequently can change, would be challenging for the Agency to determine
and enforce.
2. Blend Containing a Regulated Substance, Sector, Subsector, and
Substitute
EPA is finalizing definitions for these four terms as proposed. The
Agency did not receive comment recommending changes.
Blend containing a regulated substance. EPA is establishing
restrictions on the use of HFCs, whether neat or used in a blend.
Blends containing a regulated substance are used in multiple sectors
and subsectors including refrigeration, air conditioning and heat
pumps, foams, and fire suppression. EPA is defining this term as ``any
mixture that contains one or more regulated substances.'' EPA considers
any quantity of a regulated substance within a mixture to qualify the
mixture as a ``blend containing a regulated substance.'' A blend that
uses one or more regulated substances is itself not a regulated
substance. Rather, the use restrictions apply to the regulated
substance(s) used in certain blends, such that the use restriction on
the regulated substance(s) also affects use of that blend. Most HFCs
used in the sectors and subsectors addressed by this rule are
components of blends that contain other HFCs, HFOs, and hydrocarbons.
As discussed in section IV.A, where the proportion of a regulated
substance multiplied by its GWP, along with the proportion of the other
components multiplied by their respective GWPs, causes the blend to
exceed the GWP limit, the use of that HFC in that blend is prohibited.
Sector. EPA is defining this term as ``a broad category of
applications including but not limited to: refrigeration, air
conditioning and heat pumps; foams; aerosols; chemical manufacturing;
cleaning solvents; fire suppression and explosion protection; and
semiconductor manufacturing.'' These categorizations and groupings are
similar to how the term ``sector'' is used in other contexts, such as
EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, the Montreal
Protocol Parties' Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), and
EPA's Vintaging Model. Entities potentially subject to rulemakings
under subsection (i) of the AIM Act are often the same entities
affected by CAA title VI, including the CAA section 612 SNAP program,
and may be familiar with the way EPA traditionally categorizes and
groups sectors in that context. The TEAP is a globally recognized
advisory body to the Montreal Protocol Parties, which provides
technical information related to alternative technologies that use HFCs
in sectors and subsectors. Entities with a global market presence and
other stakeholders may be familiar with how the TEAP defines sectors,
and EPA's definition of sector is relatable to their understanding of
the term.
Subsector. EPA is defining this term as ``processes, classes of
applications, or specific uses that are related to one another within a
single sector or subsector.'' Where appropriate, each sector can be
subdivided into different subsectors that more narrowly highlight how
the HFC is used. Entities potentially subject to rulemakings under
subsection (i) of the AIM Act are often the same entities affected by
CAA title VI, including the CAA section 612 SNAP program, and may be
familiar with the way EPA categorizes and groups sectors and subsectors
in that context. The term ``subsectors'' includes the concepts of
``end-uses'' and ``applications'' under SNAP (40 CFR 82.172). An
example subsector is cold storage warehouses within the RACHP sector.
Another example is the integral skin polyurethane subsector within the
foams sector.
Substitute. EPA is defining this term as ``any substance, blend, or
alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, that may be
used, or is intended for use, in a sector or subsector with a
restriction on the use of regulated substances and that has a lower
global warming potential than the GWP limit or restricted list of
regulated substances and blends in that sector or subsector.'' Under
this definition, substitutes include regulated substances (e.g., HFC-32
used in lieu of R-410A in commercial unitary AC), blends containing
regulated substances (e.g., R-454B used in lieu of R-410A in
residential unitary AC), blends that do not use a regulated substance
(e.g., R-441A used in lieu of R-410A in window ACs), substances that
are not HFCs (e.g., HFOs, hydrocarbons, R-717, and R-744
(CO2)), and not-in-kind technologies (e.g., finger-pump
bottles in lieu of aerosol cans, or vacuum panels in lieu of foam
insulation).
3. Manufacture, Install, and System
Many commenters expressed concerns about the proposed definitions
for the terms ``manufacture'' and ``products.'' For the reasons
discussed in this section, EPA is distinguishing in this final rule
between factory-completed and field-assembled appliances by defining
and using the terms ``products'' and ``systems,'' respectively. EPA is
also distinguishing between the ``manufacture'' of products, which
occurs in a factory, and the ``installation'' of systems, which occurs
in the field. Together these changes more clearly represent the intent
of the restrictions using more familiar terminology.
EPA proposed to define ``manufacture'' as ``to complete a product's
manufacturing and assembly processes such that it is ready for initial
sale, distribution, or operation. For equipment that is assembled and
charged in the field, manufacture means to complete the circuit holding
the regulated substance, charge with a full charge, and otherwise make
functional for use for its intended purpose.'' This proposed definition
was intended to apply similarly to how EPA applied this term in certain
other use restrictions under title VI of the CAA and 40 CFR part 82.
EPA had previously established restrictions on products, including
appliances, foams, and aerosols under section 610 of the CAA
(Nonessential Products Bans). EPA also established use prohibitions
under section 605(a) of the CAA that addressed the use of certain ODS
as a refrigerant in the manufacture of new appliances, including field-
charged appliances. See e.g., 40 CFR 82.15(g)(4)(i), 40 CFR
82.15(g)(5)(i); see also 74 FR 66437 (December 15, 2009) and 85 FR
15267 (March 17, 2020) (describing the use restriction and when a
field-charged appliance is manufactured). Because those restrictions
bear certain similarities to the proposed restrictions under subsection
(i), EPA looked to its
[[Page 73111]]
past experience in implementing those provisions in defining
``manufacture.''
Comment: Commenters were generally supportive of the first sentence
of the proposed definition of ``manufacture'' as applied to factory-
completed products. Most of those who commented on the proposed
definition expressed concerns about the second sentence, which would
apply to field-assembled equipment. These included concerns that the
definition would effectively accelerate the timeline of the prohibition
and render the one-year sell-through moot. Commenters stated that the
Agency should be placing the prohibition on the manufacture of
components that would later be assembled and not the installation.
Commenters also suggested EPA use the approach taken by California in
defining ``date of manufacture.'' In California, the date of
manufacture for chillers and air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment that is not assembled on site is ``the date that the
manufacturer affixed an equipment label indicating the equipment's date
of manufacture.'' For refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment
completed on site, the date of manufacture is ``the date that the
refrigerant circuit was completed and initially filled with
refrigerant.'' One equipment manufacturer urged harmonizing the Federal
and California definitions to simplify manufacturers' obligations and
reduce inadvertent noncompliance. The commenter noted that the
definition resulted from substantial regulated industry discussions
with and comments to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) during
the State rulemaking process. Commenters acknowledged the need to
address installation of field-charged equipment, but one commenter
asserted that using the term ``manufacture'' created confusion about
which entity would be considered the manufacturer of field-charged
equipment, who would be both affected by the prohibition and subject to
recordkeeping and reporting obligations.
Response: EPA is finalizing the term ``manufacture'' so as to only
include the first sentence, but is modifying the definition to include
specified components for reasons discussed in the next section.
Therefore, manufacture means: ``to complete the manufacturing and
assembly processes of a product or specified component such that it is
ready for initial sale, distribution, or operation.''
This final rule also establishes and defines a separate term for
``install'' to replace the term ``manufacture'' for systems assembled
in the field. EPA discussed in the proposed rule that a field-charged
system is ``manufactured at the point when installation of all the
components and other parts are completed'' (emphasis added). Providing
a separate term will reduce confusion, improve implementation, and
allow the Agency to better address the commenters' concerns.
Though a new term, the definition for ``install'' is substantively
similar to the second sentence of the proposed definition of
``manufacture.'' EPA is defining ``install'' as ``to complete a field-
assembled system's circuit, including charging with a full charge, such
that the system can function and is ready for use for its intended
purpose.'' As stated in the proposed rule, this definition is intended
to address field-charged equipment beyond appliances in the RACHP
sector to include fire suppression systems or other systems that are
assembled and charged on-site. EPA appreciates the commenter's desire
to harmonize State and Federal regulations where possible. However, EPA
is not establishing definitions for ``date of manufacture'' of various
systems in this final rule as they do not necessarily align with the
structure of this regulation. EPA also does not find it necessary to
specify the exact date of manufacture because compliance is determined
by the year of manufacture. EPA discusses the adoption of other aspects
of California's approach in section VI of this notice.
The definition of ``install'' includes references to ``systems'' to
distinguish equipment assembled in the field from those made in a
factory. One commenter recommended that the Agency include a definition
of ``appliance.'' EPA agrees with the need to distinguish field-
assembled and factory-made equipment but disagrees that using the term
appliance is the correct approach, as it can include both factory-
charged and field-charged equipment. To better support the distinction,
EPA is finalizing the term ``system'' and defining it as ``an
assemblage of separate components that typically are connected and
charged in the field with a regulated substance or substitute to
perform a function or task.'' This new definition pertains to the
system as a whole (e.g., supermarket or industrial process
refrigeration (IPR)) from the components assembled into a system (e.g.,
evaporator or reach-in cooler).
4. Product, Regulated Product, Specified Components
As with the term manufacture, EPA based the proposed definition of
``product'' on the regulations established under title VI of the CAA in
40 CFR part 82, subparts C and E. EPA stated in the proposed rule that
the Agency's view of what constitutes a product for purposes of use
restrictions under subsection (i) mirrors its meaning under those
provisions and that using the same definition would provide clarity for
the regulated community.
Comment: A few commenters stated that the proposed definition of
``product'' was too broad and would place all forms of regulated
categories into one definition from large refrigeration equipment to
aerosol cans containing a few ounces of propellant. Other commenters
expressed concern about including components and subcomponents as
examples within the definition of product. They noted that restricting
components in the same manner as a completed product would prevent the
manufacture or later sale of parts for normal service and warranty
purposes. One commenter noted that the term ``product'' does not
account for complex equipment that incorporates components using
regulated substances (e.g., process chillers) within much larger
equipment and requested clarification.
Response: EPA agrees that including components within the
definition of product, and thus the restrictions thereof, would hinder
the manufacture and import of replacement parts intended for repairs.
These restrictions could also unintentionally impact components that
are capable of being used with multiple refrigerants or across multiple
subsectors and thus are permissible in some new systems as well. EPA
did not intend to restrict the manufacture, import, and sale of
components in the same manner as completed products or the installation
of new systems. EPA is therefore removing the examples of ``components
and subcomponents'' from the final definition of ``product.'' EPA is
also removing ``equipment'' as an example because this rulemaking uses
that as a general term to broadly encompass items in addition to
products (e.g., systems, components, appliances) and not as a subset.
EPA is clarifying that the definition of ``product'' pertains to
equipment that is completed or otherwise functional upon leaving the
factory. This includes self-contained refrigeration and air
conditioning appliances; foam that is blown; a manufactured item
containing blown foam such as an appliance, car, or boat; a fully
formulated polyol; \35\ and
[[Page 73112]]
filled aerosols. When products are incorporated into larger equipment,
the new, larger equipment is subject to this rule. Thus, a manufactured
item such as a refrigerator that contains insulation foam or a car that
contains a motor vehicle air conditioner (MVAC) is subject to the
restrictions of this rule, as are process chillers, when incorporated
into larger equipment. The final definition of product also modifies
the examples of fire suppression systems and foam blowing systems to
avoid conflict with the new definition of ``system'' the Agency is
finalizing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The Foams Technical Options Committee advising the Parties
to the Montreal describes the term ``fully formulated polyol'' to
mean a blend of polyols with a variety of additives such as
catalysts, surfactants, water, flame retardants (not typically in
appliances), including the blowing agent. UNEP, 2010. Guidance on
the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is defining the term ``product'' as ``an item or category of
items manufactured from raw or recycled materials which performs a
function or task and is functional upon completion of manufacturing.
The term includes, but is not limited to: appliances, foams, fully
formulated polyols, self-contained fire suppression devices, aerosols,
pressurized dispensers, and wipes.''
In removing components from the term ``product,'' the Agency does
not intend to remove components from all provisions of this rule. For
example, remote condensing units used for retail food refrigeration is
one of the subsectors subject to a GWP limit in this rule. A single
component may also be a major element of the entire system, such as a
remote condensing unit for residential split system air conditioning.
One commenter requested that EPA add a definition for ``component'' and
clarify that it is any and all equipment required for the refrigeration
system to function properly. The commenter suggested this would include
but not be limited to display cases, condensing units, condensers,
compressors, compressor rack systems, evaporator units, evaporators,
piping, filter dryers, valves, etc.
To allow the Agency to better describe how the restrictions apply
to different equipment types, EPA is establishing the term ``specified
component.'' EPA declines to finalize the definition requested by the
commenter because it broadly describes how a component functions and
the concept merits public input depending on the policy goals. For
example, refrigerant piping or thermal expansion valves are components
needed for a system to function. However, thermal expansion valves
contain small amounts of refrigerant and operate differently from other
components on the circuit. Refrigerant piping may not be replaced
during a repair given it is not refrigerant specific and may be
inaccessible. Instead, EPA is specifying components that are the major
mechanical elements of all RACHP systems. These components tend to be
replaced over the life of a system, are often refrigerant-specific, and
can contain larger amounts of refrigerant when manufactured or
imported. EPA is defining ``specified component'' as ``for purposes of
equipment in the refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pump sector,
means condensing units, condensers, compressors, evaporator units, and
evaporators.'' These components also align with those specified in
section VI.C regarding what level of modification of a system
effectively constitutes a ``new'' system subject to the GWP limits.
EPA also proposed to establish a defined term, ``regulated
product,'' that would broadly encompass all equipment that uses HFCs,
whether they are higher-GWP HFCs that are prohibited or lower-GWP HFCs
that are subject to labeling and reporting provisions. EPA is electing
not to finalize this definition.
5. Retrofit
The AIM Act defines ``retrofit'' in subsection (i)(7) as ``to
upgrade existing equipment where the regulated substance is changed,
which--(i) includes the conversion of equipment to achieve system
compatibility; and (ii) may include changes in lubricants, gaskets,
filters, driers, valves, o-rings, or equipment components for that
purpose.'' EPA is adopting the definition contained in subsection
(i)(7)(A) of the AIM Act with the addition of examples of equipment.
The definition in the AIM Act is similar to but broader than EPA's
definition of retrofit that was codified in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.
The AIM Act definition refers to ``regulated substance'' and
``equipment,'' whereas the regulatory definition in 40 CFR part 82
refers to ``refrigerant'' and ``appliances.'' As such, in this context,
EPA finds it reasonable to interpret this term as applying not just to
refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances, but all equipment that
uses a regulated substance. EPA is adding a non-inclusive list of
examples--such as air conditioning and refrigeration, fire suppression,
and foam blowing equipment--recognizing that petitioners may seek, or
EPA may establish, restrictions on other types of equipment using HFCs
in the future.
One commenter recommended that the definition of ``retrofit'' not
be limited to just a refrigerant change as that will allow piece-meal
system replacements without moving from a high-GWP refrigerant. The
commenter suggested that a system be considered retrofitted after a
threshold number of components are replaced. EPA disagrees with the
comment that a retrofit be triggered without replacing the refrigerant
type. As noted, the statutory definition contained in subsection
(i)(7)(A) of the AIM Act is predicated on a change in refrigerant, and
it reasonable to maintain this condition when the equipment uses a
refrigerant.
6. Use
EPA proposed to define this term as ``for any person to take any
action with or to a regulated substance, regardless of whether the
regulated substance is in bulk, contained within a product, or
otherwise, except for the destruction of a regulated substance. Actions
include, but are not limited to, the utilization, deployment, sale,
distribution, offer for sale or distribution, discharge, incorporation,
transformation, or other manipulation.''
Comment: Many commenters stated that EPA's proposed definition of
the term ``use'' is overly broad and inappropriately allows the Agency
to regulate the sale or distribution of products. Another commenter was
concerned that the definition could extend liability to importers and
distributors of bulk HFCs when used in non-compliant products even
though that is outside of their control. One commenter stated that the
full definition of `use' is only clear in the context of the additional
discussion in the Applicability section and recommended that elements
of that discussion be added to the definition. Specifically, the
commenter stated it would be useful to distinguish actions that occur
at the market or industry level, as was intended, from the operation of
equipment by an owner. Another commenter noted that while ``use'' is
not synonymous with sale or distribution, ``use'' is closer to the
point in time when a product is sold and received by the ultimate
customer rather than the point in time when the product is manufactured
and that EPA's restriction on the manufacture of a product bears little
relationship to when products containing HFCs will actually be used by
their owners.
Response: EPA fully responds to these comments in section VI.C of
this notice.
7. Other
Many commenters requested EPA to establish definitions clarifying
when an appliance is newly manufactured and/or newly installed and thus
subject to the GWP-limits. Commenters explicitly or
[[Page 73113]]
indirectly referenced terminology used in California's regulations for
``new refrigeration equipment,'' ``new air conditioning equipment,''
and ``new facility,'' as well as ``date of manufacture of self-
contained equipment'' and ``date of manufacture of remote equipment.''
Another commenter requested EPA define ``new'' to match the methodology
used in New York State. EPA responds to these comments in section VI.C
of this notice.
B. How is EPA restricting the use of HFCs in the sector or subsector in
which they are used?
Subsection (i) authorizes EPA to by rule restrict, fully,
partially, or on a graduated schedule, the use of a regulated substance
in the sector or subsector in which the regulated substance is used.
The provision grants EPA authority to fashion restrictions on the use
of regulated substances in the sectors that use those substances and
does not specify a particular approach as to how restrictions must be
structured but lists considerations EPA is to factor in, to the extent
practicable, when promulgating restrictions. EPA is finalizing two
approaches to structuring those restrictions, a GWP-limit and a list of
prohibited regulated substances or blends, while recognizing that other
approaches could be considered in the future that would also fit within
the authority granted by this statutory provision. EPA also proposed to
prohibit the use of all regulated substances in new products within
particular subsectors, but some commenters noted that the Agency
generated confusion by imprecisely describing it as a GWP-limit of
zero. As discussed in Section VI.F.3, EPA is not finalizing an approach
that completely prohibits the use of regulated substances in new
products in any sector or subsector in this rulemaking and again
maintains that the Agency has the authority to do so in a subsequent
rulemaking.
In establishing the two approaches contained in this final rule,
EPA has taken into account the statutory text, feasibility, consistency
with similar programs being implemented in the States and
internationally, impacts on the regulated community and on innovation,
efficiency of implementation, and other factors. Subsection (i)(4)'s
``Factors for Determination'' provides factors that EPA is to consider
``[i]n carrying out a rulemaking'' under subsection (i)(1). As a
general matter, we interpret subsection (i)(1) to apply where EPA is
deciding whether to impose a restriction on the use of a regulated
substance in a sector or subsector and what that restriction should be
(e.g., a full restriction or a partial restriction and on what
timeframe). However, the factors listed in subsection (i)(4) are also
informative in our consideration of how to structure restrictions, as
some approaches may provide advantages with respect to some of the
factors over others.
Furthermore, while subsection (i)(1) identifies that EPA may
restrict the use of a regulated substance ``in the sector or subsector
in which the regulated substance is used,'' given EPA's authority to
issue partial restrictions, EPA interprets this provision as allowing
the Agency to establish restrictions for particular uses of HFCs, such
as products or applications, and that such restrictions need not apply
uniformly across entire sectors or subsectors. Interpreting EPA's
authority in this manner allows the Agency to tailor restrictions in
accordance with the best available data and to consider relevant
differences in, for example, the availability of substitutes with
respect to technological achievability or affordability. For example,
EPA is establishing restrictions for HFCs used in chillers for IPR.
However, EPA is excluding chillers for IPR with exiting fluid
temperatures less than -58 [deg]F because lower-GWP substitutes for
HFCs are not yet adequately technologically achievable and therefore
not available at this time.
The two approaches to structuring subsection (i) restrictions used
in this rule were identified in the petitions granted by the Agency to
date. They are either to set GWP limits for HFCs used within a sector
or one or more subsectors or to restrict specific HFCs, whether neat or
used in a blend, by sector or one or more subsectors.\36\ EPA is
primarily employing the GWP limit approach in this rulemaking, with
some exceptions where the specific-listing approach is more
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The restrictions on the use of an HFC under subsection (i)
of the AIM Act established in this rulemaking are intended to
complement and not conflict with existing restrictions established
through other authorities. Other authorities still apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For most sectors and subsectors in this rule, EPA is establishing
GWP limits for HFCs, whether neat or used in a blend. Under this
approach only HFCs with GWPs below the limit or HFCs used in blends
with GWPs below the limit may be used in that sector or subsector. If
used neat, HFCs with GWPs at or above the GWP limit are prohibited from
use in that sector or subsector. For HFCs used in a blend in the sector
or subsector, compliance with the GWP limit is determined based on the
GWP of the blend. If a blend meets two criteria (it contains an HFC and
the GWP of the blend is at or above the GWP limit) the HFCs in the
blend are subject to the prohibition on use, and accordingly the blend
may not be used in that sector or subsector. References and
descriptions of how the restrictions apply to blends throughout this
notice incorporate this framework and have only been shortened for
readability. A blend or other substitute that does not contain a
regulated substance is not subject to the GWP limit.
In general, this approach also provides a more efficient and
streamlined process for companies to employ lower-GWP substitutes for
new uses, because the existing restrictions make clear what substitutes
are permissible. In contrast, promulgating restrictions under
subsection (i) using only a substance-specific listing approach could
create hesitancy to innovate because it would be less clear whether EPA
might restrict a particular blend containing an HFC after a company had
already invested resources in developing it for a particular use.
To determine the GWP of a blend that uses an HFC, all components of
the blend are incorporated, whether an HFC, HFO, hydrocarbon or other
constituent, using the 100-year integrated AR4 values.\37\ We note that
the 100-year integrated GWP values in Table 2.15 of AR4 for the HFCs
are equivalent to the exchange values listed in the AIM Act and thus
what we plan to use here without change. Further details about
determining the GWP of compounds that are not listed in AR4 are found
in section IV.A of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ This rule does not change in any way the calculation
established under 40 CFR part 84, subpart A for determining the
quantity of production and consumption allowances required for
regulated substances used in blends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For refrigerants, the blend includes the components in amounts as a
weight percentage, consistent with the refrigerant designation in
ASHRAE Standard 34, ``Refrigerant Designations and Safety
Classifications'' or the SNAP listing. The refrigerant blend considered
in the GWP calculation does not include other additives such as
compressor oil or stabilizers. For foams, the blend includes components
that are part of the blowing agent as a weight percentage. The blowing
agent blend considered in the GWP calculation does not include other
parts of the foam formulation such as plastic resin, catalysts, flame
retardants, or stabilizers. In general, aerosols do not use blends as
propellants, but multiple HFCs may be used together in an aerosol
solvent
[[Page 73114]]
blend, in which case the blend would include the component solvents and
propellants in amounts as a weight percentage. Other parts of the
aerosol formulation are not considered in calculating the aerosol's
GWP, such as water, fragrances, emulsifiers, pigments, anti-bacterial
agents, pesticides, or polymers.
In most cases it is the specific HFC and the proportion of that HFC
within the blend that determines the GWP of the blend as a whole. EPA
is not restricting the use of any specific HFC when used in blends. For
instance, for sectors or subsectors with a GWP limit of 150, HFC-134a
neat, which has a GWP of 1,430, cannot be used, while R-451A, which is
a blend of HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, has a GWP of 147 and may be used.
In other words, an HFC with a GWP above the limit may continue to be
used when it is used in a blend, such that the total GWP of the blend
is below the limit. There may be certain characteristics associated
with a higher-GWP HFC that make use of that substance in a blend
particularly advantageous, and in some cases increase the availability
of that substitute for use, such as improving safety by reducing
flammability. The GWP limit approach, which allows for the continued
use of certain higher-GWP substances in blends, rather than strictly
prohibiting the use of those higher-GWP substances in a sector or
subsector, can smooth the glide path to transition, support innovation,
and achieve beneficial environmental impacts sooner than waiting for
the development of a substitute that contains no amount of a higher-GWP
regulated substance.
Comment: Multiple commenters, including those representing users of
regulated substances across different sectors, agreed that establishing
GWP limits provides regulatory certainty and encourages the continued
development and implementation of HFC substitutes with lower GWPs. A
few commenters agreed that using a similar approach allows for
harmonization across jurisdictions. Commenters also noted that using
GWP limits is easy for downstream equipment users to understand, easier
for the Agency to implement, and provides flexibility. One commenter
supported GWP limits as it more clearly articulates EPA's intention to
reduce the warming impact of HFCs and that it provides a more
straightforward way for EPA to tighten restrictions by ratcheting down
the GWP limits in the future.
One commenter strongly favored the specific-listing approach over
the GWP limit approach. The commenter stated that the GWP limit
approach poses huge noncompliance issues and dangers to users of
products containing regulated substances by shifting the obligation to
assess the safety of a substitute to the end-user. The commenter noted
that the basis for their concern is that the Agency would no longer
update SNAP listings. The commenter also recognized the downsides of a
specific-listing approach but still found specific-listing to be
preferable if the GWP approach meant the Agency was not assessing the
risks associated with substitutes.
Response: EPA acknowledges the broad support for using GWP limits
as the method for restricting the use of certain HFCs by sector or
subsector and for the reasons discussed in the proposed rule is
primarily using that approach in this final rule. Additionally, the GWP
listing approach is not a replacement for SNAP listings or reviews of
environmental, health, and safety impacts. Congress provided separate
authority under subsection (i)(5) of the AIM Act for EPA to evaluate
substitutes for HFCs in a sector or subsector, taking into account
technological achievability, commercial demands, safety, overall
economic costs and environmental impacts, and to make the evaluation
public, including the factors associated with the safety of those
substitutes. EPA intends to continue providing information on its
evaluation of alternatives to HFCs.
Furthermore, contrary to commenter's suggestion, EPA continues to
promulgate rules under SNAP. Section 612(c) of the CAA requires EPA to
promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace ODS with any substitute
that it determines may present adverse effects to human health or the
environment where it has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently
or potentially available. Section 612(c) further requires EPA to
``publish a list of (A) the substitutes prohibited under this
subsection for specific uses and (B) the safe alternatives identified
under this subsection for particular specific uses.'' Under SNAP, EPA
evaluates substances that can be used as alternatives based on multiple
criteria and accordingly lists them as acceptable, unacceptable,
acceptable subject to use conditions, acceptable subject to narrowed
use limits, or pending. See 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7) (listing criteria for
review) and 40 CFR 82.180(b) (describing types of listing decisions).
EPA has considered more than 500 alternatives for eight industry
sectors and more than 40 end uses since 1994.\38\ EPA will continue to
evaluate alternatives in the sectors and subsectors where ozone-
depleting substances have been and are being used.\39\ EPA recently
finalized SNAP Rule 25 listing lower-GWP alternatives as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, for chillers-comfort cooling, residential
dehumidifiers, residential and light commercial air conditioning and
heat pumps. SNAP Rule 25 also listed ethylene as acceptable, subject to
use conditions and narrowed use limits, in very low temperature
refrigeration. (88 FR 26382; April 28, 2023). EPA also recently
proposed SNAP Rule 26 which would list lower-GWP alternatives as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for retail food refrigeration,
commercial ice machines, IPR, cold storage warehouses, and ice-skating
rinks. (88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023). As discussed in section VI.E.2 of
this preamble and the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of
2020--Subsection (i)(4) Factors for Determination: Safety, referred to
in this preamble as the ``Safety TSD,'' assessments of safety and other
characteristics under SNAP are duly considered in our examination of
availability (as it relates to safety and other factors) under AIM Act
subsection (i)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ As noted in section VI.A of this preamble, there is
significant overlap between the sectors and subsectors identified in
this proposal and how sectors and ``end-uses'' are categorized under
the SNAP program.
\39\ After a court challenge, the D.C. Circuit partially vacated
SNAP Rule 20 (80 FR 42870, July 20, 2015) ``to the extent it
requires manufacturers to replace HFCs with a substitute
substance,'' and remanded to EPA for further proceedings. Mexichem
Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.3d 451, 464 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (``Mexichem
I''). However, the court upheld EPA's decisions in that rule to
change the listings for certain HFCs in certain SNAP end-uses from
acceptable to unacceptable as being reasonable and not arbitrary and
capricious. Id. at 462-64. The same court later issued a similar
partial vacatur for portions of the SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86778,
December 1, 2016). See Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 760 Fed. Appx. 6
(Mem) (per curiam) (D.C. Cir. 2019) (``Mexichem II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, EPA is primarily finalizing the use restrictions in this
action by employing a GWP limit approach because this approach supports
innovation, transition, and compliance. Furthermore, for the reasons
discussed in the proposed rule and based on the comments received, EPA
is in most instances not employing a specific listing approach in its
use restrictions, except in limited circumstances. For example, we find
the specific listing approach can be preferable where the subsector has
not yet identified favored lower-GWP substitutes to transition to, but
is in a position, per subsection (i)(4), to transition away from using
the highest-GWP regulated substances. It
[[Page 73115]]
allows additional time before establishing a GWP limit (which, to serve
regulatory certainty and innovation, the Agency would prefer not to
repeatedly revisit) while still restricting those substances that have
the highest environmental impact. This approach would allow for the
adoption of multiple transitional substitutes and allow for the
development of additional substitutes before issuing a GWP-limit-based
restriction. As such, EPA is using both approaches in combination, with
some subsectors having a GWP limit and others where specific substances
are restricted.
C. Applicability
HFCs are used in a wide variety of sectors, including refrigeration
and air conditioning, foams, aerosols, and fire suppression. In these
sectors, HFCs are used as a refrigerant, foam-blowing agent, solvent,
propellant, and fire suppression agent and may be contained within or
emitted from equipment such as a product or system. HFCs are also used
in processes such as semiconductor manufacturing and chemical
manufacturing. Subsection (i) of the AIM Act provides that the
Administrator may by rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a graduated
schedule, the use of a regulated substance in the sector or subsector
in which the regulated substance is used. EPA interprets its authority
under subsection (i) to cover a broad chain of sector and subsector
activities associated with equipment that uses regulated substances.
EPA designed the restrictions of this rule to apply at certain
points in this chain of activities, consistent with the Act's direction
that EPA ``may by rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a graduated
schedule.'' In light of the fact that the restrictions in this final
action are the first to be issued under subsection (i), EPA views
restrictions on the incorporation of higher-GWP HFCs into new products
and systems and on the introduction and circulation of those products
in the market as the most efficient and effective way to encourage a
subsector to transition from the use of those HFCs. This rule therefore
(1) restricts the use of HFCs in the manufacture and import of new
products; (2) restricts the subsequent sale or distribution, offer for
sale and distribution, purchase or receipt for sale or distribution, or
export of those products; and (3) restricts the installation of new
systems and the significant modification of existing systems.
In general, these restrictions apply primarily to original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and importers, as these are the entities
that introduce such products and components of such systems into the
U.S. market. The restrictions in this rule that apply to distributors
(including online platforms), retailers, and exporters are intended to
reinforce the manufacture and import restrictions, and to ensure that
incentives throughout the market chain are aligned toward transitioning
a subsector from regulated substances where available substitutes
exist. Entities that install new systems, including those that
assemble, contract for, or take possession of the system are also
subject to these restrictions.
EPA is cognizant of the continued need in the covered sectors and
subsectors for components to service and maintain existing systems that
use higher-GWP HFCs. This rule therefore allows for the continued
manufacture, import, sale, distribution, and export of components,
subject to labeling, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. EPA is
generally not applying restrictions on the use of HFCs in existing
products or systems or used products, except, for example, in limited
circumstances such as the import of used products or modification of a
system to the point that it constitutes replacement (see section VI.C.3
of the preamble). To that end, this rule does not restrict the use of
HFCs in ordinary repair and servicing of products or systems, nor is
EPA applying the restrictions to the use of HFCs in retrofit
applications.
1. What is EPA's statutory authority for this action?
Summary of the Proposed Rule
Subsection (i) grants EPA authority to restrict the use of a
regulated substance in the sector or subsector in which the regulated
substance is used, and the Act does not define ``use.'' For several
reasons, summarized below, EPA proposed to define ``use'' in the
context of subsection (i) as including actions taken with respect to
regulated substances that occur at the market or industry level, such
as manufacture, distribution, sale, and offer for sale--i.e., to cover
the presence of HFCs in products and processes in the U.S. market--as a
way of addressing their use in sectors and subsectors. EPA's
interpretation of its authority under this section is grounded in the
statutory text and purposes.
First, sectors and subsectors are not defined in the AIM Act, but
those terms suggest groupings or categories of related activity at an
industry level. EPA is defining ``sectors'' and ``subsectors''
consistent with historical usage of those terms in other programs--
grouping together similar or related industrial or market uses into
distinct sectors; for example, refrigeration and air conditioning,
foams, or aerosols. The AIM Act language, ``use of a regulated
substance in the sector or subsector in which the regulated substance
is used,'' makes plain that the grant of authority under subsection (i)
was intended to cover a sector or subsector's use of a regulated
substance. The inclusion of a regulated substance in a product \40\ or
system to achieve a particular purpose--e.g., using an HFC as a
refrigerant in a refrigerator or in an air conditioner--is a
prototypical use for sectors in which regulated substances are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Similarly, subsection (i)'s authority extends to regulated
substances contained in a blend and the use of that regulated
substance within a blend by the sector or subsector in a product or
process to achieve a particular purpose. To address the regulated
substance within a blend, it is appropriate to establish
requirements that apply to use of the blend, although the blend
itself is not a regulated substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, because subsection (i) and the subsection (i)(4) factors
are focused on broad, sector-level information, we proposed that it is
reasonable to interpret ``use'' broadly, in a way that would reach uses
on a sector-level basis. The subsection is titled ``Technology
Transitions,'' and in subsection (i)(4), the Act directs EPA to
consider certain factors, to the extent practicable, in issuing a
rulemaking or making a determination to grant or deny a petition
regarding use restrictions. The factors listed under subsection (i)(4)
task the Agency with examining information relevant to industry-level
sectors or subsectors that would inform consideration of the
feasibility and advisability of establishing requirements for a
transition away from the use of a regulated substance in that sector or
subsector, as well as consideration of whether that transition should
be full, partial, or on a graduated schedule. For example, subsection
(i)(4)(B) directs EPA to factor in ``the availability of substitutes
for use of the regulated substance that is the subject of the
rulemaking or petition, as applicable, in a sector or subsector, taking
into account technological achievability, commercial demands, safety,
consumer costs, building codes, appliance efficiency standards,
contractor training costs, and other relevant factors, including
quantities of regulated substances available from reclaiming, prior
production, or prior import.'' The various subfactors in (i)(4)(B) help
EPA to determine whether there are adequate available substitutes for a
regulated
[[Page 73116]]
substance that a sector or subsector could use, indicating feasibility,
readiness, advisability, and degree of a sector or subsector's
transition away from the regulated substances in use. Similarly, the
other factors in (i)(4)--to use best available data, to consider
overall economic costs and environmental impacts as compared to
historical trends, and to consider the remaining phasedown period for
regulated substances under the phasedown rule issued under subsection
(e), if applicable--also fit with this understanding of EPA's task: to
determine whether, when, and to what degree it is appropriate to
establish a use restriction to facilitate the transition of a sector or
subsector from the use of regulated substances.
Third, we explained in the proposed rule that Congress provided EPA
authority to issue restrictions that are full, partial, or on a
graduated schedule. Fully restricting the use of a regulated substance
in the sector or subsector in which it is used, by its terms, implies a
full transition away from the use of that regulated substance in the
given sector or subsector. We therefore understand EPA's ability to
restrict ``use of a regulated substance in the sector or subsector in
which it is used'' to be broad enough to achieve a full transition such
that the regulated substance would no longer be present in any portion
of the sector or subsector. To effectuate a full transition, we would
have to be able to address all the aspects where the regulated
substance is present in that sector or subsector of the market. There
may be situations where a restriction is best targeted at points in the
life cycle or market chain of the regulated substance that are
subsequent to the incorporation of the regulated substance in a product
or process, as well as points in the chain that are proximate to
ultimate use. Thus, we interpret the term ``use,'' and EPA's authority
under AIM Act subsection (i), as being broad enough to reach points
such as transport or offer for sale.
EPA therefore proposed to interpret use of a regulated substance in
the sector or subsector for purposes of subsection (i) as ``for any
person to take any action with or to a regulated substance, regardless
of whether the regulated substance is in bulk, contained within a
product, or otherwise, except for the destruction of a regulated
substance. Actions include, but are not limited to, the utilization,
deployment, sale, distribution, discharge, incorporation,
transformation, or other manipulation.'' EPA's proposed definition of
``use'' therefore covered all of the links on the chain representing
how regulated substances are introduced, incorporated into products or
processes, circulated, and made available in the U.S. market.
We explained in the proposed rule that even though the Act grants
EPA broad authority to achieve a full transition from regulated
substances in a sector or subsector, there are many actions not
included within the scope of the restrictions covered by this final
rule, including actions associated with steps in the disposal chain
such as recovery, recycling, and reclamation of a regulated substance;
the ordinary utilization or operation of a system or product by a
consumer; \41\ and the six specific applications with a current
qualification for application-specific allowances under 40 CFR 84.13.
As explained in the proposed rule, given that we are at the outset of
the phasedown of regulated substances, the restrictions in this action
are aimed at limiting the introduction of new products that use
regulated substances to the market and restricting the circulation of
those products (e.g., sale or distribution) before they reach the
consumer. In that vein, the final rule includes ``offer for
distribution'' in addition to offer for sale in the definition of use.
Similarly, we proposed to restrict the installation of new systems
using HFCs under the proposal by defining manufacture to include the
installation of new systems. EPA is finalizing its definition of
``use'' under subsection (i), with these clarifications, consistent
with the interpretation of ``use in the sector or subsector in which
the regulated substance is used'' articulated in the proposed rule and
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Noting, however, that in some cases the consumer may have
purchased a product where the first incorporation of the regulated
substance occurs when the product is in the consumer's ownership,
and in those cases that incorporation would be covered by the
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Most of the comments the Agency received in response to
its proposed interpretation of EPA's scope of authority under
subsection (i) and of EPA's definition of ``use of the regulated
substance in the sector or subsector in which the regulated substance
is used'' related to the proposed prohibition on the sale,
distribution, and offer for sale or distribution of many regulated
products that would go into effect on January 1, 2026 (i.e., the sell-
through period). Many commenters objected based on their view of the
practical consequences of a one-year sell-through period, raising
concerns about the economic harm of stranded inventory, and in
particular, the high likelihood of stranded seasonal inventory such as
air conditioners. Others commented on the difficulties of implementing
any prohibition on the sale of parts of equipment that contain
regulated substances, where those parts would continue to be needed for
servicing and repair of existing equipment. Another commenter argued
that prohibiting the sale of any inventory that was not sold by the
sell-through prohibition date would constitute a ``taking'' without
just compensation under the U.S. Constitution. These comments are
summarized and addressed in section VI.C.2.c of this preamble.
A smaller subset of commenters alleged that EPA lacked statutory
authority to promulgate a sell-through limitation under the AIM Act.
One commenter claimed that the AIM Act only provides EPA with authority
to prohibit the ``manufacture'' of high-GWP equipment, and that had
Congress intended to allow EPA to have broader authority to regulate
under subsection (i), it would have employed the same language that is
used in subsection (h) of the AIM Act, which uses the terms ``any
practice, process, or activity.'' This commenter claimed that the
Agency had relied upon dictionary definitions of the word ``use'' and
that other dictionary definitions supported the commenter's preferred
interpretation of that word to be limited to acts or practices that
``employ, use, or put a regulated substance into service,'' and noted
that at least one dictionary definition indicated that ``use'' means
``long-continued possession and employment of a thing for the purpose
for which it is adapted.'' The commenter therefore asserted that the
Agency's regulatory definition should not include sale or distribution,
since in the commenter's view, neither action is the act or practice of
employing, using, or putting a regulated substance into service, nor is
sale or distribution ``the long-continued possession'' and ``employment
for the purpose for which it is adapted,'' which, the commenter stated
in the case of RACHP, is the transfer of heat.
Specifically, the commenter urged EPA to adopt the following
definition of ``use'' under subsection (i): ``Use means the act or
practice of employing a product containing or designed to contain a
regulated substance. Use does not include the destruction of a
regulated substance.'' The commenter argued that its proffered
definition would still allow EPA to phase out the manufacture of
products made of or containing regulated substances without going
beyond, in its view, the authority of the AIM Act. Further, the
commenter claimed that a sell-through limitation, rather than a
regulation based only on
[[Page 73117]]
a product's date of manufacture, would be ``unique'' in comparison to
numerous other regulations on durable goods, including those
promulgated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Response: We disagree with commenters who allege that EPA does not
have authority under subsection (i) of the AIM Act to issue
restrictions on the sale or distribution of products that use regulated
substances. We do not agree with the commenter's reading of the
statute, and specifically, its views that subsection (i) the AIM Act
only provides EPA with authority to prohibit the ``manufacture'' of
higher-GWP equipment and that, in contrast to subsection (h), which
uses the language of ``any practice, process, or activity,'' EPA's
authority under subsection (i) is comparatively limited. In fact,
subsection (i) does not mention either manufacture or equipment, much
less contain any limitation that EPA may only address manufacture of
equipment under subsection (i). Subsection (i)(1) says, with respect to
EPA's authority, that ``[s]ubject to the provisions of this subsection,
the Administrator may by rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a
graduated schedule, the use of a regulated substance in the sector or
subsector in which the regulated substance is used.'' There is nothing
in this provision that suggests that EPA's statutory authority under
(i) is limited to issuing restrictions on manufacturing, nor does the
provision suggest that only higher-GWP equipment may be the target of
EPA's restrictions. To the contrary, this language broadly authorizes
EPA to restrict any use of a regulated substance in the sector or
subsector in which the regulated substance is used; there is no
limitation, express or implied, to certain types of use or users.\42\
These are assumptions that the commenter appears to have made without
any grounding in the text of the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Congress included express limitations on the applicability
of the rules under AIM subsection (i) in a later part of the
subsection (see subsection (i)(7)), and neither of the limitations
in that provision mention a limitation to the manufacture of higher
GWP equipment. Had Congress intended the kind of restriction the
commenters suggest, it is reasonable to think they would have
included those restrictions in subsection (i)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also do not agree with the commenter's view that Congress'
decision to use different language than it did for subsection (h)
(i.e., its omission of the terms ``any practice, process, or
activity,'' which appear in subsection (h)) somehow narrows the scope
of subsection (i). The commenter appears to ignore the full context of
each provision. Subsection (h) and subsection (i) use different
language and are framed differently, but that does not mean that one is
narrower or the other broader. Rather, EPA interprets those differences
as conveying authority that is tailored to the respective area of focus
of these subsections so that EPA can establish regulatory regimes that
effectively achieve their respective purposes and complement one
another. Because EPA is establishing these provisions under subsection
(i), the critical question is whether they are within the authority
conveyed under subsection (i) as Congress drafted it, not whether they
would be authorized under some other language. When the statutory text
of subsection (i) is read in full context, it comfortably encompasses
restrictions on a range of entities that use regulated substances, not
just manufacturers of equipment. One authority EPA has under (i) can be
stated as follows: ``[t]he Administrator may . . . restrict fully . . .
the use of a regulated substance in the sector or subsector in which
the regulated substance is used.''
Subsection (i)'s grant of authority to issue a full restriction
across use in a sector or subsector was a key rationale underlying
EPA's interpretation. As EPA pointed out at proposal, EPA interprets
the statute in a way that could give meaning to subsection (i)'s grant
of authority to effectuate a full restriction, and thus transition, of
all uses of a regulated substance in any given sector or subsector. As
we explained in the proposed rule, a narrower interpretation of EPA's
authority to exclude sale or distribution could circumvent the intended
full transition of a sector or subsector away from use of HFCs.
Consistent with these concerns articulated in the proposed rule, EPA
received a comment from a State that has restricted the manufacture of
products containing HFCs without a sell-through limitation, and that
State observed that such an ``approach can create challenges as it
relies on regulated entities to provide documentation as to manufacture
date,'' and that ``[n]ot all entities in the market chain can provide
such information for all products,'' noting that ``[t]hese factors are
further complicated when applied to international manufacturers and
retailers.'' These concerns lend further support to EPA's view that
covering all points in the market chain of ``use in the sector or
subsector'' ensures that the use restrictions we establish achieve
their intended purpose, where the intention is to fully restrict the
use of a regulated substance in a sector or subsector, or, as in this
case, to partially restrict the use of regulated substances before
those substances reach consumers. As discussed in the proposed rule,
even though EPA's definition of ``use'' is broad in order to enable the
Agency to fully exercise the subsection (i) authority under that
provision and to facilitate a full transition to HFC substitutes where
appropriate, that does not mean that in every instance the restrictions
promulgated under subsection (i) will exercise that full authority. In
many cases, as in this action, EPA may issue partial restrictions that
target only certain uses.
The same commenter who asserted EPA has no authority to restrict
sale or distribution provided no rebuttal or engagement with the
reasoning EPA provided at proposal for its interpretation: namely, that
the express provision of subsection (i) is related to a sector or
subsector's use of a regulated substance, that the subsection (i)(4)
factors require EPA to analyze information related to a restriction's
feasibility and impact from a sector-level viewpoint, and that, as
stated previously, the authority to ``restrict fully'' means that EPA
has authority to restrict many activities in a sector- or subsector-
level chain where regulated substances are present, and therefore
``used'' in that sector or subsector. Instead, the commenter claimed
that EPA ``justified'' its interpretation by relying on dictionary
definitions of the word ``use.'' This is not accurate. We began the
proposed rule's preamble discussion with citations to the dictionary
definition of that word, but the reasoning for our proposed
interpretation and definition of the term did not rest solely on the
dictionary definitions.
Nor do we agree with the commenter that their proffered definition,
which relies on the commenter's ``dictionary definition'' understanding
of the term ``use,'' is workable. The commenter suggests that EPA
should define ``use'' as ``the act or practice of employing a product
containing or designed to contain a regulated substance. Use does not
include the destruction of a regulated substance.'' We do not agree
with commenter's assertion that this definition ``would still allow EPA
to phase out the production of products made of or containing regulated
substances.'' Putting aside the commenters' confusing use of the term
``phase out'' in the context of subsection (i), which addresses use
restrictions, under the commenter's definition, EPA would only be
allowed to restrict the act or practice of employing a product
containing or designed to contain a
[[Page 73118]]
regulated substance. We fail to see how this definition of use would
allow EPA to restrict the manufacture of products containing HFCs,
because the creation of a product is not the act or practice of
employing that product, nor would EPA be permitted to restrict the
import of such products, because import also does not ``employ'' the
product. In fact, under the commenter's suggested definition, it would
appear that the only potential regulated parties under AIM Act
subsection (i) would be the consumers of products, as these are likely
the only parties that would be ``employing'' the products, as the
commenters seem to be using that term, and for the sector the commenter
represents (RACHP), the consumers are almost certainly the only parties
that are ``employing'' the products for ``the purpose for which it is
adapted, i.e., the transfer of heat'' (to quote the commenter's
understanding of and application of the dictionary definition of
``use''). We disagree that this is a reasonable reading of the AIM Act,
given the textual considerations that subsection (i)(4) sets the Agency
to consider when determining whether or not to restrict the ``use of a
regulated substance in the sector or subsector in which the substance
is used.'' (emphasis added).
We also note that despite the commenter's observation that many
regulations on goods, including those promulgated by the U.S. DOE,
establish compliance based only on manufacture, that has little
relevance for EPA's interpretation of the term ``use'' in subsection
(i). EPA's action is governed by the authority grounded in the text of
the AIM Act, not the text of the statute providing DOE authority to
promulgate its regulations. In any case, designing a restriction that
regulates actions other than manufacture is not ``unique.'' In the
context of SNAP under CAA section 612, which evaluates alternatives to
ozone-depleting substances like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (class I
substances) and HCFCs (class II substances), EPA has long defined
``use'' as ``any use of a substitute for a class I or class II ozone-
depleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing
process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate
uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses.'' 40
CFR 82.172. The Agency's interpretation of the scope of its authority
and its definition of the term ``use'' in the subsection (i) context
similarly conceives of this authority as including the introduction of
products containing regulated substances into what we consider to be
sector or subsector activity, and the full market chain of activities,
or ``intermediate uses,'' that follow, through to the consumer or end-
user.
2. What uses is EPA restricting in this rule?
a. Manufacture and Import of Factory-Completed Products
This rule includes restrictions that apply to the manufacture of
certain factory-completed products by the dates specified in section
VI.F. As discussed in section VI.A on definitions, commenters were
generally supportive of EPA's proposal to establish use restrictions on
the manufacture of factory-completed products using regulated
substances. Many of the comments received on EPA's proposal to restrict
manufacturing related to EPA's proposed definition of ``manufacture''
to include the installation of field-assembled systems.
EPA proposed to apply its restrictions equally as to domestically
manufactured products using HFCs and products using HFCs that are
imported. The AIM Act defines ``import'' as ``to land on, bring into,
or introduce into, or attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce
into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
regardless of whether that landing, bringing, or introduction
constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of
the United States,'' and this rule follows that definition. Commenters
were supportive of EPA's equal application of the proposed restriction
to the manufacture of products using HFCs and to the import of products
using HFCs, noting that restricting both manufacture and import would
garner environmental benefits, meet industry expectations, and treat
all equipment equally regardless of location of manufacture and
availability of HFCs under the global phasedown. EPA is finalizing the
restriction on the import of products as proposed.
While EPA is generally not regulating used equipment (see section
VI.C.b), the Agency proposed to restrict the import of all products
that do not meet the GWP limits, regardless of when the product was
manufactured and regardless of whether the product is used. The goal of
restricting the use of regulated substances (in this case, higher-GWP
HFCs) in the named sectors and subsectors would be undermined if those
sectors and subsectors could simply shift use to imported products
containing higher-GWP HFCs that were not subject to the Agency's
restrictions.
AIM Act subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii) states that subsection (i) rules
shall not apply ``except for a retrofit application, [to] equipment in
existence in a sector or subsector before December 27, 2020.'' EPA
interprets this limitation with respect to ``equipment in existence in
a sector or subsector'' not to apply to equipment manufactured abroad
prior to the Act's date of enactment, because EPA interprets ``sector
or subsector'' in that provision to mean a sector or subsector in the
United States. In general, where those terms appear in subsection (i)
of the AIM Act, EPA understands them to mean the domestic sector or
subsector, not the sector or subsector as it exists, operates, and
functions in another country. For example, in assessing the
availability of substitutes for use in a sector or subsector under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA is generally analyzing the various
subfactors--consumer costs, building codes, appliance efficiency
standards, contractor training costs--vis-[agrave]-vis the domestic
impacted sector or subsector.\43\ Therefore, equipment that was
manufactured in another country and existed prior to December 27, 2020,
but was not imported to the United States until after that date is not
subject to subsection (i)(7)(B)'s limitation, because until it is
imported into the United States, it is not ``in existence in the sector
or subsector.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ EPA is examining international information for some of the
analyses, such as research from international organizations about
technological achievability, because such information has relevance
for the sector or subsector in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received a number of comments related to its application of
restrictions on imports, and we summarize and respond to these comments
below.
Comment: One commenter supported and one commenter opposed the
proposal to restrict the import of products not meeting the GWP limits,
regardless of when the product was manufactured and regardless of
whether the products are used. The commenter opposed to EPA's proposal
requested that EPA clarify that ``equipment in existence as of December
27, 2020'' applies to all equipment in existence up to the date of this
rule's proposal, wherever that equipment is located (i.e., whether in
the United States or elsewhere), at least for semiconductor
manufacturing equipment. The commenter asserted that semiconductor
manufacturers have been producing semiconductor manufacturing equipment
in the last two years that was designed well before the AIM Act was
enacted, and that such equipment was intended to operate for the next
10 to 25 years. The commenter argues that until EPA published its
proposed rule,
[[Page 73119]]
semiconductor manufacturers did not have ``actionable notice'' that
their products might be subject to the Agency's restrictions. The
commenter also states that complex semiconductor manufacturing
equipment may have been manufactured outside of the United States but
was intended for use in the U.S. semiconductor sector. The commenter
noted that the semiconductor industry has a global supply chain with
long production timelines and asserted that EPA's proposed distinctions
based on where equipment is located could impose significant
complications on the sector's supply chain management.
Response: The Act's exception from applicability in AIM Act
subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii) plainly does not apply to any equipment
manufactured after December 27, 2020. We therefore do not agree with
the commenter that the exception in that provision could be interpreted
to apply to equipment manufactured between the date of the AIM Act's
enactment and the publication of EPA's proposed rule. The statute is
clear on its face, whether or not regulated entities were aware of
being potentially subject to regulation under these provisions of the
AIM Act until EPA issued its proposed rule.
We also clarify that not all equipment that uses regulated
substances in the semiconductor manufacturing industry is subject to
these rules. The use of regulated substances in many semiconductor
manufacturing processes, such as etching and the use of HFCs as
solvents, is not restricted by this final action. EPA's restrictions
cover only the use of HFCs as they relate to semiconductor
manufacturing where those HFCs are used as a refrigerant in chillers
for IPR. As discussed in section VI.F.1.j, EPA is differentiating its
restrictions and the timing of those restrictions for this subsector
based on the temperature of the exiting fluid. To the extent that the
equipment cited by commenter has exiting fluid temperatures below -50
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F), the import of such new equipment is not restricted
by this rule. For equipment with exiting fluid temperatures above that
temperature, EPA has delayed the compliance date for installations of
new systems to either 2026 or 2028 (again differentiating based on the
temperature of the exiting fluid). Importing components of such systems
may continue after those compliance dates to allow servicing of
existing equipment in the U.S.
Comment: One commenter opposed to EPA's proposal to apply its
restrictions to all imported products using HFCs above the GWP limits
requested that used semiconductor manufacturing and related equipment
(SMRE) that was designed to contain HFCs receive an exemption. The
commenter stated that there is a robust and active market for used
SMRE, and preventing the import of this used equipment could have
inadvertent supply chain disruption effects.
Response: EPA understands the semiconductor manufacturing equipment
to fit within the IPR subsector, typically utilizing chillers, often
built into other non-refrigerant containing equipment, to cool
processes necessary to produce semiconductor chips and other
electronics. As such, we do not view such equipment differently from
other IPR systems, which likewise could conceivably integrate a chiller
into other equipment (e.g., a chiller integrated with a conveyor belt
intended to move food needing freezing along its production process).
As discussed in section VI.F.1.j, EPA is finalizing a compliance date
later than proposed based on our consideration of the subsection (i)(4)
factors. Specifically, EPA is establishing a compliance date of January
1, 2028, for IPR chillers where the fluid exiting the chiller is below
-22 [deg]F (-30 [deg]C), and a January 1, 2026, date for other such
equipment. And, consistent with the proposed rule, this final rule does
not restrict HFC use in such equipment where the fluid exiting the
chiller is below -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F). This additional time compared
to the proposal should assist in the commenter's ability to respond to
the restrictions in this rule; for example, by importing appropriate
equipment prior to the relevant compliance date and/or altering
manufacturing outside the United States to use refrigerants that meet
the restrictions for the United States (i.e., less than 700 GWP).
Comment: Other commenters asked that EPA clarify how the import
restriction applies to existing intermodal containers that are engaged
in trade, refrigeration equipment in operation on ocean-going vessels,
and non-road motor vehicles temporarily deployed overseas. Commenters
stated that applying the GWP limit to all refrigerated containers is
infeasible and would be highly disruptive to trade. Commenters also
stated that such equipment should be allowed to be serviced in the
United States and not be subject to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
Response: EPA agrees that applying the restrictions to products
that are actively in use when travelling into U.S. jurisdiction could
be problematic. For example, a strict reading of the proposed
restrictions on import could have prevented a traveler from reentering
the United States from Canada or Mexico with their car if the MVAC uses
HFC-134a. As noted in the proposed rule, the Agency's intention is to
cover the activities of entities bringing large shipments of products
into the country, as well as activities of entities bringing smaller
volumes of products into the country (e.g., driving a truckload of air
conditioning units across the Canadian or Mexican border for sale in
the United States.). EPA therefore is distinguishing in this final rule
those products or systems that are actively in use when travelling into
U.S. jurisdiction from shipments of used products destined for resale
or further distribution. EPA is not intending that this aspect of this
rule restrict RACHP equipment in operation aboard marine vessels,
planes, motor vehicles, refrigerated transport trailers, or intermodal
containers. Likewise, foam or aerosol products that are in use (e.g.,
trailers) or in possession of a consumer when crossing the border are
likewise exempt from the import prohibition. However, EPA's intent is
to apply the use restrictions consistently for domestic manufacturers
and importers of products. As such, no person may sell new refrigerated
transport trailers or refrigerated intermodal containers in the United
States, whether manufactured domestically or abroad after the
manufacture/import compliance date, unless it complies with the HFC use
restrictions.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that prohibiting the
import of used, non-compliant products would also prevent the import of
products intended for recycling. The commenter contended that such a
regulated product is not `in the sector or subsector in which the
regulated substance is used' either outside or inside the United
States, and thus prohibiting the import is contrary to subsection
(i)(1) of the AIM Act.
Response: EPA considers the disposal chain, which includes the
recycling of equipment, and not the use or reuse of the equipment in
the relevant sector or subsector in the United States, to be outside
the scope of the restrictions on distribution. This includes equipment
bound for disposal that was never used by a consumer, such as defective
components or products that were manufactured or imported illegally.
Allowing for disposal furthers the intent of removing equipment from
the market before it is used by the consumer.
b. Installation of Systems
EPA is defining the term install/installation as ``to complete a
field-
[[Page 73120]]
assembled system's circuit, including charging with a full charge, such
that the system can function and is ready for use for its intended
purpose.'' As discussed in section VI.A (Definitions), many commenters
expressed concerns about EPA's proposed definition of ``manufacture,''
which would have included the installation and first charge of field-
assembled equipment. These included concerns that defining
``manufacture'' to include ``install'' of field-assembled systems
effectively accelerates the timeline of the prohibition and renders the
one-year sell-through moot. Commenters suggested different ways to
regulate the use of HFCs in field-assembled equipment, including
restricting the manufacture of components that would later be field-
assembled. In this final rule, EPA is restricting the installation of
field-assembled systems with additional clarifications. The definition
of install is virtually identical to the proposed definition of
manufacture for field-assembled systems. As with the term manufacture,
the definition of ``install'' serves as a distinct point in time by
which listed activities must be completed for purposes of meeting the
compliance date. By proposing in its prohibitions that ``no person''
may manufacture a product, EPA's intent was to capture any person who
is responsible for the manufacture (which, at proposal, included
installation of field-assembled equipment). EPA therefore does not
think that limiting the responsibility to only the technician who first
charges the system (and thus makes it ready for use for its intended
purpose) is an appropriate application of the restriction on
installation. Doing so would be equivalent to making the final
individual on a factory assembly line the ``manufacturer'' of a
refrigerator and not the OEM. Responsibility for installing a system
that improperly uses a higher-GWP HFC refrigerant after the compliance
date lies with multiple entities, including the designer, builder, and
owner/operator of that system, in addition to the entities that
assembled the components and got them into operating order on site.
Therefore, any person who assembles, contracts for, takes ownership
of, or operates a system that is installed after the applicable
compliance date using regulated substances prohibited for that
subsector is in violation of this rule.
Comment: Some commenters requested that EPA allow for installation
of a system if building permits have already been received to avoid the
re-design and permitting of buildings. Another commenter sought
flexibility in case there is a delay in receiving all the necessary
components or a delay in assembling and charging the system. The
commenter requested EPA allow appliances purchased under contract
before the compliance date to receive their field charge after that
date.
Response: EPA recognizes that some facilities may have been
designed and permitted to specifically use systems with HFCs that will
be restricted by this final rule. We anticipate that such instances are
rare, especially because the final rule delays the compliance dates for
the installation of most field-assembled systems by at least one year
and sometimes longer depending on the subsector. However, systems using
HFCs within facilities needing such long lead-times that they have
approved building permits in place by the date of signature for this
final rule are likely to be highly complex and costly to redesign. EPA
previously granted additional time to install systems that have been
permitted under the HCFC use restrictions under section 605(a) of the
CAA. In those instances, EPA agreed to provide time if, among other
conditions, those appliances were specified in a building permit dated
before the compliance date (see 74 FR 66441, December 15, 2009) and in
a more recent action the date of signature of the relevant proposed
rule (see 85 FR 15267, March 17, 2020).
Based on the comments received, similar flexibility may be needed
in this rule. Therefore, EPA is allowing one additional year for the
installation of systems in four subsectors if an approved building
permit issued before the date of signature of this final rule specified
the use of a system containing refrigerants with GWPs above the
relevant GWP threshold for the specified subsector. These subsectors
are: IPR systems with a January 1, 2026, compliance date; retail food
refrigeration--supermarkets; cold storage warehouses; and ice rinks.
This flexibility will prevent the need to redesign these systems, and
potentially the facility that houses these systems. EPA is not
including other subsectors in this provision as those systems are not
typically designed specifically for an individual facility and/or those
systems have a later compliance date and thus can make any necessary
changes with the GWP restrictions in mind.
EPA disagrees with the suggestion to allow systems purchased under
contract prior to the compliance date to be field charged after that
date. Doing so would undermine the intent of the regulation and the
statute by incentivizing the finalization of numerous contracts in the
days preceding the compliance date, which could then potentially allow
for years of further installations using higher-GWP HFCs in sectors and
subsectors that EPA has already determined under subsection (i)(4) are
ready to transition to lower-GWP substitutes.
Comment: Some commenters disagreed with the installation being the
point of compliance. One commenter stated that this broadens
responsibility for compliance from a relatively small number of
knowledgeable OEMs to a much broader group of distribution and
installation stakeholders who do not have the same level of awareness
of the regulatory requirements. Another commenter recommended that EPA
exclude ``purchaser and/or user'' and ``third party companies'' from
the definition of a ``manufacturer,'' (under the definition as
proposed) whether or not they are involved or provide support for
activities associated with field assembly or charging. The commenter
argued that the purchaser and/or user rarely, if ever, takes
``ownership'' of IPR equipment until it is fully charged and has been
demonstrated to run safely for the use for which it was designed and/or
intended, which is the responsibility of the manufacturer who designed
and fabricated the parts.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comments that the Agency should
only restrict OEMs and not regulate installation of a field-assembled
system. Many commenters representing OEMs of components stated that
they do not control how their components are used after they are sold
to a distributor, and EPA agrees that with respect to restricting the
use of HFCs in installation of field-assembled systems, OEMs of
components used in those systems are not the appropriate entity to
regulate (unless the OEM is involved in the design or construction of
the system). While applying the restrictions on installations to the
parties other than OEMs results in more potentially regulated entities,
it appropriately places the restriction on the entities that can
control the use of HFCs in that system. While a broader group of
installation stakeholders may not be as accustomed to compliance issues
as the relatively smaller group of component OEMs that commenters
requested be subject to the restrictions, applying the restrictions for
installation of systems to the designer, builder, and owner/operator of
that system will help to ensure that there is a knowledgeable party
driving compliance.
Comment: Many commenters requested that EPA provide a precise and
clear definition for when a field-erected and field-charged system
modified as part of a remodel or regular
[[Page 73121]]
maintenance is covered by the new GWP limit. They requested that EPA
allow for replacement of appliance components, including but not
limited to cases, compressors, valves, condensers, evaporator units,
piping and other components to keep that existing system running. They
also requested that EPA allow for remodels or retrofits to update the
look, improve the efficiency, or reduce leaks in a system. Other
commenters requested that EPA use California's definitions of new
refrigeration equipment, new air-conditioning equipment, and new
facility to demarcate which modifications to a system trigger the
requirements applicable to new systems. A State commenter noted that a
single, unified definition of `new' would be useful for States that
wish to establish controls that are aligned with EPA and in cases where
stakeholders require clarity on State versus national controls.
Several commenters summarized California's regulations as an
example of how a previously installed refrigeration system could
trigger the use restriction through either of two methods. The first
method is when the compressor capacity of the refrigeration system is
increased or the cost of replacing components over a three-year period
exceeds 50 percent of the capital cost of replacing the entire system
(excluding display cases).\44\ The second method is when an existing
facility changes to a different end-use or when 75 percent of the
refrigeration system's evaporators (by number) and 100 percent of its
compressor racks, condensers, and connected evaporator loads have been
replaced. A previously installed air-conditioning system triggers the
use restriction depending on the size of the system. For systems with a
single condenser and single evaporator, the use restrictions are
triggered when replacing the exterior condenser, condensing unit, or
remote condensing unit. For systems having more than one condenser and/
or more than one evaporator, the use restrictions are triggered when 75
percent of the indoor evaporator units (by number) and 100 percent of
the air source or water source condensing units are replaced over a
three-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ This is similar to the definition of ``new'' in New York
State. Specifically, new is defined as ``Products or equipment that
are manufactured after the effective date of this Part or installed
with new or used components, expanded by the addition of components
to increase system capacity after the effective date of this Part,
or replaced or cumulatively replaced after the effective date of
this Part such that the cumulative capital cost of replacement
exceeds 50% of the capital cost of replacing the whole system.'' 6
NYCRR 494.3(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter recommended EPA use the first method to avoid the
continuous replacement of parts indefinitely without ever triggering
any restriction on the use of controlled substances. An industry
commenter recommended the second method. A few commenters also
requested that EPA define the term ``new facility'' which is
substantively the same as the second method in the definition for new
refrigeration equipment. One such commenter that favored this approach
said it is clearer that components may be replaced and that restricting
``new refrigeration equipment'' would require establishing exceptions
for remodels and replacement for maintenance.
Response: EPA's intention is to allow the ordinary servicing and
repair of equipment and not to apply restrictions in a way that would
prevent such maintenance. However, we are cognizant of the concern that
systems could be significantly modified or upgraded to the point that
such modification or upgrade should be considered a new installation
subject to the subsector GWP limits.
The Agency has encountered the question of what modifications
constitute the installation of a new system during the phaseout of
HCFCs. Under section 605(a) of the CAA, EPA prohibited the use of
virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b to charge new appliances assembled onsite
on or after January 1, 2010. (December 15, 2009; 74 FR 66437). In that
context, the Agency's interpretation was that there were two different
situations that could be equivalent to the manufacture (i.e.,
installation) of a new system. These are modifications to a system that
increase the total cooling capacity in BTU of the system or the
complete replacement of all components within a system at once or over
time. Based on commenters' requests for clarification on the issue, EPA
is adopting these two situations in the regulatory text. In addition,
after consideration of the public comments and its past experience
implementing similar restrictions, the Agency is providing more
specificity about which components must be replaced in order for a
replacement to qualify as ``new installation.''
EPA noted in the proposed rule, in the context of what qualifies as
``equipment in existence,'' that ``in limited cases where every part of
a piece of equipment had been altered or replaced,'' such equipment
would fall outside the statutory and regulatory exemption in subsection
(i)(7)(B), and the alteration or replacement would be considered a new
installation subject to the restrictions under this section. In so
doing, we did not intend that ``every'' piece would include refrigerant
tubing, which is often very difficult to replace because the tubing may
be inaccessible. Even in major overhauls of systems, this tubing is
rarely replaced, and we therefore think replacements where this tubing
remains installed should still be considered new installations for
purposes of triggering these restrictions. Therefore, we are clarifying
in this final rulemaking and in the regulatory text which components
must be replaced, and at what percentages, to provide a precise, clear
standard that will ensure that major replacements and alterations are
properly subject to the restrictions and transition to lower-GWP
refrigerants. Specifically, when 75 percent of the refrigeration
system's evaporators (by number) and 100 percent of its compressor
racks, condensers, and connected evaporator loads have been replaced,
such replacement constitutes a new installation and is subject to the
restrictions on installation. EPA's approach in this final rulemaking
is also used by States that have adopted a definition of ``new
refrigeration equipment.''
EPA disagrees with commenters' suggestion that the Agency adopt
other methods used in California for determining when an existing
refrigeration system is considered ``new.'' Those other methods, such
as including specific timeframes or assessing capital costs, deviate
from EPA's historical interpretations under title VI of the CAA and
raise additional questions about implementation. Nor is EPA adopting
the method for determining when an existing air-conditioning system
with a single condenser and single evaporator is considered ``new.'' In
implementing the use restriction on HCFC-22 under title VI of the CAA,
EPA has considered the replacement of the condensing unit to be a
repair and not the installation of a new system. EPA finds that it is
also reasonable to continue that interpretation under the use
restrictions in subsection (i) as it is the same type of equipment and
because the AIM Act is implementing a phasedown rather than a phaseout,
meaning there is no end date for the production and import of bulk
HFCs.
c. Sale or Distribution of Factory-Completed Products
As discussed above, EPA interprets ``use'' to include activities in
the market chain that occur after the manufacture or import of a
product. As such, EPA is applying use restrictions to any person who
sells, distributes, offers for sale or
[[Page 73122]]
distribution, makes available for sale or distribution, purchases or
receives for sale or distribution, or attempts to purchase or receive
for sale or distribution, or exports any product using a regulated
substance in the sectors or subsectors controlled under subsection (i).
Applying the restrictions in this way ensures that the goal of
restricting the use of regulated substances in the sectors or
subsectors in which the regulated substances are used can be achieved,
because the sector and subsector's use of the regulated substance is
present in all these aspects of the market chain, and it is EPA's
intention to restrict use across that chain. Therefore, if a
manufacturer or importer improperly introduces into the U.S. market a
non-compliant product, distributors and retailers (including online
retailers) offering that product for sale are also restricted from
covered activities related to that product. Providing the means by
which individuals are able to list and sell prohibited products, or
exerting control over these sales, including operating platforms for
eCommerce transactions, will be considered use under this rule. EPA is
also applying the use restrictions to those entities who purchase or
receive for the purpose of further sale or distribution with the intent
to cover both sides of the transaction between distributors but not the
purchase by a consumer. The intent of this restriction is to ensure
that products that do not meet the limits do not enter the market and
are not circulated in the market, prior to sale to the consumer.
EPA proposed to prohibit sale, distribution, offer for sale and
distribution, and export of products using regulated substances not
meeting the GWP limits one year after the proposed prohibition date for
manufacture and import of products using regulated substances over the
GWP limits in each subsector. EPA explained at proposal that limiting
the period of time when products that do not meet the GWP limits can
continue to be sold has advantages over indefinitely exempting the sale
of inventory that does not meet the established use restrictions. In
particular, we noted the advantage of having a date certain by which
all parties--e.g., the public, enforcement officials, and regulated
entities--know that there can legally be no new products on the market
that do not meet the GWP limits. This additional prohibition on the
activities subsequent to manufacture and import but prior to sale to
the consumer reinforces the sector or subsector's transition away from
use of HFCs in new products and, to the extent that it is a
possibility, prevents the stockpiling and continued sale of products
that do not meet the sector or subsector use restrictions from
continuing indefinitely into the future.
EPA received many comments on this proposed prohibition on the sale
or distribution of products. Comments received on this aspect of this
rule and EPA's responses to those comments are summarized and discussed
in further detail below and in the response to comments document,
available in the docket.
This final action retains a limited sell-through period on products
using a regulated substance that do not meet the sector and subsector
restrictions with key changes in response to concerns raised by the
commenters. First, EPA is limiting the prohibition on sale,
distribution, offer for sale and distribution, and export to factory-
completed products that use prohibited higher-GWP regulated substances.
As discussed in greater detail later in this section, EPA is excluding
components and allowing for their continued manufacture, import, sale,
distribution, offer for sale and distribution, and export, subject to
certain restrictions, including that these uses are for the purpose of
servicing existing equipment. Second, EPA is extending the compliance
date for the sales prohibition on factory-completed products from the
proposed one year to three years after the manufacture and import
compliance date. EPA provided the two additional years to address
commenters' concerns that a one year sell-through was potentially
insufficient to clear inventory, and in particular, seasonal products
such as window-unit air conditioners, which can experience variable
demand from year-to-year. This final approach ensures that sectors and
subsectors that use regulated substances will transition from the use
of those substances where such transition is appropriate and alleviates
the concerns raised by commenters.
Comment: Several commenters voiced concern that the one-year
compliance deadline would create the risk of stranded inventory that
would not be able to be sold, which would cause economic harm to
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and ultimately consumers.
Commenters representing distributors highlighted the many
considerations they must account for in determining the amount of
inventory to stock, citing the desire to carry amounts of inventory
large enough to maintain competitive pricing, against costs incurred
via storage space leasing, warehouse mortgages, building utilities, and
insurance on products stored in the warehouse. Other commenters,
particularly those in the heating and cooling sector, noted that many
factors, including the economy, weather, and demand for construction
impact sales and that in this sector particularly, it is already
difficult to forecast what amount of inventory will need to be carried
over year to year. Many commenters noted that the sell-through
limitation would exacerbate existing supply chain challenges,
particularly for small businesses. Commenters stated that the one-year
sell-through period would require distributors to either stock less
inventory, and therefore potentially fail to meet customer demand, or
to throw away inventory that would be prohibited by the sell-through
limitation, and that either of these outcomes would cause economic
harm. Commenters noted that the economic harm caused by the proposed
one-year sell-through period might cause them to reduce their labor
forces, and would require increased monitoring for compliance
throughout the supply chain.
Many of these commenters also cited concerns about potential
adverse environmental impacts of stranding inventory. Others noted that
the environmental benefit of the AIM Act is from the phasedown of the
supply of HFCs, and that the HFC price increases and lack of
availability of regulated substances that will flow from the phase-down
will provide a market force to transition to lower-GWP substitutes,
making the sell-through limitation unnecessary as a backstop. Many
commenters requested that EPA eliminate the sell-through limitation
altogether, and instead permit unlimited sell-through of any product
labeled with a ``date of manufacture'' meeting the compliance date for
manufacture. Others requested that the Agency at least extend the
permissible limitation to multiple years, with some commenters
suggesting that two or three years would minimize the risk of stranded
inventory.
EPA also received comments in support of its proposed prohibition
on sale, distribution, offer for sale and distribution, and export.
Some commenters stated that the compliance dates in the proposed rule
already provide sufficient time for manufacturers and distributors to
plan for the transition to lower-GWP substitutes and to sell existing
inventories, and that the compliance date for the sell-through
limitation should be one year at most. These commenters asserted that
allowing an indefinite period for sell-through of
[[Page 73123]]
equipment manufactured by the manufacture compliance date would
complicate enforcement and could provide an incentive for companies to
increase near term production of systems using HFCs before restrictions
come into effect. The Agency also received supportive comments on the
proposed sell-through limitation from States, including one that has
promulgated under State law a prohibition on manufacture but allows
unlimited sell-through of products manufactured prior to that
prohibition date. That State commenter noted that the unlimited sell-
through approach can create challenges because it relies on regulated
entities to provide documentation as to the manufacture date, and that
not all entities in the market chain can provide that information.
Response: EPA acknowledges the input provided by commenters both in
support of and raising concerns with the limitation on sale,
distribution, and export of products regulated under these
restrictions. We recognize that the production and purchase of products
or components that are unable to be sold to consumers is an economic
and environmental outcome no parties desire, and the proposed rule's
forward-looking compliance dates were intended to allow all parties in
the market supply chain sufficient time to avoid that outcome. To that
end, after considering the concerns raised by various commenters, EPA
is extending the proposed one-year compliance date for the sell-through
limitation on products to three years after the manufacture and import
compliance date. The longer timeframe for a sell-through allows
regulated entities more time to manage inventory to avoid purchasing
products they will not be able to sell, reduce waste, and lessen the
impacts to the downstream channels and customers. While EPA recognizes
there will still be costs to establishing a sell-through limitation, we
expect that extending this timeframe to three years will mitigate the
costs of stranded inventory, storage, and product disposal that
commenters identified. As such EPA has not quantified these costs in
the RIA Addendum but describes them in qualitative terms. In addition,
EPA notes that such comments were based on the assumption that
components and repair parts would be subject to the sell-through, which
they are not.
EPA anticipates that this extension will mitigate many of the
concerns raised by commenters regarding the difficulty of balancing
competing priorities and forecasting how much inventory to stock,
particularly for those sectors marketing seasonal products. Allowing
two additional years for the sale, distribution, offer for sale and
distribution, and export of products manufactured or imported before
the use restrictions will provide needed time for all parties to plan
for a smooth transition to meet the new limits. As pointed out by the
commenters, parties in these sectors and subsectors must already
balance many competing factors--costs of storage, projected demand,
weather, supply chain, demand for construction, and the economy--some
of which are known and some of which are beyond the parties' control.
Our intention in extending the compliance deadline for the sell-through
limitation is to provide regulatory certainty with respect to this
restriction to allow time for distributors and retailers to transition
their inventory from products using regulated substances that do not
meet the restrictions.
EPA does not agree that dispensing altogether with a sell-through
limitation is appropriate in this case. This limitation reinforces the
Agency's restrictions on manufacturing and import by establishing a
bright line compliance date after which no products that do not meet
the new restrictions may be sold or distributed. Based on past
experience with the phaseout of ODS, EPA anticipates that the
availability and price difference between HFCs in the United States and
in countries with a later HFC phasedown schedule will create an
incentive to import non-compliant products into the United States. A
sales restriction eliminates that market. This is the intention of the
Agency's restrictions--that by a date certain, the sector or subsector
subject to the restriction will no longer be selling to consumers
products that use regulated substances where a substitute can be used
(per the Agency's determination under the (i)(4) factor analysis).
Enforcement of the manufacture and import restrictions are supported
because it is easier to identify non-compliant products within the
distribution chain or at the point of sale than it is to identify them
at a single moment in time when they cross the border. Ultimately the
sales restriction protects U.S. manufacturers that have transitioned
from being undercut by any foreign, non-compliant products that may
have been improperly imported after the import prohibition compliance
date. A ``date of manufacture'' label alone would not provide that same
protection.
While some commenters stated that, in their view, a ``date of
manufacture'' label would be easier to implement and require less
compliance monitoring, we do not agree. Under that scenario, a product
containing HFCs or blends that had GWPs exceeding the limits could
permissibly be sold, distributed, or exported if the date of
manufacture met the proper compliance date, but would be impermissible
if manufactured after the compliance date. Also permissible for sale or
distribution would be products containing HFCs or blends that had GWPs
that met the new restrictions. The commenter's approach would require
regulated entities to segregate those products that were manufactured
or imported by the compliance date from those manufactured or imported
after the compliance date. Per EPA's final rule, regulated parties
would need only to discern whether the products met the limits by the
compliance date in order to ensure they were complying. The commenters'
preferred approach of focusing on the ``date of manufacture'' label
also puts the success of the transition squarely on proper labeling and
incentivizes inaccurate or fraudulent labeling. EPA is cognizant of the
comments from our State partners who have implemented their programs in
this way and faced these types of challenges.
With respect to comments asserting that the sell-through limitation
is unnecessary because the environmental benefit of the AIM Act will
derive from the Act's phasedown of regulated substances, we do not
agree. Congress provided authority under subsection (i) separate from
the phasedown authority under subsection (e) to restrict use of HFCs in
particular sectors and subsectors, and it is the Agency's view that
these sector- and subsector-specific restrictions are an important
component to supporting the domestic phasedown of HFCs. As noted, the
sell-through provisions provide a backstop to the manufacture and
import restrictions by aligning incentives of all impacted users in the
sector or subsector (manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers,
etc.), because all users will know that there will be no market for
noncompliant equipment after the extended sell-through compliance date.
We also note that even if commenters are correct that the phasedown's
impact on the prices of bulk HFCs will disincentivize domestic
manufacturers from generating large stockpiles of products in sectors
and subsectors that are ready to transition to lower-GWP substitutes,
this rule also restricts the import of products containing HFCs, the
benefits of which are not reflected in the
[[Page 73124]]
assessments of benefits in the phasedown.
Comment: One commenter alleged that EPA's proposed limitation on
the sell-through of products not meeting the Agency's use restrictions
would constitute a regulatory taking without just compensation under
the U.S. Constitution. The commenter asserted that EPA's regulation of
their property would justify compensation under the legal tests
established by the Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v.
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Specifically, the commenter stated that
under Penn Central, a court must determine ``the regulation's economic
effect on the owner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with
reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the
government action.'' The commenter asserted that the test was met with
respect to EPA's proposed sell-through limitation because it ``has an
economic impact because of dead inventory; wholesale distributors used
capital to purchase inventory to sell, which interferes with reasonable
investment-backed expectations; and the government action is
intentional in its taking of property by rendering the property
valueless.'' Next, with respect to the Lucas test, which the commenter
articulated as an ``expanded definition of a per se taking and
established that a regulatory taking could exist when a regulation
results in the property becoming valueless,'' the commenter claimed
that the test was met because affected property cannot be sold or
exported, nor can it be donated to training facilities (as it will be
obsolete), removing the regulated substance before selling the property
for scrap will incur costs, and it has no value in retention (as was
true of the eagle feathers at issue in Andrus v. Allard, 441 U.S. 51
(1979)). The commenter further argued that even though Penn Central and
Lucas involved questions about government regulation of real property,
the cases were made equally applicable to personal property by virtue
of the Supreme Court's decision in Horne v. Department of Agriculture,
569 U.S. 513 (2013).
Finally, the commenter claimed that in their view ``public benefit
[did not] outweigh the condemnation'' based on its reading of a
Prohibition-era case, Everard's Breweries v. Day, 265 U.S. 545 (1924),
which upheld the 18th Amendment's ban on the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, in spite
of Congress' exception for medically prescribed liquors. The commenter
then stated that the compensation plan for its asserted takings would
be the fair market value of equipment in the HVACR market.
Response: We do not agree with the commenter that this final action
has resulted in any takings of private property under the Constitution.
Courts have summarily dismissed claims that a takings has occurred
prior to the application of a regulation to particular property. See,
e.g., Rybachek v. U.S. EPA, 904 F.2d 1276, 1300 01 (9th Cir. 1990)
(``[N]o takings claim here is ripe for judicial resolution. A taking
occurs in this context only when the EPA's regulations are applied to
particular property.''); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation
Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264, 293-97 (1981) (takings claim regarding surface-
mining statutes and regulations premature until those rules are
actually applied to particular property of which a taking is claimed).
As such, the comments articulating particular legal tests regarding
whether a taking has occurred and if so what compensation is required,
and the application of those tests, are beyond the scope of this
action.
We also point out that even though no property, real or otherwise,
has been impacted by this action, which establishes compliance dates in
the future, the Supreme Court's takings jurisprudence makes clear that
``government may execute laws or programs that adversely affect
recognized economic values,'' and accordingly has issued ``decisions in
which [the Supreme Court] has dismissed `taking' challenges on the
ground that, while the government action caused economic harm, it did
not interfere with interests that were sufficiently bound up with the
reasonable expectations of the claimant to constitute `property' for
Fifth Amendment purposes.'' Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124-25. In this
case, it is within commenter's control to manage its future investments
with the expectation of the regulation and its extended compliance
date. Relatedly, in the Horne decision cited by the commenter, the
majority and the dissent were in agreement that the means of the
government's action created a critical distinction for purposes of
evaluating whether a Fifth Amendment takings had occurred. 576 U.S. at
361-62. Namely, in that case all the litigants and both the majority
and dissent agreed that ``the government may prohibit the sale of
raisins without effecting a per se taking'' even when the Hornes
believed that the government's appropriation of raisins amounted to a
takings. See id. The majority for the court, finding in favor of the
Hornes, wrote, ``that distinction flows naturally from the settled
difference in our takings jurisprudence between appropriation and
regulation. A physical taking of raisins and a regulatory limit on
production may have the same economic impact on a grower. The
Constitution, however, is concerned with means as well as ends.'' Id.
We therefore disagree with the commenter that any taking of
property has occurred, nor do we think that prospective government
regulation of the sale of products, such as the sell-through limitation
finalized in this rule, fits the established Fifth Amendment
jurisprudence of the type of regulation that would require just
compensation under the Constitution.
Comment: Many commenters objected to the application of the
prohibition on sale or distribution to components using regulated
substances or intended to use regulated substances. These commenters
expressed the need to retain a large and varied inventory of components
to continue to service and repair existing equipment, and asserted that
as distributors and retailers, there is no way of knowing whether the
component is intended to be used in a newly installed system or in an
existing system. Other commenters emphasized the importance of stocking
parts for refrigeration systems and equipment. While commenters
acknowledged that the market for refrigeration is less seasonal than
for air-conditioning, they noted that it is critical that distributors
keep multiple years' worth of parts and equipment to ensure that
consumers can keep refrigeration systems running, because failure of
these systems can cause extreme economic harm--e.g., when hospitals are
forced to dispose of vaccines and medications, or when grocery stores
must throw away groceries.
Response: EPA is finalizing its proposed restriction on the sale,
distribution, offer for sale and distribution, and export with respect
only to factory-assembled products using a regulated substance that
exceeds the GWP limit. As noted throughout this action, EPA's intention
is to restrict the use of HFCs in new products being introduced and
circulated in the sectors and subsectors subject to this rulemaking
that use HFCs; our intention is not to prematurely shorten the useful
life of existing products or systems that consumers have already
purchased and are employing. We recognize that, consistent with
commenters' concerns, use restrictions on the manufacture and import,
as well as sale, distribution, offer for sale and distribution, and
export, of components would restrict
[[Page 73125]]
the ability of consumers to service and repair their existing
equipment. Therefore, EPA is excluding components from the use
restrictions and allowing for their continued manufacture and import
subject to certain restrictions, including that they may only be used
to service existing equipment and are subject to labeling and reporting
requirements. Similarly, EPA is allowing for the continued sale,
distribution, offer for sale and distribution, and export of
components.
Comment: Several commenters noted that users of field-assembled
products or systems do not get the advantage of a sell-through period
because under the proposed rule the system is not considered to be
manufactured until it is assembled in the field. One of these
commenters asserted that the result of these definitions is that larger
and more complex products (i.e., field-assembled systems) cannot be
sold and distributed by the proposed sell-through compliance deadline
of January 1, 2026, and in effect, will have a much earlier
manufacturing compliance deadline than the manufacturing compliance
deadline for smaller, self-contained products covered by this rule
(e.g., aerosol cans). One environmental group commented that the one-
year sell-through period is not needed for field-charged systems and
recommended that EPA remove it.
Response: As discussed in the section VI.A (Definitions), EPA is
distinguishing factory-completed products from field-assembled systems
in this final rule. EPA agrees with comments that it does not make
sense to apply a sell-through limitation to such systems given that
field-assembled systems typically cannot be imported, nor can they be
sold or distributed absent the sale of the larger structure containing
them (i.e., building). Until the system is assembled and charged, it is
a collection of components, and EPA has determined for the reasons
discussed below not to restrict the use of HFCs in components at this
time.
d. Export of Products Containing HFCs
EPA interprets a sector or subsector's ``use'' to cover not only
manufacture and import of a product, but also the subsequent activities
in the market chain related to products. Specifically, we interpret
export to be included in the meaning of ``use.'' Where EPA has
determined, consistent with consideration of the factors listed in
subsection (i)(4), that it is appropriate to restrict the use of HFCs,
it is reasonable for restrictions on domestically manufactured products
intended for the U.S. market to apply equally to domestically
manufactured products intended for export. Applying the restrictions to
all such equipment using a regulated substance treats materially
similar uses of HFCs in the same manner. Including a sector or
subsector's export of a product using HFCs as subject to the
prohibitions will prevent the limited supply of HFCs in the United
States from being exported in products that could otherwise have used
substitutes. A company cannot request additional consumption allowances
based on the export of products containing regulated substances;
requests for additional consumption allowances are limited to the
export of bulk HFCs. 40 CFR 84.17. As with products manufactured for
domestic use, one intent of this restriction is to ensure that sectors
and subsectors that are currently using HFCs and that are well-
positioned to transition to substitutes, per EPA's determination under
the (i)(4) factors, actually make that transition, leaving more of the
limited supply of HFCs for use in sectors and subsectors that have
fewer options. Including exports as a prohibited activity also supports
global efforts to reduce HFC use in light of the Kigali Amendment to
the Montreal Protocol.
Comment: Many commenters representing trade organizations, OEMs,
and HFC distributors requested that EPA allow for the export of
equipment designed to use current refrigerants. Commenters stated that
prohibiting export would harm American manufacturing; cede foreign
markets to competitors; and perhaps lead other countries to use
equipment that is older, less energy efficient, and leakier.
Response: EPA acknowledges that limiting sales to foreign markets
where higher-GWP HFCs are not yet prohibited could negatively impact
U.S. manufacturers. However, because of the global phasedown in HFCs,
this will be only in certain markets and only for a limited time. Many
major markets currently prohibit equipment using higher-GWP HFCs and
thus an export market for innovative American products currently
exists. Countries that have not yet transitioned to lower-GWP HFCs in
certain sectors and subsectors will do so as the global phasedown of
HFCs under the Kigali Amendment proceeds.
The export prohibition in this rule is not unique. EPA has
historically prohibited the export of products using ODS in the sectors
and subsectors addressed in this rule when restricting their
manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale and distribution, or
distribution. Regulations implementing the nonessential products ban
\45\ and restrictions on pre-charged RACHP equipment containing HCFC-22
and HCFC-142b \46\ also prohibited export of domestically manufactured
products. EPA has consistently included export as a prohibited element
of distribution under regulations implementing title VI of the CAA.\47\
Similarly, EPA's limitations on the use of an alternative to ODS under
SNAP applies to products intended for export (59 FR at 13052; March 18,
1994; also see 40 CFR 82.174(e)). Therefore, EPA's application of its
restrictions to the export of products using HFCs is reasonable and
aligns with past practice and industry expectations. That being said,
this rule does not prohibit the manufacture and export of components
provided that labeling, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements are
met. EPA anticipates that such reporting will allow the Agency to
ascertain the impact of the global phasedown of HFCs on such equipment
and in those subsectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 40 CFR part 82, subpart C.
\46\ 40 CFR part 82, subpart I.
\47\ The definition of distributor under 40 CFR 82.62 and 82.302
includes a person who sells or distributes a product for export from
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Other commenters stated that countries should themselves
determine when to transition to next-generation alternatives and that
EPA should allow the export of equipment for as long as the importing
country allows its use. One commenter stated that EPA is effectively
legislating those jurisdictions worldwide that are refrigerant
agnostic.
Response: EPA disagrees that this rule legislates the use of
substitutes in other countries. EPA is prohibiting the use of higher-
GWP HFCs in certain sectors and subsectors within the United States.
Prohibited use includes the domestic manufacturing of those products,
regardless of the market into which they are sold. Restrictions on sale
or distribution, offer for sale and distribution, and export are
intended to backstop the domestic manufacturing prohibition.
Furthermore, components may continue to be manufactured and imported
into the United States and may also be exported to jurisdictions that
are refrigerant agnostic. Finally, this rule will not prevent products
manufactured in one foreign country from being sold in another foreign
country.
Comment: Many commenters noted that other jurisdictions may not
have building codes that allow for next-generation refrigerants.
Similarly, other commenters stated that other jurisdictions may not
have trained
[[Page 73126]]
technicians, recovery equipment, or other infrastructure necessary to
support alternative refrigerants in MVACs. One such commenter stated
that the primary substitute, HFO-1234yf, is not as effective in high
temperature, high-humidity environments such as the Gulf Cooperation
Council countries and that vehicles using HFO-1234yf will be at a
competitive disadvantage in those markets.
Response: As discussed previously, EPA interprets ``sector or
subsector in which a regulated substance is used'' to be a domestic
sector or subsector which includes use by the manufacturer. The factors
under subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act do not direct the Agency to
consider whether a substitute is available for use in a foreign market
for servicing the product. Nor is it practicable for the Agency to
identify whether substitutes are available in every country or consider
every country's import controls, building codes, or otherwise.
On the technical point on use of HFO-1234yf in high ambient
temperature counties such as the Gulf Cooperation Council countries,
EPA notes that the TEAP has not indicated technical barriers that would
preclude the use of alternative refrigerants that meet the GWP
threshold for MVACs from being used in high ambient temperature
countries. EPA is making some revisions in the final rule based on
comments. For the reasons described in section VI.C.2.c, EPA is
extending the compliance date for restrictions on exports from one year
to three years. Thus, for example, light-duty (LD) passenger vehicles
manufactured before Model Year (MY) 2025 \48\ containing an HFC with a
GWP of 150 or greater may be exported until introduction of MY 2028
vehicles. This allows for flexibility past MY 2027, as suggested by
commenters. Moreover, because the transition to refrigerants with GWPs
below 150 in MVACs is well underway on a global basis, EPA does not
agree that there will be infrastructure barriers for this subsector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ LD passenger vehicles that are manufactured in MY 2025 but
are manufactured less than one year after publication of this final
rule may also be exported until introduction of MY 2028 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Other commenters stated these export restrictions are
largely unnecessary, considering that the HFC allocation program
provides the appropriate market constriction and will discourage
unreasonable consumption of regulated substances for use in exported
products.
Response: As discussed in response to similar comments regarding
restrictions on sale or distribution, EPA is exercising the separate
authority provided under subsection (i) of the AIM Act to restrict use
of HFCs in particular sectors or subsectors- where the subsection
(i)(4) factors are met. Establishing these sector and subsector
specific restrictions helps to support the domestic phasedown and
allocation program by ensuring that those sectors and subsectors that
have available substitutes for use in place of higher-GWP HFCs use
those substitutes.
3. What uses are not covered in the final rule?
a. Manufacture, Import, Sale, Distribution, and Export of Components
Based on the comments received, EPA is excluding components from
the definition of product and is therefore not applying the final
rule's restrictions on manufacture, import, sale, distribution, offer
for sale or distribution, or export (all of which apply to products) to
components. EPA's exclusion of components from this rule's prohibitions
is premised on the continued need for components to service existing
systems.
EPA is applying requirements to label, report, and keep records
related to the manufacture and import of certain specified components.
For purposes of this rule, these specified components are condensing
units, condensers, compressors, evaporator units, and evaporators. EPA
is separating out this subset of components found in an RACHP system
because these are refrigerant-specific (e.g., unlike piping) and may
contain significant amounts of regulated substances (e.g., unlike a
thermal expansion valve) when manufactured or imported. In some
instances, such as a display case in a supermarket, these specified
components may also be viewed as products or appliances themselves.
However, even though these specified components constitute the major
parts of a system, they still must be connected to a refrigerant
circuit in order to function, and we therefore think treating these
specified components as components is more appropriate at this time
than treating them as products under this rule's prohibitions. EPA also
considered that the same specified components (e.g., compressors) can
in some cases be used in systems in different subsectors, which may not
be subject to the same GWP limit restrictions. Until the specified
component is assembled in a system, it may not be clear what subsector
GWP limit would apply to that specified component.
Labeling, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions are necessary to
ensure that components that continue to be manufactured or imported
containing higher-GWP HFC refrigerants are, in fact, used for the
repair and servicing of existing equipment.
Replacement of certain percentages of these specified components is
also the type of modification that could constitute an installation of
a new system that is prohibited under these restrictions (see section
VI.C.2.b). We are requiring that manufacturers and importers of
specified components label these components, report to EPA, and
maintain the necessary records related to reporting, to help ensure
compliance with this prohibition. (see sections VII and VIII).
Comment: Some commenters requested that EPA allow replacement
components to be manufactured, imported, exported, or installed after
the compliance date to maintain, service, or remodel an existing
system. One commenter urged that this be allowed until the time those
systems using high-GWP HFCs no longer exist in the field. One commenter
suggested that such components be labeled, ``For retrofit, replacement,
remodel, or maintenance only.'' Other commenters recommended that the
manufacture and import of components cease upon the compliance date for
that sector or subsector just as is required of the installation of the
system. These commenters stated that this would help to ensure that
components are used for repairs and not to construct new systems.
Response: The repair and servicing of installed systems is crucial
for all the reasons described previously. Avoiding early obsolescence
due to the lack of a component is one reason EPA is not applying the
prohibitions on sale or distribution, or offer for sale or
distribution, to components.
With respect to the comment recommending that EPA prohibit
manufacture and import of components upon the compliance date for the
installation of systems using those components, we do not agree that
this would accomplish the goal of ensuring supply of components to
service and repair existing systems. In addition, components may be
manufactured for use with multiple refrigerants, including potentially
blends that comply with the GWP limit and ones that do not. Until the
component is assembled into a system and charged, it would be unclear
whether the component, on its own, met a restriction. As noted above, a
component may also be used in multiple subsectors and thus could be
compliant for use in one subsector but
[[Page 73127]]
not another. Applying this rule's prohibitions on manufacture, import,
sale, distribution, offer for sale or distribution, and export on
components would be difficult to enforce.
EPA agrees with the commenter that there is a compliance risk that
components manufactured or imported for repairs could be used to
install a new prohibited system. EPA is mitigating that risk of
noncompliance through labeling that a specified component is for repair
and servicing only, as one commenter recommended, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
b. Used Equipment
EPA is not applying the GWP limit restrictions or other
restrictions to the sale, distribution, offer for sale or distribution,
or export of used equipment. By used, the Agency means products,
components, or systems that have been in the ownership of someone other
than a manufacturer, importer, or distributor, and have experienced
ordinary operation or utilization by a consumer. Some equipment, such
as air-conditioning and refrigerated appliances, are often conveyed
with the sale of a building and could not reasonably be excluded from
that conveyance. Other products subject to these restrictions may be
incorporated into a larger good, such as an MVAC in a motor vehicle,
which may be sold multiple times during the useful life of the good.
Restricting the sale of used equipment that use HFCs would
significantly decrease the value of those goods and impact the market
for used products (e.g., trading in a used motor vehicle during the
purchase of a new one). Restricting the sale of used products could
also have overall detrimental environmental effects by requiring
consumers to discard products or equipment before the end of the
product's useful life and could negatively impact affordability for
consumers by eliminating options to purchase used products. Under title
VI of the CAA, EPA typically has not restricted the sale of used
appliances containing ODS and is maintaining a similar approach for
this rule.
EPA intends that this exemption for used equipment cover both
individuals selling products they themselves have used as well as
entities that do volume business in used products (e.g., stores selling
second-hand goods or car-dealerships selling pre-owned vehicles).
However, this used products exemption is not intended to cover entities
that purchase new equipment, which is subject to the restrictions on
manufacture and import, hold that equipment for a period of time, and
then re-sell it. We have accordingly specified that equipment must have
experienced ordinary operation or utilization by a consumer to qualify
for the used equipment exemption.
EPA received one comment on its proposal not to restrict the sale,
distribution, or export of used products. The commenter found the
description of a used product to be problematic as it could restrict
the recycling of an unsold defective unit, for instance. EPA does not
seek to restrict the movement of equipment, used or new, for disposal,
including recycling.
c. ``Equipment in Existence''
Under subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii) of the Act, ``a rule promulgated
under this subsection shall not apply to, . . . except for a retrofit
application, equipment in existence in a sector or subsector before
December 27, 2020.'' As such, EPA's restrictions do not apply to the
sale or distribution, offer for sale or distribution, or export of any
equipment that was in existence in the sector or subsector prior to
December 27, 2020.
Comment: Multiple commenters representing a range of stakeholders
recommended that EPA consider all equipment that was manufactured prior
to the compliance date for that subsector be considered ``equipment in
existence'' for purposes of subsection (i)(7)(B). The commenters stated
that doing so would provide necessary certainty that equipment
manufactured between December 27, 2020, and the compliance date for
that subsector (e.g., January 1, 2026) could be serviced, repaired, and
have components replaced as needed throughout its useful life. Another
commenter similarly advocated that EPA should not mandate replacement
of any equipment that has a date of manufacture of the compressor-
bearing equipment prior to the effective compliance date.
Response: The Agency does not agree that equipment that was
manufactured prior to a future compliance date for a subsector fits
under subsection (i)(7)(B)'s ``equipment in existence in a sector or
subsector before [December 27, 2020].'' Any equipment manufactured or
installed after December 27, 2020, plainly does not meet the statutory
exemption. Nonetheless, all equipment--regardless of the date of
manufacture or installation--may be serviced, repaired, and have
components replaced as needed throughout its useful life. Under this
rule as finalized, servicing, repair, or maintenance of equipment that
was in existence in the sector or subsector prior to December 27, 2020,
would generally not render that equipment newly subject to EPA's
restrictions on use of HFCs, except in those instances where such
actions constitute a new installation (see section VI.C.2.b).
The Agency is also not mandating the replacement of any equipment
that is currently in use, regardless of the date of manufacture or
installation of that equipment. This rule's restrictions apply to the
manufacture, import, sale, distribution, offer for sale or
distribution, and export of new products and the installation of new
systems. Only where an existing system is modified to the point that
the cooling capacity is increased or a threshold percentage of
specified components is replaced, is it considered an installation of a
system subject to these restrictions.
d. Repair and Servicing
This rule does not impose restrictions on the repair and servicing
of products or systems that are currently in use.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the loss of
significant capital investment and economic harm should EPA restrict
the ability to repair existing systems. Distributors were also
concerned about the cost of discarding components that could not be
sold to service or repair a system. Some commenters noted the social
and economic costs associated with the loss of food, vaccines, and
other commodities that would spoil if a refrigeration system fails and
cannot be quickly repaired. Some commenters noted the impact on low-
income communities if supermarkets or other retail food facilities
close. Some commenters were concerned for their customers if equipment
warranties could not be honored or if they had to buy a new system for
the failure of a single component.
Response: EPA acknowledges the concerns noted by commenters
regarding the need to service and repair existing systems. Under this
final rule, a product or system may be serviced and repaired throughout
its useful life, including the replacement of components.
e. Retrofit Applications
Under the AIM Act subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii), EPA has authority to
apply restrictions to ``retrofit applications,'' where existing
equipment is upgraded by changing the regulated substance used (see AIM
Act subsection (i)(7)(A)). The Act specifies that ``retrofit'' is where
upgrades are made to existing equipment where the regulated substance
is changed and which ``(i) include the conversion of equipment to
[[Page 73128]]
achieve system compatibility and (ii) may include changes in
lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings, or equipment
components for that purpose.''
EPA did not propose to address retrofits in this rulemaking,
although the Agency issued in conjunction with the proposed
restrictions an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking seeking
information regarding certain retrofitted equipment. As stated at
proposal, EPA is not addressing retrofit applications in this final
rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter urged EPA to adopt separate GWP limits for
retrofits as was done in SNAP rules 20 and 21, and another recommended
that EPA mandate the use of reclaimed refrigerant in existing
retrofitted equipment, noting that EPA does not need to wait for a
rulemaking under subsection (h) of the AIM Act to do so, and that some
reclaimed feedstock is available now or could be made available by
future compliance dates. Other commenters supported EPA's decision not
to regulate retrofits of existing equipment as part of this rulemaking,
citing concerns that replacement refrigerants for high-GWP substances
for retrofit equipment are not yet available.
Response: As discussed in the proposed rule and in the Agency's
request for information about refrigerants used in retrofitted
equipment and the prevalence of that equipment in certain sectors and
subsectors, the Agency is still gathering information about retrofit
applications. While we recognize the Agency's authority to issue
restrictions on retrofit applications in subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii), we
do not view, and commenters did not suggest, that EPA has an obligation
to issue such restrictions at this time. Those commenters who
recommended that EPA regulate retrofit applications in this rulemaking
did not provide information that altered EPA's assessment that for this
set of restrictions issued under subsection (i), given the early stages
of implementing the AIM Act overall and of the phasedown under
subsection (e), it is efficient and effective to focus on transitioning
sectors and subsectors at this first step through prohibitions on the
introduction of higher-GWP HFCs in new products and systems.
D. How is EPA addressing restrictions on the use of HFCs requested in
petitions granted?
EPA is addressing three sets of petitions in this action: the 11
petitions granted or partially granted on October 7, 2021; additional
petitions submitted by the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) which updated previously submitted petitions; and two
petitions granted by EPA on September 19, 2022. EPA is addressing these
granted petitions in a single rulemaking rather than through separate
rulemakings. In some instances, particularly where the petitioned
sectors and subsectors overlap, responding through a single rulemaking
allows for a complete analysis in a single location. Consistent with
EPA's authority under subsection (i)(1) of the AIM Act, EPA is also
establishing restrictions on the use of HFCs in certain sectors and
subsectors that were not included in petitions received by the Agency
to date.
Several commenters supported EPA's decision to address the granted
and partially granted petitions together in one rulemaking. These
commenters noted that addressing the petitions together allows for
timely action and will provide consistency and transparency for
regulated entities.
1. Petitions Granted on October 7, 2021
On October 7, 2021, EPA granted ten petitions and partially granted
one petition under subsection (i) of the AIM Act (86 FR 57141, October
14, 2021). Copies of petitions granted (including the full list of
petitioners and co-petitioners), a detailed summary of each petition,
and EPA's rationale for granting these petitions are available under
Docket ID EPA-OAR-2021-0643. Five of the granted petitions specifically
requested that EPA replicate, in varying degrees, certain restrictions
on use of HFCs based on the changes of status contained in SNAP Rules
20 and 21. These five petitions were received from the Natural
Resources Defense Council et al. (hereby, ``NRDC''); DuPont (two
petitions); American Chemistry Council's Center for the Polyurethanes
Industry (hereby, ``CPI''); and the Household & Consumer Product
Association and National Aerosol Association (hereby, ``HCPA''). These
petitions requested restrictions on the use of specific HFCs or blends
containing HFCs in refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump,
foams, and aerosols sectors.\49\ Another five petitions requested that
EPA establish GWP limits for HFCs used in certain stationary AC and/or
refrigeration subsectors. These petitions were received from the
Environmental Investigation Agency et al. (hereby, ``EIA''), AHRI (two
petitions), Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (hereby,
``AHAM''), and International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration et al.
(hereby, ``IIAR''). The one partially granted petition, submitted by
California Air Resources Board et al. (hereby, ``CARB''), requested two
types of restrictions: (1) Certain restrictions on the use of HFCs
contained in SNAP Rules 20 and 21 in the RACHP, foams, and aerosols
sectors and (2) restrictions on the use of HFCs based on GWP limits in
certain stationary AC and refrigeration subsectors. CARB also requested
EPA regulations should not limit States' ability to further limit or
phase out the use of HFCs in their jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ EPA notes that while these petitioners requested that EPA
establish restrictions on the use of HFCs by restricting specific
HFCs or blends containing HFCs, it does not necessarily mean that
these petitioners preferred this restriction format over
establishing restrictions on the use of HFCs by establishing GWP
limits. EPA believes that these petitioners requested restrictions
on the use of specific HFCs and blends containing HFCs in this way
to replicate the format presented in SNAP Rules 20 and 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How is EPA addressing additional petitions that cover similar
sectors and subsectors?
EPA received two additional petitions from AHRI on August 19, 2021,
and October 12, 2021. The first petition requested that EPA establish
transition dates for ``New Refrigeration Equipment'' \50\ for certain
commercial refrigeration subsectors listed, along with the associated
maximum GWP. AHRI requested that the transition dates be at least two
years after the adoption of safety standards and building codes.\51\
AHRI's second petition in this category requested that EPA establish
transition dates for ``New Refrigeration Equipment'' for specific
chiller applications listed, along with the associated maximum GWP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ AHRI suggests a definition for ``New Refrigeration
Equipment'' as follows: equipment built with new components and
equates to a nominal compressor capacity increase across the
refrigeration appliance or an increase of the CO2
equivalent of the refrigerant in the refrigeration appliance. Under
this suggested definition, the replacement of components in Existing
Refrigeration Systems would be permissible if the nominal compressor
capacity is not increased across the refrigeration appliance or the
CO2 equivalent of the refrigerant in the refrigeration
appliance is not increased.
\51\ A discussion on the status of safety standards and building
codes that may impact compliance dates is in section VI.E.2 of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is treating these two AHRI petitions as addenda to their
October 7, 2021, granted petitions, and not as separate petitions,
since the subsectors listed in these petitions are contained in the
granted AHRI petitions and AHRI refers to these as further steps in the
transition for these uses. The main difference between the requested
action in these two petitions and the granted
[[Page 73129]]
petitions is the lower-GWP limits with later compliance dates. Since
EPA considers these two petitions as addenda to petitions granted on
October 7, 2021, this rulemaking addresses these requests.
3. Petitions Granted on September 19, 2022
On September 19, 2022, EPA granted two additional petitions that
requested EPA establish restrictions on the use of HFCs in certain
commercial refrigeration subsectors based on GWP limits. These
petitions were received from AHRI and IIAR and covered similar
commercial refrigeration subsectors contained in petitions granted on
October 7, 2021. One difference to note is that both the AHRI and IIAR
petitions requested restrictions on the use of HFCs for equipment types
beyond what was covered in many of the petitions granted on October 7,
2021 (i.e., all equipment with a refrigerant charge less than 200 lb)
in listed subsectors. EPA granted these petitions based on its
consideration of the (i)(4) factors in light of the information then
available. Given the Agency was already developing the proposed
rulemaking which addresses restrictions on the use of HFCs in the
sector and subsectors contained in these newer petitions, recognizing
the extensive overlap with the petitions granted on October 7, 2021,
and in an effort to streamline rulemakings, EPA is addressing these
newer petitions in this rulemaking. Copies of the AHRI and IIAR
petitions can be found in the docket.
E. Subsection (i)(4) Factors for Determination
Subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act directs EPA to factor in, to the
extent practicable, various considerations when evaluating petitions
and carrying out a rulemaking. EPA is not establishing regulatory text
regarding these factors at this point; however, this section summarizes
the Agency's interpretation and application of the (i)(4) factors.
EPA's consideration of the (i)(4) factors served as the basis for the
restrictions (for additional discussion see section VI.F of this
preamble).
1. How is EPA considering best available data?
Subsection (i)(4)(A) of the AIM Act directs the Agency to use, to
the extent practicable, the best available data in making a
determination to grant or deny a petition or when carrying out a
rulemaking under subsection (i). In this context, EPA interprets the
reference to best available data as an instruction with respect to the
other factors under (i)(4) rather than as an independent factor. Best
available data may not always mean the latest data. For example, the
latest data may not have yet had time to be peer reviewed and might
benefit from peer review. This should not be interpreted as meaning EPA
would only consider best available data to be peer-reviewed data, but
that peer review is one consideration that could inform our
understanding of what are the best available data in particular
situations.
The best available data that the Agency has considered in
determining the availability of substitutes under (i)(4)(B) includes,
but are not limited to: SNAP listing decisions; Montreal Protocol
reports by the TEAP and its Technical Options Committees and Temporary
Subsidiary Bodies (e.g., Task Forces); \52\ TSDs from States with HFC
restrictions; \53\ information from other Federal agencies and
departments (e.g., DOE); proceedings from technical conferences; and
journal articles. For some of the factors and subfactors, EPA developed
TSDs that provide information from these sources and others that EPA
believes to be the best available data. Furthermore, EPA considered
information provided to the Agency from industry, trade associations,
environmental non-governmental organizations, academia, standard-
setting bodies, petitioners, in public comments and in stakeholder
meetings that the Agency hosted, and other sources in response to EPA
making the petitions publicly available through Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0289, to the extent that such information represented best
available data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The Technical Economic Assessment Panel is an advisory body
to the parties to the Montreal Protocol and is recognized as a
premier global technical body; reports available at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap.
\53\ An example is CARB's Initial Statement of Reasons and
Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment report. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Two commenters stated that information contained in
petitions is not ``best available data,'' given the petitions are in
the self-interest of the petitioners and that the petitioners are
incentivized to downplay any adverse consumer impacts.
Response: EPA considered information from petitioners (among other
sources) to the extent that such information represented best available
data. EPA is cognizant of the potential biases in the petitions and
stated in the proposed rule that the petitions formed merely the
starting point of the Agency's analysis.
Comment: One commenter stated that WMO and the IPCC are cited
throughout the proposed rule but were not included as sources of best
available data despite being the most authoritative resource for
information on the environmental impacts of HFCs. The commenter also
stated that the 2007 IPCC's AR4 values for the GWPs of HFCs are not
best available data, as the IPCC has updated these values in 2013 and
2021. The commenter stated that EPA is understating the effects of HFCs
and any person who attempts to gather GWP information from the
authoritative source (such as the IPCC) will not come to the same
conclusions regarding compliant products.
Response: EPA agrees that the IPCC and WMO are sources of best
available data, especially for the environmental impacts of HFCs and
other greenhouse gases. EPA's non-exhaustive list of data sources
referred to by the commenter were in the context of the subsection
(i)(4)(B) factors for which other data sources are more relevant. EPA
disagrees that the policy decision to use AR4 GWP values is a failure
to use best available data. As the commenter noted, the exchange values
for HFCs used in the AIM Act are the same as the AR4 GWP values. Use of
AR4 values ensures consistency between the different regulations issued
by EPA under the AIM Act, including the production and consumption caps
and the issuance of allowances. Using different values would make the
program harder to implement, confuse the body of stakeholders required
to comply with the regulations, and prevent the Agency from evaluating
the benefits of this rulemaking within the context of the different
regulations issued by EPA under the AIM Act.
2. How is EPA considering the availability of substitutes?
Subsection (i)(4)(B) of the AIM Act directs EPA to factor in, to
the extent practicable, the availability of substitutes for use of the
regulated substance that is the subject of this rulemaking or petition,
as applicable, in a sector or subsector. Several factors inform the
availability of substitutes for use in a sector or subsector, based on
the statutory language in subsection (i)(4)(B). As part of EPA's
consideration of availability of substitutes, the AIM Act directs the
Agency to take into account the following subfactors: technological
achievability, commercial demands, affordability for residential and
small business consumers, safety, consumer costs, building codes,
appliance efficiency standards, contractor training costs, and other
[[Page 73130]]
relevant factors, including the quantities of regulated substances
available from reclaiming, prior production, or prior import.
EPA has considered the subsection (i)(4)(B) subfactors
collectively, with no one subfactor solely governing the restrictions
for any sector or subsector. EPA is not required to weigh all
subfactors equally when considering the availability of substitutes.
Subsection (i)(4) directs the Agency to consider the factors listed in
(i)(4), including availability of substitutes, ``to the extent
practicable.'' EPA interprets this phrase to extend to its
consideration of the subfactors in (i)(4)(B), given that these
subfactors are to be taken into account in considering the availability
of substitutes ``to the extent practicable.'' EPA anticipates that in
most situations, no single subfactor will be dispositive of its
consideration of the availability of substitutes under subsection
(i)(4)(B). In many instances, a particular characteristic of a
substitute may be considered under multiple factors. For example, the
use of a lower flammability refrigerant could have implications for
commercial demands, safety, building codes, and contractor training
costs. Likewise, the timing of a restriction's compliance deadline
could be affected by multiple factors such as commercial demands,
affordability for residential and small business consumers, safety,
building codes, and appliance efficiency standards. Furthermore, not
all the subfactors in (i)(4)(B) may be applicable to each sector or
subsector. For example, appliance efficiency standards are not
applicable to aerosols. Lastly, it may not be practicable to consider
some subfactors in some situations such as when there are not
sufficient available data regarding a specific subfactor. EPA did not
receive comment on its methodology to weigh the factors collectively
and to the extent practicable and therefore is finalizing restrictions
in this rule using that approach.
Substitutes for higher-GWP HFCs have been the subject of evaluation
for decades. EPA, State and foreign governments, industry standards
organizations, and international advisory panels have long been
identifying and assessing substances that can be used in lieu of
higher-GWP HFCs and their predecessors, often for uses within the
sectors and subsectors subject to this rule. EPA has drawn upon
information generated by these efforts in considering the subsection
(i)(4) factors in the context of this rulemaking, and in particular, in
considering the availability of substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B).
While these entities have evaluated substitutes for HFCs in other
contexts, the information generated by these efforts provides a useful
starting point. For example, in the SNAP program under section 612 of
the Clean Air Act, EPA identifies and evaluates substitutes for ODS in
certain industrial sectors, including RACHP, aerosols, and foams. To a
very large extent, HFCs are used in the same sectors and subsectors
where ODS historically have been used. Under SNAP, EPA evaluates
acceptability of alternatives for ODS based on the potential human
health and environmental risks, relative to other substances used for
the same purpose. In so doing, EPA assesses atmospheric effects such as
ozone depletion potential and global warming potential, toxicity and
exposure data, flammability, and other environmental impacts. These
assessments under SNAP are relevant to some of the subsection (i)(4)
factors, particularly with respect to safety (and the resultant impact
on availability of a substitute under (i)(4)(B)) and environmental
impacts. We have therefore considered SNAP assessments and listings of
acceptable substances in our consideration of the (i)(4) factors and
establishment of use restrictions under subsection (i). Further, the
fact that manufacturers and formulators have submitted substitutes to
EPA for evaluation under SNAP can indicate to the Agency that the
substitute is technologically achievable for a given sector and that
there is (or will be) commercial demand for it. A substitute listed by
EPA as acceptable for a given end-use under SNAP would most likely have
been submitted by industry where the submitter thought that the
substitute was technologically achievable and that there could be a
market for such substitute.
EPA has also considered in this rulemaking the work undertaken by
the TEAP. The TEAP analyzes and presents technical information and
recommendations when specifically requested by parties to the Montreal
Protocol. It does not evaluate policy issues and does not recommend
policy. Such information is related to, among other things, substitutes
that may replace the substances controlled under the Protocol and
alternative technologies that may be used without adverse impact on the
ozone layer and climate. The TEAP assesses the technical and economic
feasibility of substitutes for sectors and subsectors that use HFCs and
publishes various technical reports through different technical
committees, such as the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps
Technical Options Committee.\54\ In the TEAP's evaluation of HFC
substitutes, subfactors such as technological achievability and
affordability have been considered to some extent. For this rulemaking,
EPA considered technical and economic information from the TEAP's 2018
Quadrennial Assessment Report and the recent 2022 Progress Report,
including the response to ``Decision XXXIII/5--Continued provision of
information on energy-efficient and low-global-warming-potential
technologies'' found in Volume 3 of the Progress
Report.55 56 57
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The TEAP 2018 Quadrennial Assessment Report includes
sections for each of the Technical Options Committees (TOC):
Flexible and Rigid Foams TOC, Halons TOC, Methyl Bromide TOC,
Medical and Chemicals TOC, and Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and
Heat Pumps TOC. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap.
\55\ In accordance with Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol,
every four years the parties request assessments from various
advisory bodies, including the TEAP's quadrennial assessment of the
sectors and subsectors covered by the petitions. Under Decision
XXVIII/2 the TEAP is also instructed to review HFC substitutes every
five years. The parties also routinely request reports considering
transitions and/or related topics (e.g., commercial fisheries,
energy efficiency for the refrigeration and air conditioning
sector).
\56\ TEAP 2022 Progress Report (May 2022) and 2018 Quadrennial
Assessment Report. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap.
\57\ Volume 3: Decision XXXIII/5--Continued provision of
information on energy-efficient and low-global-warming-potential
technologies, Technological and Economic Assessment Panel, United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), May 2022. Available at:
https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-EETF-report-may-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also considered materials developed by, or submitted to, State
and foreign governments that have requirements restricting the use of
HFCs. Many of these jurisdictions highlight available substitutes that
can be used in place of regulated substances in the sectors and
subsectors that are the subject of this rulemaking.
This is not an exhaustive list of sources that EPA could use in the
future to consider the availability of substitutes; section VI.E.1 of
this preamble describes additional sources of information that the
Agency considers to be best available data. For future Agency actions
under the Technology Transitions program, EPA would likely again
consider information from these sources to assess availability of
substitutes but the Agency may augment or omit sources where
appropriate to be consistent with the Agency's interpretation of
subsection (i)(4)(A).
EPA has identified substitutes \58\ for use in lieu of regulated
substances in
[[Page 73131]]
specific sectors or subsectors by reviewing information from several of
these sources, which the Agency considers to be best available data.
EPA compiled a non-exhaustive list of available substitutes that
informed the GWP limit or restriction. See American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020--Subsection (i)(4) Factors for Determination:
List of Substitutes, referred to in this preamble as the ``List of
Substitutes TSD.'' That TSD and list were developed after considering,
to the extent practicable, the subsection (i)(4)(B) subfactors, as
discussed below and in the other TSDs available in the docket.
Substitutes for regulated substances have been identified in this list
as available for the sectors and subsectors for which EPA is
establishing restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Inclusion of a substitute, either in the preamble or the
docket, is for informative purposes only and is not intended as an
EPA endorsement or recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note, however, that EPA's identification of a substitute as
``available'' for use in a particular sector or subsector is not
intended as a determination that such substitute is already widely used
in that sector or subsector, or that the subfactors in subsection
(i)(4)(B) are fully realized as to that substitute (even if those
conditions are true in some cases). For example, as stated in the
proposed rule, some of the substitutes EPA lists as ``available'' for a
sector or subsector may not yet be available uniformly throughout the
United States or may not be already permissible under building codes in
every jurisdiction in the United States (see section VI.E.2.d of this
preamble). Instead, the Agency interprets ``available'' in subsection
(i)(4)(B) as permitting it to consider the progress and status of a
substitute's incorporation into a sector or subsector, particularly in
relation to establishing the compliance deadlines for each restriction.
The statute would serve little purpose if EPA were only permitted to
restrict regulated substances where the (i)(4)(B) subfactors (e.g.,
building codes, contractor training costs, commercial demand) were
already ``satisfied'' because substitutes were already completely
adopted by the sector or subsector. Instead, it is reasonable for the
Agency to consider a substitute to be available based on the
expectation that, by the compliance date established in a restriction,
many of the (i)(4)(B) subfactors could feasibly be met. We recognize
that forecasting availability based on the (i)(4)(B) subfactors by an
established compliance dates in the future is an exercise that
inherently requires some estimation and uncertainty; for example, it is
impossible to perfectly predict the outcome of SNAP evaluations that
have not yet occurred or the success or failure of equipment redesigns
and safety tests. In setting compliance dates for the restrictions
under subsection (i), EPA is exercising its judgment and applying best
available data regarding how far along a sector or subsector is in the
transition to lower-GWP substitutes to determine when those substitutes
will be sufficiently available to accommodate a variety of uses within
the sector or subsector.
Comment: One commenter stated that, in general, EPA has not
adequately assessed available substitutes and the ability of these
substitutes to be utilized in certain end uses by the dates that have
been proposed. The commenter stated that it is not apparent from the
proposed rule or the information that is available in the docket that
EPA has adequately assessed each of the end uses in sufficient detail,
or whether information the Agency has relied on correctly indicates
that substitutes (as defined through GWP limitations) are technically
achievable and therefore available.
Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency has not adequately assessed
available substitutes. The commenter did not explain, as a general
matter, what information relied upon by the Agency it believed to be
unreliable or insufficiently detailed. EPA has considered information
provided by the TEAP, which taps into global expertise from industry,
academia, and the public sector. EPA also looked to its own SNAP
program, which has evaluated more than 500 ODS alternatives, many of
which are also substitutes for HFCs. Moreover, these were not the only
sources of information that the Agency relied upon, and additional
supporting information is cited for each of the finalized restrictions.
a. Commercial Demands and Technological Achievability
Two of the subfactors that subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to the
extent practicable, to take into account in its consideration of
availability of substitutes are commercial demands and technological
achievability. This section provides information on how the Agency
views each term on its own, their potential impact on availability of
substitutes, and their interconnectedness.
EPA views commercial demands as interest from OEMs and system
owners to use substitutes in products for ultimate sale or
installation. An OEM's interest in using a substitute is tied to their
ability to meet consumer needs. As discussed previously, EPA considers
a submission under the SNAP program to be an indicator that a chemical
producer or formulator anticipates commercial demand for the submitted
alternative. Another method to determine commercial demands is to
assess what types of equipment in a sector or subsector are for sale
and what regulated substances or substitutes are being used. Another
means for assessing commercial demands is to review the information
companies provide including, but not limited to, planned releases of
products or equipment using substitutes. Likewise, use of products or
equipment using substitutes by system owners can demonstrate commercial
demands for that equipment.
EPA views technological achievability as the ability for a
substitute to perform its intended function in a sector or subsector.
For example, technological achievability can be demonstrated through a
substitute's compliance with or listing by standard setting bodies such
as ASHRAE or Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or through testing and
demonstration labs and projects.
EPA provides additional information in the TSD American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act of 2020--Subsection (i)(4) Factors for
Determination: Technological Achievability and Commercial Demands,
referred to in this preamble as the ``Commercial Demands and
Technological Achievability TSD''; this TSD supports the Agency's
consideration of the commercial demands and technological achievability
subfactors and is available in the docket. The Commercial Demands and
Technological Achievability TSD identifies products and systems using
substitutes that are commercially available (i.e., products for sale),
or where manufacturers indicate they soon will be available, by sector
and subsector. EPA views commercial availability of products and
systems using substitutes as an indication of both commercial demand
and technological achievability. In other words, a product or system
using an available substitute in a market means that the particular
substitute is technologically achievable and that there is a commercial
demand for that substitute.
The Agency relied on a range of sources and considered where
products and systems are already available as well as where they are
expected to be available given their use in other countries and/or
manufacturer announcements. These sources include, but are not limited
to, publicly available data such as information on ENERGY STAR
products, company websites,
[[Page 73132]]
SNAP listings, news articles, market reports, and communication with
industry experts. EPA also considers information that was provided to
relevant States as informative when evaluating whether a technology is
achievable or in commercial demand for the purposes of evaluating
available substitutes in their respective rulemakings. Another source
for considering technological achievability and commercial demand is
the information provided by petitioners. While EPA made every effort to
gather information related to these subfactors, we recognize that given
the scope of this rulemaking and the number of sectors and subsectors
covered, we may not have considered all versions and models of all
products or equipment in every sector or subsector.
EPA is not limiting its consideration of commercial demands and
technological achievability to a specific geographic region since
products or systems may be introduced in a few markets first. The
information provided in this rule and the Commercial Demands and
Technological Achievability TSD available in the docket are based on
the best available data and were considered to the extent practicable
in this rulemaking.
b. Consumer Costs and Affordability for Residential and Small Business
Consumers
Subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to the extent practicable, to
take into account consumer costs and affordability for residential and
small business consumers, among other subfactors, in its consideration
of availability of substitutes. EPA views these two subfactors as
related, in many instances, because residential and small business
consumers are a subset of consumers at large. The Act does not specify
in what way EPA should consider costs and affordability to these
consumers in determining whether a substitute is available. The
Agency's view is that the appropriate way to analyze consumer costs and
affordability is to look not at the total cost of a product/system
using a substitute, but rather at the difference in cost of a product/
system resulting from the transition. For this rule, the Agency has
considered the impact of its restrictions on the use of substitutes in
certain subsectors to the costs of products or systems for consumers of
all types. In some cases, EPA has extended proposed compliance dates to
mitigate potential cost impacts to consumers, because in doing so, the
Agency is anticipating that by the later compliance date established in
the final rule, the HFC phasedown required under subsection (e) will be
further along, there will be increased production of HFC substitutes,
and the cost of the substitute will be less of a barrier to the
availability of that substitute.
Although some substitutes are more costly than HFCs today, the
experience with the ODS phaseout has been that prices of substitutes
generally decline as production increases, as more producers negotiate
licensing agreements for certain chemicals, and as patents expire. EPA
has compiled a memo in the docket which provides a non-exhaustive list
of several announcements that have been made regarding the initiation
or updating of production plants for various substitutes.\59\
Simultaneously, experience with the ODS phaseout and reductions in
supply of HFCs in other parts of the world, suggest that the price of
HFCs will increase as a result of the phasedown. While these are the
anticipated trends, EPA finds that the cost of using a regulated
substance or substitute generally represents only a small fraction of
the total cost of the product.\60\ For the RACHP sector, the cost of
refrigerant is less than one percent of the entire cost of the system,
and the highest costs come from raw materials such as copper, steel,
and aluminum that are used to make the equipment.\61\ Therefore, even a
large change in the cost of the refrigerant is unlikely to have a
significant impact on the overall cost of the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See memo titled, Technical Support Company Announcements of
Increased Production of Low-GWP Substitutes in the docket that
presents company announcements of increased production of lower-GWP
substitutes. This memo is for informational purposes and does not
represent endorsement by the Agency. EPA further notes that this
memo is a non-exhaustive sampling of announcements; there may be
other companies announcing increased production of lower-GWP
substitutes.
\60\ U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document:
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Residential Central
Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, December 2016. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048-0098.
\61\ Consumer Cost Impacts of the U.S. Ratification of the
Kigali Amendment, JMS Consulting in partnership with INFORUM,
November 2018. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, substitutes are more efficient refrigerants than the
HFCs currently used, with some exceptions. This means that less
refrigerant is necessary in the finished product. More importantly,
this can reduce costs of the equipment because it requires less raw
material such as copper, steel, and aluminum to create heat transfer
elements. EPA applied the savings from using fewer raw materials and
improved energy efficiency only when EPA found sufficient literature
supporting such claims; however, other such cost saving factors may be
relevant to other subsectors.
In considering affordability for residential and small business
consumers and consumer costs, the Agency has also looked at overall
compliance costs associated with this rule to OEMs, importers,
retailers, distributors, and other regulated entities. This is because
compliance costs to these entities tend to be passed on to consumers.
EPA has previously analyzed ``consumer costs'' in relation to
``compliance costs'' and found very little difference in these.\62\ EPA
included the cost to consumers in an analysis of the HFC phasedown as
stipulated in the AIM Act that Congress was considering in 2019. In
that analysis, the costs to consumers were approximately $0 to $200
million less than the compliance costs, depending on the compliance
step-down year (EPA analyzed 2020, 2024, 2029, and 2034). Compared to
the total cumulative costs or savings estimated, these differences
represented no more than a 20 percent difference, and in all cases were
decreases in total costs or increases in total savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See ``American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2019:
Compliance and Consumer Cost Estimates'' document in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's estimates of compliance costs include energy efficiency
changes of equipment when switching from a regulated substance to a
substitute, where data were available. To the extent available, EPA's
analysis factored in energy efficiency changes inherent to the
substitute, which is separate from the energy efficiency gains from
using new equipment subject to more recent efficiency standards. These
costs (or savings) will likely impact all consumers of the equipment
using the substitutes, as the ones paying for the electricity. In this
case, the consumer could be a residential consumer or a small business
consumer, for instance a restaurant buying a new air conditioning unit
or a small convenience store using new stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment.
EPA's Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD summarizes many of the
Agency's analytical results regarding the costs of using substitutes in
the impacted subsectors (which in turn informed the Agency's assessment
of whether that substitute is available) as well as the expected costs
and negative costs (i.e., savings) to industry associated with
transitioning from a regulated substance to a substitute. This
discussion (and the Costs and
[[Page 73133]]
Environmental Impacts TSD) refers to the cost of manufacturing,
purchasing, operating, and maintaining a product or system with a
substitute that complies with the restrictions compared with that same
product or system using a prohibited substance. For example, for the
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump
subsector, the costs of manufacturing units that use lower-GWP
substances or blends (e.g., R-454B), and maintaining the operation of
that equipment, compared to those costs for a baseline unit (e.g., one
that uses R-410A including the operation and maintenance of that unit),
are used to generate an approximate accounting of the full cost (or
potential savings) of the transition. Depending on the substitute and
application, this can result in savings or costs borne by the consumer.
Data to develop the cost estimates summarized in the Costs and
Environmental Impacts TSD were derived from a variety of information
sources including technical literature and experts. EPA provides
additional details regarding the data used in the RIA addendum and its
accompanying appendices and references cited. The cost factors were
applied to develop transition scenarios consistent with this rule using
EPA's Vintaging Model. The resulting costs and abatement were used in a
similar manner as the Marginal Abatement Cost analysis explained in the
Allocation Framework RIA.
With respect to subsection (i)(4)(B)'s direction to consider
affordability for small business consumers in particular, the Agency
also analyzed whether its restrictions as a whole could have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business
consumers. The analysis found that approximately 162 of the 51,047
potentially affected small businesses could incur costs in excess of 1
percent of annual sales and that approximately 110 small businesses
could incur costs in excess of 3 percent of annual sales. Based on this
analysis, we do not anticipate a broad, significant economic impact on
small businesses as a result of the final restrictions. We expect that
these results largely stem from the anticipated reduced costs of
substitute chemicals as compared with HFCs as well as potential energy
savings and reduced material costs for equipment as discussed above.
This rule also does not require any consumers to stop using and
maintaining their existing equipment.
Equipment manufacturers, which are often small businesses, have
also already begun to transition to different refrigerants required by
this rule in response to regulations being implemented in several
States. Although State actions do not affect the entire U.S. market,
many manufacturers have begun the transition to HFC substitutes to have
products that can be sold nationally and comply with regulations in
export markets. Additional information on potential impacts of this
rule on small businesses can be found in the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) \63\ screening analysis located in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Restrictions on the
Use of Hydrofluorocarbons under Subsection (i) of the American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act, available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One factor that affects affordability for residential and small
business consumers is up-front capital costs for new equipment.
Compared to large businesses, both groups may be less likely to be able
to afford high up-front capital costs. However, this rule does not
require that existing equipment be retired by a specific date, nor are
estimates of emission reductions associated with these restrictions
predicated on the assumption that equipment would be retired
prematurely. Indeed, this final rule makes substantial changes from the
proposed rule to reduce costs borne by distributors and equipment
owners associated with the sell-through of products, the repair of
existing systems, and the continued supply of components.
More salient to EPA's analysis is consideration of the costs of a
substitute and its impacts on availability, particularly with regard to
investments that must be made in redesigning equipment to incorporate
use of the substitute. This redesign may have downstream costs on
consumers, both small business and residential. One way EPA has
factored in these costs and attempted to mitigate downstream impacts on
consumers is by establishing compliance dates that are further in the
future than the one-year required under the AIM Act. By signaling
earlier to regulated industry that transitions will be required and
providing more than one year for compliance, EPA provides some economic
and regulatory certainty to designers and manufacturers, and eases
supply constraints on components that these manufacturers may need for
the redesign. Additionally, staggering the compliance dates across
multiple years, rather than having a single January 1, 2025, compliance
date, lessens potential bottlenecks in the transition to manufacture
new equipment, such as testing and certification of equipment by a
nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL). The resultant savings
may then be passed on to consumers.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA failed to consider higher
repair and servicing costs over the life of these systems caused by the
proposed rule. The commenter asserted that by moving to flammable
refrigerants, service technicians must undertake additional precautions
that would add to the time and cost to repairs; that moving from one
refrigerant (R-410A) to multiple refrigerants will require costly
redundancy of refrigerant-specific servicing equipment; and that newly
designed equipment is generally less reliable and requires more repairs
than established products.
Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter. In the context of
availability, EPA did consider repair and servicing. As explained
elsewhere in this final rule, this is not the first transition for most
of the sectors and subsectors covered by this rule. Many manufacturers
already use flammable HFCs or HFC alternatives including in foams,
aerosols, and RACHP. EPA understands that there may be additional
technician training needed; however, training is often needed when
alternatives are introduced including with regard to inherent
characteristics of the alternative that could include flammability,
glide, changes in compatibility with components or oils, and other
factors. Therefore, the need for training or changes in how repairs are
undertaken, for example, is not limited to the introduction of
flammable alternatives. We expect that under the HFC phasedown, access
to HFCs, both newly manufactured and reclaimed, will continue far into
the future, particularly given that the AIM Act directs EPA to phase
down and not to phase out HFC production and consumption and subsection
(h) provides direction concerning maximizing reclamation of HFCs. A
network of reclaimers offer reclaimed HFCs that can be used to service
existing equipment for its full useful life. Reclaimed CFCs and HCFCs
remain available in the United States for servicing equipment that was
designed, sold, installed, and continues to be operated by residential
and small business consumers. Furthermore, the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for this rule finds that for many subsectors, required
transitions will provide net savings to the economy over time, which
may in turn be passed on to small business and residential consumers.
[[Page 73134]]
c. Safety
Subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to the extent practicable, to
take into account safety in its consideration of the availability of
substitutes. As part of EPA's consideration of safety, EPA is providing
additional information in the Safety TSD. This TSD supports the
Agency's consideration of the safety subfactor and is available in the
docket. EPA has reviewed information on flammability and toxicity as
well as the ability of substitutes to meet relevant industry safety
standards. In our interpretation of best available data, we evaluated
information from recognized industrial sources, including standard-
setting bodies, the SNAP program, international technical committees,
and information from petitions. Safety information may impact the
availability of substitutes in a particular sector or subsector, for
example, if there are restrictions on the use of a substance in local
building codes and/or regulatory requirements. Industry acceptance of
substitutes that are compliant with safety standards is also an
indication of safety and, therefore, impacts the use of a particular
substitute.
Taking safety into account in considering the availability of
substitutes is not intended to limit substitutes to only those that are
risk free. This interpretation under subfactor (i)(4)(B) is informed by
the approach EPA has taken under the SNAP program, where the Agency has
likewise stated that it does not require alternatives to be risk free
(59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). Many industry standards are designed to
mitigate risk and allow for the safe use of flammable, toxic, or high-
pressure substitutes. EPA therefore understands the direction to take
safety into account, to the extent practicable, as encompassing
consideration of information on the risks associated with the
substitute as well as information on risk mitigation.
EPA has considered the listings under SNAP in its assessment of the
availability of substitutes in this rule. The SNAP program, in making
listing decisions for a substitute (e.g., to list as acceptable or
unacceptable), considers whether a substitute presents human health and
environmental risks that are lower than or comparable to such risks
from other substitutes that are currently or potentially available for
the same uses. Under this comparative risk evaluation, the human health
risks analyzed include safety, and in particular, flammability,
toxicity, exposure (of workers, consumers, and the general population)
to chemicals with direct toxicity; and exposure of the general
population to increased ground-level ozone. Under the SNAP program, EPA
makes decisions that are informed by its overall understanding of the
environmental and human health impacts.
Under SNAP, EPA can list substitutes as ``acceptable subject to use
conditions,'' indicating that a substitute is acceptable only if used
in a certain way. Use conditions can include, but are not limited to,
warning labels, charge size limits, compliance with relevant safety
standards, unique fittings for servicing of equipment, and restrictions
on where a substitute is used (e.g., normally unoccupied spaces).
EPA can also list substitutes as ``acceptable subject to narrowed
use limits'' under SNAP, indicating that a substitute may be used only
within certain specialized applications within an end-use and may not
be used for other applications within that end-use. EPA lists an
alternative as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits because of a
lack of available alternatives within the specialized application.
Users of an alternative in this category must make a reasonable effort
to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible for
reasons of performance or safety. Users are expected to undertake a
thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the otherwise
restricted compound. Although users are not required to report the
results of their investigations to EPA, users must document these
results and retain them in their files for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance.
EPA lists substitutes as ``unacceptable'' under SNAP if the Agency
determines that they may increase overall risk to human health and the
environment, compared to other alternatives that are available or
potentially available for the same use. EPA has listed substitutes as
unacceptable considering the human health criteria described above, as
well as the environmental factors considered under SNAP. For example,
SNAP has listed certain substitutes as unacceptable due to unusually
high ozone depletion potential, global warming potential, toxicity and
exposure, flammability (where it is not clear how to mitigate risks
sufficiently), and potential impacts on local air quality. Substitutes
listed as unacceptable in an end-use are prohibited for that use for
those subject to SNAP.
EPA evaluates substitutes under the SNAP program on an ongoing
basis and over time has listed numerous substances as ``acceptable,''
``acceptable, subject to use conditions,'' or ``acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits.'' Often, EPA applies compliance with relevant
safety standards, such as those discussed in the remainder of this
section, as a use condition to mitigate some of the risk associated
with using certain substitutes, particularly those that are classified
as flammable. Therefore, updates to standards can greatly affect how
SNAP considers the safe use of certain substitutes, and expanded risk
mitigation strategies required by standards could reduce the
comparative risk evaluation of a substitute under SNAP. The SNAP
program also often applies use conditions in addition to those required
by safety standards, which can further reduce the risk associated with
use of a substitute.
In its evaluation of the safety subfactor under subsection
(i)(4)(B) for refrigerants, EPA is also considering the safety group
classification designated by ASHRAE Standard 34, and requirements for
the safe design, construction, installation, and operation of systems
under ASHRAE Standard 15, Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems,
and 15.2, Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems in Residential
Applications. ASHRAE Standard 34 assigns a designation consisting of
two to three alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2L or B1). The initial
capital letter indicates the toxicity, and the numeral and trailing
letter, if any, denotes the flammability. Under this standard, Class A
refrigerants are those for which toxicity has not been identified at
concentrations less than or equal to 400 parts per million (ppm) by
volume, based on data used to determine threshold limit value-time-
weighted average (TLV-TWA) or consistent indices. Class B signifies
refrigerants for which there is evidence of toxicity at concentrations
below 400 ppm by volume, based on data used to determine TLV-TWA or
consistent indices. Refrigerants that are listed under the B (higher
toxicity) classification of ASHRAE Standard 34 have been used safely
and effectively for many years. For example, after the CFC phaseout,
several companies offered comfort cooling chillers using HCFC-123, and
at least one has since transitioned to the low-GWP B1 refrigerant R-
514A in part of its product line. These systems generally have low leak
rates, are located away from building occupants in limited-access areas
(e.g., mechanical rooms) with secured entrances, and utilize
refrigerant sensors and alarms to alert operators of leaks. Building
codes further reduce risks by requiring, for
[[Page 73135]]
example, mechanical ventilation to the outdoor space where such systems
are placed.
The standard also assigns refrigerants a flammability
classification of 1, 2, 2L, or 3 based upon the results of standardized
testing for flame propagation, heat of combustion, lower-flammability
limit (LFL), and burning velocity. Tests for flammability are conducted
in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials E681
using a spark ignition source at 140 [deg]F (60 [deg]C) and 14.7 psia
(101.3 kPa).\64\ The flammability classification ``1'' is given to
refrigerants that show no flame propagation. The flammability
classification ``2'' is given to refrigerants that exhibit flame
propagation, have a heat of combustion less than 19,000 kJ/kg (8,169
BTU/lb), and have a LFL greater than 0.10 kg/m\3\. The flammability
classification ``2L'' is given to refrigerants that exhibit flame
propagation, have a heat of combustion less than 19,000 kJ/kg (8,169
BTU/lb), have an LFL greater than 0.10 kg/m\3\, and have a maximum
burning velocity of 10 cm/s or lower when tested in dry air at 73.4
[deg]F (23.0 [deg]C) and 14.7 psi (101.3 kPa). The flammability
classification ``3'' is given to refrigerants that exhibit flame
propagation and that either have a heat of combustion of 19,000 kJ/kg
(8,169 BTU/lb) or greater or have an LFL of 0.10 kg/m\3\ or lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ ASHRAE, 2022. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2022: Designation and
Safety Classification of Refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For flammability classifications, refrigerant blends are designated
based on the worst case of formulation for flammability and the worst
case of fractionation for flammability determined for the blend.
Information on the ASHRAE classification of each substitute identified
by EPA for this rule is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
ASHRAE Standard 15 specifies requirements for air-conditioning and
refrigeration systems based on the safety group classification of the
refrigerant used, the type of occupancy in the location for which the
system is used, and whether refrigerant-containing parts of the system
enter the space or ductwork and so that leakage in the space is deemed
``probable.'' ``High-probability'' installations are those such that
leaks or failures will result in refrigerant entering the occupied
space. Occupancies are divided into six classifications: institutional,
public assembly, residential, commercial, large mercantile, and
industrial. Examples of these include jails, theaters, apartment
buildings, office buildings, shopping malls, and chemical plants,
respectively. Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of ASHRAE Standard 15 determine the
maximum amount of refrigerant allowed in the system, while section 7.4
provides an option to locate equipment outdoors or in a machinery room
constructed and maintained under conditions specified in the standard.
Section 7.6 of ASHRAE Standard 15 addresses the refrigerants in this
final rule when used for human comfort in ``high-probability'' systems,
including requirements for nameplates, labels, refrigerant detectors
(under certain conditions), airflow initiation and other actions (if a
rise in refrigerant concentration is detected), and other restrictions.
ASHRAE Standard 15 is generally followed for several of the RACHP
subsectors addressed in this rule, and in many cases is required as a
use condition under SNAP for comfort cooling chillers (see 88 FR 26382,
April 28, 2023) or adoption either by reference or through similar
language in local building codes. Therefore, part of our consideration
of safety in our evaluation of the availability of substitutes is based
on our knowledge of this and other ASHRAE Standards, and the evaluation
of safety in these standards regarding substances, equipment, and use
conditions. For example, the scope of ASHRAE standard 15 specifically
excludes refrigeration systems operating with R-717 (ammonia)
refrigerant and references IIAR Standard 2, American National Standard
for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems. For
subsectors where R-717 is currently widely employed (e.g., industrial
process refrigeration, cold storage warehouses, ice rinks) or where it
may be used as a substitute, our consideration of safety in evaluating
the availability of substitutes also incorporates this standard. Where
the standards distinguish what types of refrigerants may be used based
on a feature of the equipment (e.g., charge size), EPA has in some
instances considered those distinctions in setting the levels of
restrictions or the timing of compliance dates.
EPA also considered UL standards in factoring in safety when
evaluating the availability of substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B).
In general, UL standards provide engineering, labeling, and design
requirements that address potential safety concerns for various types
of refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump equipment. Updates to
UL standards are then incorporated into other regulatory and industry
assessments, such as updates to SNAP listings, equipment design and
testing, and changes to building codes. In some cases, EPA took notice
of the timing of a publication of an update to a UL standard in
establishing the compliance date for a subsector restriction, such as
the safety standard UL 60335-2-89. This standard covers chillers used
for IPR and other IPR systems, cold storage warehouses, retail food
refrigeration equipment, and commercial ice machines. In October 2021,
the 2nd edition of the standard was published, updating safety
requirements so that flammable and lower flammability refrigerants
could be deployed more widely in commercial refrigeration equipment.
These updates included safety requirements, such as sensors in the room
to trigger refrigerant shut-off valves when a refrigerant leak is
detected and updated warning labels that better alert technicians,
equipment users, and firefighters that a flammable refrigerant is
contained in the equipment, among others. The updates included in UL
60335-2-89, 2nd edition, enable lower-GWP flammable refrigerants to be
used safely in equipment in greater amounts than before through
expanded mitigation strategies.
Based on the above, we find that products and systems can be used
safely even if there are challenges with the HFC or HFC blend
substitute being used. For example, most products within the RACHP
sector will be tested at NRTL for conformance to the applicable UL
standard and other requirements (e.g., DOE energy conservation
standards, National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) requirements). This
testing provides a check on the products design to ensure, for
instance, that charge sizes of flammable refrigerants do not exceed the
standard's limit and that proper design and mitigation features are
included as required. Likewise, when building projects are permitted,
the authority having jurisdiction will typically review the design
including specification on the refrigeration systems and conduct
another review before giving permission for the building to commence
operation. This too provides a check on the safety of such systems, for
instance by ensuring compliance with ASHRAE Standard 15 or similar
requirements provided by the local building codes.
Additional information on EPA's consideration of safety is
available in the Safety TSD in the docket.
d. Building Codes
Subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to the extent practicable, to
take building codes into account in its consideration
[[Page 73136]]
of availability of substitutes. For certain types of equipment,
especially in the RACHP sector, building codes may inform which
substances can be used or may prescribe additional requirements before
a specific substance can be used, thereby impacting availability of
substitutes in some jurisdictions. This section summarizes EPA's
understanding of building code development across the nation generally
and how model building codes are developed and adopted into local
building codes. EPA has considered this information, to the extent
practicable, to evaluate how building codes may affect the availability
of substitutes to regulated substances. Additional information is found
in the TSD American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020--
Subsection (i)(4) Factors for Determination: Building Codes, referred
to in this preamble as the ``Building Codes TSD.'' This TSD supports
the Agency's consideration of the building codes subfactor and is
available in the docket.
Building codes are established at the subnational level and can
differ greatly across jurisdictions. Some States develop their own
building codes and determine the frequency with which they are updated.
Other states adopt (and sometimes amend) ``model'' building codes that
are written by code-setting organizations. Code-setting organizations
include the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical
Officials (IAPMO), the International Code Council (ICC), and the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Many States allow local
governments to set their own building codes, provided they comply with
the minimum standards established under State building codes. Both
State and local building codes are periodically reevaluated and
updated. The Agency did not review every jurisdiction's building codes
as EPA does not view that as practicable.
Model building codes serve as the basis for many State and local
building codes and incorporate a range of industry standards that
establish specific requirements for building performance or design.
Several of these standards are directly relevant to the availability of
substitutes in the RACHP sector. EPA considered, to the extent
practicable, updates to industry standards and if those updates may be
incorporated into model building codes that will allow the future use
of products that use substitutes. EPA also considered whether current
building codes permit the installation and use of products and systems
using substitutes, particularly with respect to setting compliance
dates for restrictions. As noted earlier, EPA does not interpret
subsection (i)(4)(B)'s direction to factor in building codes, to the
extent practicable, as a requirement that EPA must find that current
building codes already permit the use of a substitute before it may be
deemed available.
EPA understands that, in some cases, jurisdictions need to update
their building codes for some substitutes to be available for certain
uses. EPA finds it reasonable to consider that updates to building
codes may already be underway to reflect updated regulatory
requirements or safety standards, and for EPA to establish compliance
dates with the expectation that jurisdictions will prioritize
completing those updates with those deadlines in mind. EPA is aware of
ongoing efforts by industry groups and other stakeholders to work with
State and local officials to update building codes to allow for
alternative refrigerants. EPA has had and will continue to have
discussions concerning agency rulemaking and meet with relevant
stakeholders, including State officials. In some cases, it will be
EPA's establishment of a future restriction that will serve as the
catalyst, or at least a contributing factor, to the updating of
building codes to accommodate those restrictions. Users may also be
able to take other actions, usually site-specific, to show comparable
safety to existing refrigerants and systems to receive approval from
the authority having jurisdiction, even where building code updates are
not yet complete. The Agency has therefore, for many of the subsectors
addressed in this final action, provided additional time enabling those
jurisdictions to update their building codes or legislation
accordingly.
Model codes are typically updated on a three-year cycle, and most
model building codes were last updated in 2021; the next scheduled
updates are for 2024. Several proposed changes in the current code
development cycle for the 2024 codes could enhance the availability of
HFC substitutes under model building codes. For example, ICC, an
international developer of model codes, standards, and building safety
solutions, approved changes to many model codes that affect the
availability of A2L refrigerants for the RACHP sector. These model code
changes, which will go into effect in 2024, are consistent with updated
industry standards that allow the use of substitutes identified in this
rulemaking. However, State and local building code agencies do not
automatically adopt updates to the model codes and thus, they may not
be implemented until after 2024.
Information from stakeholders, including petitioners, indicates
that several States are updating building codes both as part of the
cyclical review and off cycle that would allow for the use of
additional HFC substitutes. For example, Oregon, California, and
Colorado have recently made, or are considering making, changes to
their codes that would effectively incorporate updated industry
standards as reflected in the model code changes that occurred in 2021.
Updated codes may require automatic refrigerant leak detection systems,
circulating fans, and labeling and handling instructions for flammable
refrigerants in certain applications and installations.
Additional information on EPA's consideration of building codes can
be found in the Building Codes TSD in the docket.
e. Appliance Efficiency Standards
As part of the Agency's consideration of the availability of
substitutes as directed by subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA is taking into
account, to the extent practicable, appliance efficiency standards. EPA
consulted with the U.S. Department of Energy regarding relevant minimum
energy efficiency standards and the timing for any planned changes to
the current standards. DOE, through its Building Technologies Office
and Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, sets minimum energy
efficiency standards for more than 60 different types of equipment,
including appliances and equipment used in homes, businesses, and
elsewhere.\65\ Several of these equipment types are within the RACHP
sector and are covered in this action. Among the equipment relevant to
this action are consumer products (e.g., refrigerators, freezers, and
room air conditioners) and commercial and industrial systems (e.g.,
automatic commercial ice machines, vending machines, walk-in coolers,
and walk-in freezers).\66\ EPA provides additional information in the
memo American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020--Subsection
(i)(4) Factors for Determination: Appliance Efficiency Standards,
referred to in this preamble as the ``Appliance Efficiency Standards
memo.'' This memo supports the Agency's consideration of the appliance
[[Page 73137]]
efficiency standards subfactor and is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See the U.S. Department of Energy's Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program available at: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-and-equipment-standards-program.
\66\ For additional information and a complete list of products,
please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy's website available
at: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/standards-and-test-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOE Appliance and Equipment Standards Program regularly
develops and updates appliance efficiency standards and test
procedures. Future revisions to existing appliance efficiency standards
could impact what substitutes are chosen to be used in equipment in
specific sectors and subsectors. EPA is in regular communication with
DOE so both agencies are aware of the schedules for these separate but
related actions. The Appliance Efficiency Standards memo lists
applicable standards in relevant sectors and subsectors and identifies
standards currently undergoing revision. We understand that for
redesign and testing of equipment, industry prefers that DOE and EPA
regulations are synchronized where possible. Given that DOE and EPA
operate under separate Congressional mandates, that synchronization may
not always be possible, but sharing information early can reduce
inconsistencies such that, to the extent possible, the refrigerants
used to set performance standards will be available under the
technology transitions program. For example, EPA discussed with DOE
test procedures that they developed for Automatic Commercial Ice
Machines (ACIMs). Based in part on that discussion, and as suggested in
comments, EPA is not finalizing the restrictions for this subsector as
proposed, but rather is finalizing restrictions in part by referencing
DOE regulations (see section VI.F.1.g). EPA also recognizes the
potential to greatly increase climate protection by both reducing the
GWP of substances used in the relevant subsectors (e.g., construction
foams, appliances foams, and refrigerants) covered by this action and
supporting energy efficiency in such applications.
Comment: Commenters stated that product design changes for
refrigerant and efficiency both require a significant amount of time,
resources, and capital and that there is benefit to every stakeholder
in the channel if these regulatory actions are coordinated. One
commenter stated that new DOE efficiency standards for ACIMs will be
effective between 2027 and 2029 and the proposed compliance dates would
require redundant work to develop products that first comply with both
requirements. Two commenters that manufacture ice machines stated that
many of their products will become less efficient by up to 10 percent
due to the operating differences of the refrigerants.
Response: EPA recognizes that other requirements such as DOE energy
conservation standards apply to ACIMs just as they apply to many RACHP
subsectors. While EPA and DOE operate under different authorities and
must follow timelines as set forth by these authorities, we find that
the compliance dates finalized here broadly meet the commenters'
request. For remote ACIMs, a compliance date of 2027, and for self-
contained ACIMs, compliance dates of 2026 or 2027 with a three-year
sell-through period, comport well with the commenter's prediction of
DOE efficiency standards becoming effective in 2027 to 2029. DOE has
already begun the process for such standards, and OEMs can choose to
develop new products meeting the restrictions set in this rule while at
the same time considering potential DOE energy conservation standards.
EPA disagrees that ACIMs using alternative refrigerants will
necessarily experience a drop in efficiency. One ACIM manufacturer
recently reported on results of an ACIM after the R-404A compressor was
replaced with an R-290 one, finding a 34 percent energy savings and an
increase of 35 percent in ice production.\67\ DOE found a similar
improvement when using R-290 in a different type of ACIM.\68\ In its
TSD for ACIMs, DOE in its preliminary analysis estimates the baseline
energy can drop from 10% below baseline (i.e., after other improvements
were made) to 18% below baseline when switching to R-290. The
refrigerant change increased the energy efficiency ratio (EER) from 6.4
to 7.4. When evaluating compressors for ACIMs, DOE found that R-290
compressors were consistently more efficient than R-404A ones over the
full capacity range studied (from approximately 1,000 BTU/h to 5,000
BTU/h). In six other types of ACIMs, DOE consistently found that the
energy use dropped by switching to R-290,\69\ and likewise found
improvements by switching to R-600a in three types of ACIMs.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See https://www.embraco.com/en/embraco-brings-to-ahr-expo-a-case-study-with-34-energy-savings-in-ice-machines.
\68\ Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for
Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Automatic
Commercial Ice Makers; EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009_content (1);
available at www.regulations.gov.
\69\ Based on ACIM type, energy use compared to baseline
declined 18% to 25%, 8% to 18%, 7% to 20%, 8% to 19%, 42% to 48%,
and 11% to 32%.
\70\ Based on ACIM type, energy use compared to baseline
declined 0% to 8%, 20% to 22%, and 3% to 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Contractor Training Costs
As part of the Agency's consideration of the availability of
substitutes as directed by subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA is taking into
account, to the extent practicable, available information on contractor
training costs, including training related to substitutes for relevant
sectors and subsectors (e.g., certain RACHP and foam subsectors). EPA
obtained contractor training and exam cost data through a review of
publicly available literature, from industry trade and training
associations, and information submitted to EPA during the comment
period or in petitions under subsection (i). It is not feasible to
obtain information and data on all available training programs and
exams and our review represents an assessment to the extent practicable
of information in relevant sectors and subsectors for contractor
training costs. Some substitutes may require specialized or additional
training, knowledge, or expertise to ensure their safe handling and
use. This includes, but is not limited to, flammable (A3 or B3), lower
flammability (A2L or B2L), and higher toxicity (B1, B2L, B2, or B3)
refrigerants and other substitutes with unique or different
characteristics such as those operating at higher pressures than HFCs.
To the extent practicable, the Agency has considered the cost of
trainings to contractors for handling products and equipment containing
substitutes for HFCs or blends containing HFCs substitutes. In certain
situations, the Agency has endeavored to mitigate costs associated with
high demand for trainings associated with new substitutes by providing
additional time for compliance (and, in turn, for those trainings to
occur).
Manufacturers and trade organizations often provide training and
certification beyond what is required under the regulations
implementing sections 608 and 609 of the CAA. This is not a new
practice, especially with the release of new equipment. As the
transition to lower-GWP refrigerants continues, more technicians are
expected to work with flammable refrigerants, and a variety of training
and education resources are anticipated to include the incorporation of
flammable refrigerants into existing curriculum. There are already
courses, trainings, and conferences across the country that focus on
lower-GWP refrigerants among the affected subsectors. Costs of
trainings are dependent on several factors, such as the organization
providing the training, how it is administered, and the location. In
some States, continued RACHP education is required as part of a State
licensing requirement; training on using
[[Page 73138]]
flammable refrigerants may be incorporated to fulfill this requirement.
Certain applications in the foams and aerosols sectors may also
require safety training. In particular, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) requires that contractors providing in
situ installation of spray foams, foam insulation, and aerosols receive
health and safety training regarding the hazards of working in confined
spaces and procedures to avoid injury from fall hazards. OSHA issued a
standard reflected in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart AA--Confined Spaces in
Construction, which requires that employers provide employees free
training to ensure that the employee understands the hazards of working
in a confined space. Additional trainings and exams are available
beyond the basic required safety training and may vary in costs
depending on the level and amount of training a contractor obtains.
g. Quantities of Regulated Substances Available From Reclaiming, Prior
Production, or Prior Import
As part of the Agency's consideration of the availability of
substitutes as directed by subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA is taking into
account, to the extent practicable, information on quantities of HFCs
from reclamation and stockpiles of previously produced or imported
HFCs. EPA is providing additional information in the TSD American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020--Subsection (i)(4) Factors for
Determination: Quantities Available from Reclaiming, Prior Production,
or Prior Import.
HFCs available from prior production or import that have been
stockpiled and HFCs that have been recovered and reclaimed can both
smooth transitions to alternative technologies and ensure that existing
equipment can continue to be used. The Agency knows from its experience
under the ODS phaseout the important role reclamation plays by
providing an ongoing supply of material. This is true not only for the
RACHP sector but a similar approach of recycling of fire suppressants
is also used for the fire suppression sector, where regulated
substances are recovered and tested and/or reprocessed to certain
industry purity standards. Some companies may also choose to stockpile
substances to ensure a continued supply that can meet their needs. EPA
cannot estimate how much material will be stockpiled for a particular
sector or subsector or by a particular company; however, the Agency can
consider this approach as a general matter.
Information that EPA considered includes HFC reclamation data
submitted annually in accordance with the Clean Air Act section 608
reclamation program, codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F;
reclamation, production, and import data reported under 40 CFR part 84,
subpart A; \71\ data gathered to support development of the AIM Act
subsection (e) regulations contained in the docket for the 40 CFR part
84, subpart A rules; \72\ and data reported to the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program (GHGRP) under subparts OO and QQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ In addition to quarterly data, under 40 CFR 84.31, HFC
producers, importers, exporters, application-specific allowance
holders, reclaimers, and fire suppressant recyclers must annually
report the quantity of each regulated substance held in inventory as
of December 31 of each year.
\72\ Available at www.regulations.gov, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA is developing proposed regulations under the
authority of subsection (h) of the AIM Act. Subsection (h)(1) of the
Act provides that ``[f]or purposes of maximizing reclaiming and
minimizing the release of a regulated substance from equipment and
ensuring the safety of technicians and consumers, the Administrator
shall promulgate regulations to control, where appropriate, any
practice, process, or activity regarding the servicing, repair,
disposal, or installation of equipment . . . that involves: (A) a
regulated substance; (B) a substitute for a regulated substance; (C)
the reclaiming of a regulated substance used as a refrigerant; or (D)
the reclaiming of a substitute for a regulated substance used as a
refrigerant.'' Such regulations, if finalized, could increase the level
of reclamation in the future, such that the data provided in the TSD
may be a conservative estimate of what may be available in the future.
3. How is EPA considering overall economic costs and environmental
impacts, as compared to historical trends?
Subsection (i)(4)(C) directs the Agency to factor in, to the extent
practicable, overall economic costs and environmental impacts, as
compared to historical trends. The Act does not prescribe how EPA
should carry out its consideration of this factor, nor does the statute
clearly delineate what is meant by the phrase ``as compared to
historical trends.'' In light of the ambiguity, we interpret the
language of (i)(4)(C) as purposefully accommodating of many different
types and degrees of analysis of economic costs and environmental
impacts (including costs and impacts that may be difficult to quantify)
in part because the nature of EPA's action when applying this provision
can differ greatly depending on the circumstances.
Subsection (i)(4)(C) applies both to EPA's action on subsection (i)
petitions and to EPA's rulemakings under subsection (i). Subsection (i)
requires EPA to grant or deny petitions within 180 days of receipt, a
time period that inherently limits the scope and depth of any potential
analysis under subsection (i)(4)(C). EPA's timeframe for promulgating a
rule subject to a granted petition is two years from the date of a
petition grant, and in undertaking a rulemaking, whether by negotiated
rulemaking or not, EPA will undoubtedly perform more in-depth analysis
of economic costs and environmental impacts than we would in the more
abbreviated statutory period allotted for petition decisions. As
worded, particularly read in light of subsection (i)(4)'s
acknowledgement that consideration of some factors will be limited by
practicability (i.e., ``to the extent practicable''), the provision has
flexibility to permit EPA to tailor its consideration of this factor
accordingly.
We note also that subsection (i)(4)(C) applies to cases where EPA
is considering a broad swath of restrictions--such as this action,
which covers more than 40 subsectors--as well as cases where EPA is
contemplating a much more limited set of restrictions, potentially for
only one sector or subsector. As discussed in this section, EPA
reviewed multiple sources of information when factoring subsection
(i)(4)(C) into the use restrictions for this action. This information
included, but was not limited to, the Costs and Environmental Impacts
TSD, information previously developed by EPA concerning HFCs and
transitions, our experience with the ODS program, information developed
by the TEAP, the Montreal Protocol's Science Assessment Reports,
industry reports and commissioned studies (e.g., JMS Consulting in
partnership with INFORUM), journal articles, and other research. In
other actions under subsection (i), it may be appropriate in some
instances for EPA to prepare detailed analyses such those in the Costs
and Environmental Impacts TSD, but also times when new analyses of
similar detail would be unnecessary or not practicable.
It is also not clear from the plain language of the statute what
information EPA should consider when thinking about ``historical
trends,'' and how EPA should ``compare'' ``overall'' economic cost and
environmental impact information about newly contemplated
[[Page 73139]]
restrictions to those trends. Here too the ambiguity of these phrases
accommodates consideration of a variety of information and comparisons
depending on the circumstances and the available information.
In undertaking this action, EPA does not yet have historical
overall economic cost and environmental impact trends for previous use
restrictions, or transitions from HFCs to substitutes, under subsection
(i) to compare with the overall economic costs and environmental
impacts of the contemplated restrictions. However, it is practicable
and reasonable to in part interpret our obligation to factor in the
considerations under subsection (i)(4)(C) by looking at the overall
economic costs and the anticipated environmental impacts of the
restrictions as compared to a scenario where historical trends continue
into the future (i.e., ``business-as-usual''). For purposes of this
action, a reasonable reading of the business-as-usual scenario is the
conditions that would occur if only the Allocation Framework Rule and
the 2024 Allocation Rule were in effect. Therefore, the analysis in the
Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD uses as a baseline what would occur
absent the restrictions finalized in this rulemaking. As noted,
subsection (i)(4)(C) does not require a specific type of analysis, such
as the one EPA conducted for purposes of the Costs and Environmental
Impacts TSD, and we anticipate that the Agency could consider this
(i)(4) factor using a different type of analysis in the future.
As this is the first set of restrictions under subsection (i)
requiring transitions from certain regulated substances in certain
sectors and subsectors, it is appropriate to consider information from
historical comparable technology transitions in similar contexts. As
noted elsewhere, HFCs are used mainly in the same sectors and
subsectors where ODS were used. EPA has considered the overall economic
costs and environmental impacts of actions taken under the CAA title VI
regulations on ODS in a memo \73\ available in the docket. EPA
acknowledges that the ODS phaseout and transitions from HFCs as a
result of this rule have their own unique regulatory features and
technological transitions at play, leading to different overall
economic impacts and environmental impacts. The memo discussing the
costs and environmental impacts of the ODS phaseout is included as
supplemental information and as a relevant benchmark, as the transition
to HFC substitutes will impact many of the same industries and entail,
in some cases, similar technological shifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See ``Overview of CFC and HCFC Phaseout'' document in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One key historical trend observed during the ODS phaseout that may
be relevant to the HFC phasedown is that technology transitions did not
necessarily drive up the cost of products to the consumer or hurt the
performance of products. A clear example of this was discussed in a
2018 report of the TEAP.\74\ From 1972 through 2015, household
refrigerators sold in the United States underwent several design
changes in response to regulations requiring transition from ODS
refrigerant, ODS-containing insulation foam, and increased energy
efficiency. Over that time, the average capacity of refrigerators sold
in the United States also grew to accommodate consumer preferences.
Even as refrigerators became larger, more energy efficient, and
transitioned from use of ODS, the average price fell in real dollars.
Consumers not only benefitted from the lower initial purchase price,
but the greater energy efficiency also reduced consumers' electricity
costs. This example, and a similar trend seen in household unitary AC
units, are discussed in more detail in the report American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act of 2019: Compliance and Consumer Cost Estimates,
which can be found in the docket.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Decision XXIX/10 Task Force Report on Issues Related to
Energy Efficiency while Phasing Down Hydrofluorocarbons, Technical
and Economic Assessment Panel, UNEP, May 2018. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/TEAP_DecisionXXIX-10_Task_Force_EE_May2018.pdf
\75\ Consumer Cost Impacts of the U.S. Ratification of the
Kigali Amendment, JMS Consulting in partnership with INFORUM,
November 2018. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the memo that summarizes the costs of the ODS
phaseout, the most comprehensive analysis was in a 1999 peer-reviewed
report from EPA to Congress.\76\ In that report, EPA summarized the
costs of the allowance allocation and reductions for CFCs, HCFCs,
halons, and methyl chloroform to be $18 billion (7 percent discount
rate) to $56 billion (2 percent discount rate) in 1990 dollars.\77\ It
was also noted that the transition to more energy efficient air
conditioning using alternatives to HCFC-22 could lower this cost by
$16.8 billion in 1990 dollars.\78\ As opposed to this net cost, the
Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD indicates that the transitions
envisioned would yield a net savings through 2050 of $4.2 billion (7
percent discount rate) to $8 billion (3 percent discount rate) in
compliance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Final Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean
Air Act, 1990 to 2010; EPA 410-R-99-001 Nov 15, 1999.
\77\ Approximately $36 billion and $111 billion, respectively,
in 2020 dollars.
\78\ Approximately $33.3 billion in 2020 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary goal of the ODS phaseout was to protect the ozone layer
in accordance with title VI of the CAA and the Montreal Protocol,
whereas the primary purpose of this action is to restrict the use of
higher-GWP HFCs, making the benefits difficult to compare. However, the
phaseout of ODS also provided climate change benefits, as most ODS are
also high-GWP greenhouse gases, as indicated by the exchange values for
the ODS that are listed in subsection (e)(1)(D) of the AIM Act.\79\
Although such benefits have not been calculated specifically for the
United States, we note that the U.S. was one of the largest producers
and consumers of ODS, and that the benefits from phasing out ODS can be
significant given the high GWPs of the most common ODS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Velders, Guus JM, et al. ``The importance of the Montreal
Protocol in protecting climate.'' Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 104.12 (2007): 4814-4819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. How is EPA considering the remaining phasedown period for regulated
substances?
Subsection (i)(4)(D) directs the Agency to factor in, to the extent
practicable, the remaining phasedown period for regulated substances
under the final rule issued under subsection (e)(3) of the AIM Act, if
applicable. In the Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 55116, October 5,
2021), EPA established the allocation program under subsection (e) of
the AIM Act, which is codified at 40 CFR part 84, subpart A. A key
provision under subsection (e) requires EPA to phase down the
consumption and production of the statutorily listed HFCs on an
exchange value-weighted basis according to the schedule in the table in
subsection (e)(2)(C) of the AIM Act. The quantity of allowances
available for allocation for each calendar year decreases over time
according to the statutory phasedown schedule.
Currently, the United States is at the first step of the HFC
phasedown. In 2023, HFC production and consumption is limited to 90
percent of the historical baseline. Additional reduction steps occur on
January 1 of 2024, 2029, 2034, and 2036, at which point HFC production
and consumption will continue at 15 percent of the baseline. Starting
with the allowances for calendar year 2024 the total quantity of
[[Page 73140]]
production and consumption allowances that may be allocated will drop
by one third--to 60 percent of baseline--and starting with calendar
year 2029 they will decline to 30 percent of baseline. Thus, most of
the phasedown will occur within the next six years. This reduction in
the supply of HFCs is an important factor in finalizing restrictions
under subsection (i) with compliance dates and GWP limits that are as
stringent as feasible under the analysis of all the (i)(4) factors.
EPA also views this final rule as supporting the phasedown
schedule. While promulgated under a separate statutory provision under
the AIM Act, the restrictions on the use of HFCs will have a
complementary effect in meeting the HFC phasedown schedule by
facilitating necessary transitions to lower-GWP substitutes. This rule
supports innovation and advances the adoption of substitutes where
available, thereby reducing demand for HFCs. EPA anticipates new
substitutes and technologies will continue to emerge as the reductions
in the caps on production and consumption allowances continue.
Restricting the use of HFCs in sectors and subsectors that are better
positioned to transition to new substitutes and technologies is
consistent with subsection (i) and supports the overall production and
consumption phasedown.
Title VI of the CAA similarly provided for prohibitions on the sale
or distribution in interstate commerce of certain products under
section 610 and for additional restrictions on use of certain ODS under
section 605(a). These restrictions supported the ODS phaseout. For
example, most of the nonessential products bans under section 610 were
established at the very beginning of the ODS phaseout program--ahead of
the overall CFC phaseout by a few years and ahead of the HCFC final
phaseout by a few decades. By banning the use of certain ODS where
substitutes were available, early transitions accrued additional
environmental benefits and supported the overall economy-wide
transition by removing uses of controlled substances that were no
longer necessary. At the time, in discussing some of the statutory
criteria to be considered in determining whether a product was
nonessential, EPA noted that ``where substitutes are readily available,
the use of controlled substances could be considered nonessential even
in a product that is extremely important.'' (58 FR 4768, January 15,
1993).
5. How did EPA determine the degree of the restrictions for each sector
and subsector?
AIM Act subsection (i)(1) grants EPA authority to restrict by rule
the use of a regulated substance in the sector or subsector in which
the regulated substance is used, and these restrictions may be
exercised ``fully, partially, or on a graduated schedule.'' In
determining the degree of the restrictions--e.g., GWP level, how
partially or fully to restrict the use, and on what schedule--EPA
looked to the factors in subsection (i)(4). Specifically, we interpret
subsection (i)(4) as directing EPA to balance multiple factors in
establishing the level of the contemplated use restriction, and we
describe in this section the guiding principles and methodology EPA
employed in our consideration of those factors in developing the
restrictions established in this action. In short, EPA selected the
degree of restriction for each sector or subsector by weighing the
following considerations: maximizing environmental benefit while
ensuring adequate availability of substitutes (as informed by the
subsection (i)(4)(B) subfactors) and with consideration of how this
action comports with the overall economic costs and environmental
benefits compared to historical trends. With respect to all of our
information and analysis we strive to use best available data. We are
also mindful of the HFC phasedown schedule in ensuring that the use
restrictions support that schedule by reducing total U.S. demand for
HFCs by transitioning uses in sectors and subsectors where the Agency
has determined that substitutes are available.
EPA is establishing restrictions on the use of HFCs by, for the
most part, setting GWP limits by sector or subsector. In section VI.B,
EPA highlights the benefits of using GWP limits, including achieving
environmental benefits, smoothing the transition from higher-GWP
substances, supporting innovation, providing regulatory certainty, and
harmonizing with approaches taken by other governments in establishing
similar requirements.
Because the use restrictions were requested by numerous
stakeholders, representing a broad range of interests (regulated
industry, environmental and public health organizations, and State and
local governments), EPA considered the petitions--either in the form of
GWP limits or specific substances to be restricted--as the starting
point for the level of the restrictions. In some cases, petitioners
provided information about substitutes that are already in use or would
soon be ready to be in use in the affected sectors and subsectors and
attested to the achievability (technologically, regulatory, economic,
and otherwise) of certain substitutes. The substitutes discussed in the
petitions and supporting information had lower GWPs, and thus reduced
adverse impacts on climate, compared to the regulated substances for
which a use restriction was requested. Many of the petitioners are the
entities (or trade associations representing those entities) developing
substitutes or manufacturing products using substitutes.
The impetus for this rulemaking, in part, was to address the
granted petitions. Therefore, the restrictions requested in those
petitions, including specific substances or GWP limits, and the timing
of those restrictions, were a natural starting point for the Agency's
inquiry. However, as a starting point, EPA was clear in the proposed
rule that the Agency was not obligated to propose a rule restricted to
the petitions. Subsection (i)(4) requires that EPA take into account,
to the extent practicable, the factors described in section VI.E of
this preamble. In following this statutory directive, EPA considered
the (i)(4) factors collectively, with no single (i)(4) factor (or
subfactor) driving the restrictions for any sector or subsector.
Collective consideration of the (i)(4) factors is consistent with the
statutory text, which directs EPA to account for all the factors, to
the extent practicable, in carrying out a rulemaking under subsection
(i), and which does not state that one factor should carry more weight
than the others. Further, accounting for the (i)(4) factors together
enables EPA to take a holistic approach in facilitating transition to
substitute technology, one that considers the availability of
substitutes, overall economic costs and environmental impacts, as
compared to historical trends, and the HFC phasedown schedule codified
by the Allocation Framework Rule.
The direction in subsection (i)(4)(C) to factor in overall economic
costs and environmental impacts as compared to historical trends does
not have a clear meaning in the context of selecting the degree of a
restriction for a given sector or subsector. The provision's focus on
an ``overall'' comparison makes direct application of this factor in
setting a level of restriction for a specific sector or subsector less
practicable. However, the focus in subsection (i)(4)(C) on ``economic
costs'' and ``environmental impacts'' still provides direction to the
Agency that cost and environmental considerations are relevant factors
for EPA to consider in setting the level of a use restriction under
subsection (i),
[[Page 73141]]
and we address how EPA did so in the following paragraphs.
For these restrictions, in factoring in environmental impacts, our
aim was generally to establish GWP limits for each sector or subsector
at the lowest supportable level while considering the other factors
under subsection (i), specifically, availability of substitutes and
cost, as well as considerations of implementation and enforcement. It
is reasonable to prioritize maximizing the climate change benefits of
restricting the regulated substances that are the focus of this rule,
given that these environmental impacts are and have been one of the
central concerns with the use of HFCs. Much of the information relied
upon in our analysis of available substitutes comes from SNAP, which
evaluates and identifies as ``acceptable'' those substances that reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment, as well as the TEAP
reports which speak to human health and environmental considerations,
the granted petitions, and information from State and foreign
government regulations.
Therefore, in selecting the levels of restrictions for each sector
and subsector, we set the GWP limit at the lowest level that will
provide a sufficient range of substitutes for applications within a
subsector. EPA projects the cumulative environmental impact of these
restrictions to be significant; with an average annual additional \80\
emission reduction of 4 to 34 MMTCO2e, and an average annual
additional consumption reduction of 28 to 43 MMTCO2e, from
2025 through 2050 (see Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ These reductions would be in addition to the consumption
reductions from the Allocation Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA did not set the level of restrictions for this rule at
precisely the GWPs of identified available substitutes in each sector
or subsector. Instead, EPA is establishing GWP limits at regular
intervals--i.e., 150 GWP, 300 GWP, and 700 GWP. This approach has
advantages over a methodology that tightly tailors the GWP limit for
each subsector to the specific GWPs of the currently identified
available substitutes for that particular sector or subsector (e.g.,
establishing GWP limits of 237, 258, and 290 based on the particular
substitutes currently available in three different subsectors).
Establishing limits at regular intervals avoids changing the status of
an alternative caused by minor discrepancies in the methodology used to
calculate GWPs; \81\ promotes development of new variations on
substitutes that are still within the permissible range; allows for use
of a wider range of substitutes (recognizing that not every substitute
is necessarily available for each use within a subsector); and eases
implementation of the restrictions for regulated parties, consumers,
and enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ For example, using the methodology finalized in this rule,
EPA calculates that R-452B has a GWP of 698 and thus meets the 700
GWP limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure adequate availability of substitutes, EPA looked at a
range of information relevant to the subfactors provided in subsection
(i)(4)(B) from a variety of sources. In general, EPA aimed to establish
GWP limits at a level that would include multiple available substitutes
that could be used in that sector or subsector (taking into
consideration the various (i)(4)(B) subfactors to the extent
practicable). In the following sections, we provide detailed
information regarding the availability of substitutes for each sector
and subsector.
Our methodology for setting the levels of the use restrictions also
factored in considerations of cost, both in identifying availability of
substitutes and in assessing overall costs of the levels of the
restrictions. Some of the subfactors in subsection (i)(4)(B) for the
Agency to take into account when determining ``availability'' are
explicitly or implicitly related to cost. Subfactors that explicitly
relate to cost include commercial demands (there would be no demand for
a substitute that caused a product to be so costly as to be
unmarketable), consumer costs, affordability for residential and small
business consumers, and contractor training costs. Other subfactors
that are not explicitly related to cost contain implicit considerations
of cost. For example, a company generally would not invest in
demonstrating that use of a substitute is technologically achievable in
a sector or subsector if the use of that substitute was so cost
prohibitive that it would never actually be adopted. The Agency
factored in these cost subfactors to the extent practicable when
considering availability of substitutes.
Subsection (i)(4)(C) also specifically directs EPA to factor in, to
the extent practicable, overall economic costs as compared to
historical trends, and as discussed above, the Agency has considered
numerous sources of information as we developed this rule, including
the cost findings summarized in the Costs and Environmental Impacts
TSD. As discussed in that TSD, we anticipate that the incremental
economic cost of the restrictions will result in a savings to the
regulated industry, i.e., that complying with the use restrictions and
transitioning from higher-GWP regulated substances to lower GWP
substitutes will, on the whole, reduce costs for industry.
In summary, in carrying out a rulemaking under subsection (i), EPA
views subsection (i)(4)(A) through (D) as providing overarching
direction for setting restrictions under this section. Subsection
(i)(4)(B) also requires the Agency to examine the particular subfactors
listed therein for the sector or subsector in order to determine
whether a substitute is available for use in that sector or subsector.
Therefore, in the following section addressing the final restrictions
and compliance dates for each sector and subsector, EPA has focused the
bulk of its discussion on the identification of available substitutes
and the Agency's consideration of the relevant sub-factors informing
availability.
F. For which sectors and subsectors is EPA establishing restrictions on
the use of HFCs?
This section provides a description of each sector or subsector
subject to the restrictions in this rule, the final use restrictions,
and compliance dates, and EPA's assessment of the availability of
substitutes for each sector or subsector (see section VI.E.5). In
addition, this section includes summaries of comments on specific
sectors and subsectors and EPA's responses.
1. Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps
Subsectors in the RACHP sector typically use a refrigerant in a
vapor compression cycle to cool and/or dehumidify a substance or space,
such as a refrigerator cabinet, room, office building, or warehouse.
The equipment in this subsector, for the purposes of this rule,
includes self-contained, factory-completed products and larger, field-
assembled systems. EPA recognizes that these terms may be used under
SNAP and the refrigerant management regulations in 40 CFR part 82,
subpart F.
a. Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR)
IPR systems are used to cool process streams at a specific location
in manufacturing and other industrial processes (e.g., chemical,
pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and manufacturing industries). IPR
systems are directly linked to the industrial process, meaning the
refrigerant leaving the condenser and metering device is
[[Page 73142]]
delivered directly to the heat source before returning to the
compressor. This also includes appliances used directly in the
generation of electricity. Specialized refrigerated laboratory
equipment, such as that used in the pharmaceutical industry, may fall
under this subsector if it operates at temperatures above -62 [deg]C (-
80 [deg]F), and is not considered to be very low temperature
refrigeration equipment.
Where one system is used for both IPR and other applications (such
as cooling a room or building in which the industrial process is
located), EPA considers it to be an IPR system if 50 percent or more of
its operating capacity is used for IPR. Cooling or IPR that involves
using a chiller, e.g., to circulate a secondary fluid to the point at
which heat is removed from the process, or to cool a room or building
as explained in this section, is regulated as a chiller and is
discussed in section VI.F.1.j. IPR equipment not using a chiller is
regulated as part of the IPR subsector and discussed in this section.
In the proposed rule, EPA included data centers and data servers in
the description of applications that the Agency considers to be IPR. In
this final rule, EPA is creating a separate subsector for data centers,
information technology equipment facilities (ITEF), and computer room
cooling equipment which includes appliances used for large scale
cooling of server farms, ITEF, computer rooms, data centers, data
servers, communication rooms, and other spaces dedicated to maintaining
the operating temperature of electronic technologies. This subsector is
discussed in section VI.F.1.b.
Many types of foods require refrigeration during the production
process. EPA considers refrigerating equipment used during the
production of food and beverages in an industrial setting to fall under
IPR. If the food production process requires cooling done directly by a
refrigerant, either at the point where cooling is required or to cool a
room or building in which the cooling is required, the equipment falls
within the IPR subsector. If instead a chiller is used to cool a
secondary fluid (e.g., water) that then provides the required cooling,
EPA considers the use to be in the chillers for IPR subsector. The IPR
subsector includes all equipment and operations that use a refrigerant
to make and prepare food that is not immediately available for sale (or
supply, if the food is not ``sold'') to the consumer and would require
shipping or delivering it, possibly through intermediate points, to the
point where such sale would occur. This could include facilities where
food is processed and packaged by the food producer, such as a meat
processor that prepares and packages individual cuts of meat within a
single facility or building while maintaining the required
temperatures. Although such facilities may be designed in a fashion
similar to a cold storage warehouse, the fact that items are being
processed by the food producer indicates that the application falls in
the IPR subsector. However, if a food producer operates a refrigerated
storage area solely for the holding of already packaged food, and
possibly for packing such food in larger containers or bundles for
shipment, that application would fall within the cold storage warehouse
subsector.
Another example of an IPR system is a ``blast cooler'' or ``blast
freezer.'' In this context, ``blast cooler'' or ``blast freezer''
refers to a type of equipment in which cold air is supplied and
circulated rapidly to a food product, generally to quickly cool or
freeze the food before damage or spoilage can occur. This is the same
description as the Agency has previously used for this equipment (see
80 FR 42901, July 20, 2015). Such equipment might be used as part of a
food production line in an industrial setting. They also can be placed
separately at public facilities including hospitals, schools,
restaurants, and supermarkets. These public facilities might use the
blast cooler or freezer on food that they will store for later use
after they receive it from a vendor or that they cook or prepare as
part of their operations. Such units might also be placed near
entranceways to cold storage warehouses, for instance to receive food
refrigerated and shipped at one temperature and then to bring it down
to a lower temperature for storage.
IPR systems typically have large refrigerant charges to satisfy the
significant cooling demands throughout the facility. Historically,
facilities have commonly used R-717, hydrocarbons, CFCs, HCFCs, and
HFCs including but not limited to R-12, R-22, R-404A, R-507A, and R-
134a.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for IPR
systems?
EPA is prohibiting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs in
IPR systems at different GWP thresholds (150, 300, and 700) depending
on a combination of factors including the size, refrigerant temperature
entering the evaporator, and design of the system. These GWP limits
apply to new IPR systems other than chillers used for IPR, which are
discussed in section VI.F.1.j. EPA is establishing a 150 GWP limit for
new IPR systems with refrigerant charge capacities of 200 lb or greater
with refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator at -30 [deg]C (-22
[deg]F) or above beginning January 1, 2026.\82\ EPA is establishing a
300 GWP limit for new IPR systems with refrigerant charge capacities
less than 200 lb and for the high temperature side of cascade systems
with refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator at -30 [deg]C (-22
[deg]F) or above, also beginning January 1, 2026. If the low
temperature side of a cascade system has a charge capacity less than
200 lb with refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator at -30
[deg]C (-22 [deg]F) or above, then the GWP limit is 300, beginning
January 1, 2026. If the low temperature side of a cascade system has a
charge capacity of 200 lb or greater with refrigerant temperature
entering the evaporator at -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) or above, EPA is
prohibiting the use of HFCs and HFC blends with a GWP of 150 or greater
in the low temperature side of the cascade beginning January 1, 2026.
In new IPR systems where the refrigerant temperature entering the
evaporator is equal to or above -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) but less than -
30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), the GWP limit is 700 beginning January 1, 2028.
EPA is currently not establishing restrictions for new IPR systems with
refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator below -50 [deg]C (-58
[deg]F).\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ The refrigerant HFC-134a has a boiling point slightly above
-30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and R-717 has a boiling point slightly lower
at -33.3 [deg]C. R-717, HFC-134a, and similar refrigerants like R-
450A and R-513A work above this temperature.
\83\ The refrigerants R-404A and R-410A have bubble (boiling)
points slightly above -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F). R-404A and similar
refrigerants like R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, R-452A, and R-410A and
similar refrigerants like HFC-32 and the R-454 series, work above
this temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the availability of substitutes under subsection
(i)(4)(B), EPA identified several substitutes \84\ as available for use
in IPR systems in place of the higher-GWP substances that EPA is
prohibiting. These available substitutes for all non-chiller IPR
systems include HCFO-1224yd(Z) (GWP less than 1), R-717 (GWP 1), R-1270
(GWP 1.8), R-290 (GWP 3.3), and
[[Page 73143]]
R-600 (GWP 4).\85\ EPA is aware of a statement by one stakeholder that
R-717 and hydrocarbons (R-600, R-1270, R-290) were used in 90 to 95
percent of the market share for IPR systems in 2019, indicating the
technological achievability and commercial demand for systems using
available substitutes.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ EPA notes for all substitutes identified in section VI.F of
this preamble, not every substitute listed is necessarily available
across all U.S. markets. For example, in some cases, substitutes may
be technologically and economically viable and may be in use in
international markets but may be unavailable in specific U.S. market
for other reasons such as building code restrictions. The lists of
``available'' substitutes therefore includes some substances which
may only be ``potentially available'' in some areas. EPA also notes
that not all of the identified substitutes are listed as acceptable
under the SNAP program. See section VI.E.2 of this preamble for a
discussion on availability of substitutes.
\85\ EPA notes that the GWP limits apply only to regulated
substances and blends containing a regulated substance (e.g., R-
471A, R-454A, and R-454C). The GWPs of the other substitutes, which
do not contain a regulated substance, are provided here and in
subsequent sections for context only.
\86\ AHRI Letter Responding to CARB's Request for Input and
Clarifications Following the August 6, 2019, Public Meeting for
Industrial Process Refrigeration and Transport Refrigeration
Equipment. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the substitutes that are already available for use
in this subsector, EPA has recently proposed to list HFO-1234yf, HFO-
1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A (with GWPs of 1,
1, 237, 146, 146, 137, and 140 respectively) as acceptable, subject to
use conditions, under SNAP for use in IPR (88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023).
These proposed listings meet the GWP limit of 300 for this subsector,
and all except R-454A meet the GWP limit of 150. Although the already
available substitutes have been evaluated by EPA to be sufficient to
meet these restrictions, the potential for a greater array of options
in the future may further smooth the transition from higher-GWP HFCs.
EPA continues to encourage innovation of refrigerants that meet these
restrictions and anticipates the number of substitutes available for
use in IPR will continue to grow.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed January
1, 2025, transition date for commercial refrigeration, including IPR.
Several commenters requested a January 1, 2026, transition date for
commercial refrigeration equipment, including IPR, citing the need for
building codes to be updated and stating that the IPR industry
(including OEMs, refrigerant suppliers, technicians, and system
designers) is not ready in all regions and applications. One commenter
added that even meeting a January 1, 2026, transition date does not
allow enough time for OEMs and distributors to adjust their supply
chain processes.
Response: In this final rule, for IPR equipment with a refrigerant
temperature entering the evaporator greater than or equal to -30 [deg]C
(-22 [deg]F), EPA is extending the compliance date to January 1, 2026.
For IPR equipment with a refrigerant temperature entering the
evaporator from -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) to -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F), EPA
is extending the compliance date to January 1, 2028, for reasons
discussed in this section.
The additional year for most IPR equipment provides time for the
adoption of building codes that incorporate updated safety standards
(e.g., UL 60335-2-89, ASHRAE 15-2022) allowing for the safe use of
lower-GWP refrigerants.87 88 The International Building Code
is scheduled to be updated in 2024, which would then need to be adopted
by State and local jurisdictions. Delaying the compliance date to
January 1, 2026, provides time for jurisdictions to make these updates.
However, EPA can consider a substitute to be available before every
building code in every jurisdiction across the United States permits
its use. See section VI.E.2.d of the preamble for further discussion on
how building codes affect the availability of substitutes. Based on
EPA's assessment of the availability of substitutes under subsection
(i)(4)(B), additional time is warranted for a transition in IPR
systems, with the compliance date depending on the temperature of the
refrigerant entering the evaporator. The Agency is extending the
compliance date to January 1, 2028, for IPR systems with refrigerant
temperature entering the evaporator from -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) to -50
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F) because, as discussed further below in this
section, there are fewer technologically achievable refrigerants with a
sufficiently low boiling point such that they may be used in equipment
used at lower temperatures. Therefore, more time may be needed to
identify, test, and implement appropriate substitutes in such
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ ASHRAE. (2022). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2022: Safety
Standard for Refrigeration Systems.
\88\ UL Standard. (2021). Household and Similar Electrical
Appliances--Safety--Part 2-89: Particular Requirements for
Commercial Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an
Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-Compressor
(Standard 60335-2-89, Edition 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional year for most IPR systems will also help mitigate
other issues identified by commenters regarding the industry's ability
to transition, such as the refrigerant supply chain, the timeline for
new equipment design and testing, and need for specialized technician
trainings. One additional year is in agreement with several industry
commenters and provides time for EPA to continue its review of lower-
GWP substitutes, such as the proposed SNAP Rule 26 discussed previously
(88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023), which will likely provide even more
refrigerant options. For these reasons, EPA is providing one additional
year for most of the IPR subsector, and three additional years for IPR
systems with refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator from -50
[deg]C to -30 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F to -22 [deg]F), to comply with the GWP
restrictions established in this final rule.
How does charge size and system design affect the availability of
substitute refrigerants?
EPA is establishing different GWP limits for new IPR, remote
condensing unit, supermarket, and cold storage warehouse systems based
on the refrigerant charge capacity of the system. Setting different GWP
restrictions based on the charge of the system is consistent with
information provided by petitioners, EPA's understanding of technical
challenges inherent to smaller charge capacity systems, and industry
safety standards. In general, systems with smaller refrigerant charge
capacities (i.e., smaller than 200 lb) are located inside and in
potentially confined spaces where a leak of a flammable refrigerant
could result in concentrations of concern. Conversely, larger
refrigerant charge capacities (i.e., greater than or equal to 200 lb)
are typically located outside the refrigerated space, where safety
standards and building codes allow for greater use of flammable and
lower flammability refrigerants. Setting different GWP limits for this
subsector based on the charge capacity of equipment will increase the
number of available substitutes where lower-GWP substitutes are
limited.
Each of the restrictions adopted in this action is tailored to the
subsector-specific applications and availability of substitutes for
those applications. Specifically, for smaller-footprint applications
(i.e., spaces with lower total air volume where smaller amounts of
leaked refrigerant could disproportionately increase in concentration)
in these subsectors, the use of A2Ls (lower flammability refrigerants)
is limited by the product safety standard UL 60335-2-89. This standard,
which can be referenced by building codes, sets charge limits for A2L
refrigerants used indoors to 260 times the lower flammability limit
(LFL, in kg/m\3\). This allowance is near or under 200 lb for most A2L
refrigerants. For example, this restriction would allow up to 176 lb of
HFC-32 in a single refrigeration circuit (87 FR 45522, July 28, 2022;
88 FR 26400, April 28, 2023). However, in certain applications, safety
standard ASHRAE 15 will apply to equipment with charge capacities above
this threshold, enabling the use of larger refrigerant charges by
requiring
[[Page 73144]]
additional mitigation strategies, such as increased air exchange to
minimize the concentration of leaked refrigerant in the air. Therefore,
larger systems covered by ASHRAE 15 are less limited in their
refrigerant options when complying with safety standards incorporated
in building codes.
EPA proposed to differentiate the subsection (i) restrictions for
these subsectors based on refrigerant charge capacity to conform with
applicable safety standards, in consideration of the (i)(4)(B) factors,
which direct the Agency to consider safety, to the extent practicable,
in assessing availability of substitutes. Using a 200 lb charge
capacity threshold, rather than a lower one such as 50 lb as suggested
by some commenters, allows for greater availability of technologically
achievable substitutes in IPR, retail food remote condensing units,
retail food supermarket systems, and cold storage warehouse systems of
all sizes. Systems with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 lb
are restricted from using certain lower-GWP refrigerant options by
safety standards, and thus require a higher GWP limit to ensure the
availability of substitutes for use in these subsectors.
EPA has also considered the availability of substitutes when
cascade systems are used in new IPR, supermarket, remote condensing
unit, and cold storage warehouse systems. A cascade system is a design
option which consists of two independent refrigeration systems that
share a common cascade heat exchanger. They are often employed in
applications when the required temperature is very low. Each side of a
cascade system uses a different refrigerant that is most suitable for
the given temperature range. High temperature systems, or the ``high
temperature side,'' have typically used HFCs as a refrigerant; however,
it is technologically achievable in some cases and has become more
common to use R-717. For low temperature systems, or the ``low
temperature side,'' low boiling point refrigerants such as R-744 and R-
508B have been used. Considerations for the choice of refrigerant on
the high and low temperature sides of cascade systems are influenced by
many factors including, but not limited to, a refrigerant's toxicity
and flammability, its temperature glide, and its suitability for the
temperature application specifications.
In its consideration of safety and building codes under subsection
(i)(4)(B), to the extent practicable, EPA understands that the use of
flammable or toxic refrigerants, such as R-717, on the high temperature
side of a cascade system may be limited in certain circumstances (e.g.,
in areas that are heavily populated or based on building codes and/or
standards). Therefore, EPA is establishing a higher GWP limit for HFCs
used in the high temperature side of cascade systems to allow
sufficient refrigerant options to comply with local building codes and
industry safety standards. Because the high temperature side of a
cascade system typically enters the building (i.e., in the machinery
room), some refrigerants such as R-717 may not be allowed by building
codes or may be limited in the charge size allowed. On the other hand,
the current edition of safety standard UL 60335-2-89 includes
provisions that support higher charge sizes for A2L refrigerants,
including some that meet a GWP limit of 300 but not 150, such as R-454A
and R-457B. A GWP limit of 300, as compared to a GWP limit of 150, also
allows for a greater array of available substitutes, such as R-515B
which was recently listed as acceptable under SNAP Notice 38 (88 FR
61977, September 8, 2023) and R-480A which is pending SNAP review,
which will further ease the transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. EPA
notes that the applicable GWP limit for the low temperature side of a
cascade system is dictated by the charge size of the low temperature
side by itself.
Comment: Some commenters from industry generally supported the
proposed GWP limits based upon charge capacity thresholds for
refrigeration (i.e., GWP limit of 300 for refrigeration systems with a
refrigerant charge capacity of less than 200 lb and GWP limit of 150
for refrigeration systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 lb
or more), including IPR systems, retail food refrigeration (remote
condensing units and supermarket systems), and cold storage warehouses.
Three other commenters recommended a single GWP limit for each of these
subsectors, regardless of the equipment's charge size. A couple of
commenters stated that could incentivize manufacturers to move to
higher-GWP HFCs in systems with smaller charges. One commenter
requested a 150 GWP limit, citing adequate availability of current
refrigerant options below that level. They asserted that a 300 GWP
limit for certain charge sizes and systems was unnecessarily high,
overly complicated, and could stifle innovation of very low-GWP
refrigerants. Another commenter requested a 10 GWP limit for all
equipment in these four subsectors, claiming there are no currently
available substitutes between 10 and 300 GWP.
Several commenters agreed with establishing two GWP limits for
these subsectors by charge capacity, but urged EPA to adopt a 150 GWP
limit for IPR, retail food refrigeration, and cold storage warehouses
with a charge capacity threshold of 50 lb, instead of 200 lb as
proposed. In support of shifting the threshold to 50 lb, these same
commenters noted that California's regulations establishing GWP limits
and EPA's section 608 Refrigerant Management Program both use 50 lb as
a charge capacity threshold and that having the same charge capacity
threshold as California's GWP restrictions would allow for nationwide
consistency instead of a patchwork of requirements. They also noted
that updated safety standards and building codes have made a range of
substitutes available for use in this subsector for equipment with
charge sizes between 50 and 200 lb. Another commenter described a 10 lb
charge capacity cutoff as more appropriate for these subsectors than
200 lb for purposes of safety, but still requested a single GWP limit
regardless of charge size.
These same commenters also disagreed with EPA's proposal to set a
separate GWP limit for the high temperature side of cascade systems.
Instead, they requested that EPA group cascade systems with other types
of direct refrigeration systems in the subsector containing a single
refrigerant loop. Such restrictions would be similar to California's
regulations, which do not include a separate requirement for cascade
systems. One commenter stated that there does not appear to be a clear
rationale articulated in the proposed rule for separating cascade
systems into a separate subsector category for GWP limit, nor any
criteria or requirement limiting the HFC or HFC-blend charge size of
the refrigerant used in the high temperature side of a cascade system.
Several commenters pointed to the availability of substitutes below
150 GWP, such as R-744 and R-717, making the proposed 300 GWP limit
unnecessarily high for equipment of certain charge capacities (ranging
from no lower limit to 50 lb) and for the high temperature side of
cascade systems. One commenter acknowledged that EPA has assessed R-717
as being prohibitively toxic for use in certain locations based on
building codes, but they asserted that R-717 may only be prohibited by
a small number of localities and stated that it is otherwise a suitable
refrigerant option to meet a 150 GWP limit in most cases. This
commenter stated that cold storage
[[Page 73145]]
warehouses and IPR systems have widely used R-717, historically, and
they claimed R-744 is a suitable alternative in cases where R-717
cannot be used. Another commenter noted that continuing to use HFC
blends up to a GWP of 300 in new systems, especially in sectors where
refrigerant leaks are widespread, poses dramatically more harm to the
climate than use of non-HFCs and expressed concern that new
refrigeration systems will place significant demand on a dwindling
supply of HFCs when it will be needed to service existing equipment in
other subsectors such as residential AC.
Response: EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a GWP limit of
10 for IPR, remote condensing units, supermarket systems, and cold
storage warehouses. EPA agrees with commenters that some of the
refrigerants available for use in these subsectors, such as R-744 and
R-717, have GWPs of less than 10. As noted in section VI.E.5, this
action establishes GWP limits at regular, grouped intervals, to ease
compliance and enforcement and also to ensure that there are adequate
available substitutes for various applications within the subsector.
Some of the lowest-GWP refrigerants, particularly those with non-
fluorinated chemistry, may not be appropriate in all situations (e.g.,
R-717). Moreover, the GWP limits EPA is finalizing allow for additional
refrigerants to be used and for continued innovation. The Agency does
not agree that this approach will unnecessarily incentivize the use of
higher-GWP refrigerants than would otherwise have been used, and is
finalizing restrictions consistent with our review of the (i)(4)
factors for each of the sectors and subsectors.
After review of the comments, EPA is finalizing the refrigerant
charge capacity threshold at 200 lb for non-chiller IPR equipment, with
refrigerant entering the evaporator (for IPR systems that are not
chillers) with a temperature of -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) or above, as
proposed. For purposes of subsection (i) and its evaluation of the
availability of substitutes for use in a sector or subsector, EPA is
aligning the refrigerant charge capacity threshold with applicable
safety standards (e.g., UL 60335-2-24, UL 60335-2-40, and UL 60335-2-
89) rather than aligning with thresholds established by States. EPA
recognizes there may be benefits to greater consistency between
regulatory requirements. However, EPA must consider the (i)(4) factors,
to the extent practicable, and these lead EPA to base the GWP threshold
on the industry safety standards, which limit the allowable charge of
flammable refrigerants based on the flammability limit of each
refrigerant to minimize risk from their use. In particular, the
industry safety standard for commercial refrigeration equipment, UL
60335-2-89, restricts charge sizes of A2L refrigerants at approximately
200 lb in a single circuit in equipment where leaks would likely enter
an occupied space, whereas ASHRAE 15 allows for larger charge sizes in
machinery rooms and outdoors by requiring additional mitigation
strategies, such as certain rates of air exchange. Equipment installed
in machinery rooms or outside has greater flexibility to meet the
requirements of safety standards and building codes, while smaller
equipment is more constrained by available space and may need more
refrigerant options that minimize the footprint of refrigerating
systems. Therefore, by harmonizing charge capacity thresholds with UL
60335-2-89, EPA is ensuring adequate availability of substitutes for
equipment with charge capacities below 200 lb.
Concerning the suggestion to use a 50 lb charge capacity cutoff,
EPA's refrigerant management program under CAA section 608 applies leak
repair requirements to certain appliances with a full charge of 50 or
more pounds of any ODS refrigerant or blend containing an ODS
refrigerant (see 40 CFR 82.157(a). The factors for determination of
availability of substitutes listed in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act
do not lead the Agency to conclude that aligning the charge capacity
threshold for these subsectors' restrictions with the threshold used
for ODS leak repair requirements is appropriate. The refrigerant charge
capacity threshold of 10 lb was suggested by one commenter as being
more technically appropriate as a way of addressing safety than 200 lb
without explanation. EPA therefore does not agree that 10 lb is a more
appropriate charge capacity threshold than 200 lb. Further discussion
on EPA's decision to choose a 200 lb cutoff to determine GWP limits for
IPR, remote condensing units, supermarket systems, and cold storage
warehouses can be found earlier in this section.
EPA considers it unlikely that establishing size thresholds will
create an incentive to build more smaller refrigeration systems rather
than fewer large refrigeration systems. Drivers for selection of a
commercial refrigeration system, such as cost, amount of product
needing to be cooled, ability to control temperature, durability,
support from the vendor, and ease of servicing, are not likely to push
the system user uniformly toward purchasing a refrigerant with a GWP of
300 compared to a refrigerant with a GWP of less than 150. Rather, EPA
expects that a company would use a smaller system with a refrigerant
with a GWP between 150 and 300, such as the HFC/HFO blends R-454A or R-
515B, instead of a lower-GWP refrigerant, such as R-744 (GWP 1), or the
HFC/HFO blend R-454C (GWP 146) if they determined refrigeration systems
with lower-GWP refrigerants would take up too much space.
EPA also disagrees with the suggestion to remove the 300 GWP limit
for the high temperature side of cascade systems. Technical constraints
related to temperature, pressure, efficiency, and glide limit the
available refrigerants for the high temperature side of cascade
systems. As discussed in the proposed rule (87 FR 76775; December 15,
2022), building codes and safety considerations may also limit the
availability of flammable and/or toxic refrigerants in the high
temperature side of cascade systems. By establishing a GWP limit of
300, rather than 150, additional substitutes are available that
overcome the technical constraints and subsection (i)(4) factors that
limit the number of refrigerant options in subsectors using cascade
systems.
How does operating temperature affect the availability of substitute
refrigerants?
Comment: Several commenters suggested that GWP limits for non-
chiller IPR systems be based on operating temperature ranges, similar
to the current European Union (EU) F-Gas regulations \89\ and CARB
regulations. A few of these commenters suggested EPA provide
flexibility with higher GWP limits for systems with lower temperature
ranges. One such commenter requested a GWP limit of 700 for IPR
equipment with refrigerant evaporating temperatures greater than -25
[deg]C (-13 [deg]F) and a 2,200 GWP limit for IPR equipment with
refrigerant evaporating temperatures from -25 [deg]C (-13 [deg]F) to -
45 [deg]C (-49 [deg]F). That commenter stated that flammable and toxic
alternatives that meet the original GWP limits of 150 or 300 would not
be viable for new or retrofit IPR facilities due to safety risks,
technical feasibility, and cost. Several commenters also requested
exemptions from restrictions
[[Page 73146]]
for IPR systems using flooded or liquid overfed evaporators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ European Union Law. 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on
fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/
2006 Text with EEA relevance. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding IPR systems operating at colder temperatures, many
commenters requested clarification for systems with very low
temperatures that may or may not be exempt from GWP limits under EPA's
proposed rule, including those for laboratory equipment and IPR
chillers. One commenter proposed an exemption for all IPR applications
with a refrigerant evaporating temperature below -45 [deg]C, and
suggested that all IPR systems, including both direct process cooling
and chiller systems, have the same GWP limits, as the same refrigerant
selection challenges exist for both system designs. Another commenter
suggested that EPA exempt specialty applications for systems designed
for -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) exiting fluid temperatures or create a
formal variance process, similar to California and Washington State
regulations. One commenter stated that to meet the technical demands of
the laboratory products industry's specialized applications, new
sustainable substitutes--or a sudden and transformative advance in
refrigeration science--would be necessary to meet the schedule of the
proposed rule. The commenter strongly encouraged EPA to consider
providing clear, concise exceptions for equipment utilized in a
laboratory setting or provide for a longer compliance window so that
there is adequate time to make substantive changes to delicate and
complex laboratory equipment.
Response: After review of the comments and further consideration of
the availability of substitutes under subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act,
EPA is establishing separate GWP thresholds for IPR equipment based on
the temperature of the refrigerant entering the evaporator. This
provides more options for specialized equipment that must achieve
temperatures significantly lower than 0 [deg]F, considering
technological achievability as a factor limiting the availability of
substitutes in such equipment.
EPA largely agrees with the commenter that asserted IPR systems
with evaporating temperatures below -25 [deg]C (-13 [deg]F) require the
same refrigerant options as chillers for IPR in which EPA proposed a
GWP limit of 700, as the same technical constraints related to
refrigerating at colder temperatures apply (e.g., fewer refrigerants
have such a low boiling point). EPA is therefore finalizing a GWP limit
of 700 for IPR equipment with refrigerant entering the evaporator with
a temperature less than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) but greater than or
equal to -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F), regardless of the refrigerant charge
capacity or whether the equipment is part of a cascade system.
EPA disagrees with the comment that the threshold be at -25 [deg]C
(-13 [deg]F) because the same constraints on the availability of
substitutes under the (i)(4)(B) analysis that can be used at lower
temperatures apply in other subsectors, such as for chillers for
comfort cooling and chillers for IPR; hence, EPA is finalizing the same
GWP threshold based on the same temperature threshold as for chillers
for IPR at -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F). This also allows for greater
simplicity and ease of determining which GWP threshold applies than if
there were different thresholds for chillers for IPR and for other IPR
systems. One of the commenters has stated that refrigerant with an
evaporating temperature of less than -25 [deg]C should be able to use
refrigerants such as R-513A, which has a GWP of 630 (between 300 and
700). Such equipment would have the same refrigerant options as
chillers for IPR.
EPA also disagrees that a GWP limit up to 2,200 would be
appropriate, given the sufficiently available substitutes with GWP
below 700 for use in this exiting fluid temperature range, such as R-
513A (GWP 630). Furthermore, as indicated by considerations described
in recently proposed SNAP listings for use in IPR (88 FR 33722, May 24,
2023), there may be additional available substitutes for this equipment
in the future, such as HFO-1234yf (GWP 1), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP 1), R-
457A (GWP 137), R-516A (GWP 140), R-455A (GWP 146), R-454C (GWP 146),
and R-454A (GWP 237).
For IPR equipment with refrigerant entering the evaporator with a
temperature of -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) or higher, EPA disagrees with
the commenter who requested the Agency finalize a GWP limit as high as
700. EPA has identified HCFO-1224yd(Z) (GWP less than 1), R-717 (GWP
1), R-1270 (GWP 1.8), R-290 (GWP 3.3), and R-600 (GWP 4) as suitable
for use in equipment operating above -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), and all
have a GWP below 150. In comparison, equipment with temperatures
between -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) could
require higher volumetric capacity (e.g., to replace R-404A) and would
have fewer refrigerants able to attain lower boiling points, so a wider
range of refrigerants with higher GWPs are needed compared to equipment
with temperatures at -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and above. EPA is
therefore finalizing the GWP limits of 150 and 300 for this type of
equipment, depending on the refrigerant charge capacity and whether the
refrigerant is used in the high temperature side of a cascade system,
based on the technological achievability of using identified
substitutes at these warmer evaporating temperatures.
EPA disagrees with comments that requested exemptions for all IPR
systems using flooded or liquid overfed evaporators. Many of the
technological challenges associated with using lower-GWP refrigerants
in IPR equipment are related to the temperature of the refrigerant
going into the evaporator. Therefore, EPA has not set restrictions for
IPR equipment, including those using flooded or liquid overfed
evaporators, operating below -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) at this time.
In the case of IPR equipment with refrigerant temperature entering
the evaporator lower than -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F), EPA recognizes that
most of the refrigerants used for such equipment have relatively high
GWPs. The Agency expects that after further research and development,
there may be additional refrigerants available for these low
temperatures, given the growing demonstrations of technological
achievability; additional reviews of refrigerants for safety, health,
and environmental impacts under the SNAP program; and changes to
industry standards that allow for larger charge sizes of flammable
refrigerants, such as ethane. However, upon evaluating the availability
of substitutes for IPR equipment operating at very low temperatures,
EPA is not restricting the use of HFCs and HFC blends in new IPR
equipment with refrigerant entering the evaporator or chillers for IPR
with exiting fluid temperatures lower than -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) in
this final rule. Given that this equipment is not covered in this final
rule, EPA declines to implement an individual variance process as
requested by the commenter. Note that EPA may choose to set
restrictions in the future as the availability of lower-GWP substitutes
continues to grow.
Concerning one commenter's request for either an exception or a
longer period to comply for refrigerated laboratory equipment, to the
extent that equipment used in the laboratory has exiting fluid
temperatures of -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) or lower, EPA notes that this
equipment will also not be restricted from using HFCs or HFC blends
under this final rule. Refrigerated laboratory equipment operating at
temperatures at or above -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and less than -30
[deg]C (-22 [deg]F) is considered part of IPR, and will have three
years longer than proposed, until 2028, for new equipment to transition
to substitute
[[Page 73147]]
refrigerants. Laboratory refrigerated equipment that operates at
temperatures higher than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), also part of IPR, is
similar to retail food refrigerators and freezers with alternatives
that are already available (e.g., R-290), and under this final rule,
they will have one year longer than proposed, until 2026.
b. Data Center, Information Technology Equipment Facility, and Computer
Room Cooling Equipment
In the proposed rule, EPA indicated that appliances used to cool
data centers and data servers were considered part of the IPR
subsector. After review of the comments and relevant industry standards
in consideration of the subsection (i)(4) factors of the AIM Act, EPA
is creating a new subsector for data center, ITEF, and computer room
cooling equipment, subject to a 700 GWP limit beginning January 1,
2027. Such cooling equipment is designed specifically for large-scale
cooling or AC of information technology (IT). Examples include server
farms, ITEFs, computer rooms, data centers, data servers, communication
rooms, and other spaces dedicated to maintaining the operating
temperature of electronic technologies. Equipment typically has large
refrigerant charge capacities to satisfy the significant cooling
demands of the heat-generating equipment. Historically, cooling
equipment within this subsector has commonly used HCFC-22, moving to R-
410A and to a lesser extent R-407C after the 2010 ban on production of
HCFC-22 for new equipment. Historically, some facilities may have been
cooled by chillers using CFC-12, particularly if the facilities date
back to before the 1994 CFC production and consumption phaseout, or
they may use HFC-134a; nonetheless, with the establishment of this
subsector under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, EPA considers such
equipment to be within its own subsector rather than the chillers
subsector, both subject to a 700 GWP limit. As communications and
information technology has developed over the past few decades, the
heat produced and the cooling demand has increased significantly,
complicating designs in consideration of the weight and location of the
cooling equipment and how these issues might impact structural
requirements of the facility.
Comment: Several commenters requested that equipment used to cool
data centers, computer rooms, server farms, and ITEFs, including
chillers for this market, should not be included within the IPR
subsector, and should instead either be classified as its own subsector
or included under the residential and light commercial AC subsector.
Several commenters described the system design and refrigerant
selection of data center and IT equipment cooling as closer to those
for building AC applications than those for IPR, including indirect
cooling through AC by chillers or direct expansion (DX) systems.
Commenters noted that such equipment indirectly cools through AC
equipment rather than through refrigeration as in IPR, and that new
technologies such as dielectric fluids for direct contact systems and
full immersion chip heat exchangers are also being used. Additionally,
some of these commenters noted that data center, ITEF, and computer
room cooling equipment has higher heat loads than traditional AC
equipment, and although it may be more similar to equipment in the
residential and light commercial AC subsector than to that in the IPR
subsector, considerably larger refrigerant charges (per square foot of
the building being cooled) differentiate this equipment from that in
those two subsectors.
Commenters also highlighted that data center, ITEF, and computer
room cooling equipment falls within the scope of the UL Standard 20335-
2-40, 4th edition, which covers electrical heat pumps, air
conditioners, and dehumidifiers, and not UL 60335-2-89, which covers
commercial refrigeration equipment used in IPR. Commenters therefore
recommended that EPA consider data centers, ITEF, and computer room
cooling equipment to be a separate subsector, similar to how DOE
classifies this type of cooling equipment under their energy
conservation standards. Further, commenters asserted that data center,
ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment are subject to unique
operating conditions and important safety considerations not shared by
other subsectors, such as year-round cooling and non-stop, continuous
cooling operation and technical designs that maintain temperatures in a
wide range of weather conditions, in addition to reliability mandated
by the critical nature of the equipment.
Commenters also noted that EPA's original SNAP rulemaking and
Applicability Determination Index document for control number C960015
do not include IT cooling equipment within the definition of IPR (59 FR
13037, March 18, 1994). Other commenters noted that CARB defined this
type of cooling equipment under ``Air Conditioning Equipment.''
Response: EPA agrees with commenters that the cooling needs for
data centers, ITEFs, and computer rooms are sufficiently different from
those of industrial processes to merit a separate subsector. As
commenters noted, equipment for this purpose has been granted its own
annex in the 4th edition of UL 60335-2-40, ``Household and Similar
Electrical Appliances--Safety--Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for
Electrical Heat Pumps, Air Conditioners and Dehumidifiers,'' and is in
the process of being added to ASHRAE 15-2022, ``Safety Standard for
Refrigeration Systems.'' EPA proposed to include data centers and
server farm cooling equipment within the IPR subsector. Based on a
review of the comments, including information on how the availability
of substitutes for data centers, ITEF, and computer rooms can be
affected by the safety standards covering the equipment, EPA has
decided to consider data center, ITEF, and computer room cooling
equipment as a separate subsector, independent of the IPR subsector,
for the purposes of establishing GWP restrictions for this equipment.
Additionally, rather than including data center, ITEF, and computer
room cooling equipment in the residential and light commercial AC
subsector, also covered by the UL 60335-2-40 safety standard, EPA
agrees with most commenters that the significantly larger charge sizes
and delays in being addressed by safety standards warrant independent
evaluation of the availability of substitutes for this subsector.
EPA recognizes how defining categories of equipment consistently
with other regulatory authorities can minimize confusion for
stakeholders. However, while CARB considers IT cooling equipment to be
part of residential and light commercial AC and SNAP considers this
equipment to be part of IPR, in this rulemaking EPA is establishing a
separate subsector to enable EPA to evaluate the availability of
substitutes for use in data center, ITEF, and computer room cooling
equipment together, independently of other similar equipment types.
Therefore, EPA is finalizing a separate subsector to better consider
the (i)(4) factors, and particularly the availability of substitutes
under (i)(4)(B) when setting restrictions on the use of HFC and HFC
blends in new data center, ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for data
center, ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment?
EPA is prohibiting the installation of new data center, ITEF, and
computer room cooling equipment that uses HFCs
[[Page 73148]]
and HFC blends with GWPs of 700 and above beginning January 1, 2027.
EPA proposed to consider equipment in this subsector to fall within
IPR, with a 150 GWP limit for equipment with charge capacities greater
than or equal to 200 lb and a 300 GWP limit for equipment with charge
capacities less than 200 lb and for the high temperature side of
cascade systems, effective January 1, 2025. However, after review of
the comments received and consideration of the subsection (i)(4)
factors of the AIM Act, EPA is finalizing a separate subsector for data
center, ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment to allow evaluation
of the availability of substitutes in consideration of the
significantly different technical specifications of equipment designed
for this purpose.
In considering the availability of substitutes for data center,
ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment under subsection (i)(4)(B),
EPA identified several substitutes that could replace the higher-GWP
substances, such as R-410A, that will be restricted under this rule.
Finalizing a GWP limit of 700 allows the use of available substitutes
that meet the technical requirements for this subsector, notably the
high heat loads generated in the area in which the computer equipment
is installed. These available substitutes include HFO-1234ze(E) and R-
513A, for which equipment has recently been introduced, as well as
refrigerants being developed and implemented in other AC subsectors,
such as HFC-32 (GWP 675) and R-454B (GWP 465). As the technology
develops, other available refrigerants with even lower GWPs may prove
practicable for this subsector, including nonflammable refrigerants R-
744 (GWP 1), R-471A (GWP 144), R-480A (GWP 291), and R-482A (GWP 144),
or additional A2L refrigerants such as R-454A (GWP 237), R-454C (GWP
146), and R-457A (GWP 137).
Comment: EPA received many comments requesting a 700 GWP limit for
data center, ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment. Given the
technological similarities to residential AC equipment and chillers,
commenters explained that this type of equipment therefore also
requires additional substitutes above 150 to 300 GWP to meet its
cooling needs. One such commenter pointed to refrigerants historically
used in data center, ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment as also
used in commercial AC, such as the high-pressure refrigerant R-410A and
to a lesser extent, R-407C. Thus, this commenter requested the
continued use of high-pressure substitutes identified for commercial AC
equipment, R-454B and HFC-32, with GWPs up to 675. Another commenter
noted how IT cooling equipment is subject to requirements under UL
60335-2-40, showing its congruence to other subsectors within this
standard's scope, while another highlighted an insufficient number of
suitable components, specifically compressors, currently available for
use by the industry with refrigerants below the proposed 150 or 300 GWP
limit. Additionally, a commenter asserted that the high-pressure
operating conditions of IT cooling equipment relative to residential
and commercial AC equipment further limit the number of suitable
refrigerants for this subsector, and that the proposed 150 or 300 GWP
limit would impose excessive economic costs without appreciable
environmental gains.
Response: As noted in the discussion above, EPA agrees that data
center, ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment is sufficiently
different from other IPR applications to warrant creating a distinct
subsector, separate from IPR. While EPA identified alternatives in the
proposed rule below the proposed threshold, EPA understands from the
commenters that the operating conditions for this subsector suggest a
higher GWP limit is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is finalizing a 700 GWP
limit for data center, ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment. In
establishing a distinct subsector for this equipment, EPA evaluated the
refrigerant options available for use, in consideration of the factors
under subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act, in IT cooling equipment
independently of IPR. The Agency is establishing a 700 GWP limit rather
than the proposed GWP restrictions on use of HFCs and HFC blends for
IPR of 150 or 300 GWP based on a review of the comments and
reconsideration of the (i)(4) factors, including a review of the
relevant safety standards and technological challenges for this new
subsector. EPA determined that there would be an insufficient number of
available substitutes for these particular uses under the proposed
restrictions.
Moreover, the type of equipment used in this new subsector is
generally similar to equipment for residential and light commercial AC
and chillers for comfort cooling, which are all covered by the safety
standard UL 60335-2-40. EPA proposed, and is now finalizing, GWP limits
of 700 for residential and light commercial AC and chillers for both
comfort cooling and IPR in this rule. Analogous technical challenges
remain for equipment in the data center, ITEF, and computer room
cooling equipment subsector transitioning to substitutes with GWPs
lower than 700. EPA notes that challenges associated with compressors
and other components, requiring continued use of higher-pressure
refrigerant options, such as HFC-32 and R-454B, also apply to equipment
in this subsector. For further discussion on EPA's decision to set a
700 GWP limit for chillers for comfort cooling and IPR and for
residential and light commercial AC, see sections VI.F.1.j and
VI.F.1.k.
As noted by commenters, data center, ITEF, and computer room
cooling equipment faces even greater obstacles than those for smaller
equipment within the scope of UL 60335-2-40. Refrigerant capacities
necessary to cool high-heat load equipment and spaces are significantly
greater than those typical of residential and light commercial AC
equipment, highlighting the need for a 700 GWP limit for this type of
equipment. The challenges of using flammable refrigerants to cool
sensitive data and information systems 24/7 in facilities, requiring
100 percent reliability compared to other types of AC equipment, were
also stressed by commenters in their request for EPA to consider IT
cooling equipment separately from IPR. Commenters who requested a
separate subsector unanimously agreed that setting GWP restrictions at
the same level as residential and light commercial AC and chillers for
IPR would offer a sufficient number of available substitutes, provided
there is adequate time to transition. Therefore, EPA is establishing
the same GWP restrictions for the manufacture and installation of new
equipment in this subsector as in other analogous AC subsectors. The
Agency has identified many refrigerant substitutes that are likely to
meet the requirements of this subsector that are below this GWP limit,
including HFC-32, R-454B, and R-513A, with the possibility to also use
R-450A, R-452B, R-454A, R-454C, and R-457A, considering the additional
time provided for the reasons discussed in the response to comments
below. The list of available substitutes includes the nonflammable
options R-450A and R-513A, which may be used where flammable
refrigerants remain prohibited for safety reasons or are not
technologically achievable.
Comment: EPA received many comments regarding the proposed January
1, 2025, compliance date for IPR as it would apply to data center,
ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment. Many commenters requested
additional time to comply with GWP restrictions, in addition to higher
limits. Several
[[Page 73149]]
commenters requested a January 1, 2029, compliance date, while one
requested the compliance date be no earlier than January 1, 2027, or
later than January 1, 2029, and another generally stated IT cooling
equipment may need additional time beyond 2026. Two commenters
expressed support for the proposed date, provided EPA finalized a GWP
limit of 700.
Commenters requested compliance dates two years or more later than
those proposed. These commenters noted a variety of reasons for this
request, including time needed for IT equipment cooling design,
prototyping, and testing; accommodation for 20-month lead-times for
component manufacturing; and time to train designers and regulators on
new provisions in codes and safety standards. Other commenters noted
that the UL standard allowing for the use of lower-GWP A2L refrigerants
in data centers, ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment was updated
relatively recently in December 2022.\90\ These commenters highlighted
that SNAP has yet to adopt the most recent edition of UL 60335-2-40,
and requested additional time for SNAP to incorporate the updates
included in the 4th edition. A commenter also asked for additional time
to allow further safety standard development, such as finalizing
Addendum ``t'' to ASHRAE 15-2022, which would address IT cooling
equipment, specifically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ 4th edition of UL Standard 60335-2-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain commenters stated that building codes currently prohibit
use of flammable lower-GWP substitutes in this subsector. Commenters
also noted that building codes are updated on a fixed development cycle
and that adopting A2L refrigerants into these codes may take many
years.
Response: EPA has identified available substitutes that meet the
restrictions for this subsector, given the similarity of the equipment
to equipment in the residential and light commercial AC subsector and
chillers for comfort cooling and the identical GWP limits. However, EPA
is finalizing a January 1, 2027, compliance date for data center, ITEF,
and computer room cooling equipment, providing additional time
consistent with a review of the subfactors in subsection (i)(4)(B). In
particular, the updates to safety standard UL 60335-2-40, allowing
sufficiently large charge sizes of A2L refrigerants to be used in this
equipment, were only published in December 2022. Thus, the regulatory
evaluations under SNAP, equipment redesign and testing, and updates to
building codes that typically follow updates to UL safety standards are
all in somewhat early stages. The additional time for compliance
provided by this final rulemaking will enable updates to the UL
standard, and future harmonizing updates to ASHRAE 15-2022, to be
incorporated in these areas, increasing the number of available
substitutes for use in this subsector by January 1, 2027. See sections
VI.E.2.c and VI.E.2.d for further discussion on how EPA considers these
factors in its evaluation of substitutes.
EPA is finalizing a date that the Agency has determined to be
reasonable after reviewing the comments and applying the subsection
(i)(4) factors to this new subsector. While some commenters asked for
compliance dates beyond the January 1, 2027, date being finalized, the
Agency does not agree that more time is reasonable. Design and testing
of substitute refrigerants in equipment for this subsector is already
underway, and a number of non-flammable refrigerants that meet the GWP
restrictions for some equipment are already available (e.g., R-513A and
R-744). Certain server farms are cooled exclusively with water through
direct evaporative cooling.\91\ Commenters also noted that new
technologies such as dielectric fluids for direct contact systems and
full immersion chip heat exchangers are other possible cooling methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ https://sustainability.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Public-Water-Reporting_Expanding-the-Operating-Envelope.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment used for the purposes of cooling IT equipment generally
resembles traditional AC equipment, cooling either through indirect
chillers or DX systems. The Agency understands that the high heat load
of data centers, ITEF, and computer rooms can be very large compared to
typical building cooling; however, by allowing continued use of certain
high-pressure refrigerants, such as HFC-32 and R-454B, challenges
associated with designing new equipment will be minimized. Further,
building codes must also be updated for many other subsectors that are
likely to transition at least partly to flammable refrigerants, such as
retail food refrigeration, IPR, residential and light commercial AC,
and chillers, among others, and such industries have indicated
confidence that such updates can be completed by compliance dates
finalized in this rule.
The Agency has therefore determined that setting the compliance
date for new manufactures and installations in this subsector beginning
January 1, 2027, is reasonable for the reasons discussed above.
c. Retail Food Refrigeration
Retail food refrigeration is characterized by storing and
displaying food and beverages, generally for sale, at different
temperatures for different products (e.g., chilled and frozen food).
The designs and refrigerating capacities of such equipment vary widely.
Retail food refrigeration is composed of four main categories of
equipment, and EPA is treating these categories as separate subsectors
under the Technology Transitions program: stand-alone equipment in
retail food refrigeration (hereafter, ``stand-alone units'');
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment; remote
condensing units in retail food refrigeration (hereafter, ``remote
condensing units''); and supermarket systems.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ By ``supermarket systems,'' EPA means systems that operate
with racks of compressors installed in a machinery room where
different compressors turn on to match the refrigeration load
necessary to maintain temperatures using direct or indirect (e.g.,
cascade) systems. These systems are described further in the section
of the rule pertaining specifically to retail food refrigeration--
supermarket systems, section VI.F.1.c.iv. Grocery stores, warehouse
stores, convenience stores, supermarkets, and bodegas may not use a
``supermarket system'' as described in this rule and instead may be
using stand-alone units and/or remote condensing units. The presence
of a refrigeration system in a supermarket does not on its own mean
that it falls within the retail food refrigeration--supermarket
subsector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for new retail
food refrigeration?
EPA proposed a 150 GWP limit across retail food refrigeration, with
exceptions for remote condensing units and supermarket systems with
refrigerant charge capacities greater than or equal to 200 lb, and for
the high temperature side of these subsectors' cascade systems, where a
300 GWP limit would apply. After review of the comments, EPA is
finalizing the GWP limits as proposed for retail food refrigeration in
stand-alone units, remote condensing units, and supermarket systems.
For refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment covered by
edition 7 of UL Standard 621, Ice Cream Makers (UL 621) and for
equipment with charge sizes greater than 500 g, EPA is not finalizing a
GWP limit, but rather prohibiting the use of certain refrigerants. For
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment not covered by UL
621 and with charge sizes less than or equal to 500 g, EPA is
finalizing the 150 GWP limit as proposed.
EPA proposed a January 1, 2025, compliance date for all four
categories of retail food refrigeration. After review
[[Page 73150]]
of the comments, EPA is finalizing a January 1, 2025, compliance date
for stand-alone units, as proposed. For remote condensing units, EPA is
finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2026. For supermarket
systems, EPA is finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2027. For
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, EPA is
finalizing different compliance dates depending on the specific
equipment: January 1, 2028, for equipment within the scope of UL 621;
January 1, 2026, for other refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment with charge sizes of 500 g or less; and January 1, 2027, for
other refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment with charge
sizes greater than 500 g.\93\ After review of the comments on the
proposed rule and the availability of HFC and HFC-blend substitutes for
these subsectors, and considering the subsection (i)(4) factors under
the AIM Act, the Agency concludes that finalizing these restrictions on
the use of regulated substances by the specified timeframes is
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Commenters noted that some refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment utilizes two refrigeration systems: one to
process the food/drink and a separate one to cool a holding tank to
maintain the food/drink at the required temperature. In those
situations, each separate refrigeration system must comply with the
applicable HFC restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received comments regarding the proposed restrictions and
compliance dates applicable across the entire retail food refrigeration
subsector, which are addressed in this section. EPA also received
comments that addressed issues specific to certain subsectors within
retail food refrigeration, and those are summarized and responded to
separately, below.
Comment: Many commenters addressed the proposed GWP limits for the
entire retail food refrigeration subsector. Most commenters from
industry generally supported the proposed GWP limits. One industry
commenter requested increases to the proposed GWP limits to that of
existing, readily available refrigerants such as R-513A (GWP 630) and
R-449A (GWP 1,396), citing lack of trained technicians to service and
install new systems, unavailability of lower-GWP refrigerant options,
safety concerns, and disproportionate economic burden on disadvantaged
communities. The commenter noted that the refrigerants EPA identified
with GWPs less than 150 for this subsector, such as R-454C, R-471A, and
R-455A, have not been SNAP-approved for use in a retail environment.
The commenter pointed out that the flammability of these substitutes
poses significant health and safety concerns, and also stated that the
toxicity concerns of substitutes like R-717 prevents their widespread
adoption across the subsector. Further, the commenter asserted that R-
744 is not a viable option for retail food refrigeration in many cases
due to efficiency concerns, leak detection challenges, costs, and other
technological constraints associated with a high-pressure refrigerant.
Several environmental groups urged EPA to lower the proposed GWP
limits in the retail food refrigeration subsector. One organization
recommended that EPA adopt a 150 GWP limit across retail food
refrigeration, regardless of charge size, citing adequate availability
of existing refrigerant options. As discussed in section VI.F.1.c.i,
they asserted that the 300 GWP limit for certain charge sizes and
systems was unnecessarily high and overly complicated, could provide
potential for a regulatory loophole, and could stifle innovation of
very low-GWP refrigerants.
Response: EPA has considered comments requesting uniform
restrictions across retail food refrigeration--those seeking both
increased and decreased stringency from EPA's proposed limits--and has
determined that uniform restrictions and compliance timeframes are not
appropriate, given the differences in availability of substitutes for
use in these subsectors. EPA proposed GWP limits for retail food
refrigeration based on the availability of substitutes specific to each
subsector. For these four subsectors, EPA considered all subsection
(i)(4)(B) factors to the extent practicable, including carefully
evaluating the circumstances associated with technological
achievability of substitutes given the varying equipment types,
location of the equipment, servicing challenges, and technological
specifications and constraints. Selecting a single GWP limit for all
retail food refrigeration oversimplifies the technologies and
substitutes available for use in this subsector. Therefore, the Agency
discusses available HFC and HFC-blend substitutes in the following
sections to describe the appropriateness of the finalized GWP limits in
the context of each subsector.
EPA does not agree with commenters seeking a higher GWP limit for
all retail food refrigeration subsectors. As discussed in the List of
Substitutes TSD and in the sections that follow, EPA has considered, to
the extent practicable, the subsection (i)(4)(B) factors and identified
lower-GWP refrigerant substitutes that are available for use to meet
the Agency's GWP limit. To the extent that the availability of some
substitutes is currently constrained for certain uses within the retail
food refrigeration subsectors, such as R-454C and R-455A, as noted by
one commenter, EPA has considered those constraints and is providing
additional time for compliance for some of the subsectors and uses.
Since issuing the proposed rule, EPA has listed R-471A as acceptable
for use in these subsectors.
EPA does not agree that the concerns raised by a commenter--
potential lack of trained technicians, unavailability of lower-GWP
refrigerant options, and safety concerns--warrant establishing a
uniformly higher GWP limit for the four retail food refrigeration
subsectors. The Agency has analyzed these concerns specific to the
systems and equipment in each subsector within retail food
refrigeration and adjusted the restrictions and compliance timeframes
as appropriate. For example, the concerns raised by a commenter about
R-744 and R-717 use in retail food refrigeration are relevant to
certain subsectors where these options have been identified as
substitutes, such as in supermarket systems, but not necessarily
others. Such considerations are discussed in the context of the
relevant subsectors rather than in this section, which applies
generally to all of retail food refrigeration.
EPA also does not agree that it would be appropriate to establish
uniform GWP limits across the retail food refrigeration subsector,
regardless of the charge size of equipment. For further discussion on
EPA's decision to finalize GWP restrictions based on a 200 lb
refrigerant charge capacity threshold for certain subsectors, see
section VI.F.1.a.
With respect to those commenters seeking GWP limits below 150, the
Agency acknowledges that some refrigerants identified as available for
use, such as R-744 and R-717, meet that threshold, but EPA does not
agree that it is appropriate to adopt restrictions based only on the
lowest GWP substitutes. Doing so would inappropriately limit the
overall availability of substitutes for that subsector (see section
VI.E.5). Setting restrictions at least at 150 GWP for the subsectors in
retail food refrigeration ensures that multiple available substitutes
may be used, which eases constraints on commercial demands, costs, and
training needs specific to certain substitutes. Allowing a variety of
substitutes acknowledges the fact that not every substitute can be used
for every application within a subsector
[[Page 73151]]
and ensures a smooth transition from higher-GWP HFCs.
Comment: EPA received many comments supportive of the proposed GWP
limits that requested additional time to comply. Some commenters
requested a January 1, 2026, compliance date, noting several concerns
affecting the subsector's ability to meet the January 1, 2025, date.
Other commenters requested a much longer timeframe for compliance for
the retail food refrigeration subsector, including compliance dates
that would not become effective until January 1, 2032.
A couple of commenters who requested additional time for compliance
noted the delayed updates to UL Standard 60335-2-89 in the 2nd edition,
published in October 2021, relative to publication dates of similar
updates to other industry standards (e.g., UL 60335-2-40 and ASHRAE
15). They highlighted how it takes time for updates in safety standards
to be adopted and implemented. After a safety standard is updated, it
must be reflected in equipment testing and certification, manufacturing
facility updates, building codes, and be adopted where appropriate
under SNAP. The commenter stated that the updated UL Standard 60335-2-
89, which covers commercial refrigeration, has not yet been fully
incorporated and addressed in these ways. Commenters stated that the
retail food refrigeration subsector has fewer available substitutes
than other subsectors (such as residential AC and heat pumps) where the
updates to their applicable UL standards were published earlier.
Therefore, these commenters asserted that additional time for
compliance with the GWP limits for retail food refrigeration would
allow for manufacturers to design and test equipment to comply with the
updated UL standards and address other concerns, such as building code
adoption, that could limit the ability to install and operate such
equipment. The commenters assert that without this extra time, it would
be unreasonable to consider certain refrigerant substitutes,
particularly certain flammable substitutes, to be ``available.''
The need for more time to test new equipment and refrigerants was
highlighted by a few commenters. Two commenters noted that providing
further time for compliance would help NRTLs test and list equipment
using new lower-GWP substitutes prior to the compliance date.
Additional time was also requested to evaluate the safety and
efficiency of systems using flammable refrigerants, which the commenter
stated have yet to be evaluated by retailers for effectiveness.
According to commenters, after such systems are evaluated,
manufacturing facilities would need to be upgraded for the safe storage
and handling of flammable refrigerants. One commenter highlighted how
the retail food refrigeration subsector's role in providing groceries
and supplies to the public mandates 24/7 reliability, and that some
systems using low-GWP substitutes, such as R-744, are not yet reliable.
This commenter stated that additional time would allow them to develop
and test systems to ensure that they meet all of the sector's
reliability, performance, and safety requirements.
Additionally, commenters noted that building codes in certain areas
could impede the transition to substitute refrigerants because they
currently do not allow for use of flammable refrigerants in new
buildings. These commenters requested a delay in the compliance date to
allow those jurisdictions to continue to update their codes to reflect
the expanding list of safe, lower-GWP refrigerant options in response
to updated safety standards.
Finally, commenters highlighted that relevant SNAP listings for
refrigerants in retail food refrigeration, in response to the updates
to UL 60335-2-89, have yet to be finalized. Commenters cited additional
SNAP listings for A2Ls and expanded charge sizes for R-290 in this
subsector as necessary to comply with the proposed GWP limits, and that
additional time would provide the opportunity for EPA to finalize
pertinent SNAP listings before the compliance date.
Response: EPA has considered these comments and agrees that
additional time for compliance is appropriate in some instances. EPA
does not agree that such additional time is required for every
subsector in retail food refrigeration, and therefore addresses these
concerns and requests for extensions in the subsector-specific sections
that follow. This section discusses in general terms the extent to
which EPA considered how the timing of UL standards' publications
impacts other factors that inform availability of substitutes for
retail food refrigeration as part of the decision to provide a later
compliance date.
Most retail food refrigeration equipment falls under the scope of
safety standard UL 60335-2-89. In October 2021, the 2nd edition of this
standard was published, updating safety requirements so that flammable
and lower flammability refrigerants could be deployed more widely in
commercial refrigeration equipment. EPA recognizes the time it can take
for an updated UL standard to be widely incorporated and for the
updates to be applied across industry. Many other relevant changes
affecting the availability of substitutes and facilitating transition
to the use of those substitutes generally occur after the UL standard
is updated, including evaluation of substitutes under the SNAP program,
adoption of new editions into building codes, equipment testing and
certification, safety updates to manufacturing facilities, and training
of technicians. All of these are considerations for EPA's assessment of
availability of substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B). Further
discussion on how updates to UL 60335-2-89 affect the availability of
substitutes for equipment within the safety standard's scope can be
found in section VI.E.2.
Typically, following updates to safety standards for retail food
refrigeration, EPA evaluates substitutes through the SNAP program's
comparative risk framework, where the Agency considers safety by
assessing exposure assessments, toxicity data, and flammability, among
several regulatory criteria. EPA is currently evaluating many of the
refrigerants impacted by the updates to UL 60335-2-89 and has proposed
to list many refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
under SNAP for use across retail food refrigeration (88 FR 33722, May
24, 2023). Although those evaluations under SNAP are ongoing, the
Agency anticipates that given the number of substitutes currently
proposed as acceptable for use, users in the retail food refrigeration
subsector will likely have an expanded set of available substitutes
from which to choose in the coming years. EPA has considered its
ongoing retail food refrigerant evaluations under SNAP on a subsector-
specific basis, and the adjusted compliance timeframes reflect these
evaluations and their potential impact on the availability of
substitutes for use in each individual subsector. Further discussion on
the intersection of SNAP listing decisions and AIM Act subsection
(i)(4) can be found in section VI.E.2.
As noted by many commenters, building codes can limit refrigerants
available for use based on their flammability, the charge size of the
equipment, and other relevant safety factors, and take time to adopt
changes to safety standards. These code updates are generally made in
each specific jurisdiction, and the timeframe for adoption of new
editions of safety standards can vary greatly. In certain
jurisdictions, users may be unable to utilize certain flammable
substitutes identified by EPA for use in retail food refrigeration,
even if they are SNAP-
[[Page 73152]]
approved, until building codes incorporate the updates in the 2nd
edition of UL 60335-2-89. However, EPA may still consider a substitute
to be available before every building code in every jurisdiction across
the United States permits its use. See section VI.E.2.d for discussion
on EPA's consideration of building codes and the availability of
substitutes under subsection (i)(4).
Further, EPA agrees with commenters that updates to UL standards
must also be incorporated into equipment design, testing, and
certifications. Even after manufacturers develop equipment using
substitutes, NRTLs must certify that the new equipment meets UL safety
standards. NRTL equipment certification requires substantial testing,
site visits, and labor input before new equipment can be used. For a
subsector as large as retail food refrigeration, NRTLs could struggle
to complete certification of new equipment by the proposed January 1,
2025, compliance date for the subsector.
EPA also anticipates that the use of lower-GWP refrigerant options
like R-744, with very high pressure, or the use of flammable
substitutes may require more specialized training. Such trainings are
available and underway, but more trained technicians would benefit the
commercial refrigeration industry in the transition to lower-GWP
refrigerants.
EPA agrees with the commenter that manufacturing facilities not
currently using flammable refrigerants will need to incorporate safety
updates before using flammable refrigerants on site. EPA acknowledges
that these changes to manufacturing facilities could require financial
and time investments; however, the use of flammable refrigerants has
steadily increased over the last ten years, meaning some manufacturers
have already made such upgrades. In the cases where these updates have
yet to be made, EPA understands that they could delay when those
facilities are able to factory-charge new substitutes into their
appliances or pre-charged components.
EPA has therefore determined, in consideration of the need for
certain SNAP approvals, updates to building codes, equipment design,
testing, and certifications, technician trainings, and manufacturing
facility upgrades, that providing additional time to comply is
reasonable for certain subsectors in retail food refrigeration.
Considering these factors, noted by many commenters, the Agency is
finalizing delayed compliance dates for certain refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment, remote condensing units, and
supermarket systems. This additional time will provide an opportunity
for additional SNAP listings to be finalized; jurisdictions to consider
the latest edition of UL 60335-2-89 and incorporate the updated safety
requirements into their building codes to enable the use of certain
substitutes; further development, testing, and certification of
equipment using new substitutes; a greater number of specialized
trained technicians; and completion of remaining safety updates to
facilities.
EPA understands that the lagging effects of updating UL 60335-2-89
do not affect stand-alone units and certain refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment in the same way. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing the compliance date of January 1, 2025, for stand-alone
units and certain refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment
as proposed. Further discussion on EPA's decision to finalize the
compliance dates for these subsectors can be found in sections
VI.F.1.c.i and VI.F.1.c.ii.
i. Retail Food Refrigeration--Stand-Alone Units
Stand-alone units are equipment where all refrigeration components
are integrated and, for the smallest types, the refrigeration circuit
is entirely brazed or welded. Stand-alone units are charged with
refrigerant at the factory and typically require only an electricity
supply to begin operation. Examples include refrigerators, freezers,
and reach-in coolers (either open or with doors). EPA considers these
to be products according to the definition of stand-alone units
finalized in this rulemaking.
Medium-temperature stand-alone units maintain a temperature above
32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C). Most are typically designed to maintain food and
beverages at temperatures roughly between 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and 41
[deg]F (5 [deg]C). Low-temperature stand-alone units are designed to
maintain food and beverages at temperatures roughly between -40 [deg]F
(-40 [deg]C) and 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) (i.e., freezers). Today, HFC-134a
is the most commonly used refrigerant in stand-alone units, with R-404A
also commonly used in low temperature applications and some high-
capacity applications.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for new stand-
alone units and why?
EPA is prohibiting the manufacture and import of stand-alone units
that use HFCs and HFC blends with a GWP of 150 or greater beginning
January 1, 2025. This GWP limit applies to new stand-alone units,
irrespective of compressor capacity or evaporator design. After review
of the comments received, EPA is finalizing these restrictions as
proposed.
Comment: In addition to the general retail food refrigeration
comments discussed in section VI.F.1.c, EPA received comments on the
proposed GWP limits for stand-alone units, specifically. One commenter,
a private citizen, expressed support for the 150 GWP limit. Another
commenter requested a 300 GWP limit for stand-alone units, claiming
that refrigerants between 150 and 300 GWP offer increased energy
efficiency benefits and require smaller charge sizes. In particular,
the commenter advocated for a limit that accommodates the use of R-454A
(GWP 237), which they asserted is the only substitute that can exceed
the capacity of the refrigerant currently used by the commenter, R-
404A, and the use of which would allow for a fast and simple
transition. According to the commenter, the only other substitute
identified by EPA with comparable volumetric capacity that would meet
the 150 GWP limit is R-455A (GWP 146), which the commenter claimed
poses non-ideal glide conditions for equipment transitioning out of R-
404A. The commenter stated that EPA was not permitted to rely on State
HFC regulations to fulfill its statutory duty to evaluate substitutes
under the AIM Act, that EPA was required to comply with AIM Act
subsection (i)(5), and that there was no indication in the record that
EPA had complied with the requirement in subsection (i)(4)(A) to
consider best available data.
Response: After review of the general retail food refrigeration
comments and the comments specific to stand-alone units, EPA is
finalizing the GWP limits for stand-alone units as proposed. The Agency
agrees with the comment that a 150 GWP limit is appropriate for this
subsector. The Agency disagrees with the commenter requesting a 300 GWP
limit for stand-alone units, given the availability of substitutes with
GWPs below 150 for use in this subsector under subsection (i)(4).
Further, EPA does not agree with the commenter's assessment that the
Agency has not relied on best available data in determining the
availability of substitutes nor do we agree that EPA was obligated to
evaluate substitutes under (i)(5) in carrying out a rulemaking (see
section VI.E.1).
The commenter asserts that EPA should revise its restriction for
stand-alone units on the basis that its preferred substitute, R-454A,
is the only
[[Page 73153]]
currently available substitute that ``can exceed'' the volumetric
capacity of R-404A. But subsection (i)(4) does not require EPA to set
restrictions in a way that would accommodate transition only when the
substitutes under consideration outperform the regulated substances
currently being used. While setting a limit at 300 would permit the use
of more substitutes than the Agency's limit of 150, and therefore
potentially provide a ``faster and simpler'' transition for this
subsector, that does not mean that the substitutes identified by the
Agency for use in stand-alone units are not ``available.'' The
commenter does not demonstrate that the substitutes EPA identified as
currently available for use in stand-alone units cannot be used, for
instance by adjusting or reengineering equipment models to overcome
issues of volumetric capacity,\94\ or that EPA should not have
considered any of its identified substitutes to be available per any of
the subsection (i)(4)(B) factors. Further, as noted elsewhere, EPA has
recently proposed to approve additional alternatives (e.g., R-454C, R-
455A, R-457A, and R-516A) and increase the allowable charge size for
existing alternatives (e.g., R-290), that may address the commenter's
concern (88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023). Tests on HFC/HFO blends such as R-
454C, R-455A, and R-457A show a volumetric capacity either identical or
varying in the range of 5 percent, compared to HCFC-22,
indicating that the blends should not create a significant change in
volumetric capacity that would require reengineering.\95\ The Agency's
assessment is that a 150 GWP limit is appropriate for stand-alone units
after considering the (i)(4) factors, to the extent practicable, and,
particularly relevant to the commenter's points, after evaluating under
(i)(4)(B) the availability of substitutes for use in these units. We
also note that EPA's ongoing evaluation of additional substitutes under
the SNAP program, including for use in stand-alone units, may
facilitate the availability of more options for compliance by January
1, 2025. EPA continues to encourage innovation of refrigerants that
meet these restrictions and anticipates the number of substitutes
available for use in stand-alone units will continue to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ In most cases, little or no reengineering will be required
to use HFC/HFO blends in place of regulated substances. The largest
amount of reengineering will be required for R-744, due to its
higher pressure, and for the hydrocarbon refrigerant R-290, because
of its higher flammability. However, industry is already in the
process of adopting those refrigerants. For example, R-290 is
already being used to replace R-404A in retail food stand-alone
units like ice cream cabinets and plug-in display cases. (RTOC,
2022)
\95\ RTOC, 2022. TEAP 2022 Progress Report (May 2022) available
at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new equipment, the Agency has identified R-744 (GWP 1), R-290
(GWP 3.3), R-600a (GWP 1), R-441A (GWP 3), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP 1), and
HFO-1234yf (GWP 1) as available substitutes for the higher-GWP HFCs
currently used in stand-alone units. In addition to their lower GWPs,
some of these substitutes offer additional environmental and economic
benefits via increased energy efficiency. Multiple sources, not peer-
reviewed, indicate that R-290 offers significant efficiency benefits as
compared to traditional higher-GWP refrigerants used for commercial
refrigeration, claiming reduced energy usage of 11 to 63 percent for R-
290 models compared to similar equipment using HFC-134a \96\ and
reduced energy consumption of approximately 30 percent with R-290
compared to R-404A.\97\ A peer-reviewed study found that energy use in
a stand-alone freezer unit can be reduced as much as 34 percent,
depending on operating conditions, when using R-290 instead of R-
404A.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ True Manufacturing, 2019, Hydrocarbon (Natural Refrigerant)
Brochure. Available at: https://www.truemfg.com/support/resource-center/#panel2.
\97\ Carel, March 2020. Six Reasons to Use Propane as
Refrigerant. Available at: https://www.carel.com/blog/-/blogs/six-reasons-to-use-propane-as-refrigerant.
\98\ Mastrullo, Rita & Mauro, Alfonso & Menna, Laura & Vanoli,
G.P. (2014). Replacement of R404A with propane in a light commercial
vertical freezer: A parametric study of performances for different
system architectures. Energy Conversion and Management. 82. 54-60.
10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of R-290, R-600a, and other lower-GWP refrigerants in stand-
alone equipment has increased significantly in recent years,
particularly since SNAP Rules 17, 19, and 21 listed various substitutes
as acceptable and provided use conditions that enable these
substitutes, including those that are flammable, to be used safely (76
FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015; and 81 FR
86778, December 1, 2016). EPA is aware of several available low and
medium temperature stand-alone unit models using substitutes such as R-
290 and R-600a. Commercial demand exists for equipment types that use
R-290, including reach-in refrigerators and freezers, beverage coolers,
and food service equipment, as well as beverage coolers and vending
machines that use R-744.\99\ These lower-GWP refrigerants have had
significant use in other regions of the world.\100\ The increased
prevalence of these substitutes in stand-alone equipment indicates
their availability for use in this subsector, both in terms of
technological achievability and commercial demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See Commercial Demands and Technological Achievability TSD
in the docket for a list of products in the affected sectors and
subsectors using substitutes.
\100\ See TEAP 2022 Assessment Report, section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several States have legal restrictions on the use of high-GWP HFCs
and HFC blends in stand-alone equipment.\101\ These restrictions became
effective between 2020 and 2022. Stand-alone equipment using lower-GWP
substitutes in compliance with State regulatory requirements are
currently being sold in these markets, clearly indicating that these
types of equipment can use substitutes that are available. The Agency
does not agree with the commenter that EPA has relied on State
prohibitions to fulfill its statutory duty under subsection (i). We
have factored in, to the extent practicable, those factors in
subsection (i)(4) in determining the use restrictions finalized in this
action. The Agency discussed in the proposed rule and a TSD that the
State regulations prohibiting the use of HFCs and requiring the use of
substitutes is one source of information that is relevant to EPA's
assessment of the availability of substitutes in stand-alone units,
particularly in terms of technological achievability. See the
Availability of Substitutes TSD for further information on available
HFC and HFC-blend substitutes for stand-alone units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia,
Vermont, and Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the lower-GWP refrigerants already available, EPA
continues to evaluate substitutes under the SNAP program and has
authority to do so under subsection (i)(5) of the AIM Act as well. The
Agency anticipates that this continuing evaluation of additional
substitutes, including for use in stand-alone units, may help
facilitate the availability of even more options for compliance by
January 1, 2025. For example, under the SNAP program, EPA has proposed
to list several additional refrigerants that would comply with the
final restrictions as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in
stand-alone units: HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1234yf, R-457A, R-516A, R-455A,
and R-454C (with GWPs of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146, and 146, respectively)
(88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023). Concerning the ability to meet appliance
efficiency standards, one study found R-454C, R-455A, and R-457A
reduced energy consumption by 2.07 to 2.45 percent, 2.95 to 2.9
percent,
[[Page 73154]]
and 10.48 to 10.69 percent, respectively, compared to R-404A in a
stand-alone unit.\102\ To the extent that a manufacturer chooses not to
use a specific refrigerant because of glide, R-744, R-600a, R-290, HFO-
1234ze(E), and HFO-1234yf are all single component refrigerants and
therefore have no glide, and R-516A has been listed under ASHRAE
Standard 34 as an azeotropic blend, with glide comparable to that of R-
404A. The Agency therefore does not agree with the commenter urging EPA
to establish GWP limits for stand-alone units that are less stringent
than the limit proposed, given that the best available data indicate an
existing array of available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Ranges represent without a receiver to with a receiver.
Llopis, Rodrigo, et al., International Journal of Refrigeration,
June 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2019.06.013, available at: http://www.energiazero.org/aermec/gas/Llopis_Low_GWP_R404A_MT_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA received comments requesting an extension of the
proposed January 1, 2025, compliance date for stand-alone units. One
commenter noted that HFC/HFO-blends often have significantly lower GWPs
than HFC-only refrigerants, and that SNAP has listed many HFC blends as
acceptable for stand-alone units, implying relatively minimal
environmental impact of their continued use. They agreed that although
many manufacturers of stand-alone units have already transitioned to R-
290 (GWP 3.3), others chose non-flammable SNAP-approved refrigerants
that would not meet the new 150 GWP limit. According to the commenter,
additional time is needed for these manufacturers, whose products
include ENERGY STAR certified units with non-flammable HFC/HFO blends,
to transition to lower-GWP options. Another commenter pointed to the
recent updates to UL 60335-2-89 allowing for increased charge sizes up
to 500 g for A3 refrigerants in stand-alone units. The commenter
concluded that increased charge sizes are necessary to move to
substitutes with GWPs less than 150 and that if SNAP does not address
larger charge sizes for flammable refrigerants in the next several
months, then the compliance date should be delayed until January 1,
2026.
A third commenter cited the need for an additional year for
research and development to manufacture new equipment that will meet
DOE energy efficiency requirements, for coordinating with compressor
and other component manufacturers, and for NRTLs to work through a
``backlog'' of testing that will result from the transition. They also
noted that building codes still need to be updated to allow for use of
flammable refrigerants and that manufacturing facilities need time for
redesigns to safely handle them.
Response: After review of the general retail food refrigeration
comments and the comments specific to stand-alone units regarding the
proposed January 1, 2025, compliance date, EPA is finalizing the
compliance date as proposed. HFC and HFC blends already identified by
the Agency as available substitutes can support the final GWP limits
for new stand-alone units. In addition, this rule would not prevent a
manufacturer from seeking and receiving ENERGY STAR certification for
units using refrigerants with a GWP less than 150. Numerous models
using the lower-GWP refrigerants R-290 or R-600a, for example, are
already listed under the ENERGY STAR Product Finder,\103\ as well as
those using the higher-GWP, non-flammable HFC/HFO blends mentioned by
the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See www.energystar.gov/productfinder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, EPA has taken into account the delayed
publication of updates to UL standard 60335-2-89 and the subsequent
incorporation of those updates by electing to extend the compliance
dates for many subsectors in retail food refrigeration. However, the
Agency does not agree that for stand-alone units, a delay in the
January 1, 2025, compliance date is appropriate. In general, charge
sizes for stand-alone units are relatively small, and stand-alone units
containing A3 refrigerants have been in use for several years. The
transition to lower-GWP substitutes is further along than in other
subsectors within retail food refrigeration. Therefore, challenges
associated with the need to update building codes; evaluate substitutes
under SNAP; research, develop, test, and certify equipment; update
manufacturing facilities; and ensure an adequate supply of trained
technicians are less present for smaller charge refrigeration
equipment. For other retail food subsectors with complications that
could contribute to delays in their transition, EPA is providing
additional time to comply for the reasons discussed in the section
above.
ii. Retail Food Refrigeration--Refrigerated Food Processing and
Dispensing Equipment
Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment is designed
to make or process and subsequently dispense cold food and beverages,
including equipment that functions as a holding tank to deliver the
food or beverage at the desired temperature or to deliver chilled
ingredients for their processing, mixing, and preparation. This
equipment can be self-contained or can be connected via refrigerant
piping to a dedicated condensing unit located elsewhere. Some may use a
refrigerant in a heat pump or utilize waste heat from the unit to
provide hot beverages. Some may also provide heating functions to melt
or dislodge ice or for sanitation purposes. Examples include equipment
used to make and dispense chilled and frozen beverages; frozen
custards, gelato, ice cream, Italian ice, sorbets and yogurts;
milkshakes, ``slushies'' and smoothies; and whipped cream.
Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment historically
used CFC-12 and HCFC-22 and has more recently adopted HFC-134a and R-
404A in medium and low temperature applications, respectively. Both
HFC-134a and R-404A are potent GHGs with GWPs of 1,430 and 3,922,
respectively.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for new
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment and why?
For new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, EPA
proposed a 150 GWP limit restriction that would take effect starting
January 1, 2025. EPA received comments, summarized and responded to
below, that pointed out that much of the equipment in the refrigerated
food processing and dispensing subsector is covered by a different UL
standard (UL 621) that has not yet been revised to enable the effective
use of flammable refrigerants for certain charge sizes. EPA has
therefore modified the proposed restrictions in this final action by
establishing different restrictions and compliance dates where
availability of substitutes is constrained by these factors.
Specifically, in new stand-alone refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment that is outside the scope of UL 621 and has a
refrigerant charge size less than or equal to 500 g, EPA is setting a
GWP limit of 150 GWP, as proposed, but beginning two years later than
proposed, on January 1, 2027. For new refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment with a charge size greater than 500 g, within the
scope of UL 621, and for systems that use remote condensing units, EPA
is not finalizing a GWP limit restriction as proposed, but is instead
prohibiting the use of the following HFCs or HFC blends, which have
GWPs as high or higher than HFC-134a: R-402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407A,
R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-
[[Page 73155]]
407H, R-408A, R-410A, R-410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-417A, R-417C, R-420A,
R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RB-276,\104\ RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), GHG-X5, or Freeze 12 (within this section, EPA
refers to this list as the ``prohibited refrigerants''). New self-
contained refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment with
charge sizes greater than 500 g outside the scope of UL 621 and systems
that use remote condensing units must comply with the prohibitions
beginning January 1, 2027. New stand-alone equipment within the scope
of UL 621 must comply with the prohibitions beginning January 1, 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ RB-276 is also known as Free Zone and HCFC Blend Delta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: In addition to the general retail food refrigeration
comments, EPA received a comment from a private citizen in support of
the proposed 150 GWP limit for refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment, specifically. Another commenter approved of the
150 GWP limit, but only for equipment that is self-contained and with
charge sizes less than or equal to 500 g. Commenters also requested
greater GWP limits than proposed for this subsector. One commenter
requested a 3,920 GWP limit to apply to refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment, while another requested a 1,450 GWP limit for
remote condensing units and equipment with charge sizes greater than
500 g. This commenter discussed the applicability of certain safety
standards (e.g., UL 621 versus UL 60335-2-89) to various refrigerated
food processing and dispensing equipment and noted that flammable
refrigerants are not yet permitted in equipment within the scope of UL
621 with charges greater than 150 g, greatly limiting the number of
available substitutes. Additionally, EPA received comments requesting
an exception for refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment
within the scope of UL 621.
Response: After review of the general retail food refrigeration
comments and the comments specific to refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment regarding the proposed 150 GWP limit, EPA is
finalizing the GWP limit as proposed for stand-alone equipment outside
the scope of UL 621 with charge sizes less than or equal to 500 g. EPA
agrees with the commenters who expressed their support of the proposed
GWP limit for this type of equipment, and understands the available HFC
and HFC-blend substitutes to be sufficient to replace refrigerants with
GWPs greater than 150 for this type of equipment. EPA initially
identified substitutes such as R-744 and R-717 as available for use in
this subsector for its consideration of availability of substitutes
under subsection (i)(4)(B) for the HFCs and HFC blends that EPA is
restricting. EPA acknowledges that in some situations, particularly in
public areas, R-717 may not be allowed by building codes or may be
limited in the charge size allowed. R-744 technology continues to
advance, allowing for improved appliance energy efficiency in climates
found in most of the United States. Additionally, companies expressed
interest in using other lower-GWP substitutes for this subsector, with
one commenter indicating they are already using refrigerants like R-290
(GWP 3.3) in some of their equipment. Proposed SNAP Rule 26 listings
for refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, enabled by
updates to UL 60335-2-89 and other safety standards, will likely
provide further refrigerant options for such types of stand-alone
equipment outside the scope of UL 621 and with charge sizes less than
or equal to 500 g, once finalized. EPA has proposed to list HFO-
1234ze(E), HFO-1234yf, R-290, R-457A, R-516A, R-455A, R-454C, R-454A
(with GWPs of 1, 1, 3.3, 137, 140, 146, 146, and 237, respectively) as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, under SNAP for use in
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment (88 FR 33722, May
24, 2023). All but one of these substances meet the GWP limit of 150
for this type of equipment in this subsector, further easing the
transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. EPA continues to encourage
innovation of refrigerants that meet these restrictions and anticipates
the number of substitutes available for use in refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment will continue to grow.
The Agency therefore disagrees with commenters requesting a higher
GWP limit or an exemption uniformly across all types of refrigerated
food processing equipment, given the identified available substitutes
below 150 GWP for this type of equipment. EPA is aware of actions being
taken in various States and local jurisdictions that have or will amend
building codes that will increase the availability of substitutes by
permitting additional substitutes, including certain flammable
substitutes, with GWPs below the proposed GWP limit.\105\ See section
VI.E.2.d for further discussion on EPA's consideration of building
codes in identifying available substitutes under subsection (i)(4) of
the AIM Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See the TSD on building codes in the docket for additional
information on building codes and list of substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For self-contained products within the scope of UL 621, for self-
contained products with charge sizes greater than 500 g, and for
refrigerated food processing and dispensing systems using remote
condensers, EPA is not finalizing a GWP limit as proposed, and is
instead prohibiting certain listed refrigerants. The Agency agrees with
commenters that these types of equipment face additional challenges to
using lower-GWP substitutes. Prohibiting specific refrigerants retains
the use of nonflammable options even if such equipment is not added to
the scope of UL 60335-2-89 or other appropriate safety standards to
allow for additional flammable options in the necessary charge sizes.
In addition, refrigerant options for units with charge sizes greater
than 500 g or for systems using remote condensing units may not be
supported by the expected updates to the safety standards. Therefore,
the Agency finds that a more reasonable approach to transitioning such
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment to lower-GWP
options is by prohibiting higher-GWP refrigerants such as R-404A and
HFC-134a. The GWPs of the prohibited refrigerants range from 1,430
(HFC-134a) to 3,985 (R-507, R-507A), which is similar to the request of
one commenter to set a GWP limit of 1,450 for certain types of
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. One commenter
indicated it has already transitioned some of its equipment to R-449A,
which is not one of the prohibited refrigerants. Other nonflammable
options, such as R-448A and R-449B, are also available for these types
of equipment and EPA has proposed further low-GWP options. As stated in
section VI.B of this preamble, this approach--restricting specific
substances instead of setting a GWP limit for a given subsector--gives
EPA time to identify an appropriate GWP limit for this subsector while
still restricting those substances that have the highest adverse
environmental impact.
Comment: EPA received several comments on the proposed January 1,
2025, compliance date for various types of refrigerated food processing
equipment. Many comments requested
[[Page 73156]]
additional time for compliance for refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment within the scope of UL 621--Ice Cream Makers--
relative to other applications in this subsector. These comments noted
that equipment within the scope of UL 621, such as ice cream, yogurt,
custard, and milk shake machines, are not covered by the UL 60335-2-89
standard, and that UL 621 does not yet contain updated safety
requirements enabling the use of flammable refrigerants in necessary
charge sizes. Additional time to allow for analogous updates to UL 621,
as in the 2nd edition of UL 60335-2-89, was requested, ranging from two
to six years, including one request that the compliance date for
equipment covered by UL 621 be no earlier than six years after updates
to that standard are published, or that such equipment be exempted
outright. Until updates have been made to UL 621 to allow for use of
flammable refrigerants, commenters requested additional time to comply
with restrictions (in this case, the prohibited refrigerant list in
lieu of a GWP limit) for equipment within the scope of UL 621 or with
charge sizes greater than 500 g. One commenter noted the proposed
January 1, 2025, compliance date for this type of equipment (remote
condensing units or stand-alone units with charges greater than 500 g)
as appropriate if the Agency raises the GWP limit to 1,450.
Other issues related to the compliance date for all types of
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment were flagged by
commenters such as building codes, time for NRTLs to test and list new
equipment, glide issues with using A2Ls in direct contact cooling
applications, time to source compressors and other components
appropriate for use with flammable refrigerants, and design challenges
for equipment using the lower-GWP substitutes identified by the Agency.
One commenter discussed how food service equipment has unique testing
requirements and must be certified by the National Sanitation
Foundation standard, which could take an additional four to six months.
The commenter stated that equipment must also meet DOE efficiency
standards, and was concerned about hydrocarbon refrigerants working
efficiently in larger charge equipment. This commenter requested a 5-
to 10-year extension of the proposed compliance date for this
subsector.
Other commenters noted that UL 621 does not currently allow toxic
refrigerants such as R-717, a substitute identified by EPA for use in
refrigerated food processing equipment. According to these commenters,
using higher toxicity refrigerants (ASHRAE Standard 34 safety group
classification ``B'' substances) in equipment for producing fresh food
for consumption could potentially lead to harm if ingested by the
consumer under circumstances of a refrigerant leak. Commenters also
pointed to challenges of transitioning to high-pressure refrigerants,
such as R-744, in small equipment. For these reasons, commenters
requested a delayed compliance date for refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment under the scope of UL 621 (e.g., ice cream
makers) with charge sizes less than or equal to 500 g.
Response: After review of the comments related to refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment and consideration of the (i)(4)
factors, EPA is finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2027, for
self-contained equipment outside the scope of UL 621 (for both those
with charge sizes less than or equal to 500 g and those with charge
sizes greater than 500 g) and for refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment with a remote condenser. EPA is establishing a
January 1, 2028, compliance date for self-contained refrigerated food
processing and dispensing products within the scope of UL 621.
After further evaluation of the substitutes available to this
subsector, EPA agrees that the proposed January 1, 2025, compliance
date would not provide sufficient time for refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment within the scope of UL 621. The current status
of UL 621 limits the availability of flammable lower-GWP refrigerants
for use in equipment covered by that standard. EPA agrees with
commenters that for equipment in this subsector within the scope of UL
621, additional time is warranted to ensure the availability of
technologically achievable refrigerants. In particular, approximately
two more years will be needed to update UL 621, or incorporate this
type of equipment into another standard such as UL 60335-2-89, to
support the use of lower-GWP, flammable refrigerants and then another
two years for EPA to list substitutes for use with UL 621 if those
mentioned above do not prove feasible and for manufacturers to design
and test equipment following the updated UL 621 standard. EPA is
therefore finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2028, to provide
additional time for publication of updates to UL 621 to allow the use
of flammable refrigerants. However, EPA disagrees that a delay of up to
ten years following updates to UL 621 or an outright exemption for
equipment within the standard's scope would be appropriate, given the
updates that are already underway for this subsector.
EPA is delaying the compliance dates for other equipment in this
subsector to allow further progress under SNAP evaluations, safety
standards, equipment design, and building codes. EPA finds a two-year
delay to January 1, 2027, to be sufficient for stand-alone equipment
not covered by UL 621 with charge sizes less than or equal to 500 g
because UL 60335-2-89 addresses some types of self-contained
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment allowing up to
500 g of A3 refrigerants. While similar equipment in the stand-alone
unit subsector has already begun using hydrocarbon refrigerants such as
R-290 in recent years, review of these substitutes for use in
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment is still ongoing
under SNAP and necessitates further research, development, and testing
of equipment using substitutes that meet the 150 GWP restriction.
Therefore, the Agency is finalizing a compliance date of January 1,
2027, for stand-alone equipment not covered by UL 621 with charge sizes
less than or equal to 500 g.
In alignment with many commenters, EPA is also delaying the
compliance date by two years, to January 1, 2027, for refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment outside the scope of UL 621 with
either a greater than 500 g charge size (for self-contained equipment)
or with a remote condenser. EPA appreciates that one commenter found
the proposed January 1, 2025, compliance date appropriate for equipment
with larger charge sizes, given the tremendous product development the
organization has already completed for refrigerants below 1,450 GWP.
However, after considering the comments as a whole, and that the list
of prohibited refrigerants for these types of equipment may not exactly
conform with the GWP limit suggested by the commenter agreeing to a
2025 compliance date, EPA is providing two additional years to comply
for this class of equipment. This additional time will allow
manufacturers to investigate and implement substitutes such as R-448A,
R-449A, and R-449B (all A1 refrigerants) for types of equipment that
would not be able to use A3 refrigerants such as R-290 or R-600a under
the UL 60335-2-89 safety standard. It will also provide time for
resolution of current obstacles to adopting A2L refrigerants such as
building codes, testing, development, and certification of equipment,
and pending SNAP listings. EPA disagrees that a compliance delay of up
to ten years would be appropriate
[[Page 73157]]
for this type of equipment, given the updates that are already underway
for this subsector, including an updated UL safety standard and
availability of substitutes.
iii. Retail Food Refrigeration--Remote Condensing Units
The third category of equipment under retail food refrigeration,
remote condensing units, exhibit refrigerating capacities typically
ranging from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons) and are
composed of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and
one receiver assembled into a single unit, normally located external to
the sales area. This equipment is connected to one or more nearby
evaporator(s) used to cool food and beverages stored in display cases
and/or walk-in storage rooms. A cascade system might be used, e.g., to
reach low temperatures in a long-term storage room. Remote condensing
units are commonly installed in convenience stores and specialty shops
such as bakeries and butcher shops. Having historically used HCFC-22,
newly manufactured units now primarily use R-404A or HFC-134a. Other
HFC blends--including R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, and R-507A--are also
used.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for systems
using new remote condensing units and why?
EPA is finalizing GWP limits for remote condensing units as
proposed. Analogous to supermarket systems, IPR systems, and cold
storage warehouses, EPA is distinguishing systems using remote
condensing units by their refrigerant charge capacity. See section
VI.F.1.a for a discussion of EPA's decision to finalize this
distinction. Systems with refrigerant charge capacities greater than or
equal to 200 lb have a GWP limit of 150. Systems with refrigerant
charge capacities less than 200 lb, and for the high temperature side
of cascade systems irrespective of the charge capacity, have a GWP
limit of 300.\106\ In response to comments, and after further
consideration of the (i)(4) factors, EPA is finalizing a compliance
date of January 1, 2026, rather than January 1, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ The GWP limit for the low temperature side of a cascade
system, either 150 or 300, is based on the refrigerant capacity of
the low-side system. The 300 GWP limit applies to the high
temperature side of a cascade system regardless of the total
refrigerant capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: In addition to the retail food refrigeration comments that
are applicable to this subsector, discussed in section VI.F.1.c, EPA
received comments from several environmental groups requesting more
stringent restrictions for systems using remote condensing units
related to the varying technical distinctions of the equipment. In
general, commenters urged EPA to lower the proposed GWP limits,
decrease the proposed 200 lb charge size threshold to 50 lb or remove
it entirely, and/or remove the distinction for the high temperature
side of cascade systems.
One such commenter urged a 10 GWP limit for all charge sizes of
remote condensing units, pointing to R-744 as the only currently
acceptable option below the 150 GWP limit for supermarkets, an example
they claim applies similarly to remote condensing units. The commenter
expressed confusion concerning EPA's decision to set GWP limits up to
300 when other refrigerant options in the 10 to 300 GWP range will be
unavailable for use before the proposed January 1, 2025, compliance
date. Further summary of comments related to the differing GWP limits
based on technical distinctions in IPR, supermarket systems, remote
condensing units, and cold storage warehouses can be found in the IPR
section, VI.F.1.a.
Response: After reviewing the comments, EPA is finalizing GWP
limits for this subsector as proposed. These final limits are
consistent with comments supporting the GWP limits proposed for the
entire retail food refrigeration sector and are supported by the
substitutes identified by the Agency as available for use in remote
condensing units under subsection (i)(4)(B). EPA identified available
substitutes for the restricted substances, including R-744 (GWP 1) and
R-717 (GWP 1). R-744 remote condensing units are commercially available
in several global markets, including in the United States. EPA's SNAP
program recently listed R-471A (GWP 144) and R-515B (GWP 287) as
acceptable in supermarket systems (September 8, 2023, 88 FR 61977).
Additionally, EPA has proposed to list HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1234yf, R-
457A, R-516A, R-455A, R-454C, R-454A (with GWPs of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146,
146, and 237, respectively) as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
under SNAP for use in supermarket systems (88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023).
Other technologically achievable substitutes that may potentially
become available in the future for supermarket systems in the high
temperature side of a cascade system or where charge capacities are
less than 200 lb, include R-480A (GWP 291) and R-457B (GWP 249). All of
these substances would meet the GWP limit of 300 for this subsector,
and all except R-454A and R-457B meet the GWP limit of 150. The already
available substitutes have been evaluated by EPA to be sufficient to
meet these restrictions while the potential for a greater array of
options in the future will further ease the transition to lower-GWP
refrigerants. EPA continues to encourage innovation of refrigerants
that meet these restrictions and anticipates the number of substitutes
available for use in retail food remote condensing units will continue
to grow.
Comment: EPA did not receive comments on the proposed January 1,
2025, compliance date specific to remote condensing units, though the
Agency did receive comments regarding the proposed compliance dates for
retail food refrigeration generally.
Response: After consideration of the subsection (i)(4) factors
under the AIM Act, EPA is finalizing a January 1, 2026, compliance date
rather than the proposed date of January 1, 2025, for remote condensing
units. For EPA's response to these comments and discussion on the
Agency's decision to provide an additional year to comply, see section
VI.F.1.c.iv.
iv. Retail Food Refrigeration--Supermarket Systems
Supermarket systems are the fourth category of equipment under
retail food refrigeration, also known as multiplex or centralized
systems. They operate with racks of compressors installed in a
machinery room where different compressors turn on to match the
refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures. Two main designs
are used: direct and indirect systems. In a direct system, the
refrigerant circulates from the machinery room to the sales area, where
it evaporates in display-case heat exchangers, and then returns in
vapor phase to the suction headers of the compressor racks. Supermarket
walk-in cold rooms are often integrated into the system and cooled
similarly, but a dedicated condensing unit can be provided for a given
storage room.
Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop systems and
cascade refrigeration systems.\107\ Indirect systems use a chiller or
other refrigeration system to cool a secondary fluid that is then
circulated throughout the store to the cases. Compact chiller versions
of an indirect system rely on a lineup of 10-20 units, each using small
charge sizes. As the refrigeration load changes, so does the number of
active chillers. Each compact chiller is an independent unit with its
own
[[Page 73158]]
refrigerant charge, reducing the potential volume of refrigerant that
could be released from leaks or catastrophic failures. Despite the term
``chiller'' used in the description, these systems are considered
supermarket systems under this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See section VI.F.1.a of this preamble for a description of
cascade systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another type of supermarket design, often referred to as a
distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of separate compressor
racks located near the display cases rather than having a central
compressor rack system. Each of these smaller racks handles a portion
of the supermarket load, with 5 to 10 such systems in a store.
Supermarket rack systems historically used CFC-12, R-502, HCFC-22,
and other blends containing HCFCs in a centralized design. While some
of these systems remain in use, others have been retrofitted to replace
the ODS refrigerant using a blend containing an HFC (e.g., R-404A, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422D, R-427A, R-438A, and R-507A) or have been replaced
with a newly manufactured system with refrigerant blends containing
HFCs (e.g., R-404A, R-507A, R-407A, R-407C, and R-407F). More recently,
some new supermarket systems have also been using non-fluorinated
refrigerants, such as CO2, or HFC/HFO blends, such as R-
448A, R-449A, and R-449B.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for
supermarket systems?
Analogous to remote condensing units, IPR systems, and cold storage
warehouses, EPA is distinguishing larger and smaller supermarket
systems by their refrigerant charge capacity. See section VI.F.1.a for
a discussion of the safety standards driving this distinction. EPA is
prohibiting the installation of new supermarket systems using HFCs and
HFC blends with a GWP of 150 or greater when the refrigerant charge
capacities are greater than or equal to 200 lb, beginning January 1,
2027. For new supermarket systems with refrigerant charge capacities
less than 200 lb, and for the high temperature side of cascade systems
irrespective of the total charge capacity, EPA is establishing a GWP
limit of 300,\108\ beginning January 1, 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ The GWP limit for the low temperature side of a cascade
system, either 150 or 300, is based on the refrigerant capacity of
the low-side system. The 300 GWP limit applies to the high
temperature side of a cascade system regardless of the total
refrigerant capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is finalizing GWP limits for supermarket systems as proposed;
however, in response to comments received on the proposal and in
consideration of the subsection (i)(4)(B) factors under the AIM Act,
the Agency is finalizing a compliance date that is two years later than
proposed (i.e., January 1, 2027, rather than January 1, 2025).
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified substitutes that are available in
place of the restricted substances for systems with larger refrigerant
charge capacities. These include R-717, which can be used in a
secondary loop (indirect) supermarket refrigeration system, and R-744,
which can be used for centralized direct and indirect supermarket
refrigeration systems. Further, the restrictions EPA is finalizing
would allow for the use of HFC/HFO blends. For example, EPA has
recently proposed HFC/HFO blends R-454C, R-457A, R-455A, and R-516A as
acceptable for use in supermarket systems under SNAP (88 FR 33722, May
24, 2023) and all have GWPs below the 150 limit. Further, EPA's SNAP
program has listed additional lower-GWP substitutes as acceptable for
use in supermarket systems (88 FR 61977, September 8, 2023) since
issuing the proposed rule, including R-471A and R-515B (with GWPs of
144 and 287, respectively). Other lower-GWP refrigerants that might
become available in the future include HFC/HFO blends such as R-459B,
R-465A, R-468A, R-476A, R-479A, and R-482A .
These final restrictions support the transition to lower-GWP
substitutes and innovative technologies that have been used widely in
other parts of the world, such as Europe and Canada, and have seen
increased use in the United States. EIA maps multiple supermarkets
where lower-GWP refrigerants are being used, which includes Texas and
Florida.\109\ EPA's GreenChill Partnership includes a Certified Store
program where individual food retail stores voluntarily submit
applications detailing the types of refrigerants used in the store,
refrigerant emissions, and refrigerant quantities; to date, 47 percent
of certified stores have used refrigerants with a GWP less than 150,
primarily R-744. The number of platinum-level certified stores in the
South, Southwest, and Southeast regions, most using refrigerants with a
GWP less than 150, increased 40 percent from 2021 to 2022.\110\
ATMOsphere indicated that as of December 2022 there were over 1,000
stores globally using transcritical CO2 systems.\111\ The
global market of transcritical R-744 systems, which are manufactured by
multiple U.S. companies, was expected to grow at a compound annual
growth rate of 12.69 percent between 2018 and 2025.\112\ R-744 systems
may also provide additional environmental and economic benefits via
increased energy efficiency in some cases, though R-744 systems can
experience declining efficiencies in high ambient temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ https://www.climatefriendlysupermarkets.org/map, accessed
August 29, 2023.
\110\ ``GreenChill Certified Store Achievements,'' web page,
accessed September 20, 2023. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/greenchill/greenchill-certified-store-achievements.
\111\ ATMOsphere (2023). Natural Refrigerants: State of the
Industry. Available at: https://issuu.com/shecco/docs/2022_atmo_marketreport.
\112\ Global Transcritical CO2 Systems Market by
Function (Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Heating), Application
(Heat Pumps, Food Processing, Others), Region, Global Industry
Analysis, Market Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast 2018 to
2025, FiorMarkets, March 2019. Report description available at:
https://www.fiormarkets.com/report/global-transcritical-co2-systems-market-by-function-refrigeration-376006.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: In addition to the general retail food refrigeration
comments discussed below, EPA received comments on the proposed GWP
limits specific to supermarket systems. One industry commenter
supported the proposed GWP limits of 150 and 300 based on the 200 lb
charge size, in addition to the 300 GWP limit for the high temperature
side of a cascade system. Another suggested either a 1,500 or 700 GWP
limit, citing difficulties converting supermarkets to A2L refrigerants,
and that EPA should allow economics to be a design factor. Similarly,
another commenter objected to the 300 GWP limit for supermarkets with
charge capacities less than 200 lb, citing heightened impacts on food
deserts, which rely on small, local convenience stores for their access
to food, and typically use smaller refrigerant capacity systems.
Instead, the commenter suggested a 1,500 GWP limit for supermarket
systems with charge sizes less than 50 lb.
Environmental groups urged EPA to finalize lower GWP limits than
proposed for supermarket systems, decrease the proposed 200 lb charge
size threshold to 50 lb or remove it entirely, and/or remove the
distinction for the high temperature side of cascade systems. One
commenter claimed that there is no need for indirect cascade systems
when the same capacity direct expansion system can be designed with
refrigerants that have GWPs less than 150. Another asserted that
because R-744 is currently used in supermarkets in California, an area
with a hot climate, such systems are therefore suitable for
supermarkets across the country. Another commenter urged a 10 GWP limit
for all charge sizes of supermarket systems, pointing to R-744 as the
only
[[Page 73159]]
currently acceptable option below the 150 GWP limit. They discussed how
fluorinated substances like R-454C, with a GWP of 146, are not yet
available on the market, will impose unknown costs to businesses, have
significantly greater potential impacts on global climate change
compared to R-744, and could pose environmental justice concerns not
addressed by the proposed rule. This commenter also stated that having
two GWP limits based on charge size could encourage manufacturers to
move to smaller systems with higher-GWP HFCs instead of transitioning
from HFCs altogether. The commenter expressed confusion over the
Agency's proposal to set GWP limits up to 300, when other supermarket
system refrigerant options in the 10 to 300 GWP range will be
unavailable for use before the proposed January 1, 2025, compliance
date.
Response: After review of the comments received, the Agency
disagrees with assertions that EPA should adopt GWP limits as high as
700 or 1,500, or as low as 10, for this subsector. Instead, the Agency
has determined that providing additional time for compliance, rather
than increasing GWP limits, is a more appropriate way to address the
concerns raised by commenters about the availability of substitutes for
use in supermarket systems. As discussed in this section, a number of
substitutes for use in this subsector are already currently available
and in use in all regions of the country, and EPA has identified a
number of additional substitutes that will meet the GWP limits at the
levels the Agency proposed that will be available, consistent with the
subsection (i)(4)(B) factors, by January 1, 2027. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing the level of the GWP limits for supermarket systems as
proposed.
The Agency does not agree that the higher limits suggested by
commenters are reasonable in consideration of subsection (i)(4)(B)
factors, given that many refrigerant options with GWPs lower than 150
and 300 are already available for use in this subsector. As other
commenters noted, currently available substitutes include R-717, which
can be used in secondary loop (indirect) supermarket refrigeration
systems, and R-744, which can be used for centralized direct and
indirect supermarket refrigeration systems. Many supermarket systems in
various regions of the United States already use refrigerants with GWPs
below the GWP limits, including R-744 even in warmer climates.
Additionally, consistent with the Agency's position at proposal that
the options for this subsector will continue expand, EPA's SNAP program
has recently listed two non-flammable blends, R-471A (GWP 144) and R-
515B (GWP 287), as acceptable for use in supermarket systems.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ 88 FR 61977 (Sept. 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Agency does not agree that a higher GWP limit (e.g.,
1,500 GWP) is appropriate for systems with refrigerant charge
capacities less than 200 lb, including those with charge sizes less
than 50 lb as requested by one industry commenter. EPA recognizes that
convenience stores and smaller food retailers can be critical to
communities, sometimes referred to as food deserts, that are not served
by larger supermarkets. However, these establishments often do not use
supermarket systems, as described in this subsector, but rather use
smaller charge systems such as self-contained cases and remote
condensing units. Many currently available models of self-contained
cases are already using refrigerants with a GWP of less than 150, and,
as discussed in section VI.F.1.c.iii., EPA has determined that, given
existing and expanding options of lower-GWP refrigerants, new remote
condensing units will be able to meet the 150 and 300 GWP limits by
January 1, 2026. Even some larger supermarkets are implementing
innovative designs using stand-alone equipment or smaller, remote
condensing units operating with R-744 or hydrocarbon refrigerants, such
as R-290 and R-600a, to supplement, or even replace, supermarket rack
systems. See the Availability of Substitutes TSD for further
information on available HFC and HFC-blend substitutes for supermarket
systems. We therefore do not agree that a GWP limit of up to 1,500 is
necessary to ensure that smaller supermarkets or convenience stores,
which we agree are critical for food security in certain communities,
have options for new equipment.
In addition to R-744, R-717, and hydrocarbons that are already
available for use in this subsector, and the recently listed R-471A and
R-515B, EPA has proposed to list HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1234yf, R-457A, R-
516A, R-455A, R-454C, R-454A (with GWPs of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146, 146,
and 237, respectively) as acceptable, subject to use conditions, under
SNAP for use in supermarket systems. All of these substances meet the
GWP limit of 300 for this subsector, and all except R-454A meet the GWP
limit of 150. Although the already available substitutes have been
evaluated by EPA to be sufficient to meet these restrictions, the
potential for a greater array of options in the future will further
ease the transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. EPA continues to
encourage innovation of refrigerants that meet these restrictions and
anticipates the number of substitutes available for use in supermarket
systems will continue to grow. ASHRAE continues to receive applications
for the designation of new refrigerants in the ASHRAE 34 standard.
There has also been a notable increase in submissions for new
refrigerants under EPA's SNAP program for this subsector. As discussed
further in EPA's response to comments regarding the compliance deadline
for supermarket systems, below, EPA understands that allowing
additional time to comply will provide an opportunity for the
applicable UL safety standard updates to be reflected in ways that will
continue to increase the availability of substitutes for use in this
subsector.
While EPA is not certain what was meant by the comment to ``allow
economics to be a design factor,'' EPA agrees that the AIM Act's
phasedown of HFCs will mean that HFCs will become increasingly scarce,
and scarcity may lead to price increases in the event that demand also
remains high. However, EPA does not agree that the HFC phasedown
established by the AIM Act negates the need to promulgate regulations
under subsection (i) including the establishment of GWP limits for
supermarket systems.
EPA is also not electing to establish restrictions as low as 10 GWP
for this subsector, even though, as commenters pointed out, some of the
refrigerants available for use in supermarket systems, such as R-744
and R-717, have very low GWPs. EPA does not agree that it is
appropriate to adopt restrictions based only on the lowest GWP
substitutes, as doing so would inappropriately limit the overall
availability of substitutes to meet the restrictions. Rather, EPA has
established limits for this subsector to encourage the continued
development and innovation of substitutes, and to ensure that there
will be sufficient substitutes to support a smooth transition of this
subsector away from higher-GWP HFCs. See section VI.E.5 for further
discussion on EPA's decision not to tailor restrictions to the GWPs of
specific substitutes.
Regarding the request for EPA to use a 50 lb or lower refrigerant
charge capacity rather than a 200 lb capacity as the threshold between
the 150 GWP limit and the 300 GWP limit, EPA does not agree that a 50
lb refrigerant charge capacity threshold is appropriate in this
context. Further discussion on EPA's decision to finalize the 200 lb
cutoff and the distinction of a high temperature side of cascade
systems when setting
[[Page 73160]]
GWP limits can be found in section VI.F.1.a.
For these reasons, in addition to those described in the Agency's
response to comments that are relevant to all of retail food
refrigeration, EPA is finalizing the 150 and 300 GWP limits for the
supermarket systems subsector as proposed and is extending compliance
dates to mitigate some of the concerns raised by the commenters
regarding availability of substitutes in the near term.
Comment: In addition to the comments received on compliance dates
applying to all of retail food refrigeration, two commenters urged EPA
to provide additional time to comply for supermarket systems,
specifically. One commenter requested a January 1, 2026, compliance
date to provide additional time for A2L design development. Another
commenter requested flexibility based on availability of refrigerants,
installation availability, and other supply chain constraints and
objected to EPA's inclusion of R-454C, R-471A, and R-455A as available
substitutes given they are not SNAP-approved.\114\ The commenter noted
that even if such options were SNAP-approved, building codes limit the
implementation of A2Ls in supermarkets and would also need to be
updated prior to A2L use. They also referenced challenges related to R-
744 systems, noting strained supply as the global market turns to R-
744, technological challenges, limited technical expertise, and
increases in energy costs when used in warmer climates. Additionally,
one comment from industry appears to apply to the entire retail food
refrigeration section subsector, but EPA considers many of the concerns
described to be mostly relevant to supermarket systems. This comment
requested a 2032 compliance date for retail food refrigeration and can
be found summarized in section VI.F.1.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ As discussed in section VI.E.2, EPA considers the listing
of substitutes as acceptable under the SNAP program, which evaluates
safety and other characteristics, to be informative in its
evaluation of the availability of those substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: After review of the comments received regarding the
proposed January 1, 2025, compliance date for retail food
refrigeration, generally, and supermarket systems, specifically, EPA is
finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2027, for supermarket
systems.
EPA understands that supermarket systems planning to transition to
lower-GWP substitutes may need building codes to be updated before
transitioning to mildly flammable, flammable, or toxic refrigerant
options in certain jurisdictions. As discussed in the Building Codes
TSD, such updates can take several years, and many jurisdictions have
yet to adopt recent editions of safety standards that permit the use of
flammable or toxic refrigerants in larger quantities through the
requirement of additional mitigation strategies. However, to date, the
vast majority of States have amended their regulatory codes or have
passed legislation to specifically permit the use of SNAP-listed low-
GWP refrigerants. Fewer than a dozen States still require additional
legislative or regulatory updates to permit the use of low-GWP
refrigerants in building codes.\115\ EPA is aware of ongoing efforts by
industry groups and other stakeholders to work with State and local
officials to update building codes to allow for alternative
refrigerants. EPA has had and will continue to have discussions
concerning agency rulemaking and meet with relevant stakeholders,
including State officials. In providing two additional years for
compliance, EPA is enabling those remaining jurisdictions to update
their building codes or legislation accordingly, an approach
recommended by many industry commenters. However, EPA can consider a
substitute to be available before every building code in every
jurisdiction across the United States permits its use (see section
VI.E.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See Building Codes TSD at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that for certain subsectors, moving to flammable
refrigerants will require new design considerations, equipment testing,
trainings, and safety precautions. However, many food retailers already
use hydrocarbons for other retail food refrigeration subsectors such as
stand-alone units, and that experience will ease the adoption of
flammable refrigerants in this subsector. Design, testing, and
implementation of A2L refrigerants in future stores is underway, but
still ongoing. Therefore, EPA is delaying the compliance date for this
subsector to better accommodate the design cycle of equipment following
adoption of safety standards and to ensure availability of substitutes
for use, as one of the factors considered.
EPA disagrees that finalizing a compliance date as late as 2032 for
supermarket systems would be appropriate, given that supermarkets
across the country, in varied climates, have already successfully
transitioned to refrigerants meeting the limits finalized in this rule.
As discussed in detail in responses to comments regarding the adoption
of updates to safety standards UL 60335-2-89 in section VI.F.1.c, EPA
considered the impacts and required timing needed to reflect the
updates to those safety standards in building code updates, SNAP
listings, equipment testing and design, and service technician
training, and the Agency accordingly adjusted a number of compliance
deadlines for the restrictions applicable to the retail food
refrigeration subsector. EPA's finalization of the January 1, 2027,
compliance date for the supermarket systems subsector reflects the time
necessary for those remaining issues associated with safety standard
updates to be resolved. We note that the safety standards were updated
in 2021, and many commenters from industry indicated that a one-year
extension to January 1, 2026, would be sufficient to resolve remaining
issues. The additional two years beyond the proposed compliance date
provided in this final action will ensure that the handful of States
and jurisdictions (fewer than a dozen) that do not yet allow for use of
newer refrigerants (e.g., lower flammability refrigerant blends) will
make needed updates to building codes or laws, that industry continues
training technicians to install and service these systems, which EPA
acknowledges will differ compared to other types of servicing needs,
and will provide necessary time for equipment design and testing.
Further, EPA recognizes the costs associated with moving to
substitutes, but the relative cost difference of using substitutes in
place of HFCs will diminish over time as the phasedown continues. The
AIM Act's phasedown of HFCs will mean that HFCs will become
increasingly scarce, and scarcity may lead to price increases in the
event that demand also remains high. In this respect, the estimated
costs are conservative because such effects are not incorporated into
the analysis in the RIA Addendum or the Costs and Environmental Impacts
TSD. Moreover, as detailed in the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD,
EPA is assuming cost savings accrue over time with the transition to
CO2 supermarket systems. Information from industry
commenters showed that four different types of CO2
supermarket systems displayed lower energy consumption compared to the
baseline system in the most populous city in the United States (New
York), two CO2 supermarket system types resulted in lower
energy use in the second most populous city in the United States (Los
Angeles), and one type of CO2 supermarket system reduced
energy consumption in all
[[Page 73161]]
cities shown, by 10% (Houston) to 35% (New York).\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ January 30, 2023. Available at https://www.regulations.gov
in Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643-0209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although noted as available substitutes in the proposed rule and
TSD, EPA recognizes that refrigerants such as R-454C and R-455A have
not yet been SNAP-approved for use in supermarket systems. However,
following the updates to UL 60335-2-89, discussed in greater detail in
section VI.E.2.c and VI.F.1.c, EPA has proposed to list many additional
refrigerant options as acceptable for use in supermarket systems,
including HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1234yf, R-457A, R-516A, R-455A, R-454C, R-
454A (with GWPs of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146, 146, and 237, respectively).
Further, since the proposed rule, EPA's SNAP program has listed
additional lower-GWP substitutes as acceptable for use in supermarket
systems (September 8, 2023; 88 FR 61977), including R-471A and R-515B
(with GWPs of 144 and 287, respectively). EPA anticipates that by the
extended deadline of January 1, 2027, manufacturers will have more
available substitutes from which to select for the design of new
systems, and that the additional time will allow further research,
development, and safety testing of new equipment using newer
refrigerants. For these reasons, in addition to those described in the
Agency's response to comments that are relevant to all of retail food
refrigeration, EPA has determined extending the compliance date for
supermarket systems by two years to be reasonable. This approach is
consistent with many of the comments received from industry, including
large trade associations that represent this subsector.
d. Vending Machines
Vending machines are a type of self-contained commercial
refrigeration product that includes mechanical and electronic
components required to secure, sell, and dispense refrigerated food and
beverages, including cold drinks in cans or bottles, ice cream, milk,
cold drinks in cups, and perishable food items. Hot beverages may also
be provided via a heat pump or through recycled waste heat from the
refrigeration cycle, particularly for dual hot/cold beverage vending
machines.
Lower-GWP refrigerants, primarily R-290 and R-744, are
technologically achievable for use in vending machines and the use of
these substitutes is increasing, indicating commercial demands. Two of
the largest vending machine customers in the U.S. market, Coca-Cola and
PepsiCo, have been using R-744 over the past decade.117 118
Industry safety standards and model building codes were also revised in
2021 to allow the use of other lower-GWP substitutes. ASHRAE amended
the safety standard ASHRAE 15 to allow vending machines with up to 114
grams of R-290 to be used in locations where they were not previously
allowed under previous editions of industry standards. UL also modified
standard UL 541, ``Standard for Safety for Refrigerated Vending
Machines,'' covering this equipment ``for the unrestricted placement of
vending machines refrigerated with advanced, environmentally-friendly
coolants.'' \119\ Beginning January 1, 2020, the National Automatic
Merchandising Association (NAMA) Foundation partnered with DOE in a
two-year, $400,000 cooperative research and development agreement on
energy efficient vending machines utilizing refrigerants such as R-
290.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Coca-cola, January 2014, Coca-cola Installs 1 Millionth
HFC-Free Cooler Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of
CO2. Available at: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler.
\118\ PepsiCo, 2020. Sustainability Focus Area: Climate.
Available at: https://www.pepsico.com/our-impact/sustainability/focus-area/climate.
\119\ Karnes, B, March 2021, Revisions to UL 541, the Standard
for Refrigerated Vending Machines. Available at: https://www.ul.com/news/revisions-ul-541-standard-refrigerated-vending-machines.
\120\ NAMA, 2019. NAMA Foundation Annual Report 2019. Available
at: https://namanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-NAMA-Foundation-Annual-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified available substitutes in place of
the restricted substances, including R-290 (GWP 3.3), R-600a (GWP 1),
R-744 (GWP 1), and R-441A (GWP 3). Other refrigerants that meet this
GWP limit and are currently under development and evaluation include R-
451A (GWP 147), R-454C (GWP 146), R-455A (GWP 146), R-457A (GWP 137),
R-471A (GWP 144), and R-476A (GWP 147).
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for vending
machines?
EPA is prohibiting the manufacture and import of vending machines
that use HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or
greater beginning January 1, 2025. Effective January 1, 2026, EPA is
prohibiting the subsequent sale, distribution, offer for sale or
distribution, or export of new vending machines manufactured or
imported before January 1, 2025, that use HFCs with GWPs that exceed
the limit. EPA is finalizing both the GWP limit and compliance date for
vending machines as proposed.
Comment: EPA received one comment disagreeing with the proposed 150
GWP limit for vending machines. This commenter requested a 300 GWP
limit instead, citing the proposed limit as unnecessary and
unrealistic.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that setting a vending
machine GWP limit at 300 would be appropriate. Already, models with
very low-GWP refrigerants such as R-744 and R-290 are available,
providing substitutes for higher-GWP HFCs and HFC blends. For example,
Coca-Cola had installed 1.5 million beverage coolers, fountains, and
vending machines using R-744 or R-290 worldwide and almost 100,000 such
pieces of equipment in North America by 2015.\121\ Further, DOE and
vending machine manufacturers worked together beginning December 2019
and identified R-290 as a ``viable, business-tenable and sustainable
alternative'' to high-GWP refrigerants as of 2022.\122\ Current
information shows that there are refrigerants available with a GWP of
less than 150 for vending machines. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the
GWP limit for this subsector as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Coca-Cola's HFC-free cooler count reaches 2.5 million'',
R-744.com, dated November 29, 2017. Available online at https://r744.com/coca-cola-hfc-free-coolers-count-reaches-2-5-million/.
\122\ ``NAMA Partners With DOE On More Energy-Efficient Vending
Machines,'' Vending Times, Dec. 16, 2019. Available online at:
https://www.vendingtimes.com/blogs/nama-partners-with-doe-on-more-energy-efficient-vending-machines; Press release, ``NAMA Presses
Congress on ERTC Fix During 2022 Fly-In & Advocacy Summit,'' July
18, 2022. Available online at: https://namanow.org/nama-presses-congress-on-ertc-fix-during-2022-fly-in-advocacy-summit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA received one comment requesting EPA extend the
proposed January 1, 2025, compliance date for vending machines noting
that even the petitioned January 1, 2026, date by AHRI was too early.
The commenter cited barriers to transition including the supply chain
for components, outdated building codes, safety standards and their
respective testing and listing requirements, and the necessity of
satisfactory performance for food industry equipment for maintaining
food safety.
Response: In consideration of the comment received and the
availability of substitutes for use in this subsector, EPA is
finalizing the January 1, 2025, compliance date for vending machines as
proposed. The Agency recognizes that there are challenges associated
with moving to more flammable refrigerant options, however, the
commenter itself stated that some of the products have
[[Page 73162]]
already changed to lower-GWP refrigerants identified by EPA. R-744 has
also been in use for over a decade, signaling that the transition for
vending machines is well underway. Vending machines have smaller charge
sizes than other types of commercial refrigeration equipment and are
therefore less affected by building codes. Relevant standards have
already been updated to allow up to 114 g of A3 refrigerant in vending
machines, with many models already using R-290. Non-flammable
refrigerants like R-744 have also been implemented in models where
flammability may pose greater safety concerns. EPA understands that
NRTLs must test and list new equipment to certify compliance with
various safety standards. However, given that much of the subsector has
already transitioned, fewer models will need to be updated and
certified to comply with restrictions by the date of compliance.
Therefore, for the reasons described, EPA is finalizing the compliance
date as proposed.
e. Cold Storage Warehouses
Cold storage warehouses are refrigerated facilities used for the
storage of temperature-controlled substances. Refrigeration systems
within cold storage warehouses can be divided into two categories:
central plant systems and packaged systems. Central plants are custom-
built refrigeration systems that are typically used in large
refrigerated warehouses with cooling capacities that range from 20 to
5,000 kW. Central plant systems deliver cool air to the refrigerated
space through evaporators, which are typically suspended from the
ceiling in the refrigerated space. The evaporators are connected
through a piping network to multiple compressors located in a central
machine room, and a condenser, which is typically mounted outside near
the compressor. Central plant systems may have a direct or indirect
(secondary loop) design. Direct systems circulate a primary refrigerant
throughout the refrigerated space. In an indirect system, a primary
refrigerant cools a secondary refrigerant in the machine room, and the
secondary refrigerant is then circulated throughout the refrigerated
space.
Packaged systems (also known as unitary systems) are self-contained
systems that combine an evaporator, compressor, and condenser in one
frame. Packaged systems are commonly installed on the roof of a
refrigerated warehouse above the air-cooling units that are within the
refrigerated space. The evaporator is located inside the refrigerated
space while the condensing unit, which is usually protected by weather
resistant housing, is located outside. Packaged systems are most
commonly used in small, refrigerated warehouses that have a capacity of
20 to 750 kW.
In response to the phaseout of ODS under the CAA and the Montreal
Protocol, many cold storage warehouses transitioned from using CFCs to
HCFC-22, and then later from HCFC-22 to HFCs--primarily R-404A and R-
507A, which have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985, respectively.\123\
Manufacturers transitioned to R-717, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps Technical
Options Committee 2018 Assessment Report, Technical and Economic
Assessment Panel, UNEP, February 2019. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/RTOC-assessment-report-2018_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for cold
storage warehouses?
As proposed, EPA is prohibiting the installation of new cold
storage warehouse systems using HFCs and blends containing HFCs with a
GWP of 150 or greater when the system's refrigerant charge capacity is
equal to or greater than 200 lb. For cold storage warehouse systems
with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 lb and for the high
temperature side of cascade systems, EPA is establishing a GWP of 300.
In response to comments received on the proposal, EPA is finalizing a
compliance date of January 1, 2026, one year later than the proposed
compliance date of January 1, 2025.
As with supermarket systems, IPR systems, and remote condensing
units, EPA is distinguishing between larger cold storage warehouse
systems and smaller systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200
lb being the dividing line. EPA is also establishing a higher GWP limit
of 300 for the high temperature side of a cascade system, based on
safety standards as discussed in section VI.F.1.a of the preamble.
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified several substitutes that are
available in place of the substances that EPA is restricting. For
systems with refrigerant charge capacities equal to or greater than 200
lb, these include R-717 vapor compression (GWP 1), R-744 (GWP 1), and
HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 4). Another substitute is R-471A (GWP 144), which
SNAP has listed as acceptable for cold storage warehouse use under
Notice 38 (88 FR 61977, September 8, 2023). Additionally, EPA has
proposed to list as acceptable R-454C (GWP 146) for use in larger cold
storage warehouse systems and R-454A (GWP 237) for use in smaller
systems, subject to use conditions. Other low-GWP refrigerants EPA has
proposed acceptable for these systems are HFO-1234yf (GWP 1), HFO-
1234ze(E) (GWP 1), R-457A (GWP 137), and R-516A (GWP 140). (88 FR
33722, May 24, 2023). Newer technologies with smaller charge sizes of
R-717 that are removed from the general public are low-charge packaged
ammonia systems, ammonia/CO2 cascade systems, and ammonia
secondary loop systems.\124\ Given that EPA's evaluation of these
refrigerants is underway, the Agency anticipates additional substitutes
below the GWP limits may be available for use in this subsector in the
future. Several other types of systems that operate using thermodynamic
cycles other than vapor compression such as absorption, evaporative
cooling, desiccant cooling, and Stirling cycle systems can also be used
in this subsector and may be appropriate for meeting the restrictions
finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ ICF, 2016. Market Characterization: Fire Suppression,
Commercial Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, Refrigerated Food
Processing and Dispensing Equipment, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for U.S. EPA. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant portion of cold storage warehouses have transitioned
from, or completely avoided, using higher-GWP HFCs. Most cold storage
warehouses in the United States use R-717. ASHRAE designates R-717 as a
lower flammability, higher toxicity (B2L) refrigerant and it is not
used extensively in many other subsectors of the RACHP sector. However,
many users consider R-717 to be a cost-effective option for use in cold
storage warehouses given its long-standing use, lower cost per
kilogram, and energy savings \125\ despite a higher capital cost for
the equipment compared to HFC systems. Certain characteristics of cold
storage warehouses also tend to reduce their proximity to people and
thus the risk of using R-717. For example, because cold storage
warehouses are often large in order to achieve economies of scale and
require a large amount of land use--as opposed to other systems that
might be located on a building roof or a small slab next to the
building--they are typically located away from population centers where
land costs and taxes may be higher. In addition, the transportation of
goods is typically done in large volumes--by truck or train--to reduce
costs, which in turn reduces the workforce needed and the number of
people at the warehouse and, in particular, near the refrigeration
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several commenters generally supported EPA's proposed
[[Page 73163]]
GWP limit of 150 for commercial refrigeration equipment with over 200
lb of refrigerant charge; however, many of these commenters recommended
that EPA eliminate or modify the GWP limit of 300 that was proposed for
charge sizes less than 200 lb. Some commenters recommended a 50 lb
charge size threshold and noted this would be consistent with
California's regulations. One group described a 10 lb charge capacity
cutoff as more appropriate than 200 lb and recommended a single GWP
limit of 10 for all charge sizes. A summary of other comments related
to the GWP restrictions and charge sizes can be found in the IPR
section VI.F.1.a.
Response: After review of the comments received, EPA is finalizing,
as proposed, a 150 GWP limit for units with refrigerant charge
capacities greater than or equal to 200 lb, a 300 GWP limit for new
cold storage warehouses with refrigerant charge capacities less than
200 lb, and a 300 GWP limit for units in the high temperature side of
cascade systems, irrespective of the charge capacity. See response
above in the IPR section VI.F.1.a for more discussion about the
relationship between GWP restrictions and charge size.
Comment: One commenter objected generally to the proposed GWP
limits for cold storage warehouses due to a lack of available
replacement technology sufficient for transition. Many commenters
expressed that EPA's proposed GWP limits may require the use of toxic
and/or flammable refrigerant options and stated that for safety
reasons, A1 refrigeration options are needed for their operations.
Response: EPA does not agree with the commenters' assertions that
there is a lack of available alternatives. The Agency noted a number of
available alternatives earlier in the section, in the proposed rule,
and in other supporting information. EPA identified several substitutes
in place of the restricted substances for cold storage warehouses. Of
these, options with an ASHRAE classification of A1 (low toxicity,
nonflammable at standard conditions) are HCFO-1233zd(E) and R-471A.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed 2025
transition date for commercial refrigeration, including cold storage
warehouses. Some commenters requested a date of January 1, 2026, to
allow for updated building codes, equipment readiness, testing of new
refrigerants, and SNAP listing of replacements. Many commenters stated
the compliance dates are unrealistic, and that more time was needed for
manufacturers to find a solution that can be designed, tested, sold,
and produced by these dates. One commenter stated the compliance date
of January 1, 2025, is extremely challenging for cold storage
warehouses, and a major limitation on the HFC transition was the lack
of SNAP-approved low-GWP listings for refrigeration, hindering their
ability to conduct field trials and installations. See other comments
related to the proposed compliance date in IPR section VI.F.1.a.
Response: After review of the comments received applicable to the
proposed compliance date for cold storage warehouses, and consideration
of the (i)(4) factors under the AIM Act, EPA is finalizing a compliance
date of January 1, 2026, rather than the proposed date of January 1,
2025. EPA's assessment is that in many cases cold storage warehouses
already use refrigerants with GWPs below the limit the Agency is
finalizing today; however, the Agency's understanding, informed by the
comments, is that for certain situations, particularly where updates
for building codes are necessary, additional time is needed. EPA does
not agree with the commenters' assertions that there is a lack of
available alternatives. As described above, EPA identified several
substitutes in place of the restricted substances for cold storage
warehouses. For EPA's response to these comments and discussion on the
Agency's decision to provide an additional year to comply, see section
VI.F.1.e.
Comment: Many commenters expressed some opposition to EPA's comment
that cold storage warehouses are typically located away from population
centers, reducing their proximity to people and thus reducing the risk
of using R-717. The commenters stated that cold storage warehouse
locations are based on market demand, land, and freight costs, but for
servicing reasons, they must be close to the population centers.
Response: EPA acknowledges there may be certain circumstances where
it is beneficial for cold storage warehouses to be built near
population centers; however, EPA understands that there has been and
continues to be a tendency for cold storage warehouses to be located
away from densely populated areas for the reasons described above.
Other alternative refrigerants besides R-717 are available, as noted
above, which can be used if the cold storage warehouse is located in
closer proximity to people.
f. Ice Rinks
Ice rinks use a system of refrigeration equipment to move a fluid
through pipes embedded in concrete flooring to freeze layers of water.
Ice rinks may be used by the public for recreational purposes as well
as by professionals. These systems frequently use secondary loop
refrigeration systems, in some cases consisting of a chiller along with
associated pumps that move the chilled water or glycol working fluid.
Another configuration sometimes used is a direct expansion system
wherein the refrigerant flows under the ice and directly back to a
compressor and condenser. System capacities vary based on the size of
the ice rink and the required cooling load. Typical sizes for ice rink
chillers are 50-, 100-, 150-, or 200-ton units. The ice surface is
ideally maintained between 24 to 28 [deg]F (-4.4 to -2.2 [deg]C)
depending on the application and users of the ice rink (e.g., figure
skating versus hockey).
Ice rinks used CFC/HCFC refrigerants prior to restrictions under
the Clean Air Act, and then higher-GWP HFC blends such as R-404A and R-
507A. More recently, some ice rinks used the HFCs blends R-449A, R-
450A, and R-513A. R-717 and R-744 are also commonly used.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for ice rinks?
EPA is prohibiting the installation of ice rink systems using HFCs
or blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater beginning
January 1, 2025. EPA had proposed restrictions for installation of new
ice rinks to begin January 1, 2025, but had proposed a GWP limit of 150
rather than 700.
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B) at proposal, EPA identified the following
available substitutes: R-717 (GWP 1), R-744 (GWP 1), and HCFO-1233zd(E)
(GWP 4). R-471A (GWP 144) also meets the GWP limit and can serve as a
potential substitute. Under the restriction being finalized, R-450A
(GWP 601) and R-513A (GWP 630) are also potentially available
substitutes.
Most new ice rinks use R-717 as a refrigerant due to its energy
efficiency, while others are being designed to use R-744 and other
lower-GWP substitutes.\126\ Although R-717 is a B2L (higher toxicity,
lower flammability) refrigerant, risks to the general public are
addressed by confining the R-717 to separate equipment (i.e., the high-
temperature side of a chiller) in locations with access limited to
trained service personnel only. In TSDs submitted with their petition,
CARB
[[Page 73164]]
estimated that more than 80 percent of ice rinks in California use R-
717.\127\ According to EIA's petition, a majority of National Hockey
League ice arenas also employ R-717, and the use of R-744 is becoming
an increasingly popular option for ice rinks. This information
indicates the technological achievability and commercial demand of
these substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Packages--Design and Build, Toromont [bond] CIMCO
Refrigeration. Available at: https://www.cimcorefrigeration.com/packages-design-build.
\127\ Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, CARB, October
2020. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In areas where safety or toxicity reasons prevent the use of R-717,
lower-GWP (hydrochlorofluoroolefin) HCFO or HFO chillers and lower-GWP
transcritical R-744 systems are options available for use in ice rink
systems. EPA has also recently listed HCFO-1233zd(E) as acceptable
through the SNAP program for use in new ice rinks (87 FR 3037, January
20, 2022).
Comment: A few commenters suggested that the GWP limit for ice
rinks be increased to 700. The commenters proposed chillers and ice
rinks be categorized the same since chillers are used for ice rinks,
except for minor differences in certain components and controls. The
commenters stated that this would also prevent costs and delays that
would occur by making a specialized category for ice rinks. Increasing
the GWP limit to 700 would preserve the ability for industry to have a
wider choice of refrigerant options.
One commenter expressed support for the GWP limit of 150 and noted
that there is no clear information available to suggest a significant
number of jurisdictions have local codes that do not allow the use of
R-717. Ammonia has been widely used for many years and other
refrigerant systems using less than 150 GWP refrigerants, including R-
744 systems, are available for use in locations that prefer to avoid
use of R-717.
Response: After review of the comments received, EPA is finalizing
a 700 GWP limit for ice rinks. The Agency maintains that there are
available substitutes with GWPs below 150; however, EPA is applying a
700 GWP limit to use of HFCs in ice rinks because EPA agrees with
commenters that many of these refrigerant systems would utilize
chillers that are available for other applications. Most ice rink
systems are similar to chillers and frequently use secondary loop
refrigeration systems, which typically cool water, that is circulated
for cooling purposes. In most chiller applications the cool water or
working fluid is used for comfort cooling throughout a building or
other location, but for ice rinks, the cool water or working fluid is
used to freeze layers of water, which forms the ice. Although the water
or working fluid may be used for different cooling purposes in each
application, equipment used across these two subsectors is commonly
used interchangeably. We therefore agree that ice rinks and chillers
should be similarly restricted under this rule. Because ice rinks
typically maintain the ice surface between 24 and 28 [deg]F (-4.4 to -
2.2 [deg]C), it is inappropriate to adopt the temperature thresholds of
-30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) that apply to
chillers for comfort cooling and for IPR.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ EPA is not combining the categories of chillers and ice
rinks in this rule, nor does EPA plan to change the SNAP end-uses to
combine chillers and ice-skating rinks into a single end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the comments requesting a GWP limit of 700, the
Agency agrees that this limit is reasonable under the (i)(4) factors
and with the technical similarities to chillers. While the Agency
acknowledges more substitutes may be available with a GWP limit of 700,
including R-450A and R-513A, the Agency understands that the lower GWP
refrigerants like R-744 will continue to be used for both ice rinks
with chillers and direct expansion ice rinks. R-717 will typically be
used in chillers together with brine, CO2, or another
secondary fluid. As noted by a commenter, the use of R-717 in ice rinks
may be restricted in a small number of jurisdictions, and in light of
these potential limitations of R-717 due to flammability and toxicity
risks, especially the direct expansion ice rinks where the refrigerant
is sent directly to evaporators to form the ice. Therefore, EPA is
establishing a GWP limit that retains more refrigerant options for this
subsector.
In addition to the lower-GWP refrigerants already available, EPA
continues to evaluate substitutes under the SNAP program, and has
authority to do so under subsection (i)(5) as well, on an ongoing
basis. The Agency anticipates that this continuing evaluation of
additional substitutes, including for use in ice rinks, may expand
further the availability of more options for compliance by January 1,
2025. For example, under the SNAP program, in SNAP Rule 26 EPA has
proposed to list as acceptable subject to use conditions several
additional refrigerants that would comply with today's final rule, for
use in ice rinks with a remote compressor: HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1234yf,
R-457A, R-516A, R-455A, and R-454C (with GWPs of 1, 1, 137, 140, 146,
and 146, respectively) (88 FR 33722; May 24, 2023). These refrigerants
are classified as A2L and may face challenges for direct expansion ice
rinks in some jurisdictions. Therefore, for ice rinks EPA is finalizing
a GWP limit of 700 consistent with the GWP limit for chillers given the
technical similarities of these subsectors and given the need for
additional options for direct expansion ice rinks.
g. Automatic Commercial Ice Machines
Automatic Commercial Ice Machines (ACIMs), either self-contained or
remote condensing, are used in commercial establishments such as
hotels, restaurants, and convenience stores to produce ice for consumer
use. For purposes of this rule, ice-making equipment used in
residential settings are covered under household refrigerators and
freezers. Self-contained units are a type of ACIM in which the ice-
making mechanism and the storage compartment, if provided, are in an
integral cabinet. They contain both evaporator and condenser, have no
external refrigerant connections, and are entirely factory-charged with
refrigerants and factory-sealed, generally containing smaller
refrigerant charges. These products are analogous to other self-
contained equipment, such as vending machines and stand-alone
refrigerated display cases.
Remote condensing ACIMs have the condenser separated from the
portion of the machine making the ice and have refrigerant lines
running between the two. Like other types of remote condensing RACHP
systems, remote condensing ACIMs utilize a split-system design where
the evaporator (which freezes water into ice) is located indoors, while
the condensing unit (which rejects heat, usually to surrounding air
although water cooling is also a possibility) is located elsewhere,
such as outside the building. In remote-compressor systems, a type of
remote condensing ACIM, the heat is still rejected away from the ice-
making evaporator, either inside in a separate room or outdoors, but
the compressor is located outdoors via interconnected refrigerant
piping. These designs require field-assembled refrigerant piping to
connect the indoor unit with the remote condensing unit, which
significantly increases its necessary refrigerant charge in comparison
to that of a self-contained unit. Modular ice machines are designed to
sit on top of a separate unit, such as an ice bin, beverage machine, or
ice dispenser and typically produce 250 to 1,000 lb of ice per day.
Higher glide refrigerant blends have not been
[[Page 73165]]
typically used as substitutes for remote condensing ACIMs.
ACIMs can also be divided between batch type machines (e.g.,
providing cubed ice) and continuous type machines (e.g., providing
flaked ice). Batch type (also called cube type) ice machines harvest
ice with alternating freezing and harvesting periods. Batch type ACIMs
can be used in a variety of applications but are generally used to
generate ice for use in beverages. Batch type ACIMs are often employed
in hotels, hospitals, and restaurants where beverages are served.
Continuous type ice makers produce ice through a continuous freeze and
harvest process and include flake and nugget ice machines. Flake ice is
used primarily in food displays, such as seafood grocery store displays
or salad bars, whereas nugget ice (also known as chewable ice) is
primarily used in beverage applications such as smoothies and blended
cocktails.
R-404A and R-410A have been the most common HFC refrigerants
currently used in ACIMs, which replaced the use of ozone depleting
HCFCs such as R-22. R-404A is used in remote condensing ACIMs, while
both R-404A and R-410A have been commonly used in self-contained ACIMs.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for automatic
commercial ice machines?
For new batch type self-contained ACIMs with a harvest rate \129\
less than or equal to 1,000 lb of ice per 24 hours, and new continuous
type self-contained ACIMs with a harvest rate less than or equal to
1,200 lb of ice per 24 hours, EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and
HFC blends with GWPs of 150 or greater, beginning January 1, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ The Department of Energy's regulations for commercial ice
machines define harvest rate as ``the amount of ice (at 32 degrees
F) in pounds produced per 24 hours.'' 10 CFR 431.132. For purposes
of this rule, the harvest rate of an ACIM shall be determined in
accordance with 10 CFR 431.134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new batch type self-contained ACIMs with a harvest rate greater
than 1,000 lb of ice per 24 hours, and new continuous type self-
contained ACIMs with a harvest rate greater than 1,200 lb of ice per 24
hours, EPA is restricting the use of the following HFCs and HFC blends,
beginning January 1, 2027: R-402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-
407C, R-407F, R-408A, R-410A, R-410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-417A, R-417C,
R-420A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-442A, R-507A, HFC-134a, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RB-276, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), GHG-X5, G2018C, and Freeze 12.
For new remote condensing ACIMs, EPA is restricting the use of the
following HFCs and HFC blends, beginning January 1, 2027: R-402A, R-
402B, R-404A, R-407B, R-408A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A,
R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS-44 (2003 formulation), and GHG-X5.
Currently available substitutes identified for self-contained ACIM
where the harvest rate is less than or equal to 1,000 lb of ice per day
(batch type) or 1,200 lb of ice per day (continuous type) include R-290
(GWP 3.3) and R-717 (GWP 1), and where the harvest rate is greater than
that amount R-513A (GWP 630) and R-450A (GWP 601) are available
substitutes. EPA has proposed to list many additional refrigerants as
acceptable for use in ACIMs in proposed SNAP Rule 26 (88 FR 33722, May
24, 2023). Substitute refrigerants R-455A (GWP 146) and R-454C (GWP
146) also meet the restrictions and could serve as additional potential
candidates for use in place of the HFCs and HFC blends that EPA is
restricting in self-contained units. Other proposed refrigerants such
as R-454B (GWP 465) and HFC-32 (GWP 675), which are being pursued for
other R-410A applications, and R-448A (GWP 1,386), R-449A (GWP 1,396),
R-449B (GWP 1,411), and R-454A (GWP 237), which are being pursued for
other R-404A applications, are potential candidates for self-contained
batch and continuous type ACIMs with harvest rates greater than 1,000
lb of ice per day and 1,200 lb of ice per day, respectively. Available
substitutes for remote condensing ACIMs include R-448A, R-449A, R-449B,
and HFC-134a.
EPA's proposed restrictions included: the use of HFCs and HFC
blends with GWPs of 150 or greater for self-contained ACIMs with charge
sizes less than or equal to 500 g, beginning January 1, 2025; the use
of certain HFCs and HFC blends--R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, R-422C,
R-434A, R-421B, R-408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A, R-422D, R-421A, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-417A,
R-438A, R-410B, R-407A, R-410A, R-442A, R-417C, R-407F, R-437A, R-407C,
RS-24 (2004 formulation), and HFC-134a--in new self-contained ACIMs
with refrigerant charge capacities exceeding 500 g, beginning January
1, 2025; and the use of certain HFCs and HFC blends--R-404A, R-507, R-
507A, R-428A, R-422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A,
R-422D, R-421A, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-
402B, GHG-X5, R-417A, R-438A, and R-410B--in new remote condensing
ACIMs, beginning January 1, 2025. In finalizing these lists of HFCs and
HFC blends, we are correcting an error in the date of formulation for
RS-24 and we are adding several blends that contain HFCs that were
inadvertently left off the lists and that have higher GWPs than the
proposed prohibited HFC or HFC blend with the lowest GWP (HFC-134a for
self-contained units and R-410B for remote systems).
EPA is finalizing three different sets of restrictions on the use
of HFCs and HFC blends in ACIMs, depending on the type of equipment.
Originally, the Agency proposed to set GWP limits for self-contained
ACIMs based on charge capacity, rather than the harvest rate for ice
production. However, in response to the comments received, the Agency
has adjusted the categorization of self-contained ACIMs to distinguish
equipment by its ice harvest (production) rate, rather than charge
capacity, to better evaluate the availability of substitutes for use in
the various applications in this subsector. Distinguishing self-
contained ACIMs by harvest rate is consistent with the Department of
Energy's energy conservation standards applicable to this subsector.
Table 4 below summarizes the final restrictions on HFCs and their
compliance dates for various ACIM applications.
[[Page 73166]]
Table 4--HFC Restrictions for Automatic Commercial Ice Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACIM type Batch or continuous Harvest rate HFC restriction Compliance date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-contained.................... Batch................ Less than or equal to GWP less than 150................... January 1, 2026.
1,000 pounds ice per
24 hours.
Self-contained.................... Continuous........... Less than or equal to GWP less than 150................... January 1, 2026.
1,200 pounds ice per
24 hours.
Self-contained.................... Batch................ Greater than 1,000 Listed blends prohibited: R-402A, R- January 1, 2027.
pounds ice per 24 402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-
hours. 407C, R-407F, R-408A, R-410A, R-
410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-417A, R-
417C, R-420A, R-421A, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-
437A, R-438A, R-442A, R-507A, HFC-
134a, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/
42.5/1.5), RB-276, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), GHG-X5, G2018C,
Freeze 12.
Self-contained.................... Continuous........... Greater than 1,200 Listed blends prohibited: R-402A, R- January 1, 2027.
pounds ice per 24 402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-
hours. 407C, R-407F, R-408A, R-410A, R-
410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-417A, R-
417C, R-420A, R-421A, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-
437A, R-438A, R-442A,R-507A, HFC-
134a, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/
42.5/1.5), RB-276, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), GHG-X5, G2018C,
Freeze 12.
Remote condenser.................. All.................. All.................. Listed blends prohibited: R-402A, R- January 1, 2027.
402B, R-404A, R-407B, R-408A, R-
410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-
507A, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/
42.5/1.5), RS-44 (2003
formulation), GHG-X5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA received several comments from industry on its
proposed approach to categorizing ACIM equipment when setting
restrictions. One commenter expressed support for setting GWP limits
based on a 500 g charge capacity, as proposed. Another commenter
disagreed with the proposed approach, and instead recommended the
Agency distinguish equipment by the cooling capacity of the compressor,
recommending 3,000 BTU/hr as a possible threshold between smaller and
larger equipment. The commenter stated that this approach would better
characterize the componentry requirements of the market to inform
compressor manufacturers' product development, based on the exact
cooling capacity needs of the OEMs. This same commenter stated that for
equipment design engineers, this approach would clarify the
refrigerants available for use at the point of compressor selection,
rather than when selecting a refrigerant charge for the equipment,
given that charge is subjective and can be adjusted based on the design
preferences of the engineer. Similarly, another commenter also
disagreed with using charge capacity to distinguish equipment; instead,
they requested EPA categorize self-contained ACIMs by pounds of ice
produced per 24 hours, analogous to DOE's energy conservation
standards, recommending a 1,000 lb/day threshold when setting
restrictions. This commenter described how the refrigerant charge could
be manipulated by manufacturers to comply with the proposed
restrictions that they viewed as more lenient--simply increasing the
charge of equipment to surpass the 500 g threshold, even in cases where
a smaller charge would provide sufficient cooling capacity.
One commenter disagreed with differentiating self-contained ACIMs
by charge size, or any other factor related to the cooling capacity or
harvest rate of the machine, and instead requested that all self-
contained ACIMs be treated the same when setting restrictions. This
commenter explained that for smaller self-contained equipment, only
hydrocarbon refrigerants were viable options under the proposed
restrictions, and that building codes may limit the refrigerant charge
below what is necessary, even if updated safety standards have expanded
the allowable charges for flammable refrigerants. By removing the
proposed charge requirement in self-contained equipment, the commenter
stated that smaller equipment would be able to continue using non-
flammable refrigerants where flammable refrigerants may not be
feasible.
Response: After review of the comments received, EPA is finalizing
GWP limits for self-contained ACIMs based on the harvest rate of ice
production rather than the proposed basis of charge size of the
equipment. One commenter agreed with the proposed approach to setting
restrictions and EPA has considered how the availability of substitutes
for use in ACIMs is affected by various technical specifications and
concludes that setting restrictions based on ice production rates
better distinguishes equipment capable of meeting lower GWP limits from
equipment that may need additional refrigerants with higher GWPs. One
commenter recommended using the cooling capacity of the compressor as a
threshold for setting restrictions; however, EPA understands through
conversations with industry stakeholders that a categorization based on
harvest rate of ice production per day is more familiar for ACIM
manufacturers, is more likely to be considered by customers purchasing
ACIMs than cooling capacity, and mirrors DOE's approach to setting
energy conservation standards.
Setting restrictions for self-contained ACIMs based on the cooling
capacity of
[[Page 73167]]
their compressors is technically similar to the categorization
finalized in this rulemaking--cooling capacity is directly related to
the equipment's harvest rate of ice production. This equipment
categorization approach will similarly clarify the cooling needs of
OEMs for compressor manufacturers and help design engineers more easily
identify which refrigerants are allowed in certain equipment, compared
to the proposed approach of categorizing based on charge size. EPA also
recognizes that equipment with near 500 g charges could face unclear
restrictions on the use of certain HFCs and HFC blends, depending on
how a design engineer chooses to design and charge the self-contained
equipment. The ability to manipulate the charge of the system could
generate a regulatory loophole for OEMs who could unnecessarily add
refrigerant charge as a way to continue to use refrigerants with GWPs
above the finalized restrictions. For these reasons, EPA is
categorizing self-contained ACIM equipment based on the harvest rate of
ice production, rather than on the refrigerant charge of the equipment.
In selecting the harvest rate of ice production threshold for
distinguishing applicable restrictions, EPA considered the available
substitutes for various types of ACIMs and how updates to relevant
standards have affected the refrigerant options. All categories of ACIM
are covered by UL Standard 60335-2-89. The 2nd edition of this
standard, published in October 2021, recently increased the allowable
charge limits for flammable refrigerants in commercial refrigeration
equipment, including both higher- and lower flammability refrigerants
(ASHRAE flammability safety categories 2 and 3, and 2L). For self-
contained equipment using R-290, UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition increased
the charge limit from 150 g per refrigerant circuit to either 300 g or
500 g per refrigerant circuit, depending on construction. For self-
contained ACIM, the 2nd edition set a 300 g limit for R-290 for
``packaged refrigerating units and appliances with doors and/or drawers
enclosing one or more refrigerated compartments.'' (22.110 DV.2). This
limit applies to ``unprotected'' designs where the refrigerant can leak
into the ice storage bin. For protected units, in which the refrigerant
cannot leak into the bin, 500 g of R-290 (and a similar amount for
other A3 refrigerants) is allowed in the 2nd edition. Further, UL
60335-2-89 restricts the allowable charge size of flammable refrigerant
in these appliances for ``self-contained appliances used in a public
corridor or lobby'' (22.110 DV.2). Certain flammable refrigerants
(i.e., A3s and A2s) are not allowed in any quantities in split-systems
with field-constructed refrigerant piping (22.110 DV.3). For further
discussion on the updates to UL 60335-2-89, see section VI.E.2.c.
One commenter suggested setting this threshold at a harvest rate of
1,000 lb of ice per day and EPA agrees that such a rate is appropriate
for distinguishing batch type equipment capable of using lower-GWP
refrigerants from those that need continued use of higher-GWP options.
However, for continuous type equipment, EPA finds that a 1,200 lb of
ice per day is appropriate. These limits are consistent with comments
made to DOE by AHRI and an ACIM manufacturer.\130\ Currently, ENERGY
STAR has certified ice makers capable of producing as much as 566 lb of
ice per day using charge sizes of R-290 below the current 150 g charge
limit per SNAP Rule 21, a use condition based on the earlier industry
safety standard for commercial ice machines, UL 563, 8th edition (81 FR
86778, December 1, 2016). However, in response to the updates included
in the 2nd edition of UL 60335-2-89, on May 24, 2023, EPA proposed to
increase the allowable charge capacity of R-290 in ACIMs to 500 g in
SNAP Rule 26 (88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023). While equipment using 500 g
charges of R-290 could likely produce up to the finalized 1,000 lb of
ice per day (batch type) and 1,200 lb of ice per day (continuous type),
EPA finds that the chosen harvest rates provide reasonable limits under
which we have assessed as being capable of transitioning to R-290, or
other available substitutes with GWPs less than 150, in the finalized
compliance timeline. Such limits do not preclude manufacturers from
pursuing R-290 or other lower-GWP substitutes for equipment with
harvest rates that exceed those limits. Additionally, EPA has proposed
to list R-455A (GWP 146) and R-454C (GWP 146) for use in this
subsector, which could also work as potential candidates for these
types of ACIMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ See EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0050 and EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-
0047, respectively, available at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that there will likely be a greater number of available
refrigerant options for equipment harvesting up to 1,000 lb of ice per
day (batch type) or 1,200 lb of ice per day (continuous type) by the
compliance date for this subsector in addition to R-290, which is
already used widely in ACIMs, EPA considers these harvest rates
appropriate thresholds for distinguishing self-contained equipment. The
one-year extension of the compliance date provided in this final action
will help facilitate the transition to lower-GWP refrigerants for OEMs
of smaller self-contained ACIMs harvesting less than 1,000 lb of ice
per day (batch type) or 1,200 lb of ice per day (continuous type).
EPA considers the available substitutes for higher-GWP HFCs and HFC
blends to differ for smaller and larger ACIMs. Neat (i.e., zero glide)
refrigerants, such as R-290, are widely used in smaller, self-contained
ACIMs, where smaller charge sizes of refrigerant are capable of
providing the required cooling capacity at lower harvest rates. In
larger equipment, higher rates of ice production mandate larger charge
sizes, compounding flammability concerns with A3 refrigerants.
Equipment harvesting ice at higher rates may still need access to non-
flammable options, in addition to other, lower-flammability options,
which may be limited in their technological achievability because of
various factors such as glide. Although building codes limit the charge
of flammable refrigerants at points of public egress, and are underway
to being updated to incorporate recent additions of safety standards,
in such cases, smaller charges of A3 refrigerants (e.g., less than
approximately 114 g of R-290) are still allowable, in addition to
lower-flammability refrigerants, such as the SNAP proposed A2L
refrigerants R-454C and R-455A. Extending the compliance deadline from
January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026, will provide additional time for
building codes to be updated; for research, development, and testing of
new self-contained ACIM models; and for additional substitutes to enter
the market for this subsector. Therefore, smaller equipment capable of
using lower-GWP refrigerants will have a sufficient number of
refrigerant options to select from, highlighting the usefulness of
distinguishing self-contained ACIMs by their rate of ice production
when setting restrictions. For these reasons, EPA disagrees with the
commenter that suggested removing the distinction, either by charge
size or rate of ice production, of smaller and larger self-contained
ACIMs.
Comment: Two commenters agreed with EPA's proposed restrictions for
all types of self-contained ACIMs. Others disagreed, including one that
requested a 700 GWP limit for all self-contained equipment, regardless
of charge size. They stated that a 150 GWP limit would not be feasible,
given the limited charge sizes of A3 and A2L refrigerants allowed by
safety standards at public points of egress, and the insufficient
supply
[[Page 73168]]
available to OEMs of components with refrigerants with a GWP below 150
GWP. Another commenter stated that there is currently insufficient data
for setting restrictions that will comport with building codes, and
instead suggested applying the same list of prohibited substances
proposed for remote condensing ACIMs to self-contained ACIMs.
Other commenters only supported the restrictions as proposed--a 150
GWP limit--for smaller (less than or equal to a 500 g charge, as
proposed) self-contained ACIMs. Of these commenters, some agreed with
the GWP limit set at a 500 g charge size, while one agreed with the
limit, but recommended setting the threshold at a harvest rate of 1,000
lb of ice per day instead of a charge size, and another approved of a
150 GWP limit, but only in very small self-contained equipment,
requesting a 114 g charge size threshold for setting restrictions,
instead. This commenter stated that R-290 is the only currently
feasible substitute for this type of equipment, and explained that in
certain circumstances, safety standards, SNAP use conditions, and
building codes limit its charge well below 500 g due to its
flammability. The commenter asserted that other options identified by
the Agency are either limited by toxicity concerns, refrigerant glide
technical challenges, a limited supply of components, or missing SNAP
listings, and therefore, the commenter argued that there are
insufficient available substitutes below 150 GWP for self-contained
ACIM with charge sizes greater than 114 g.
Many of these same commenters, although supportive of the 150 GWP
limit for smaller self-contained ACIMs, disagreed with the proposed
restrictions for larger (above 500 g, as proposed) equipment. One
requested removing R-410A from the list of prohibited substances for
larger self-contained equipment, but only if sufficient time was
allowed. They explained that for certain larger ACIM, there are
currently no suitable SNAP-approved substitutes for R-410A. However,
they noted that prohibiting the use of R-410A would be appropriate if
provided additional time to comply, and that once the supply of
components to replace R-410A has improved, a 700 GWP limit could be
appropriate for this type of equipment. Other commenters requested a
2,500 GWP limit in place of a prohibited substances list.
Several commenters supported the proposed list of prohibited
substances for use in remote condensing ACIM. Other commenters
disagreed. One commenter mentioned that removing R-404A from the
prohibited substances list would ease some of the immediate development
burden in remote models. Other commenters requested a GWP limit in
place of a prohibited substances list for remote condensing ACIMs. As
for larger self-contained ACIMs, two commenters requested a 2,500 GWP
limit, while, in contrast to all other comments received, another
commenter noted their support of a much lower 150 GWP limit.
Response: In response to the comments received and its evaluation
of the availability of substitutes for use in this subsector, EPA is
finalizing all GWP and refrigerant-specific restrictions for ACIM as
proposed. Notably, the metric for distinguishing which restrictions
apply to different sizes of self-contained equipment has been changed
from the proposed rule, as described in this section above, but the GWP
limit for smaller units is finalized as proposed. EPA recognizes the
challenges for ACIMs used at points of egress for the public, but notes
that research and design for self-contained units with harvest rates
less than or equal to 1,000 lb of ice per day (batch type) and 1,200 lb
of ice per day (continuous type) that are able to use R-290 in
sufficiently small charges has been identified by commenters as already
underway. Many smaller self-contained units already use R-290, and with
a pending SNAP listing proposal to allow charges of R-290 up to 500 g,
EPA is confident in the industry's ability to meet a 150 GWP limit in
this type of equipment. Commenters also noted ongoing research to use
other SNAP proposed A2L refrigerants below 150 GWP, R-454C, and R-455A,
where an A3 refrigerant may not be feasible. Therefore, given the
additional year to comply, EPA considers a 150 GWP limit for self-
contained ACIM with harvest rates less than or equal to 1,000 lb of ice
per day (batch type) and 1,200 lb of ice per day (continuous type) as
appropriate, in agreement with many of the comments and other public
information.
For self-contained ACIM with harvest rates greater than 1,000 lb of
ice per day (batch type) or 1,200 lb of ice per day (continuous type),
EPA appreciates the request by one commenter for a 700 GWP limit. At
this time, the Agency considers additional options with GWPs greater
than 700, particularly non-flammable refrigerants, as necessary,
because of the lack of available substitutes due to safety concerns
with large charge sizes of flammable refrigerants. However, as the
industry continues its transition away from some of the highest-GWP
refrigerants, EPA may choose to set a GWP limit for this type of
equipment at a later date. As noted by a second commenter, a limit
similar to 700 GWP may be appropriate in the future, depending on EPA's
evaluation of the availability of substitutes and their technological
achievability in larger self-contained ACIMs. EPA disagrees with
commenters who requested a 2,500 GWP limit in place of a list of
prohibited substances. Such a limit would allow for continued use of R-
410A (GWP 2,088) in self-contained equipment with higher harvest rates,
an HFC-blend refrigerant proposed as prohibited. Similarly, the Agency
disagrees with the commenter who asked for the list of prohibited
substances proposed for remote condensing ACIMs, which is less
restrictive than the list for larger self-contained equipment and does
not restrict R-410A, to apply to all types of ACIMs. Given there are
already several refrigerants listed by EPA's SNAP program for ACIMs
that are not prohibited, such as R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B, that SNAP
recently listed the nonflammable, azeotropic (minimal glide)
refrigerant R-515B, and that EPA has proposed to list several
additional refrigerants as acceptable for use in ACIM that are zero or
low glide and could serve as R-410A substitutes (e.g., HFC-32, R-454B),
EPA expects there will be a greater number available for use by the
extended date of compliance of January 1, 2027. Further, a commenter
explicitly noted that restricting the use of R-410A would be
appropriate if the Agency allotted additional time for component supply
to improve and to develop equipment using new substitutes. The Agency
therefore considers the industry capable of transitioning out of
certain specified higher-GWP HFCs and HFC blends, including R-410A, by
the compliance deadline.
EPA agrees with many of the comments approving of the proposed list
of prohibited substances for use in remote condensing ACIMs. Regarding
the comments received requesting a 2,500 GWP limit, at this time, EPA
does not consider setting a GWP limit for this type of equipment to be
appropriate at this time but may choose to do so through future
rulemakings. By identifying HFCs and HFC blends as prohibited from use,
the Agency is able to encourage a transition away from specific higher-
GWP refrigerants while allowing flexibility for the industry as it
continues developing products that use refrigerants well below 2,500
GWP. As stated in section VI.B of this preamble, this approach--
restricting specific
[[Page 73169]]
substances instead of setting a GWP limit for a given subsector--gives
EPA time to identify an appropriate GWP limit for this subsector while
still restricting those substances that have the highest adverse
environmental impact. Given the additional technical challenges for
equipment installed remotely and restrictions on use of flammable
refrigerants in industry safety standards, the restricted list is less
prohibitive than that for self-contained units. EPA also disagrees with
the commenter that described a 150 GWP limit as appropriate for this
type of ACIM. Very few non-flammable substitutes are available below
150 GWP, flammability concerns are even greater for remote condensing
units than for those that are self-contained, and the information
provided did not support a conclusion that those nonflammable options
(e.g., R-744) are viable in all remote condensing ACIMs. For these
reasons, EPA is finalizing the restrictions for remote condensing ACIM
as proposed.
Comment: One commenter supported EPA's proposed January 1, 2025,
compliance date for ACIM, citing California's HFC regulation
implementation as proof that 2025 is achievable. All other comments
received requested an extension from the proposed date, including
general requests for EPA to work with OEMs to ensure the achievability
of the timeline and additional time to develop new refrigerants, update
building codes, and harmonize with various standards, and for specific
compliance dates ranging from 2027 to 2029. Commenters who requested
2029 referenced the EU F-Gas Regulation's conversion timeline as one
reason for the appropriateness of a much later compliance date.
Various issues were cited as reason for the requests to extend the
date of compliance from that proposed. Many manufacturers stated that
they will need to completely redesign many of their ACIM models, which
will take considerable time. Commenters described this subsector as
highly complex and diverse, with many varying demands. End-users range
from hospitals to restaurants, hotels, supermarkets, offices, and
schools, requiring many different types of ice, necessitating unique
equipment design for each model. New equipment development efforts,
according to a few commenters, will be held up by design challenges
unique to ACIM and vending machines, such as strict limitations on
flammable refrigerant charges at points of egress, which require
manufacturers to design for very small charge sizes. Additionally, the
availability of components, both in terms of supply chain and design of
models using new substitutes, was mentioned by several commenters as a
major challenge for this subsector to transition. Commenters
highlighted that after new models are designed, they will still need to
be tested and certified by NRTLs for safety, efficiency, and
sanitation.
Commenters discussed how several identified substitutes have not
yet been SNAP-approved or updated to allow for larger charge sizes in
equipment, following the update to UL 60335-2-89. These commenters
stated that additional time would provide an opportunity for
finalization of SNAP listings, including new A2L refrigerants and
increased charge sizes for R-290, providing additional substitutes for
manufacturers to choose from. A few commenters requested a later
compliance date of January 1, 2029, for facilities not yet updated to
safely use flammable refrigerants to make necessary conversions. One
such commenter noted that an accelerated timeline to more flammable
options would create safety risks for manufacturers and the public
resulting from potential oversights and would not provide sufficient
time to train technicians to properly handle A3 refrigerants.
Commenters requested time for the new DOE efficiency standards for
ACIMs to be published, likely in 2027, before EPA requires compliance
with restrictions. This standard was described as greatly influential
on the design requirements of products, and if EPA sets a compliance
deadline ahead of its publication, commenters worried that they would
need to redesign their new products.
Response: EPA agrees with commenters that additional time for
compliance is warranted for ACIMs to meet the restrictions finalized in
this rulemaking. ACIMs fall within the scope of safety standard UL
60335-2-89. In October 2021, the 2nd edition of this standard was
published, updating safety requirements so that flammable and lower
flammability refrigerants could be deployed more widely in commercial
refrigeration equipment. EPA recognizes the time it can take for an
updated UL standard to be widely incorporated and for the updates to be
applied across industry. Many other relevant changes affecting the
availability of substitutes and facilitating transition to the use of
those substitutes generally occur after the UL standard is updated,
including evaluation of substitutes under the SNAP program, adoption of
new editions of safety standards into building codes, equipment testing
and certification, safety updates to manufacturing facilities, and
training of technicians. All of these are considerations for EPA's
assessment of availability of substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B).
Further discussion on how updates to UL 60335-2-89 affect the
availability of substitutes for equipment within the safety standard's
scope can be found in section VI.F.1.a.
Typically, following updates to safety standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment, EPA evaluates substitutes through the SNAP
program's comparative risk framework, where the Agency considers safety
by assessing exposure assessments, toxicity data, and flammability, as
well as other regulatory criteria. EPA is currently evaluating many of
the refrigerants impacted by the updates to UL 60335-2-89 and has
proposed to list several refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, under SNAP for use in ACIMs (88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023).
Although those evaluations under SNAP are ongoing, the Agency
anticipates that given the number of substitutes currently proposed as
acceptable for use, users in the ACIM subsector will likely have an
expanded set of available substitutes from which to choose in the
coming years. EPA has considered its ongoing ACIM evaluations under
SNAP, the adjusted compliance timeframes reflecting these evaluations,
and their potential impact on the availability of substitutes for use
in this subsector, as well as the existing acceptable substitutes that
are not prohibited, in finalizing the restrictions for ACIMs. Further
discussion on the intersection of SNAP listing decisions and AIM Act
subsection (i)(4) criteria can be found in section VI.E.
As noted by many commenters, building codes can limit refrigerants
available for use based on their flammability, the charge size of the
equipment, and other relevant safety factors, and take time to adopt
changes to safety standards. These code updates are generally made in
each specific jurisdiction, and the timeframe for adoption of new
editions of safety standards can vary greatly. In certain
jurisdictions, users may be unable to utilize certain flammable
substitutes identified by EPA for use in ACIMs, even if they are SNAP-
approved, until building codes incorporate the updates in the 2nd
edition of UL 60335-2-89. However, EPA may still consider a substitute
to be available before every building code in every jurisdiction across
the United States permits its use. See section VI.E.2.d for discussion
on EPA's consideration of building codes and the availability of
substitutes under subsection (i)(4).
[[Page 73170]]
Further, EPA agrees with commenters that updates to UL standards
and new listings under SNAP must also be incorporated into equipment
design, testing, and certifications. Even after manufacturers develop
equipment using substitutes, NRTLs must certify that the new equipment
meets UL safety standards. NRTL equipment certification requires
substantial testing, site visits, and labor input before new equipment
can be used. Although ACIM is a smaller subsector, all commercial
refrigeration equipment expanding use of flammable refrigerants will
need to be tested, and NRTLs could struggle to complete certification
of new equipment by the proposed January 1, 2025, compliance date for
this subsector. However, the industry seems to anticipate this upcoming
need and is opening or expanding testing labs to handle this
demand.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ See, e.g., https://www.danfoss.com/en/about-danfoss/news/dcs/new-extension-of-danfoss-atex-lab-accelerates-the-use-of-sustainable-refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also anticipates that greater use of flammable refrigerant
options like R-290 and A2Ls that EPA's SNAP program has proposed as
acceptable for use in ACIM may require more specialized training.
Trainings on flammable refrigerants have been available for many years,
and there are now trained technicians within the commercial
refrigeration industry in general whose knowledge and skills will
assist the transition to lower-GWP refrigerants in other related
subsectors.
EPA agrees with the commenters that manufacturing facilities not
currently using flammable refrigerants will need to incorporate safety
updates before using flammable refrigerants on site. The Agency
acknowledges that these upgrades to manufacturing facilities could
require financial and time investments; however, the use of A2L and A3
refrigerant has steadily increased over the last ten years, meaning
many manufacturers may have already made such upgrades, or intend to do
so in the coming years. In the cases where these updates have yet to be
made, EPA understands that they could delay when industry is able to
factory-charge new substitutes into their appliances, which is one
factor we considered in establishing 2026 and 2027 compliance dates for
this subsector.
For self-contained batch type ACIMs with harvest rates less than or
equal to 1,000 lb of ice per day, and for self-contained continuous
type ACIM with harvest rates less than or equal to 1,200 lb of ice per
day, EPA is finalizing a January 1, 2026, compliance date. EPA has
proposed to update the SNAP use conditions for R-290 use in ACIMs and
to list A2L refrigerants that meet the GWP limits for this type of
ACIM. Finalizing an additional year to comply with the restrictions
under subsection (i) provides more time for that ongoing evaluation
under SNAP, for designers to develop equipment using up to 500 g of R-
290 (a significant increase from the currently allowed 150 g), and for
compressor manufacturers and OEMs to begin developing products with A2L
refrigerants. This extra time is also provided to allow OEMs to
continue research and development of equipment using smaller charge
sizes of flammable refrigerants (less than 114 g for R-290) that would
comply with building codes at points of egress in public spaces. A
large portion of the self-contained equipment market with lower harvest
rates has already transitioned to lower-GWP options, especially R-290,
meaning that fewer models will need to be redesigned to meet the
restrictions. Therefore, in our evaluation of the (i)(4)(B) criteria
and for the reasons discussed, EPA finds that January 1, 2026, is an
appropriate compliance date for self-contained ACIMs with harvest rates
equal to or below 1,000 lb ice per 24 hours (batch type) or 1,200 lb
ice per 24 hours (continuous type).
For self-contained ACIMs with harvest rates greater than 1,000 lb
of ice per day (batch type) or 1,200 lb of ice per day (continuous
type) and for remote condensing ACIMs, EPA is finalizing a January 1,
2027, compliance date. EPA understands that in equipment with larger
charge sizes, flammability concerns are greater, creating additional
design challenges related to building codes and safety standards. In
remote condensing ACIMs, the refrigerant circulates in and out through
piping that has been installed in the field that is more prone to leaks
than self-contained equipment, also adding to the risk of using
flammables. For this reason, considerably fewer products in these
categories of ACIMs have transitioned from their respective lists of
prohibitive substances, requiring substantial redesigns of equipment
before the restrictions are able to be met. Given the diversity of ACIM
end-users and the complexity of design in terms of varying ice shapes,
EPA is providing two additional years from the date proposed for the
industry to research, develop, test, and certify new equipment using
refrigerants other than those prohibited. Similar to smaller, self-
contained ACIMs, extending the compliance date will provide opportunity
for additional substitutes to become available for manufacturers, such
as those under evaluation in proposed SNAP Rule 26. A later date will
likely also grant time for publication of DOE's new efficiency standard
for ACIMs, which will inform how OEMs choose to design new equipment.
The Agency disagrees with selecting a compliance date based on
other regulations, such as the EU F-Gas Regulation or the proposal to
revise that regulation.\132\ The AIM Act compels EPA to set deadlines
for restrictions based on the availability of substitutes in
consideration of the factors described in subsection (i)(4), not based
on decisions made by other regulatory bodies. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing the compliance dates for ACIMs earlier than January 1, 2029,
after evaluating the availability of substitutes and the feasibility of
the U.S. industry to transition by an earlier date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ The Agency's review of the EU F-Gas rule is that self-
contained ACIMs have been subject to a 2,500 GWP limit since January
1, 2020, and the proposed rule would subject them to a 150 GWP limit
beginning January 1, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has therefore determined, in consideration of the subsection
(i)(4)(B) criteria and the potential for certain SNAP approvals;
updates to building codes; equipment design, testing, and
certifications; technician trainings; and manufacturing facility
upgrades, that providing additional time to comply is reasonable for
ACIMs. Considering these factors, noted by many commenters, the Agency
is finalizing extended compliance dates for this subsector to provide
time for ongoing SNAP evaluation; jurisdictions to consider the latest
edition of UL 60335-2-89 and incorporate the updated safety
requirements into their building codes to enable the use of certain
substitutes; further development, testing, and certification of
equipment using new substitutes; a greater number of specialized
trained technicians; and completion of remaining safety updates to
facilities.
h. Refrigerated Transport
The refrigerated transport subsector primarily moves perishable
goods (e.g., food, flowers) and pharmaceuticals at temperatures between
-22 [deg]F (-30 [deg]C) and 61 [deg]F (16 [deg]C) by various modes of
transportation, including aircraft, roads and railways, vessels, and
intermodal containers. For this action, EPA is establishing
restrictions in three distinct subsectors: road, marine, and intermodal
containers.
Refrigerated transport--road consists of refrigeration for
perishable goods in refrigerated vans, trucks, or trailers and
[[Page 73171]]
is the most common mode of refrigerated transport in the United States.
This mode includes refrigerated trucks and trailers with a separate
autonomous refrigeration unit with the condenser typically located at
the front of a refrigerated trailer. This subsector also covers
domestic trailer refrigeration units that contain an integrated motor
(i.e., does not require a separate electrical power system or separate
generator set to operate) that are transported as part of a truck, on
truck trailers, and on railway flat cars. Other types of containers,
such as seagoing ones that are connected to a vessel's electrical
system or require a separate generator that is not an integral part of
the refrigeration unit to operate, are not included. This subsector
also does not include: (i) Refrigerated vans or other vehicles where a
single system also supplies passenger comfort cooling (MVAC), (ii)
refrigerated containers that are less than 8 feet 4 inches in width,
(iii) refrigeration units used on containers that require a separate
generator to power the refrigeration unit, or (iv) ship holds
(refrigerated transport--marine).
Refrigerated transport--marine consists of refrigeration for
cooling and storage of perishable goods on refrigerated vessels and
various modes of transportation via water, including merchant, naval,
fishing, and cruise-shipping. This subsector includes refrigerated ship
holds and seagoing containers that are connected to a vessel's
electrical system or require a separate generator to operate that is
not an integral part of the refrigeration unit. This subsector excludes
refrigerated containers that contain their own power source and
refrigerators or freezers that are plug-in appliances designed for
retail food refrigeration (e.g., stand-alone units used in a galley or
store).
Lastly, refrigerated transport--intermodal containers are
refrigerated containers with an integrated power source that allow
uninterrupted storage during transport on different mobile platforms,
including railways, road trucks, and vessels. A common example of
intermodal containers are standard-sized refrigerated containers that
follow the International Organization for Standardization standard 668,
``Series 1 freight containers--Classification, dimensions and
ratings.''
Other types of refrigerated transport exist (e.g., refrigerated box
cars for use in rail, and intermodal refrigerated containers operating
at temperatures lower than -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) for carrying food,
medicine, or vaccines at very low temperatures), but EPA is not
establishing restrictions on HFC refrigerants in this rule for those
other types.
Refrigerated transport equipment manufacturers have used HFC
refrigerants, mainly R-404A and HFC-134a, after the phase out of ozone-
depleting CFC and HCFC refrigerants such as R-12 and R-22.
This section provides EPA's final restrictions for each of the
three subsectors within the refrigerated transport subsector, followed
by significant comments regarding the entire refrigerated transport
subsector and EPA's responses to those comments.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for
refrigerated transport--road?
EPA is prohibiting the use of HFCs in the following blends in new
refrigerated transport-road equipment beginning January 1, 2025: R-
402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407B, R-408A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B,
R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A,
R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS-44 (2003 formulation) and GHG-
X5.
Similar to EPA's approach in addressing the use of HFCs in specific
blends in remote condensing ACIM, EPA is not establishing a GWP limit
for refrigerated transport--road and instead is restricting the use of
HFCs in specific blends. A GWP limit of 2,200, as requested in one of
the petitions that EPA granted, is high compared to the GWP limit that
the Agency is establishing in other commercial refrigeration
applications, and the Agency intends to propose a GWP limit at a later
time. As stated in section VI.B of this preamble, this approach--
restricting specific substances instead of setting a GWP limit for a
given subsector--gives EPA time to identify a GWP limit while still
restricting those substances that have the highest environmental impact
(e.g., R-404A, with a GWP of 3,922, is a commonly used refrigerant in
this subsector that EPA is restricting). For its considerations of
availability of substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified
substitutes that are available in place of the substances that EPA is
restricting. These include R-744 (GWP 1), R-450A (GWP 601), R-513A (GWP
630), and R-452A (GWP 2,140). Cryogenic transport refrigeration systems
and direct nitrogen expansion are other existing technologically
achievable options. Cryogenic systems cool cargo by injection of stored
liquid R-744 or nitrogen (R-728) into the cargo space or an evaporator.
These systems are used in small and large trucks, primarily in Northern
Europe. In recent years manufacturers have also developed equipment
using R-452A. R-452A has similar properties to R-404A, including
cooling capacity, reliability, refrigerant charge, non-flammability,
and low compressor discharge temperatures, supporting its use as a
lower-GWP and technologically achievable substitute. The two major
U.S.-based manufacturers of refrigeration equipment for refrigerated
transport--road currently offer equipment using R-
452A.133 134 EPA considers usage in the market as an
indication of the commercial demands and technological achievability of
a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Thermo King to Reduce Global Warming Potential of
Transport Refrigeration by Nearly Fifty Percent, Thermo King,
January 2022. Available at: https://www.thermoking.com/na/en/newsroom/2022/01-jan/thermo-king-to-reduce-global-warming-potential-of-transport-refr.html.
\134\ Carrier Transicold Strengthens Sustainability Initiatives
with Lower GWP Refrigerant for North America Truck and Trailer
Systems, Carrier Transicold, December 2020. Available at: https://www.carrier.com/truck-trailer/en/north-america/news/news-article/carrier_transicold_strengthens_sustainability_initiatives_with_lower_gwp_refrigerant_for_north_america_truck_and_trailer_systems.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for
refrigerated transport--marine?
EPA is restricting the use of the following HFCs and blends
containing HFCs in new refrigerated transport--marine systems beginning
January 1, 2025: R-402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407B, R-408A, R-410B, R-
417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS-44
(2003 formulation) and GHG-X5. EPA is not establishing a GWP limit at
this time and the list of prohibited HFCs and blends containing HFCs
are the same as in refrigerated transport--road. EPA's rationale for
restricting specific substances in this subsector can be found in
section VI.B, with additional information in section VI.F.3.e (under
the restrictions on the use of HFCs in ACIM).
Available substitutes that may be used in refrigerated transport--
marine in place of the substances that EPA is restricting include R-
717, R-744, R-450A, and R-513A. Marine transport refrigeration systems
cover a wide range of merchant, naval, fishing, and cruise-shipping
applications and often require specialized and custom refrigeration
equipment. Historically, this sector used R-22, R-404A, R-507A, R-407C,
and R-134a. Today, manufacturers market lower-GWP substitutes for
marine applications such as R-717 and R-744,
[[Page 73172]]
either alone or in cascade systems, particularly for fishing vessels,
but these substitutes are not necessarily available in all applications
within this subsector. According to the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning
and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC), HFC/HFO blends with
lower GWPs may also be suitable for some applications and system
designs; in addition, the International Maritime Organization limits
the GWP of refrigerant in new equipment at 2,000.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps Technical
Options Committee 2018 Assessment Report, Technical and Economic
Assessment Panel, UNEP, February 2019. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/RTOC-assessment-report-2018_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for
refrigerated transport--intermodal containers?
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that
have a GWP of 700 or greater for new refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers with refrigerant temperatures entering the evaporator, or
exiting fluid temperatures from a chiller, at or above -50 [deg]C (-58
[deg]F), beginning January 1, 2025. For new refrigerated transport--
intermodal containers with refrigerant temperatures entering the
evaporator, or exiting fluid temperatures from a chiller, below -50
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F), there are no restrictions in this final rule.
For its considerations of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified substitutes that are available in
place of the substances that EPA is restricting. These include R-744
and R-450A. R-513A, R-513B, and R-456A are also potential candidates.
According to the RTOC, thousands of intermodal containers operating
with R-744 were purchased or leased in 2016 and 2017,\136\ and EPA
identified one manufacturer that offers an intermodal container using
R-744.\137\ Several manufacturers also offer intermodal containers
using R-513A for new and retrofit applications.138 139 140
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Ibid.
\137\ Carrier Transicold ``NaturaLINE'' products. Additional
information available at: https://www.carrier.com/container-refrigeration/en/worldwide/products/Container-Units/naturaline.
\138\ Maersk Container Industry, Star Cool--Refrigerants.
Available at: https://www.mcicontainers.com/products/star-cool/refrigerants.
\139\ Carrier Transicold Offers Lower GWP Refrigerant Option for
PrimeLINE[supreg] Container Units, Carrier Transicold, February
2018. Available at: https://www.carrier.com/container-refrigeration/en/worldwide/news/news-article/carrier_transicold_offers_lower_gwp_refrigerant_option_for_primeline_container_units.html.
\140\ Thermo King, Container Fresh and Frozen. Available at:
https://www.thermoking.com/na/en/marine/refrigeration-units/container-fresh-and-frozen.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several commenters supported a GWP limit of 700 for HFCs
and blends containing HFCs used in new refrigerated transport--
intermodal containers. One of these commenters urged EPA to maintain
the listed requirement, stating that transport refrigeration systems
are a significant source of HFC emissions. Another commenter
recommended the following adjustments to the 700 GWP limit for
intermodal containers to account for operating needs at different
temperature ranges:
a. for operating temperature above -58 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C), GWP limit
of 700
b. for operating temperature in the range of -58 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C) to
-103 [deg]F (-75 [deg]C), GWP limit of 2,000
c. for operating temperature below -103 [deg]F (-75 [deg]C), GWP limit
is exempted
The commenter encouraged EPA also to adopt a GWP limit of 2,000 for
new refrigerated transport--intermodal containers where the temperature
of the chilled fluid leaving the chiller is lower than -50 [deg]C,
which is consistent with EPA's treatment of not applying a GWP limit of
700 for chillers for IPR with exiting fluid temperatures lower than -50
[deg]C. This commenter also stated that refrigerants used in low
temperature chillers (i.e., below -50 [deg]C) have high GWPs (e.g.,
HFC-23 with a GWP of 14,800, R-508B with a GWP of 13,396), and this is
also true for low temperature intermodal containers. The same commenter
stated that they have developed a refrigerant for this temperature
range with a GWP of 1,831.
Response: EPA is establishing restrictions on HFCs and HFC blends
with a GWP of 700 or higher for use in new refrigerated transport--
intermodal containers, as proposed. Manufacturers are already selling
intermodal containers using R-744 (GWP 1), R-450A (GWP 601), and R-513A
(GWP 630), indicating the availability of these substitutes for use in
this subsector, particularly with regard to technological achievability
and commercial demand. Concerning the comments about refrigerated
transport--intermodal containers with exiting fluid at temperatures
below -58 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C), in this final rule, EPA is not
establishing GWP restrictions for refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers with fluid temperatures below -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F). (For
chiller type equipment, this is the fluid leaving the system, and for
direct expansion equipment, this is the temperature of the refrigerant
as it enters the evaporator.) EPA recognizes that most of the
refrigerants used for equipment with fluid temperatures below -50
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F) have relatively high GWPs. Upon evaluating the
availability of substitutes for refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers operating at very low temperatures, EPA is not restricting
the use of HFCs and HFC blends with exiting fluid temperatures lower
than -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) in this final rule. EPA notes that there
is a similar lack of availability of refrigerants with temperatures
either entering the evaporator or exiting a chiller or low temperature
stage in other subsectors, such as IPR and chillers for IPR. The Agency
expects that after further research and development, there may be
additional refrigerants available for these low temperatures, after
additional reviews of refrigerants for safety, health, and
environmental impacts under the SNAP program and further development of
industry standards that would allow for use of flammable refrigerants.
Note that EPA may choose to set restrictions in the future as the
availability of lower-GWP substitutes continues to grow.
Comment: One commenter generally supported the proposed refrigerant
bans for ``transport refrigeration--road'' for refrigerated transport:
truck, trailer, aircraft, and rail. Another commenter suggested that
EPA harmonize the GWP limit of all transport refrigeration including
truck and trailer, rail, and construction (although the commenter did
not refer to intermodal or marine), with refrigerant bans listed for
road systems and a January 1, 2025, transition date. Another commenter
generally supported the restrictions for refrigerated transport for
marine and road applications. This commenter also stated that they
preferred that EPA restrict use of refrigerants with 2,200 GWP limit or
higher, rather than specific listings of HFCs for these subsectors,
stating this would standardize the approach across sectors, align with
CARB regulations, and still enable EPA to set a lower GWP limit at a
future date. Another commenter stated that a transition toward A2L
refrigerants and other lower-GWP alternatives in these subsectors is
underway in various States and in other countries and that the proposed
rule continues this progress by imposing specific HFC bans with respect
to transport refrigeration used in road systems and marine. This
commenter encouraged EPA to do more, specifically stating that EPA
should develop future technological transitions rulemakings that set
GWP limits--significantly lower than 2,200--for these transport--
refrigeration subsectors as soon as EPA determines that lower-GWP
alternatives meeting the criteria set forth
[[Page 73173]]
in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act have become available.
One commenter stated that the proposed list of banned refrigerants
for refrigerated transport could be reasonable, provided R-452A is
listed as approved well before the transition. They commented that
ASHRAE class A1 refrigerants must be available for transport
refrigeration equipment. This commenter suggested that marine
applications could also be regulated for the same list of HFCs that are
being regulated under other refrigerated transport subsectors
(mentioning truck, trailer, aircraft, and rail) if there were an
allowance for the use of R-452A for frozen cargo. They stated that HFC-
134a is only used for marine and self-contained equipment and could be
added to the list of restricted refrigerants.
Response: In this final rule, EPA is establishing a restriction on
specific HFCs and HFC blends as proposed for transport refrigeration--
marine and transport refrigeration--road. The specific HFCs and HFC
blends restricted for these subsectors are R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-
428A, R-422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A, R-422D,
R-421A, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B,
GHG-X5, R-417A, R-438A, R-410B, IKON A, IKON B, R-134a/HBr (92/8), RS-
44 (2003 formulation), THR-02, THR-03, and THR-04. This list consists
of all refrigerants with a GWP greater than 2,200 previously listed as
acceptable under SNAP. Thus, at this time, the list of specific
substances corresponds to the GWP limit 2,200 in CARB's regulations and
avoids complications because of differences.
Concerning the comment requesting that EPA harmonize the GWP limit
of all transport refrigeration, including truck and trailer, rail, and
construction, with refrigerant bans listed for road systems and a
January 1, 2025, transition date, EPA understands the comment to mean
that EPA should set restrictions on the same list of refrigerants, all
of which have GWPs over 2,200, for all refrigerated transport used on
road or rail. For other road or rail uses that EPA excluded from the
proposed description of ``transport refrigeration--road,'' such as
refrigerated box cars for rail use, refrigerated containers that are
less than 8 feet 4 inches in width, or refrigeration units used on
containers that require a separate generator to power the refrigeration
unit, because these uses fall outside the description of ``refrigerated
transport--road'' in the proposed rule, EPA does not consider them to
fall under the refrigerant restrictions in this final rule. However,
EPA may establish GWP restrictions or specific refrigerant restrictions
for these uses in the future. All of the restricted refrigerants are A1
refrigerants, as are the alternative refrigerants that SNAP has listed
as acceptable for refrigerated transport to date. Further, by not
restricting R-452A, the list of restricted HFCs allows for use of that
refrigerant until lower-GWP refrigerants that can be used safely in
mobile applications are available. EPA agrees that in the future, the
Agency could set a GWP limit, once EPA identifies that lower-GWP
alternatives meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (i)(4) of the
AIM Act have become available. EPA is not setting a GWP limit at this
time for transport refrigeration--marine and transport refrigeration--
road because EPA's assessment is that there continues to be significant
development of new refrigerants with lower GWPs than 2,200 for use in
these subsectors. Restricting those substances that have the highest
environmental impact provides environmental protection while giving
industry time to develop new lower-GWP refrigerants.
Comment: One commenter strongly advised EPA to reconsider the
January 1, 2025, compliance date for retail refrigeration units, cold
storage warehouse systems, and transport refrigeration due to a lack of
available replacement technology sufficient for a wide-scale retail
industry transition and extraordinary cost burdens associated with the
proposed limits. This commenter expressed concern that a single break
in the chain between farmers, manufacturers, and transportation
companies would ripple through the entire supply chain and ultimately
harm consumers. A different commenter urged EPA to maintain the
timeline for refrigerated transport. This commenter stated that a
transition toward A2L refrigerants and other lower-GWP alternatives in
these subsectors is underway in various States and in other countries.
Response: EPA is establishing a compliance date of January 1, 2025,
for refrigerated transport (road, marine, and intermodal containers) in
the final rule, as proposed. As mentioned above, lower-GWP alternatives
that would allow regulated parties in these three subsectors to meet
the final restrictions are already available and are being used for
refrigerated transport (e.g., R-744, R-450A, R-513A, R-452A). It is
EPA's understanding that the U.S. manufacturers of refrigerated
transport equipment are no longer using the higher-GWP blends that are
restricted in this rule to manufacture the covered types of equipment.
EPA expects that there will be sufficient amounts of alternative
refrigerants to meet the commercial demand for refrigerated transport
equipment, since this is a relatively small market for refrigerant
compared to stationary commercial refrigeration.
i. Household Refrigerators and Freezers
Household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator/
freezers are refrigeration appliances intended primarily for
residential use, although they may be used outside the home. These
products may also be referred to as ``residential refrigeration.''
\141\ The designs and refrigeration capacities of equipment vary
widely. Household freezers only offer storage space at freezing
temperatures, while household refrigerators only offer storage space at
non-freezing temperatures. Products with both a refrigerator and
freezer in a single unit are most common. For purposes of this rule,
other small, refrigerated household appliances such as chilled kitchen
drawers, wine coolers, household ice makers, and minifridges also fall
within this subsector. Household refrigerators and freezers have all
refrigeration components integrated, and for the smallest types, the
refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded. These products are
charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically require only an
electricity supply to begin operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ In the proposed rule EPA used the term ``residential
refrigeration systems.'' For clarity, EPA is using ``household
refrigerators and freezers'' to better indicate that these are
products and not systems under the terminology of this rule. The
term ``domestic refrigeration'' may also be used to indicate
refrigeration within a domicile and is not intended to relate to the
country of manufacture or use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 was a commonly used refrigerant in household refrigerators
and freezers prior to the Montreal Protocol and subsequent CAA
restrictions on CFCs. The household refrigeration industry transitioned
to HFC-134a and hydrocarbon refrigerants. According to the RTOC 2022
assessment report, R-600a (isobutane) is used in 75 percent of all new
household refrigerators and freezers globally with HFC-134a used in the
remaining 25 percent.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for household
refrigerators and freezers?
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that
have a GWP of 150 or greater for new household refrigerators and
freezers manufactured or imported beginning January 1, 2025, as
proposed. Sale,
[[Page 73174]]
distribution, offer for sale or distribution, and export of new
household refrigerators and freezers using HFCs and HFC blends with a
GWP of 150 or greater is prohibited beginning January 1, 2028.
EPA is establishing the 150 GWP limit and the January 1, 2025,
compliance date after considering the AIM Act subsection (i)(4)
factors, and in particular, after determining that there are a number
of available substitutes with 150 GWP or lower for use in new household
refrigerators and freezers. These include R-290 (GWP 3.3), R-600a (GWP
1), R-441A (GWP 3), and HFC-152a (GWP 124). These lower GWP options
have been available for a few years now following the publication of UL
60335-2-24 in 2017, which allowed for larger charge size of R-290 and
other R-600a from 57 g to 150 g. See the Availability of Substitutes
TSD for further information on available HFC and HFC-blend substitutes
for household refrigerators and freezers.
In particular, EPA has found that R-600a is already a widely
available and widely used substitute in this subsector. According to
the TEAP and its RTOC, R-600a is the main energy-efficient and cost-
competitive substitute that is used globally in household refrigeration
as it is ``. . . the ideal refrigerant for domestic refrigeration
products, giving roughly 5 percent higher efficiency than HFC-134a
while at the same time reducing the noise level of the unit.'' \142\
This report also indicated that globally, household refrigerators are
already predominantly using R-600a. For the U.S. market, RTOC reports
substantial progress in converting from HFC-134a to R-600a with the
market introduction of small refrigerators and freezers that typically
do not use electricity to defrost and noted that a major U.S.
manufacturer introduced auto-defrost refrigerators using R-600a
refrigerant to the U.S. market as early as 2010. Given the widespread
global and growing domestic use of R-600a as referenced in the 2022
TEAP report, EPA finds that R-600a is available per subsection
(i)(4)(B), particularly with respect to technological achievability,
commercial demand, safety, and cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ TEAP 2022 Progress Report (May 2022) and 2018 Quadrennial
Assessment Report are available at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap; the 2018 Quadrennial Assessment Report includes
sections for each of the TOCs: Flexible and Rigid Foams TOC, Halons
TOC, Methyl Bromide TOC, Medical and Chemicals TOC, and
Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps TOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across the United States and globally, the transition from HFC-134a
is already well underway, indicating that there are sufficient
available substitutes to use in place of that refrigerant. Several
States have banned the use of HFC-134a refrigerant in household
refrigerators and freezers, including California, Colorado, Delaware,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,
Virginia, Vermont, and Washington. These restrictions became effective
between 2021 and 2023. Globally, the EU has prohibited refrigerants
that contain HFCs with a GWP greater than 150 in household
refrigerators and freezers since January 1, 2015.\143\ These existing
regulatory requirements indicate that lower-GWP substitutes are already
available, as discussed in section VI.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ For additional information, the EU legislation to control
F-gases web page is available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/fluorinated-greenhouse-gases/eu-legislation-control-f-gases_en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Only one commenter expressed concerns with EPA's proposed
150 GWP limit for this subsector. The commenter stated it was
unnecessary and potentially unrealistic and suggested a 300 GWP limit
for household refrigeration.
Response: EPA is finalizing a 150 GWP limit for household
refrigerators and freezers as proposed. The Agency disagrees with the
commenter's assertion that 150 is unnecessary or unrealistic. The
commenter did not provide information disputing the substitutes EPA
identified at proposal as available for use in this subsector, per
subsection (i)(4)(B). The Agency does not agree that a 300 GWP limit is
reasonable upon consideration of the (i)(4) factors. Many refrigerant
options with GWPs lower than 300 in fact lower than 150 are already
being used in this subsector in the United States, including R-290 and
R-600a. As is often the case, certain subsectors coalesce around the
use of a particular option, and according to the TEAP and its RTOC, R-
600a is the dominant refrigerant in this subsector.
j. Chillers
A chiller is a type of equipment using refrigerant to typically
cool water or a brine solution that is then pumped to fan coil units or
other air handlers to cool the air that is supplied to occupied spaces.
The heat absorbed by the water or brine can then be used for heating
purposes and/or can be transferred directly to the air (``air-
cooled''), to a cooling tower or body of water (``water-cooled''), or
through evaporative coolers (``evaporative-cooled''). A chiller or
group of chillers are similarly used for district cooling where a
chiller plant cools water or another fluid that is then pumped to
multiple locations being served, such as several office or educational
buildings within the same complex. Although typically used for cooling,
chillers may also be used to provide heating, for instance by
extracting heat from ambient air and transferring it via a working
fluid distributed to heaters throughout a building. Chillers may also
be used to maintain operating temperatures in various types of
buildings; for example, in pharmaceutical, agricultural, and food
operations. Chillers have also been used to create ice, such as in an
ice-skating arena, and have been employed to maintain equipment
reliability, for instance in data centers.
Chillers are also used to cool process streams in industrial
applications; in such instances, these are regulated as ``chillers for
industrial process refrigeration'' as discussed here and not as
``industrial process refrigeration'' as discussed in section VI.F.1.a.
Chillers are also used for comfort cooling of operators or climate
control and protecting process equipment in industrial buildings, for
example, in industrial processes when ambient temperatures could
approach 200 [deg]F (93 [deg]C) and corrosive conditions could exist.
Given the breadth of how chillers are employed, our analysis of the
subsection (i)(4) factors leads us to find different GWP limits and/or
different compliance dates to be appropriate for different applications
of chillers. EPA provided some distinction of such chillers in the
proposed rule and is finalizing those and other distinctions based on
information from commenters. This rule addresses the multiple types of
chillers as they are used in particular subsectors, including chillers
used to provide cooling of electronics such as data servers in data
centers, ITEFs, and computer room cooling equipment (see section
VI.F.1.b), chillers used in cold storage warehouses, e.g., to maintain
temperature for fresh or frozen food and pharmaceuticals (see section
VI.F.1.e), chillers used to create and maintain ice, for instance in
ice-skating rinks or toboggan or luge tracks (see section VI.F.1.f),
chillers used to provide comfort cooling or heating (discussed below),
and chillers used for industrial process cooling (discussed below). Our
review of the (i)(4) factors also provides the basis for distinguishing
chillers by the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller, while
maintaining some consistency in GWP limits and/or compliance dates
across different chiller applications. EPA notes that the distinctions
made in this rule are more specific than in other EPA regulations,
[[Page 73175]]
such as those under sections 608 and 612 of the CAA.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ In describing these regulations promulgated under
authorities of title VI of the CAA, EPA is neither reopening nor
revisiting them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several different types of mechanical commercial comfort
cooling AC systems known as chillers, which use refrigerants in a vapor
compression cycle or by alternative technologies. Vapor compression
chillers can be categorized by the type of compressor, including
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. Centrifugal chillers
are typically used for commercial comfort AC, although other uses
exist. Centrifugal chillers tend to be used in larger occupied
buildings such as office buildings, hotels, arenas, convention halls,
and airport terminals. Positive displacement chillers utilize positive
displacement compressors such as reciprocating, screw, scroll, or
rotary types. Positive displacement chillers are applied in similar
situations as centrifugal chillers, again primarily for commercial
comfort AC, except that positive displacement chillers tend to be used
for smaller capacity needs such as in mid- and low-rise buildings.
A chiller may be either a product that is fully completed and
charged at a factory or a component that is installed into a field-
charged system. Typically, chillers with larger charge capacities are
charged in the field. The GWP limits and compliance dates discussed in
this section for chillers apply irrespective of whether the chiller is
a product or a system. Chillers that are products, as with all other
products, have a three-year sell-through. Chillers that are components
of systems, as with all other components, are not subject to the
restrictions on manufacturing, import, sale, distribution, and export,
but new systems using chillers may not be installed after the
compliance date.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for chillers--
comfort cooling?
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that
have a GWP of 700 or greater for chillers--comfort cooling beginning
January 1, 2025. This GWP limit applies to new equipment for all
compressor types of chillers--comfort cooling, i.e., centrifugal and
positive displacement (including reciprocating, screw, scroll, and
rotary) chillers.
For its consideration of the availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified several substitutes that are
available in place of the substances that EPA is restricting, including
some that were recently listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, under SNAP Rule 25 (88 FR 26382, April 28, 2023). These
include HCFO-1224yd(Z) (GWP less than 1), HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 4), HFO-
1234yf (GWP 1), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP 1), HFC-32 (GWP 675), R-450A (GWP
601), R-452B (GWP 698), R-454A (GWP 237), R-454B (GWP 465), R-454C (GWP
146), R-513A (GWP 630), R-514A (GWP 3), and R-515B (GWP 287). Chillers
for comfort cooling that use lower-GWP substitutes are currently
available in both U.S. and international markets. Specifically, in the
United States, scroll, other positive displacement, and centrifugal
chillers using HCFO-1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-32, R-454B, R-513A,
R-514A, and R-515B are widely available and in use.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for chillers--
industrial process refrigeration?
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that
have a GWP of 700 or greater for chillers--industrial process
refrigeration as proposed and is providing additional time for
compliance based on the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller
(i.e., the fluid sent to one or more evaporators or other cooling
equipment in the system), because the availability of substitutes for
use in equipment in this subsector is constrained based on these
conditions. As proposed, EPA is not setting restrictions at this time
for chillers where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller
(i.e., the supply temperature to the facility) is less than -50 [deg]C
(-58 [deg]F). For chillers where the temperature of the fluid exiting
the chiller is equal to or above -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) but less than
-30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and HFC
blends that have a GWP of 700 or greater beginning January 1, 2028
(rather than the proposed compliance date of January 1, 2025). For all
other chillers--industrial process refrigeration, EPA is restricting
the use of HFCs and HFC blends that have a GWP of 700 or greater
beginning January 1, 2026 (rather than the proposed compliance date of
January 1, 2025).
For its consideration of the availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified substitutes that are available in
place of the substances that EPA is restricting. These include R-290
(GWP 3.3), R-450A (GWP 601), R-513A (GWP 630), R-600 (GWP 4), R-717
(GWP 1), and R-744 (GWP 1). In the United States, chillers for IPR
using R-290, R-513A, R-717, and R-744 are available on the market.
The GWP limit of 700 for chillers--industrial process refrigeration
enables the use of more refrigerant options to manage safety (in
particular, flammability and toxicity), efficiency, capacity,
temperature glide, and other performance factors.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for chillers
used in other subsectors?
As noted above, ice rinks may use a chiller, circulating the
chilled fluid under the floor on which the ice is frozen and maintained
at the appropriate temperature. Other technologies are available, such
as a refrigeration system that circulates the refrigerant directly
through pipes to freeze the ice, then returning the evaporated
refrigerant to the compressor. Irrespective of the choice of
technology, EPA is finalizing a GWP limit of 700 and a compliance date
of January 1, 2025, for ice rinks. These restrictions are the same as
chillers for comfort cooling. See section VI.F.1.f for a discussion of
ice rinks.
Chillers can also be used to cool data centers, ITEFs, and computer
rooms. Using a chiller for such applications could use the chilled
fluid at multiple locations, providing cooling for sections of the
facility or spot-cooling for zones where heat gain is significantly
higher than other zones. Other types of equipment are available for
such uses, including both products that are pre-charged and split
systems that are filled with refrigerant on-site. For all such
equipment, whether a chiller or not, EPA is finalizing a GWP limit of
700, consistent with several other chiller types. For those specific
applications, we are finalizing a compliance date of 2027, later than
comfort cooling chillers and IPR chillers with exiting temperatures
greater than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), but one year earlier than IPR
chillers with exiting temperatures from -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) to -50
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F), See section VI.F.1.b for a discussion of data
centers, ITEFs, and computer room cooling equipment.
Another subsector that may use a chiller is cold storage
warehouses. A chiller could be applied to circulate chiller fluid
throughout a warehouse, perhaps to keep one section at freezing
temperatures (e.g., for frozen food or ice cream) and another at above-
freezing temperatures (e.g., for dairy or meats). Like data centers,
ITEF, and computer room cooling equipment, other equipment could be
applied. For instance, an array of rooftop units could be used,
limiting the charge of each individual unit and perhaps providing more
flexibility to employ low-GWP
[[Page 73176]]
substitutes while complying with local building codes. All such
equipment applied in cold storage warehouses, including chillers, have
either a 300 or 150 GWP limit and a January 1, 2026, compliance date.
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for EPA's proposal
without any suggested changes to the GWP limits or suggestions to set
GWP limits by different product capabilities and classifications.
A few commenters suggested stricter limits at 300 or 150 and noted
that there are many viable alternatives for IPR chillers below the
proposed limit. One commenter suggested that the GWP limits for IPR
systems and chillers for IPR be based on operating temperature ranges,
like those in the current CARB and EU F-Gas Regulations. Another
commenter opposed the proposed GWP limits for chillers,\145\ stating
the current proposal will perpetuate HFCs for a longer period than is
necessary and increases the likelihood that new construction will `lock
in' HFC use in a manner that is inconsistent with the Kigali Amendment
to the Montreal Protocol phasedown and that is inconsistent with
Federal, State, and local climate goals. The commenter proposed a new
chiller GWP limit of 10 in 2027. One commenter requested clarification
of 700 GWP limit as opposed to 750 and noted that currently no SNAP-
approved alternative exists between 700 and 750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ The commenter did not indicate whether the comment was
with respect to comfort cooling or industrial process refrigeration
chillers. Based on the context of the comment, which discussed
chillers with other comfort cooling technologies EPA views this as a
comment on chillers--comfort cooling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA is finalizing a compliance date for chillers for
comfort cooling consistent with the January 1, 2025, dates proposed.
For chillers used in IPR, EPA is finalizing a compliance date of
January 1, 2026, or later for reasons explained below. For chillers
where the fluid exiting the chiller is greater than or equal to -50
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and below -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), EPA is
finalizing January 1, 2028, as the compliance date. Consistent with the
proposed rule, EPA is not establishing restrictions at this time for
chillers--industrial process refrigeration where the temperature of the
fluid exiting the chiller is less than -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F). After
review of the comments received, EPA is finalizing a 700 GWP limit for
all types of comfort cooling chillers and industrial process chillers
covered in this rule. As explained above, we are also finalizing a 700
GWP limit in two other subsectors where chillers may be employed,
namely ice-skating rinks and data centers, ITEFs, and computer room
cooling equipment. Based on our review of the subsection (i)(4)
factors, EPA finds that the availability of substitutes varies for
chillers used in IPR based on the temperature of the fluid leaving the
chiller. Therefore, EPA finds it appropriate to establish a later
compliance date for lower-temperature chillers, with additional time
provided for the reasons explained below.
The Agency disagrees with commenters asserting that EPA should
adopt a GWP limit of 300 or 150 for IPR chillers. Nor does EPA agree
that GWP limits as low as 10 are appropriate for comfort cooling
chillers. Some of the lower GWP refrigerants such as HCFO-1233zd(E),
HFO-1234ze(E), HCFO-1224yd(Z), R-717, and R-744 (with respective GWPs
of 4, 1, 1, 1, and 1, respectively) are not technologically achievable
for use in all chiller applications--either for comfort cooling or
IPR--and the use of other substitutes remains necessary to ensure a
smooth transition to lower-GWP alternatives in this subsector. Further,
in our evaluation of availability under (i)(4)(B), EPA sees higher-
pressure substitutes such as HFC-32 (GWP 675) and R-454B (GWP 465) in
comfort cooling chillers, and possibly in the future IPR chillers, as
both technologically achievable and in commercial demand, with
manufacturing already adopting or planning to adopt such solutions.
As one commenter noted, while there are other refrigerants under
research, development, and review, EPA's SNAP program has not listed
acceptable refrigerants for the relevant subsectors with GWPs between
700 and 750. The Agency's assessment is that a 700 GWP limit is
appropriate for chillers after considering the (i)(4) factors. EPA is
prohibiting the use of regulated substances that have a GWP of 700 or
greater, in part, because there are multiple lower-GWP substitutes
available for use in chillers with a GWP less than 700. For example,
HFC-32, R-452B, and R-454B have GWPs of 675, 698, and 465,
respectively, and are acceptable for use under the SNAP program for
comfort cooling chillers.
With respect to the compliance date for chillers--IPR, we note that
in addition to the refrigerants already available as discussed above,
EPA continues to evaluate substitutes under the SNAP program, and has
authority to do so under subsection (i)(5) of the AIM Act as well, on
an ongoing basis. In SNAP Rule 26 EPA has proposed to list as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, several additional refrigerants
for use in chillers for IPR: HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-32, R-454B,
R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A (with GWPs of 1, 1, 675, 465, 146,
146, 137, and 140 respectively) (88 FR 33722, May 24, 2023). Further
discussion on the intersection of SNAP listing decisions and AIM Act
subsection (i)(4) can be found in section VI.E.
The Agency anticipates that this continuing evaluation of
additional substitutes, including for use in chillers for IPR, may help
facilitate the availability of even more options for compliance by
January 1, 2026, through January 1, 2028, depending on the IPR
chiller's characteristics.
The Agency recognizes the time it can take for an updated UL
standard to be widely incorporated and for the updates to be applied
across industry. Many other relevant changes impacting the availability
of substitutes and facilitating transition to the use of those
substitutes generally occur after the UL standard is updated, including
evaluation of substitutes under the SNAP program, adoption of new
editions of industry safety standards into building codes, equipment
testing and certification, safety updates to manufacturing facilities,
and training of technicians. All of these are considerations for EPA's
assessment of availability of substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B),
and EPA has accounted for the additional time needed for these updates
to occur by extending compliance dates for IPR chillers to 2026 and
2028, depending on the temperature of the fluid leaving the chiller.
The Agency is allowing for a later compliance date of January 1, 2028,
for equipment with exiting fluid temperatures lower than or equal to -
30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) and higher than or equal to -50 [deg]C (-58
[deg]F) because fewer refrigerants are available with a sufficiently
low boiling point to be technologically achievable, and thus, more time
may be needed to identify, test, and implement appropriate substitutes
than for equipment with higher temperature ranges.
With respect to the compliance date for chillers--comfort cooling,
after review of the comments widely expressing support for the proposed
compliance date, EPA is finalizing a compliance date of January 1,
2025. In addition to other substitutes discussed above, EPA finalized
as acceptable more refrigerant options for use in comfort cooling
chillers through SNAP Rule 25: HFO-1234yf, R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-
454C and HFC-32 (with GWPs of 1, 698, 237, 465, 146, and 675,
respectively) (88 FR 26382, April 28, 2023). The Agency agrees with the
many commenters that this timeline is
[[Page 73177]]
sufficient considering that substitutes that meet the Agency's
restrictions are already widely available and in use in this subsector.
Comment: Many commenters requested clarification for chillers and
IPR systems with very low temperatures that may or may not be exempt
from GWP limits under EPA's proposed rule including those for
laboratory equipment and IPR chillers. One commenter requested
clarification on refrigerated laboratory equipment that operates at -62
[deg]C (-80 [deg]F) or lower temperatures and whether industrial
process refrigeration chillers that operate at less than -50 [deg]C (-
58 [deg]F) are exempt. Another commenter suggested that EPA exempt
specialty applications for systems designed for exiting fluid
temperatures of -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) or create a formal variance
application process, similar to California and Washington State
regulations. One commenter proposed an exemption for all IPR
applications with a refrigerant evaporating temperature below -45
[deg]C (-49 [deg]F). A couple of commenters requested clarification
that the exclusion in the proposed rule for equipment where the
temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is less than -50 [deg]C (-
58 [deg]F) and how that applies in cases where the temperature may also
rise above -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) while in use. The commenters also
requested an exemption in the chillers--IPR subsector to encompass all
applications in semiconductor manufacturing because chillers used in
semiconductor manufacturing are required to reach very low
temperatures, but also operate across a wide range of temperatures that
can span from below -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) to as high as 5 [deg]C (41
[deg]F).
Response: In this final rule, EPA is not setting restrictions for
HFCs or HFC blend refrigerants used in IPR equipment or chillers for
IPR with exiting fluid temperatures of -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) or lower
although the Agency may in the future propose to restrict HFCs used in
such equipment. Concerning one commenter's request for either an
exception or a longer period to comply for refrigerated laboratory
equipment, to the extent that equipment used in the laboratory falls
within the chillers--IPR subsector and has exiting fluid temperatures
below -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F), it also would have no restrictions on
HFCs or HFC blend refrigerants under this rule. Similarly, refrigerated
laboratory equipment within the chillers--IPR subsector with exiting
fluid at temperatures -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and above but below -30
[deg]C (-22 [deg]F) would have a compliance date of January 1, 2028,
and if exiting fluid temperatures are equal to or greater than -30
[deg]C (-22 [deg]F), the compliance date would be January 1, 2026, for
new equipment to transition to alternative refrigerants. EPA did not
propose and is not finalizing a process to allow individual users to
request a variance. Further a variance process would be burdensome and
would decrease certainty that necessary transitions away from HFCs
would occur. In response to the request for clarification about
equipment where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is
less than -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) in some cases but also may rise above
that temperature while in use, EPA responds that if the fluid exiting
the chiller reaches -50 [deg]C or below during the normal operations of
the chiller then the equipment is not covered under this rule.
k. Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps
The residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump
subsector includes equipment for cooling air in individual rooms,
single-family homes, and small commercial buildings. Heat pumps are
equipment types that heat, or have the option to cool and heat, air for
such locations. This subsector differs from commercial comfort air
conditioning, which uses chillers that cool water that is then used to
cool air throughout a large commercial building, such as an office
building or hotel. The residential and light commercial air
conditioning and heat pump subsector includes both self-contained and
split systems. Self-contained products include some rooftop AC units
(e.g., those where the conditioned air is ducted to supply multiple
spaces) and many types of ACs designed for use in a single room,
including packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs), packaged terminal
heat pumps (PTHPs), some rooftop AC units, window AC units, portable
room AC units, and wall mounted self-contained ACs. Split systems
include ducted and non-ducted mini-splits (which might also be designed
for use in a single room), multi-splits and variable refrigerant flow
(VRF) systems, and ducted unitary splits. Split systems typically are
charged with refrigerant at the location of assembly and installation
(``field-assembled''). Water-source and ground-source heat pumps often
are packaged systems similar to the self-contained equipment described
in this section but could be assembled with the condenser separated
from the other components, similar to split systems. Examples of
equipment for residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps
include the following:
Central air conditioners, also known as unitary AC or
unitary split systems. These systems include an outdoor unit with a
condenser and a compressor, refrigerant lines, an indoor unit with an
evaporator, and ducts to carry cooled air throughout a building.
Central heat pumps are similar but offer the choice to either heat or
cool the indoor space.
Multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps. These systems
include one or more outdoor unit(s) with a condenser and a compressor
and multiple indoor units, each of which is connected to the outdoor
unit by refrigerant lines. Non-ducted multi-splits provide cooled or
heated air directly from the indoor unit rather than providing the air
through ducts.
Mini-split air conditioners and heat pumps. These systems
include an outdoor unit with a condenser and a compressor and a single
indoor unit that is connected to the outdoor unit by refrigerant lines.
Non-ducted mini-splits provide cooled or heated air directly from the
indoor unit rather than being carried through ducts.
Rooftop AC units. These are products that combine the
compressor, condenser, evaporator, and a fan for ventilation in a
single package and may contain additional components for filtration and
dehumidification. Most units also include dampers to control air
intake. Rooftop AC units cool or heat outside air that is then
delivered to the space directly through the ceiling or through a duct
network. Rooftop AC units are common in small commercial buildings such
as a single store in a mall with no indoor passageways between stores.
They can also be set up in an array to provide cooling or heating
throughout a larger commercial establishment such as a department store
or supermarket.
Window air conditioners. These are self-contained products
that fit in a window with the condenser extending outside the window.
PTACs and PTHPs. These are self-contained products that
consist of a separate, un-encased combination of heating and cooling
assemblies mounted through a wall. PTACs and PTHPs are intended for use
in a single room and do not use ducts to carry cooled air or have
external refrigerant lines. Typical applications include motel or
dormitory air conditioners.
Portable room air conditioners. These are self-contained
products designed to be moved easily from room to room, usually having
wheels. They may contain an exhaust hose that can be
[[Page 73178]]
placed through a window or door to eject heat outside.
Water-source heat pumps and ground-source heat pumps.
These systems are similar to unitary split systems except that heat is
ejected (when in cooling mode) from the condenser through a second
circuit rather than directly with outside air. The second circuit
transfers the heat to the ground, groundwater, or another body of water
such as a lake using water, or a brine if temperatures would risk
freezing. Some systems can perform heating in a similar matter with the
refrigerant circuit running in reverse; regardless, the term ``heat
pump'' is most often used.
Variable refrigerant flow/variable refrigerant volume
systems. These are engineered DX multi-split systems incorporating the
following: a split system air conditioner or heat pump incorporating a
single refrigerant circuit that is a common piping network to two or
more indoor evaporators, each capable of independent control, or
compressor units. VRF systems contain a single module outdoor unit or
combined module outdoor units with at least one variable capacity
compressor that has three or more steps of capacity, with air or water
as the heat source. In response to comment below, we clarify that air-
source VRF systems have capacities of 65,000 BTU/h (19 kW) or more,
while water-source VRF systems can be of any capacity.
Dehumidifiers that are integrated with the space air-
conditioning system. This includes dehumidification via a separate
bypass in the duct through which air is dehumidified, a dehumidifying
heat pipe across the indoor coil, or other types of energy recovery
devices that move sensible and/or latent heat between air streams
(e.g., between incoming air and air vented to the outside). In
addition, this subsector includes non-residential dehumidifiers, which
are used for commercial and other purposes and are typically of a
higher capacity than residential dehumidifiers.
This subsector in its entirely is subject to the restrictions on
the use of HFCs under this rule.
Common HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in self-contained AC
and heat pump equipment are R-410A and HFC-134a. Common HFCs and blends
containing HFCs used in mini-splits, multi-splits, unitary splits, and
VRF systems are R-410A and to a lesser extent, R-407C, with GWPs of
2,088 and 1,774, respectively. Residential split systems are commonly
shipped with a refrigerant charge that is then ``balanced'' by the
technician once the equipment is installed in its place of use. Larger
commercial sized units often are not pre-charged with refrigerant but
may contain a nitrogen ``holding charge'' for shipping.
EPA granted petitions submitted by EIA, AHRI, CARB, and AHAM which
requested restrictions on the use of HFCs in the residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pump subsector. EIA's petition
refers to ``residential and non-residential''; AHRI refers to
``residential and light commercial''; and CARB, in its recently
finalized regulation, refers to the specific end-uses of ``room/wall/
window air-conditioning equipment, PTACs, PTHPs, portable air-
conditioning equipment,'' and ``other air-conditioning (new) equipment,
residential and nonresidential.'' \146\ AHAM specifically requested
restrictions on the use of HFCs for room ACs with and without electric
heat and a capacity of 25,000 BTU/hr or less and for portable ACs.\147\
For the purposes of this action, EPA considers all of these petitioned
uses within the subsector ``residential and light commercial air
conditioning and heat pumps.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ California Code of Regulations, Prohibitions on Use of
Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Stationary Refrigeration, Stationary
Air-conditioning, and Other End-uses. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hfc2020/frorevised.pdf.
\147\ The petitions can be found in the docket to this rule and
further discussion can be found in the proposed rule and in the
Federal Register notice (86 FR 57141, October 14, 2021) granting the
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps?
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs, that
have a GWP of 700 or greater for all equipment types in the residential
and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pump subsector, as
proposed. EPA is prohibiting the manufacture and import of self-
contained products beginning January 1, 2025, as proposed, with
restrictions on the sale, distribution, offer for sale or distribution,
and export of products beginning January 1, 2028. For systems in this
subsector that are field-assembled, EPA is prohibiting the installation
of new systems as of January 1, 2025, except for VRF systems, which
have a compliance date of January 1, 2026.
In our proposal to set the GWP limit for this subsector at 700, EPA
identified multiple lower-GWP substitutes currently available for use
in residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pump
applications. For example, R-452B, HFC-32, and R-454B have GWPs of 698,
675, and 465, respectively, and are available under EPA's (i)(4)(B)
analysis, including being listed under SNAP as acceptable, subject to
use conditions. After consideration of the comments, which were largely
supportive of the level of restriction, EPA is finalizing the GWP limit
at 700 for this subsector.
The transition in this subsector to lower-GWP substitutes is
underway. As discussed in section VI.E.2.c, updates to the safety
standard covering these refrigerants were published on November 1,
2019, and many of the subsequent regulatory steps and industry
adaptations incorporating those updates have already occurred. SNAP
lists five lower-GWP refrigerants for use in residential and light
commercial AC and heat pumps in Rule 23 (86 FR 24444, May 6, 2021). The
International Building Code and the Residential Building Code were also
revised in 2021 to incorporate updates to the safety standards, by
allowing for the use of lower-GWP refrigerants exhibiting lower
flammability (i.e., 2L flammability classification). EPA anticipates
that States will adopt the 2021 model building codes or revise their
regulations allowing for use of several SNAP-listed lower-GWP
refrigerants that exhibit lower flammability by 2025. Several OEMs have
also indicated that they intend to switch to using A2L refrigerants
(e.g., R-454B, HFC-32) once relevant codes have been updated to allow
their use.148 149
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Turpin, J, R-454B Emerges as a Replacement for R-410A,
ACHR News, August 2020. Available at: https://www.achrnews.com/articles/143548-r-454b-emerges-as-a-replacement-for-r-410a.
\149\ Turpin, J, Manufacturers Eye R-32 to Replace R-410A, ACHR
News, August 2020. Available at: https://www.achrnews.com/articles/143422-manufacturers-eye-r-32-to-replace-r-410a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposed and is finalizing a compliance date of January 1,
2026, for VRF systems. These systems are larger and more complicated
than most of the other types of equipment in this subsector. This
additional time is needed for designing, testing, and implementing the
use of substitutes in these systems.
Comment: EPA received many comments on the proposed GWP limit for
the residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump
subsector.
Many commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed GWP limit of
700 for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in this subsector. Several
commenters requested that EPA provide more detail on the basis for
proposing a 700 GWP
[[Page 73179]]
limit, rather than the 750 GWP limit that petitioners requested. One
commenter in favor of a 750 GWP limit stated that proposing a lower GWP
limit than contained in the petitions does not promote stability and
fairness and it was not appropriate or necessary for EPA to do so. Some
commenters described concerns with the 700 GWP limit because of the
desire to harmonize Federal, State, and global standards, while other
commenters noted that although the GWP limit is not entirely similar to
those established by CARB, they anticipate the differences will not
create undue burden for the industry. Other commenters agreed with
EPA's reasoning in the proposed rule that there is a lack of
refrigerants with a GWP between 700 and 750. Another commenter, whose
petition also included a limit of 750 for this subsector agreed that
700 was more appropriate because the only additional refrigerant
between 700 and 750 GWP would be R-466A, which they characterized as a
step backwards due to its ozone depletion potential.
Many commenters also expressed support for the January 1, 2025,
compliance date for this subsector. Many commenters were also
supportive of the January 1, 2026, compliance date for VRF systems;
however, a few commenters disagreed with the additional year proposed
for VRF systems due to the larger charge sizes and potentially higher
refrigerant leak rates from VRF systems, and the potential for more
releases to the atmosphere of higher-GWP refrigerants. Another
commenter suggested a GWP limit of 150 for VRF systems rather than the
proposed 700 due to the potentially higher leakage rates and volumes
from VRF systems. Another commenter suggested that EPA consider
establishing lower GWP limits with delayed compliance dates for VRF
systems (i.e., 10 or 150 GWP in 2027) to support product innovation and
achieve greater GHG emissions reduction. Several commenters asked EPA
to clarify whether VRF-type products under 65,000 BTU/hr would be
subject to the compliance dates for air-conditioning and heat pump
products (January 1, 2025) or VRF products (January 1, 2026). One
commenter stated that their smaller capacity, single-phase VRF products
could be interpreted as falling into both residential AC and VRF
category descriptions, and they suggested EPA align with the category
definitions in AHRI 1230 and AHRI 210/240 standards to clarify this
issue.
Response: EPA is finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2025,
for the residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps subsector as proposed. The Agency agrees with the large number of
commenters that this timeline is sufficient considering several of
these alternatives have already been SNAP-approved. EPA is also
finalizing a January 1, 2026, compliance date for residential and light
commercial air conditioning- VRF systems as proposed and agrees with
the many commenters that additional time beyond 2026 is not required
for these systems.
In response to the comment regarding smaller capacity products, EPA
has reviewed the AHRI standards referenced and has clarified above that
for the purposes of this rule, for an air-source air conditioner to be
considered a VRF system, it must have a capacity greater than or equal
to 65,000 BTU/h (19 kW), among the other characteristics described,
whereas there is no minimum capacity for water-source VRF systems. We
find that such a clarification conforms with the referenced AHRI
Standard 1230.
EPA is finalizing a 700 GWP limit for this subsector as proposed.
We acknowledge that many commenters requested a limit of 750 for this
subsector and other commenters requested a lower GWP limit. Consistent
with our consideration of the (i)(4) factors in the proposed rule, the
Agency identified multiple currently available substitutes with a GWP
below 700 and did not receive comments disputing EPA's assessment of
availability under subsection (i)(4)(B) or that EPA overlooked
important considerations.
The AIM Act does not require that EPA adopt as its final
restriction the requests made in petitions granted under subsection
(i). Instead, granting a petition under subsection (i)(3)(C) means that
the Administrator must then undertake a rulemaking with respect to the
restriction that is the subject of the petition, and must do so by the
statutory timeframe established in the AIM Act (two years after the
date on which the Administrator grants the petition). The Act states
that in carrying out this rulemaking establishing any restriction, the
Agency is to factor in, to the extent practicable, the considerations
laid out in subsection (i)(4). Thus, granting a petition under
subsection (i)(3)(C) does not commit the Agency to any substantive
outcome, nor would such an interpretation be reasonable. There would be
little purpose in Congress directing the Agency to undergo a notice-
and-comment rulemaking if the Agency were bound to promulgate the
restriction as requested in the petition. We therefore do not agree
with commenters who alleged that proposing and finalizing a restriction
that is more stringent than what was requested in a petition undermines
``stability and fairness,'' nor do we agree that to do so, the Agency
must demonstrate that it is ``appropriate and necessary.'' In addition,
when approving petitions, EPA stated explicitly that a petition grant
does not mean that the Agency will propose or finalize requirements
identical to the petitions.
As discussed in section VI.E of this preamble, EPA takes notice of
the regulations and restrictions related to HFC use and technology
transitions in its assessment of whether substitutes are available to
use in a sector or subsector. Restrictions in other jurisdictions can
be an indicator of the status of a sector or subsector's transition to
lower-GWP substitutes, and can provide affirmation of the Agency's
assessments that substitutes are available. However, nothing in the AIM
Act suggests that EPA must or even should establish its restrictions
with the goal of consistency with State or international regulations.
Our proposed 700 GWP limit for this subsector took into consideration
that there are a number of widely available substitutes for use in this
subsector with GWPs lower than 700, and we also note the programmatic
advantage of establishing restrictions at set cut-points (i.e., 150,
300, 700) to facilitate compliance and enforcement of the Technology
Transitions program (see section VI.E).
Finally, in the Agency's assessment, there is little practical
difference between a 750 GWP or 700 GWP limit for this subsector.
Available substitutes that the Agency identified for use in this
subsector had GWPs lower than 700, and there are no substitutes for
this subsector listed under the SNAP program with a GWP between 700 and
750. A number of industry commenters also confirmed the lack of
refrigerants with GWPs between 700 and 750. For example, R-452B, HFC-
32, and R-454B have GWPs of 698, 675, and 465, respectively, and are
acceptable for use in this subsector under the SNAP program, and some
equipment within this subsector is now offered with these refrigerants.
As a commenter noted, there is one refrigerant with a GWP between 700
and 750 that may be under consideration by some industry stakeholders;
however, as noted by a separate commenter, the ozone-depleting
potential of this refrigerant (R-466A) is higher than for other
identified alternatives. In a separate action, EPA requested advance
comments on potential approaches to SNAP listing decisions for certain
very
[[Page 73180]]
short-lived substances (87 FR 45508, July 28, 2022).
The Agency therefore disagrees with commenters asserting that EPA
should adopt a GWP limit of 750 for this subsector or as low as 10 or
150 for VRF systems.
EPA is also finalizing a 700 GWP limit for VRF systems as proposed.
With consideration to the subsection (i)(4) factors, EPA does not agree
with a GWP limit of 10 or 150. Currently there are no SNAP listed
refrigerants with GWP less than 10 for VRF systems, apart from ammonia
absorption. EPA views the availability of this option to be many years
off, and therefore is setting restrictions at a higher GWP limit and a
compliance date that allows for transitions to initiate sooner.
Likewise, EPA views the two other refrigerants with GWPs below 150--R-
454C and R-457A--as not being available under the (i)(4) factors,
including technological achievability, in the timeframes considered in
this rule.
l. Residential Dehumidifiers
Residential dehumidifiers are self-contained products primarily
used to remove water vapor from ambient air or directly from indoor air
for comfort or material preservation purposes in the context of the
home. This product circulates air from a room, passes it through a
cooling coil, and collects condensed water for disposal. While AC
equipment often combines cooling and dehumidification, residential
dehumidifiers only serve the latter purpose. This subsector therefore
does not include dehumidifiers for residential or light commercial use
that are integrated with the space air-conditioning equipment, for
instance via a separate bypass in the duct through which air is
dehumidified, a dehumidifying heat pipe across the indoor coil, or
other types of energy recovery devices that move sensible and/or latent
heat between air streams (e.g., between incoming air and air vented to
the outside). In addition, this subsector does not include non-
residential dehumidifiers, which are used for commercial and other
purposes and are typically of a higher capacity than residential
dehumidifiers. Such equipment falls within the residential and light
commercial AC or heat pump subsector. Similar to other residential and
light commercial AC equipment, the majority of residential
dehumidifiers historically used HCFC-22 and moved to R-410A.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for
residential dehumidifiers?
EPA received only two comments on this subsector, both in support
of EPA's proposed GWP limit of 700 for dehumidifiers. Therefore, EPA is
restricting the manufacture and import of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for residential dehumidifiers as
proposed. EPA identified multiple available substitutes for use in this
subsector at proposal that have GWPs of 700 or lower. In assessing
availability, we note that many substitutes with GWPs of 700 or lower
are listed as acceptable under the SNAP program. For example, R-513A
with a GWP of 630 is listed as acceptable (82 FR 33809, July 21, 2017).
EPA has also recently listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
R-452B, HFC-32, and R-454B, with respective GWPs of approximately 698,
675, and 465 (88 FR 26382, April 28, 2023). EPA is also finalizing a
compliance date of January 1, 2025, as proposed.
m. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs) cool the passenger
compartment of light-duty (LD) vehicles, heavy-duty (HD) vehicles
(e.g., large pickup trucks, delivery trucks, and semi-trucks), nonroad
(also called off-road) vehicles, buses, and passenger rail vehicles.
MVACs used to cool passenger compartments in LD, HD, and nonroad
vehicles are typically charged during vehicle manufacture and the main
components are connected by flexible refrigerant lines. In addition,
the MVAC subsector includes heat pumps, which may cool or redirect heat
into vehicle cabins and control temperatures. Heat pumps are expected
to become more common, especially as more electric vehicles are
introduced into the market. The vehicle types subject to this action
are passenger cars and light-duty trucks,\150\ referred to jointly in
this action as LD vehicles, limited types of HD vehicles (i.e., medium-
duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs),\151\ HD pickup trucks, and complete HD
vans), and certain nonroad vehicles. These nonroad vehicles include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Defined at 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
\151\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural tractors greater than 40 horsepower (HP)
(including two-wheel drive, mechanical front-wheel drive, four-wheel
drive, and track tractors) that are used for various agricultural
applications such as farm work, planting, landscaping, and loading;
152 153
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Wagner, 2021. May 24, 2021, email from John Wagner of the
Association of Equipment Manufacturers to EPA. Available in the
docket.
\153\ AEM, 2021. Appendix A: Machine Forms as Classified by AEM
Membership. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-propelled agricultural machinery (including combines,
grain and corn harvesters, sprayers, windrowers, and floaters) that are
primarily used for harvesting, fertilizer, and herbicide operations;
Compact equipment (including mini excavators, turf mowers,
skid-steer loaders, and tractors less than 40 HP) that are primarily
used for agricultural operations and residential, commercial, and
agricultural landscaping;
Construction, forestry, and mining equipment (including
excavators, bulldozers, wheel loaders, feller bunchers, log skidders,
road graders, articulated trucks, sub-surface machines, horizontal
directional drill, trenchers, and tracked crawlers) that are primarily
used to excavate surface and subsurface materials during construction,
landscaping, and road maintenance and building; and
Commercial utility vehicles that are primarily used for
ranching, farming, hunting/fishing, construction, landscaping, property
maintenance, railroad maintenance, forestry, and mining.
For further information on classifications of vehicle types, see
the proposed rule (87 FR 76789-91, December 15, 2022).
EPA proposed to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs
that have a GWP of 150 or greater starting in MY 2025 for MVACs in
newly manufactured LD vehicles as well in MDPVs and limited types of HD
vehicles in Class 2b-3 (i.e., newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans), including vehicles manufactured
exclusively for export.\154\ EPA also proposed to restrict the use of
HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater
starting in MY 2026 for certain nonroad vehicles (i.e., agricultural
tractors greater than 40 HP; self-propelled agricultural machinery;
compact equipment; construction, forestry, and mining equipment; and
commercial utility vehicles), including
[[Page 73181]]
vehicles manufactured exclusively for export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ ``Model year'' is defined at 40 CFR 85.2302 and ``means
the manufacturer's annual production period (as determined under 40
CFR 85.2304) which includes January 1 of such calendar year,
provided, that if the manufacturer has no annual production period,
the term ``model year'' shall mean the calendar year.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for MVAC?
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that
have a GWP of 150 or greater for MVACs in newly manufactured LD
vehicles, limited types of MD and HD vehicles in Class 2b-3, and
certain nonroad vehicles, as proposed. The use restriction for LD
vehicles starts in MY 2025, as of one year after publication of this
final rule, and includes vehicles manufactured for export as proposed.
EPA is delaying the compliance date for MDPVs and for the HD vehicles
subject to this rule to MY 2028, not MY 2025 as proposed. The final
rule also delays the compliance date for the listed nonroad vehicles to
January 1, 2028, rather than MY 2026 as proposed. As discussed in
section VI.C.2.c, EPA is allowing for a three-year sell-through of
manufactured products. Thus, the dates by which newly manufactured
vehicles containing regulated substances with a GWP of 150 or greater
(e.g., HFC-134a) may no longer be sold, distributed, or exported are
the following: upon introduction of MY 2028 for LD vehicles; upon
introduction of MY 2031 for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks,
and complete HD vans which have AC equipment that will not be modified
by upfitters; and January 1, 2031, for the listed nonroad vehicles.
For LD vehicles, EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends
containing HFCs starting MY 2025, as of one year after publication of
the final rule. The Agency analyzed the subsection (i)(4) factors and,
in particular, the availability of substitutes under (i)(4)(B) and
identified three substitutes, R-744, HFO-1234yf, and HFC-152a, with
GWPs below the limit of 150. EPA is aware of only limited use of R-744
globally, and no commercial use of HFC-152a in any LD or HD vehicle to
date.
In terms of commercial demands and technological achievability,
HFO-1234yf has gained significant market share in LD vehicles in the
United States since its introduction in MY 2013. According to the 2022
EPA Automotive Trends Report, approximately 95 percent of MY 2021 LD
vehicles sold used HFO-1234yf and most manufacturers have implemented
HFO-1234yf across their entire vehicle brands.\155\ HFO-1234yf is also
predominantly being used in new LD vehicles in Europe and Japan.\156\
The GWP limit of 150 for LD vehicles harmonizes with the EU's Mobile AC
Directive 2006/40/EC,\157\ which is aimed at reducing emissions of HFC-
134a from LD MVACs, and also sets a GWP limit of 150 for refrigerants
used in MVAC installed in any LD vehicle sold in the European market
after 2017, regardless of its model year. Today's final rule restricts
the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or
greater for LD vehicles, including vehicles manufactured exclusively
for export, starting in MY 2025 and becoming effective no earlier than
one year after publication of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975 (EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
\156\ Volume 1: Progress Report, Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, UNEP, September 2021. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-2021-Progress-report.pdf.
\157\ European Commission, 2006. Directive 2006/40/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to
emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and
amending. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006L0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans which have AC
equipment that will not be modified by upfitters, EPA is restricting
the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs starting MY 2028, because at
least three technologically achievable substitutes, R-744, HFO-1234yf,
and HFC-152a, meet the GWP limit of 150. HFO-1234yf was listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 2016 under SNAP for new
MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans and is in use or under
various stages of development for these vehicle types. After review of
the comments and further consideration of the subsection (i)(4)
factors, EPA is extending the compliance date to MY 2028 for these
vehicle types.
After review of the comments and further consideration of the
(i)(4) factors, EPA is also extending the compliance date for MVACs for
the proposed list of nonroad vehicles (i.e., agricultural tractors
greater than 40 HP; self-propelled agricultural machinery; compact
equipment; construction, forestry, and mining equipment; and commercial
utility vehicles) to January 1, 2028. Nonroad vehicles are vocational
vehicles and are not produced by model year.
In general, commenters supported the proposed 150 GWP limit for new
MVACs and did not suggest alternatives, and one commenter stated that
this GWP limit is critically important to continue the transition to
low-GWP refrigerants in these subsectors. EPA is retaining the 150 GWP
limit in this final rule. EPA also received comments objecting to the
compliance dates for the restrictions in the MVAC subsectors and
exports of vehicles that contain HFC-134a. We summarize those comments
and address them in this section.
Comment: EPA received many comments on the compliance date for the
GWP of refrigerants used in MVACs. Environmental nongovernmental
organizations and State attorneys general supported the proposed
compliance dates. A State environmental agency urged EPA to take
advantage of every opportunity to phase out HFCs as soon as possible.
Representatives of manufacturers of LD vehicles objected to the
proposed MY 2025 compliance date, stating that this could give as
little as three months after finalization of this rule to redesign
vehicles and retrofit assembly plants. These commenters instead
suggested MY 2027, to allow at least two full years after finalization
of this rule. One of these commenters asserted that additional lead-
time of two years would provide a similar environmental benefit, but at
a more reasonable cost and timeframe. Another commenter representing
automotive manufacturers stated that using a calendar year basis
restricting refrigerant in an industry that ``efficiently operates
using the model years'' would add expense and complexity to track
refrigerant and system components while managing the running change of
these parts.
Response: EPA is finalizing a MY-based compliance deadline for LD
vehicles because we agree that structuring the restriction in this way
provides clarity for the regulated industry and aligns with their
typical practices. In this final rule, the Agency is establishing a
compliance date for new LD vehicles of MY 2025, but no earlier than
October 24, 2024. This ensures that manufacturers of LD vehicles will
have at least one full year after finalization of this rule to change
their MVAC designs and facilities, while meeting the AIM Act
requirement that no rule under subsection (i) may take effect before
the date that is one year after the date of final promulgation. We do
not agree with commenters who advocated for a compliance date of MY
2027, based on their view that regulated entities might be expected to
comply with the new subsector restrictions within three months of this
action being finalized. Vehicle manufacturers choose the start of a MY
and any manufacturer that has not completed their transition could
decide to make their MY 2025 start date coincide with the effective
date of this rule, thereby avoiding any potential expense and/or
complexity of
[[Page 73182]]
a transition in the middle of a MY. Moreover, after reviewing the
comments and considering the (i)(4) factors, we do not agree that a
delay of two years to MY 2027 is reasonable or appropriate for MVAC in
LD vehicles. The agency has identified three available substitutes for
use in MVAC in LD vehicles and recognized that this transition is
already well underway, and commenters largely agreed with the Agency's
assessment. This confirms industry reports of the transition status for
this subsector: the 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report stated that
approximately 95 percent of MY 2021 LD vehicles sold used HFO-1234yf (a
substitute compliant with the 150 GWP limit) and most manufacturers
have implemented HFO-1234yf across their entire vehicle brands.\158\
This is a subsector that has already largely transitioned to use of
lower-GWP substitutes meeting the new restriction; therefore, providing
a compliance date of MY 2025, or at most one year after the date of
final publication, is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report. EPA, 2023. Available
at: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/download-automotive-trends-report#Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA not restrict exports
of vehicles with MVACs using HFC-134a in the final rule. Some
commenters said that the proposed timeline does not provide adequate
lead-time to implement the required infrastructure updates and
additional training needed at dealerships in all export countries.
Commenters stated that because there are markets that do not yet
support the lower GWP refrigerants, it is premature to be overly
restrictive with an export prohibition that could hinder U.S. domestic
manufacturing goals. One commenter stated that some countries have not
yet decided to phase down HFCs, such as those in the Gulf Cooperation
Council, and thus, there is no guarantee that these countries will have
vehicle markets prepared to support different refrigerants within EPA's
proposed timeframe. Another commenter stated that because of the
uncertainty associated with the availability of HFO-1234yf in
international markets, equipment manufacturers may need to export
machines pre-charged with HFC-134a as well as bulk shipments of HFC-
134a to properly service equipment abroad. This commenter asked EPA to
ensure that the heavy-duty, nonroad equipment industry maintain an
uninterrupted supply of HFC-134a for export purposes to ensure
continuity.
Response: HFO-1234yf is widely used in MVACs on a global basis
including those countries with large export markets. The transition of
this sector began in the EU and the United States prior to the
agreement of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 2016.
Commenters seem to imply a direct linkage between ratifying the
Amendment and transition of an HFC use. While currently 150 countries
have ratified the Kigali Amendment, EPA does not agree with that
assessment. While the Agency agrees that this rule will support the
U.S. domestic HFC phasedown under the AIM Act, this rule is under
separate authority provided by Congress. In other countries, actions to
restrict use of HFCs were underway ahead of the Kigali Amendment and
without a domestic phasedown, notably the EU Mobile Air Conditioning
Directive. With regard to the use of HFO-1234yf, there has been an
increased use of HFO-1234yf on a global basis over the last decade as
the replacement for higher-GWP MVAC refrigerants. Therefore,
infrastructure for servicing vehicles is increasingly available
globally as well.
EPA also notes that the final rule provides three years, rather
than the proposed one year, before compliance dates for sale,
distribution, offer for sale or distribution, and export are effective.
As a result, LD vehicles manufactured in the United States using HFC-
134a prior to the compliance date may still be exported prior to the
introduction of MY 2028. Similarly, the nonroad vehicles covered in
this rule would have a compliance date of January 1, 2028, for
manufacturing new equipment, and would be able to export that equipment
until January 1, 2031. See section VI.C.2.d for further discussion on
exports.
Comment: Representatives of manufacturers of MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans requested a MY 2028 or MY 2029 compliance
date to allow time to design and validate AC equipment using new
refrigerants. These commenters stated that their members had not yet
converted any of their HD vehicles to HFO-1234yf, and that HD vehicles
must be designed for higher capacity engine cooling systems, requiring
changes from the design for LD vehicles. One of these commenters stated
that it was more complex and increases the cost and time to transition
to HFO-1234yf if only some HD pickups in class 2b and 3 and complete HD
vans have an earlier conversion date, while other classes of HD
vehicles in the same assembly plant continue to be manufactured with
HFC-134a. This commenter suggested that delaying the timing for
conversion until after EPA reviews HFO-1234yf for use with all
remaining HD vehicles would allow manufacturers to convert all
production in an assembly plant. This commenter also stated that some
HD pickups are sold without beds so that upfitters add on to the AC
equipment and some complete HD vans are sold with ``AC Prep'' packages
allowing upfitters to complete or modify the AC equipment. This
commenter suggested that the restriction apply only to HD pickups and
complete HD vans which have AC equipment that will not be modified by
upfitters, since the risk assessments on HFO-1234yf have not covered
such vehicles. A representative of manufacturers of HD vehicles stated
that HFO-1234yf is the logical next-generation refrigerant for MD and
HD commercial vehicles and that EPA must first approve its use in all
MD and HD on-road vehicles before the transition can happen.
Response: EPA recognizes the constraints posed by the proposed MY
2026 compliance date for MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and HD complete vans
which have AC equipment that will not be modified by upfitters, and we
are finalizing a delay of this compliance date to MY 2028 to address
many of the concerns raised by commenters. Unlike LD vehicles, which
already widely use lower-GWP refrigerants, MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and
HD complete vans do not. Manufacturers will need to change MVAC
designs, prepare facilities for safe use of flammable or high-pressure
refrigerants such as HFO-1234yf or R-744 (e.g., explosion-proofing
refrigerant handling equipment), and train personnel in proper
technical and safety procedures. Commenters for these uses did not
advocate for a less stringent GWP limit for these uses within this
subsector, suggesting that efforts to transition are already underway.
Rather, commenters focused on needing additional time to effectuate the
transition. EPA is therefore extending the compliance date to MY 2028
for these uses, providing two to three years after the final rule
publication to accommodate factors impacting availability of
substitutes.
The MY 2028 compliance date will also accommodate those facilities
that manufacture different products or parts within one facility, and
where EPA's restriction only covers some of the products or parts. The
Agency agrees with the likely cost-effectiveness of converting an
entire facility rather than staggering the transition. In addition, a
MY 2028 compliance date is still before the 2029 stepdown in HFC
consumption and can relieve the potential for shortages by reducing
demand for HFCs.
[[Page 73183]]
Finally, EPA is not establishing restrictions on HD vehicles that
are modified by ``upfitters'' with AC equipment after manufacture, such
as ambulances, shuttle buses, and motorhomes. We agree with commenters
that substitutes that would allow them to meet the new restriction have
not yet been identified for use in these vehicles.
Comment: Representatives of manufacturers of nonroad vehicles and
HD trucks commented that much of the nonroad equipment industry does
not use MY designations on their products. These commenters also
asserted that it would take at least five years to design and validate
new AC systems, convert production facilities, and develop and provide
maintenance and service information for new AC systems. One such
commenter noted that most of that work (for class 4 through 8 HD
trucks) can only begin once EPA has provided certainty about applicable
use conditions in a final SNAP rulemaking for HFO-1234yf.
Response: EPA agrees that a calendar year compliance date is more
appropriate for nonroad vehicles since using MY dates is not a common
practice in that industry. EPA also agrees that additional time is
needed to redesign and convert AC equipment and production facilities,
but that time should be limited. The Association of Equipment
Manufacturers developed a risk assessment for each of the six
categories of nonroad vehicles with a structure similar to previous SAE
Cooperative Research Programme risk assessments for the use of HFO-
1234yf in LD vehicles. The risk assessments found that HFO-1234yf can
be used safely. EPA issued regulations to allow for the safe use of
HFO-1234yf in six categories of nonroad vehicles in a final rule issued
in May 2022 (87 FR 26276, May 4, 2022). Commenters did not object to
the level of the GWP restriction, but requested additional time for
compliance, indicating that industry expects that substitutes widely
used in this subsector can be adapted for use in nonroad vehicles. EPA
understands that the necessary work to transition to a refrigerant with
a GWP below 150 is already well underway. Based on a review of the
comments and information received during the comment period,
particularly comments concerning the transition of manufacturing
facilities, it is EPA's assessment that extending the compliance date
by approximately two and one-half years is consistent with a review of
the subsection (i)(4) factors. This also would allow roughly five years
from the date of the proposed rule in December 2022, until the
compliance date of January 1, 2028, consistent with the commenter's
request. EPA is therefore finalizing a compliance date of January 1,
2028, for the six types of nonroad vehicles.
Comment: Many commenters, including representatives of automobile
manufacturers, automobile dealers, and chemical producers requested
that HFC-134a be allowed to maintain and service vehicles and equipment
already manufactured with HFC-134a prior to the compliance date.
Response: Vehicles with MVACs that are manufactured to use HFC-134a
before the compliance date (i.e., MY 2025 for LD vehicles; MY 2028 for
MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans which have AC systems
that will not be modified by upfitters; and January 1, 2028, for the
six types of nonroad vehicles covered in this rulemaking) may continue
to use HFC-134a after the applicable compliance date, including use for
service, maintenance, and repair.
2. Foams
Foams are plastics (such as phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin,
polyurethane, or polystyrene) that are manufactured using blowing
agents to create bubbles or cells in the material's structure. The
range of uses for plastic foams includes building materials, appliance
insulation, cushioning, furniture, packaging materials, containers,
flotation devices, filler, sound proofing, and shoe soles. Some foams
are rigid with closed cells that still contain the foam blowing agent,
which can contribute to the foam's ability to insulate. Other foams are
open-celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at the time the foam
is blown, as for flexible foams.
A variety of foam blowing agents have been used for these
applications. In the early 1990s CFCs and HCFCs were typically used. In
implementing CAA title VI requirements to protect the stratospheric
ozone layer, EPA issued regulations that banned the sale or
distribution of foam products blown with CFCs and HCFCs except for
HCFCs used for foam insulation products.
Blowing agents that are a liquid at room temperature (such as CFC-
11, CFC-113, cyclopentane, HCFC-141b, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and methyl
formate) are more commonly used in polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, and
phenolic foams. Blowing agents that are gases at room temperature (such
as CFC-12, CO2, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, HFC-134a, and HFC-152a)
are more commonly used in polyolefin and polystyrene foams.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for foams?
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs with
a GWP of 150 or greater beginning January 1, 2025, for all foam
subsectors included in the proposed rule. These subsectors, with
examples, are:
1. Flexible polyurethane, which includes open-cell foam in
furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles;
2. Integral skin polyurethane, which includes open-cell foam used
in car steering wheels, dashboards, upholstery, and shoe soles;
3. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock, which includes
insulation for roofing and walls;
4. Polyolefin (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene), which includes
foam sheets and tubes;
5. Polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet, which includes
closed cell insulation for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes;
6. Polystyrene--extruded sheet, which includes closed cell foam for
packaging and buoyancy or flotation;
7. Rigid polyurethane--appliance foam, which includes insulation
foam in household refrigerators, freezers, and hot water heaters;
8. Rigid polyurethane--slabstock and other, which includes
insulation for panels and pipes, taxidermy foam, and other
miscellaneous uses;
9. Rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration, which includes
insulation for vending machines, coolers, commercial refrigeration
equipment, pipes, shipping containers for perishable goods, and
refrigerated transport vehicles; \159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ As described in section VI.C.1 and in this section, EPA is
exempting certain applications as long as they have a current
qualification for application-specific allowances under subsection
(e)(4)(B) of the Act, including structural composite preformed
polyurethane foam for trailer use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rigid polyurethane--sandwich panels, which includes insulation
panels for walls and metal doors;
11. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock,
which includes laminated board insulation for roofing and walls;
12. Rigid polyurethane--marine flotation foam, which includes
buoyancy or flotation foams; \160\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ As described in section VI.C.1 and in this section, EPA is
exempting certain applications as long as they have a current
qualification for application-specific allowances under subsection
(e)(4)(B) of the Act, including structural composite preformed
polyurethane foam for marine use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rigid polyurethane spray foam that is applied in situ, which
includes insulation for building envelopes, roofing, walls, doors, and
other
[[Page 73184]]
construction uses, as well as foam for building breakers for pipelines.
Polyurethane spray foam is broken down further into high-pressure two-
component, low-pressure two-component, and one-component foam sealants.
These three applications vary in the types of systems used to apply
them (one-component or two-component, high-pressure or low-pressure),
who uses such systems (contractors using personal protective equipment,
or consumers), and how much is applied (large-scale applications within
walls or on roofs of a residence or filling in cracks, leaks, and gaps
in a residence). For further information on spray foam applications,
see SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86778 at 86846-86847, December 1, 2016).
These restrictions apply to the manufacture and import of new foam
products, including fully formulated polyols and foam insulation, the
blowing of foam to manufacture new products containing foams, such as
appliances, furniture, or vehicles, and the import of such foam
products and products containing foams beginning January 1, 2025. Foam
products and products containing foam with blowing agents that are HFCs
or HFC blends with a GWP of 150 or greater (e.g., HFC-134a) may no
longer be sold, distributed, offered for sale or distribution, or
exported beginning January 1, 2028.
The use restrictions (including labeling and reporting) finalized
in this rule do not apply to any product that qualifies for
application-specific HFC allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the
AIM Act. Specifically, this final action does not restrict the HFCs
used in the manufacture of structural composite preformed polyurethane
foam for marine use and trailer use or foams used in mission-critical
military end uses as they have a current qualification for application-
specific allowances.
This rule also excludes spray and pour foams used in space
vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 84.3 from the use restrictions. Such
equipment faces unparalleled and highly demanding operating conditions
and requires long lead-times for its operation to be certified. This
approach is consistent with EPA's CAA regulations where space vehicles
were either exempted or given additional time to transition to
substitute foam blowing agents. EPA proposed to exclude spray foams
used in this application but has learned that pour foams requiring the
use of HFCs are also used in space vehicles. EPA is exempting the use
of both foam types in space vehicles from the restrictions in this
final rule.
HFCs have been widely used as blowing agents in rigid polyurethane
insulation foam (e.g., appliance, commercial refrigeration, sandwich
panels, and spray foams) and polystyrene--extruded boardstock and
billet in the United States since the phaseout of ODS blowing agents
such as HCFC-141b and HCFC-142b, particularly where insulation value
and flammability have been important considerations. Available
substitutes have increased in the last decade and the uses for
substitute blowing agents have also expanded.
There is interest in using newer foam blowing agents with lower
GWP, often to improve energy efficiency of the foam products. SNAP has
listed HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 4), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP 1), HFO-1336mzz(E)
(GWP 26), and HFO-1336mzz(Z) (GWP 2) as acceptable for some uses. These
newer substitutes, which are either nonflammable or lower flammability,
may prove appropriate for subsectors where higher-flammability blowing
agents raise safety concerns. In addition, some nonfluorinated lower-
GWP blowing agents are now being used more broadly, such as carbon
dioxide (GWP 1), light saturated hydrocarbons with three to six carbons
(GWPs from 1 to 4), and methyl formate (GWP 13). The process and timing
for retooling facilities to use new blowing agents or that incorporate
the foam product into another product will vary depending on the
substitute selected. Manufacturing facilities such as household
refrigerator manufacturers have already been transitioning to lower-GWP
substitutes for foam-blowing. Production volumes for some of these
newer substitutes are expanding rapidly to keep pace with growing
commercial demands.
For some types of foam that have historically used gaseous blowing
agents, HFC-152a or blends containing HFC-152a may be an available
alternative. The GWP of HFC-152a is 124, compared to 794 for HFC-
365mfc, 1,030 for HFC-245fa, 1,430 for HFC-134a, and 4,470 for HFC-
143a. Some manufacturers of polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet
transitioning from HFC-134a have recently starting using blends of HFC-
152a and non-HFCs such as CO2, HFO-1234ze(E), and/or HFO-
1336mzz(Z).
Hydrocarbons are lower-GWP and cost-effective substitutes that have
been available for years for large parts of the foam sector,
particularly in polystyrene--extruded sheet, rigid polyurethane--
slabstock, rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, phenolic insulation board and bunstock, and polyolefin.
Hydrocarbons are used in most of the other foam subsectors, but less
extensively. In EPA's consideration of the safety of available
substitutes, flammability of foam blowing agents, including
hydrocarbons, can be a concern, particularly for rigid polyurethane--
two-component spray foam applications. Water is used broadly as a
blowing agent in flexible polyurethane foam. Other non-fluorinated
compounds such as methyl formate and methylal are also used as blowing
agents, alone or in combination with other compounds, particularly in
polyurethane foams.
There is little or no use of HFCs in the flexible polyurethane;
integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin; polystyrene--extruded sheet;
and rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock
subsectors. Water and hydrocarbons are commonly used available
substitutes used as blowing agents for flexible polyurethane,
polyolefin, polystyrene--extruded sheet, and rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. CO2, and more
recently, HFOs, are available substitutes used as blowing agents for
integral skin polyurethane. Based upon comments and information
received during the public comment period, EPA now understands that
there is limited use of HFCs--in particular, HFC-152a--as foam-blowing
agents in polystyrene--extruded sheet used as sheathing to insulate
buildings.
Comment: Several commenters from the foam blowing industry raised
concerns about the proposed GWP limit of zero for flexible
polyurethane; integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin; polystyrene--
extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock. These comments requested that EPA clarify whether the GWP
applies only to HFCs in a blend of blowing agents, or if it applies to
the entire blowing agent. Some of the commenters suggested that if the
GWP applies to the entire blowing agent that the GWP should be higher
than zero for these five foam subsectors. One commenter suggested a GWP
limit of less than 20 instead of zero, because non-HFC blowing agents
such as hydrocarbons or HFOs have non-zero GWPs. Other commenters
suggested GWPs of 50 or for blowing agent blends, either for all foam
subsectors or at least for the subsectors for the commenters' products,
to maintain a ``level playing field'' with other types of insulation.
Two manufacturers of polystyrene--extruded sheet used as sheathing to
provide insulation in buildings requested a GWP limit of 150 for all
foam subsectors, or at least for
[[Page 73185]]
polystyrene--extruded sheet to allow for continued use of HFC-152a
because of its contributions to insulation value, its technical
achievability compared to other alternatives, and its reductions in
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). One trade group commented that HFCs
should be prohibited for all foam-blowing subsectors.
Response: EPA is establishing a GWP limit of 150 in all foam
subsectors. Based on additional information received from commenters,
EPA's earlier understanding contained in the proposed rule that little
or no HFCs are being used as foam blowing agents in polystyrene--
extruded sheet was incorrect. This foam subsector also includes
insulation for buildings, similar to polystyrene--boardstock and
billet, rigid polyurethane: spray foam, and rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. EPA agrees it is reasonable to
use the same GWP limit for all foam subsectors used as insulation. Foam
insulation blown with HFC-152a is more energy efficient, and thus,
improves affordability for residential and small business consumers
compared to foams blown with smaller molecules such as water,
hydrocarbons, or CO2. HFC-152a is in sufficient supply, is
technologically achievable as a blowing agent on its own or blended
with other blowing agents, and is currently being used in particular in
polystyrene foams. HFC-152a, with its GWP of 124, is lower GWP than
other HFCs that had been used in foam blowing. Further, to provide
greater consistency and a ``level playing field'' between and within
foams subsectors, to avoid confusion over use of a GWP limit of zero,
and to set a GWP limit at one of the regular intervals being used
across all the sectors and subsectors (see section VI.E.5 of the
preamble), EPA is establishing a GWP limit of 150 for blowing agents in
all foams subsectors that were included in the proposed rule.
Comment: Concerning the compliance date for the different foam
subsectors, most commenters either supported January 1, 2025, as
proposed or did not comment on it. Two companies that manufacture foam
used in military and aerospace applications requested that EPA allow
until 2030 for such applications because of the unique and highly
demanding operating conditions that require extensive technical
resources and time to evaluate.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed compliance date of January
1, 2025, for most subsectors that use HFCs and HFC blends as foam
blowing agents. EPA is finalizing January 1, 2026, for military and
aerospace foam blowing applications in recognition of the additional
time that may be required to evaluate substitutes. EPA agrees with
commenters that the operating conditions for military and aerospace
applications are highly demanding. EPA also recognizes that the process
of qualifying new materials to specification in military and aerospace
applications is time consuming. Some uses raised by commenters are not
subject to EPA's final restrictions. Mission-critical military uses
identified by the Department of Defense, consistent with the
requirements for receipt of application-specific allowances under
subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv), are exempt. EPA is also exempting spray and
pour foam used in space vehicles. Given these exemptions, but
recognizing that applications may require more time for qualifying new
materials to specification, EPA is finalizing a later compliance date
of January 1, 2026, for foam-blowing uses in space and military
applications that are not already exempted.
3. Aerosols
Aerosols use liquefied or compressed gas to propel active
ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder form in precise spray patterns
with controlled droplet sizes and amounts. In some cases, the
propellant is also itself the active ingredient. The propellant,
typically a gas at atmospheric pressure but a pressurized liquid in the
product canister, is emitted during use. Some aerosols also contain a
solvent in addition to the propellant. In some cleaning applications,
the propellant disperses the solvent; in other applications, the
solvent product and propellant solution are evenly mixed to improve
shelf-life and product performance, such as by preventing dripping and
ensuring uniform film thickness for spray paints. Consumer aerosols
include products for personal and household use, such as hairspray,
household cleaning products, and keyboard dusters. Technical aerosols
are specialized products used solely in commercial and industrial
applications, such as cleaning products for removal of grease from
electrical equipment and sprays containing corrosion preventive
compounds.
Available aerosol propellants with GWPs lower than the final
restriction include HFC-152a (GWP 124), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP 1), dimethyl
ether (GWP 1), saturated light hydrocarbons (GWP 1 to 4), and
CO2 (GWP 1). Available aerosol solvents with GWPs lower than
the final restriction include HCFO-1233yd(Z) (GWP 1), HFO-1336mzz(Z)
(GWP 2), methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) (GWP 2.5), HCFO-
1233zd(E) (GWP 4), and petroleum hydrocarbons.
EPA is exempting certain uses with a current qualification for
application-specific allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the AIM
Act, including certain aerosol applications. Subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv)
lists six applications, three of which typically use aerosols: (1)
Propellant in metered-dose inhalers, (2) defense sprays, and (3)
mission-critical military end uses. The requirements of this rule do
not apply to these uses of HFCs in these applications, since they have
a current qualification for application-specific allowances under 40
CFR 84.13.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for aerosols?
EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs in
aerosols that have a GWP of 150 or greater beginning January 1, 2025,
as proposed. In response to comments seeking additional time to
transition, EPA is extending the compliance date to January 1, 2028,
for the following technical aerosol uses: cleaning products for removal
of grease, flux, and other soils from electrical equipment or
electronics; refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity testing of
smoke detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment
or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; sprays containing
corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft,
electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment; pesticides
for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in total release
insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which
EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold
release agents and mold cleaners; lubricants and cleaners for
spinnerets for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for
removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips,
specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical
equipment; adhesives and sealants in large canisters; document
preservation sprays; wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain
relief; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
EPA is also extending the compliance date for use of the aerosol
solvents HFC-43-10mee and HFC-245fa to January 1, 2028.
Commenters indicated some applications may still need the use of
HFC-134a as a propellant and the use of the solvents HFC-43-10mee and
HFC-245fa because of technical
[[Page 73186]]
limitations, such as a requirement for non-flammability. EPA is aware
of possible substitutes with lower GWPs; 161 162 but based
on comments, EPA agrees additional time is needed to reformulate, test,
and transition listed technical uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ See email from HCPA to EPA, dated August 8, 2022.
\162\ See Evaluation of Continued Need for HFC-134a in Specific
Aerosol Propellant Applications memo in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of this rule, the GWP of an aerosol that contains
HFCs as both a propellant and a solvent is calculated based solely on
the weighted average of the HFCs and does not include other components
of the aerosol product. This methodology is different from the SNAP
program, where the propellant and solvent are considered as separate
entities rather than as a mixture in aerosol products. The decision to
use this GWP calculation of the aerosol product under subsection (i) of
the AIM Act does not impact other regulations, in particular SNAP
listing decisions.
Comment: In general, commenters stated that a GWP limit of 150 is
appropriate for most aerosols but was too low for applications where
flammability is a concern. HFC-134a (GWP 1,430) is currently used as a
propellant in certain applications due to its non-flammable
characteristic. Two commenters believed a GWP of 700, similar to what
has been proposed for some refrigeration subsectors, was
technologically achievable for niche applications while still
maintaining non-flammability.
Response: EPA is finalizing a GWP limit of 150 for aerosols as
proposed. EPA recognizes the commenters' concerns regarding
flammability of some substitutes, and the impact of flammability on
safety and thus availability of that substitute under AIM Act
subsection (i)(4)(B). EPA disagrees with commenters that we should
raise the GWP limit to 700. EPA is aware of possible substitutes with
lower GWPs that are non-flammable. To allow for manufacturers to
transition and address flammability risks and other technical
challenges, rather than increase the GWP limit across the board, the
final rule provides additional compliance time for specific uses of
HFC-134a identified by the commenters and excepted under SNAP Rule 20,
and for solvents identified by commenters where safety is of concern.
Comment: EPA received a number of comments on the proposed
compliance date of January 1, 2025, for certain uses of HFC-134a
excepted in Rule 20 and for the aerosol solvents HFC-43-10mee and HFC-
245fa. Many commenters requested additional time to address
flammability concerns, to complete reformulation and testing, and if
necessary, obtain governmental approval from other agencies such as the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Many commenters requested a compliance date of January 1, 2030,
noting that HFO-1234ze(E) could be an alternative propellant but
expressed concern about its availability due to the uncertainty of
potential future regulations concerning per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS). One manufacturer requested a compliance date of
January 1, 2029, for one specific use and stated that an alternative
product is currently in development with their goal for final sale of
the current HFC-134a product January 1, 2028. Other commenters cited 3-
7 years and 5 years needed for transition for medical products. Many
other commenters requested exceptions for certain uses of HFCs in
aerosols, noting that would allow for more time to formulate an HFC
alternative, but did not specify how much more time would be needed.
Response: EPA agrees that it may be difficult for manufacturers to
transition all aerosol products using HFCs to alternatives by January
1, 2025. This is particularly true in applications where flammability
is a concern or where a specific vapor pressure is needed to achieve
the desired result. In this final rule, we are extending the compliance
date to January 1, 2028, for products using aerosol solvents HFC-43-
10mee and HFC-245fa and also for listed technical aerosols that
currently use HFC-134a as a propellant, taking into consideration
availability under subsection (i)(4)(B). We are adding an additional
three years beyond what was proposed, allowing at least four years
after finalization of this rule, for reformulation and specific U.S.
Federal government reviews or other third-party approval if needed,
including EPA pesticide registration, testing to U.S. military or space
agency specifications, and FDA approval.
EPA acknowledges the concerns commenters expressed regarding the
potential for future regulation of PFAS and how that may impact the
availability of some substitutes. There is currently no single commonly
agreed definition of PFAS, and whether HFCs or HFOs are classified as
PFAS depends on the definition being used. EPA's PFAS roadmap sets
timelines for specific actions and outlines EPA's commitments to new
policies to safeguard public health, protect the environment, and hold
polluters accountable.\163\ EPA elected in this final rule to issue
restrictions, including for this subsector, using a GWP limit approach.
Under that approach, regulated entities are not required to use any
particular substitute, and the approach inherently permits the use of
any substitutes consistent with the restrictions. We have identified a
number of available substitutes in this rule and we also anticipate
that as the phasedown of HFCs progresses there will be continued
innovation of HFC substitutes, and it is reasonable to expect that
producers of these substitutes will be cognizant of developing PFAS
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/pfas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether and
why we should include a list of exceptions for propellants in this
rulemaking that matches some or all of those included in SNAP Rule 20.
All the commenters requested that EPA continue to provide some or all
of the HFC-134a propellant exceptions listed in SNAP Rule 20. Some also
requested EPA provide exceptions for the aerosol solvents HFC-43-10mee
and HFC-245fa.
Response: The structure of the SNAP program and this regulation
under subsection (i) of the AIM Act are markedly different in many
ways. Therefore, EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a regulation
that mirrors the approaches used in SNAP Rule 20. EPA's assessment is
that by extending the date of compliance to January 1, 2028, for both
propellants and solvents, the formulators will have sufficient time to
develop new formulations for the exceptions that were requested by the
commenters.
Comment: One commenter raised concerns about the cost of
development for a lower-GWP alternative and the recurring cost of
goods. In particular, the commenter noted that the current cost of
lower-GWP substitutes is much higher than the current costs of HFC-134a
and HFC-245fa. The commenter indicated that the economic investment
required by this rule to develop and test substitutes will result in
longer timeframes to recoup costs and achieve a return on investment.
Response: EPA understands that investments are necessary for
reformulating products and that these costs can vary based on the
specific circumstances. As the HFC phasedown continues, increased
scarcity of HFCs will affect their price. In this action, EPA has
included this commenter's use as one which may continue to use HFC-
[[Page 73187]]
134a through January 1, 2028. We anticipate that the longer compliance
timeframe will allow for development and testing associated with
transitioning to substitutes for the commenter's use, and that in the
same timeframe, the relative cost difference of HFC-134a to substitutes
may diminish, relative to current costs.
VII. What are the labeling requirements?
EPA seeks to deter, identify, and penalize the manufacture, import,
sale, distribution, offer for sale or distribution, export, or
installation of products and equipment from using certain HFCs that are
prohibited. Consistent with EPA's explanation in the Allocation
Framework Rule, based on experience with the ODS phaseout and HFC
phasedown thus far in the United States, and global experiences
transitioning from ODS and HFCs, EPA anticipates there will be attempts
to introduce prohibited equipment into the United States.
Labeling is important for ensuring compliance, discouraging
noncompliance, and facilitating enforcement. Labeling allows purchasers
to determine what they are buying and whether the product is compliant.
Labels provide information to distributors and retailers who are
subject to restrictions on the sale or distribution of noncompliant
products and certain components. It also provides information to
technicians and system owners and operators that allows them to
determine whether the specified component is prohibited for use in the
installation of a new system or is limited to servicing and repair.
Labels also allow the Agency to take action to remove noncompliant
products from the market and assess compliance of installed systems.
For the labeling requirements, EPA is requiring information on
labels for products, specified components, and systems that use
regulated substances, regardless of GWP, in the sectors and subsectors
covered by this rule. Knowing what HFC, or blend containing an HFC, is
used is a necessary step to ensuring that the use of HFCs complies with
the restrictions established through this rulemaking. For products,
specified components, and systems that use an HFC, or a blend
containing an HFC, EPA is requiring that the label include the HFC(s)
or blend and the date of manufacture, or at a minimum, the four-digit
year. For products in the MVAC subsectors, either the model year or the
date of manufacture, at minimum the four-digit year may be used.
For specified components that are intended for use with an HFC, or
blend containing an HFC, EPA is requiring that the unfilled equipment
be labeled to indicate the HFC(s) or blend(s) containing an HFC
intended for use in the specified component. At the time of first
charge the system must be labeled to indicate the HFC or blend
containing an HFC used in the system and the date of first charge, or
at a minimum, the four-digit year. The new label would only need to
include the HFC(s) or blend(s) used if it is different from what is
listed on the first label or if the first label indicates that the
equipment is intended for use with multiple HFCs or blends containing
HFCs. New labels must be affixed near but not covering the original
label.
Additionally, EPA is requiring that labels for systems in the
following subsectors indicate the refrigerant charge capacity: (1)
Industrial process refrigeration (without chillers), (2) cold storage
warehouses, (3) retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems, (4)
retail food refrigeration--remote condensing units, and (5) retail food
refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment
(remote). The GWP limit varies based on the charge size in these
subsectors, thus that information is needed for the purposes of
ensuring compliance. The charge size must be added to a label on the
system no later than the date of first charge. The label may either be
the specific charge size of the system or the charge size as it relates
to the threshold of the related subsector. For example, the charge size
for a supermarket could be labeled as ``Charge 150 lb'' or ``Charge <
200 lb.'' EPA is not specifying the wording so as to allow the use of
existing labels that already convey the necessary information.
EPA is requiring that labels for self-contained automatic
commercial ice machines indicate the harvest rate, either as the
specific harvest rate of the equipment, or the harvest rate as it
relates to the threshold for the relevant subsector, such as an
indication that harvest rate is either greater than 1,000 pounds of ice
per day or less than or equal to 1,000 pounds of ice per day for batch-
type ACIMs or an indication that the harvest rate is either greater
than 1,200 pounds of ice per day or less than or equal to 1,200 pounds
of ice per day for continuous-type ACIMs. Labels for industrial process
refrigeration chillers and industrial process refrigeration systems
without chillers must include an indication of the designed exiting
fluid temperature. For all these subsectors EPA is not specifying the
specific wording so as to allow the use of existing labels that already
convey the necessary information.
For specified components that contain or are dry shipped and
intended for use with HFC(s) or blends containing HFC(s) that exceed
the applicable GWP limit or HFC restriction, the label must state ``For
servicing existing equipment only'' in addition to the other required
labeling elements.
For the aerosols and foams sectors, where standard blends of HFCs
are uncommon, the label must identify all the HFCs used in the product.
If they are used as part of an identified blend, the blend may be
labeled. If multiple HFCs are used, or an HFC with a GWP greater than
the limit is used, such as HFC-134a, either the weights of the HFC(s)
relative to the other blowing agents, propellants, solvents, or to the
other HFCs must be on the label, or the label must include ``GWP
<150.'' For example, the label of a board of extruded polystyrene
boardstock could be labeled ``GWP<150'' or ``contains blend of up to 90
percent HFC-152a and the remainder HFO-1234ze(E).''
EPA is requiring that the permanent label be formatted as follows:
(1) In English; (2) durable and printed or otherwise labeled on, or
affixed to, the external surface of the product; (3) readily visible
and legible; (4) able to withstand open weather exposure without a
substantial reduction in visibility or legibility; and (5) displayed on
a background of contrasting color. Additionally, for equipment being
sold electronically through eCommerce platforms, EPA is requiring that
labels or a description of the required information be clearly included
in information available prior to purchase, either in the text
description or photo of the equipment. Websites for products and
specified components using a regulated substance would need to have the
required information clearly visible in either the photos or the
description of the item. If a product or specified component is
contained within a box or other overpack that reaches the consumer, the
exterior packaging must also contain a label consistent with the
formatting requirements described previously. For imported products or
specified components, labels must be visible and readily available for
inspection.
The labeling requirement takes effect for each subsector at the
same time as the manufacture and import prohibition for products or the
installation prohibition for systems. In the case of components that
could be used in multiple subsectors, the earliest compliance date
among the possible subsectors is the applicable date. This
[[Page 73188]]
timing reflects the primary purpose of the labels, which is for
assessing compliance of products and systems in sectors and subsectors
with active HFC restrictions. For example, consumer aerosols would need
to be manufactured or imported with labels starting January 1, 2025,
while technical aerosols would be subject to the labeling requirements
starting January 1, 2028. Consumer aerosols manufactured or imported
prior to January 1, 2025, would be able to be sold until January 1,
2028, without a label that meets the requirements of this rule.
EPA is requiring that as of the applicable manufacture/import
compliance date, no person may manufacture or import a product that
contains or is intended for use with HFCs that lacks a label consistent
with the requirements of this section. Likewise, for systems, EPA is
requiring that as of the applicable installation compliance date, no
person may install a system in the sectors and subsectors of this rule
that contains or is intended for use with HFCs that lacks a label
consistent with the requirements of this section. For specified
components of systems, EPA is requiring that as of the applicable
installation compliance date, no person may manufacture or import a
component for a system in the sectors and subsectors of this rule that
contains or is intended for use with HFCs that lacks a label consistent
with the requirements of this section.
Products, specified components, and systems that are manufactured,
imported, or installed after the compliance date in the sectors and
subsectors covered by this rule that use HFCs or are intended for use
with HFCs and lack the appropriate label are presumed to be using a
regulated substance exceeding the GWP limit for that sector or
subsector.
Comment: Many commenters supported certain aspects of the labeling
proposal. Several supportive commenters agreed with the Agency that
labeling products will be valuable for assessing compliance and
allowing for enforcement. Another commenter supported a requirement for
each regulated substance that could be used to be listed on the label
for dry-shipped components that are intended for use with HFCs. Another
commenter supported on-product labeling for all products covered by
this rule and it being a violation to not label products regulated by
this rule. Another commenter was opposed to any labeling requirements
in this rule as they considered them to be `unnecessary and
duplicative.'
Response: EPA acknowledges the support for the labeling provisions
provided in the comments and the perspectives raised by the commenters.
EPA disagrees with the comments that the labeling requirements of this
rule are `unnecessary and duplicative.' The labels required in the
final rule generally align with other existing labeling requirements.
EPA has made clear that existing labels that contain the required
information can satisfy the labeling requirements. Therefore, many
products and equipment already meet the labeling requirements,
particularly in the RACHP sector. However, existing labels for foams
and aerosols vary and thus uniform labeling for purposes of the HFC
transition are necessary. Furthermore, labels allow retailers and
distributors to assess whether their products and equipment are subject
to the sales restriction. Without labels to identify the regulated
substance used and other compliance related information, the Agency,
consumers, and entities throughout the sale and distribution chain will
not be readily able to assess compliance.
Comment: Multiple commenters stated that EPA should not require GWP
on labels since GWPs can be easily researched if the HFC or HFC blend
is provided. The commenters noted that the GWP values for HFCs are
periodically modified by the IPCC, and the value required to be used
(AR4, AR5, etc.) can vary based on regulations. The commenters stated
that this could result in inconsistent labeling across jurisdictions
and confusion. One commenter requested that the Agency not require GWP
on the label as the information is not readily accessible or useful to
customers and does not provide value to technicians in the RACHP
sector. An additional commenter noted that in the foam sector, labeling
products with the GWP value could reveal proprietary information, as
the precise mixture of blowing agents varies by company and is not
public knowledge. Additionally, this commenter shared that labeling
products with the precise GWP value would be difficult since the
mixtures can vary slightly between batches which could result in small
differences in GWP values between products. This commenter recommended
that EPA not require the specific GWP on the label and could instead
require a statement that the product complies with the GWP limits.
Several commenters requested that if the global warming potential is
retained on the label, that EPA accept labeling it as `GWP' given space
constraints on labels and the commenters' assessment that the term GWP
is widely known. The commenter noted that `GWP' could also be defined
in a product manual to ensure the information is in the relevant
language where sold.
Other commenters supported the proposal to label all products with
the GWP. These commenters highlighted the particular importance of
including the GWP on the label as `global warming potential,' as they
noted that GWP information on a label would be helpful for consumers
who may not be familiar with the acronym `GWP.' One commenter stated
that given the considerable quantity of different HFCs and blends that
will be on the market, it is essential to include the GWP limit for the
product on the label to strengthen enforcement and compliance as the
GWP limit is easier to enforce compared to referencing an extensive
blend list.
Another commenter requested that EPA use the term `Exchange Value'
as opposed to `GWP' or `global warming potential.' This commenter noted
that in their opinion, using `Exchange Value' would be more precise as
the GWP limits under the AIM Act are not the most up-to-date and also
there are other recognized GWPs that could lead to confusion.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement for labels to specify
the GWP. EPA finds the concerns raised about the inconsistent GWP
values resulting from updates from the IPCC and different requirements
by jurisdiction to be particularly compelling. The varying GWPs could
cause confusion and result in unintentional noncompliance. The Agency
maintains that listing the GWP could provide some benefit, such as
informing consumers about the environmental impact of the products they
are purchasing, as well as allowing for easier assessment of
compliance. However, the information needed to assess compliance is
still required on the label. Additionally, for the next several years,
EPA plans to maintain a public website that lists HFCs, commonly used
blends containing HFCs, and their respective GWPs that will provide a
quick look-up tool for assessing compliance or comparing the
environmental impact of products.
Comment: Numerous commenters requested that EPA eliminate the
labeling requirement if the required information is required by other
authorities and current labels contain the same information. They noted
that this would provide the necessary information while reducing burden
for manufacturers. One commenter noted
[[Page 73189]]
that many products in the RACHP sector already label what HFC is used.
Other commenters specifically requested that the Agency allow
information already included in the Vehicle Manufacturing Label, SAE J-
639 label, or on a safety data sheet to satisfy the labeling
requirement for this rule. Another commenter expressed support for the
creation of a standardized label or symbol under this rule to show
compliance with the restrictions, create uniformity among the regulated
community, and facilitate consumer recognition.
Response: EPA is clarifying that existing labels that meet the
requirements of this rule and include the required information are
sufficient. EPA agrees it is not necessary to have additional labels
that provide the same information. EPA recognizes that most, if not
all, of the information required by this rule is already provided on
equipment through existing labels, such as UL labels or nameplates. It
is not the intention of the Agency for the labeling requirement to
result in duplicative information on labels. EPA instead is seeking to
ensure that the information necessary to determine compliance with this
rule is visible and readily available for the products, specified
components, and systems covered by this rule. EPA is not finalizing as
part of this rule the creation of a standardized logo, signal word,
text, or label format to be in compliance with the labeling
requirements finalized through this action. In addition, the Agency
takes note of the idea raised by the commenter and may revisit this
concept in a future rule.
Comment: EPA also received a significant number of comments related
to the proposed requirement to include the date of manufacture on the
label. One commenter noted that having the date of manufacture (at
minimum the manufacture year) on the product would be helpful for
assessing compliance with this rule, as well as other regulations.
Others commented that EPA should allow for an already existing date
code on the labels to satisfy the date of manufacture requirement,
while other commenters requested that EPA allow for the serial number
or a traceable batch code to fulfill the requirement. Other commenters
requested that EPA allow the date listed on the nameplate to satisfy
the requirement, at least for stand-alone refrigeration equipment.
Response: EPA understands that some companies have methods in place
to indicate the date of manufacture of their product. For the purposes
of this rulemaking, the Agency seeks to minimize duplication of the
information required on the labels wherever possible. However, given
the complex distribution chains for some of the equipment for which
labels are required, it is also important for other entities throughout
the distribution chain to be able to assess compliance of equipment
they intend to purchase, sell, or otherwise distribute. If the product
does not clearly indicate the date of manufacture, it may not be
possible for entities beyond the OEM to assess its compliance. For this
reason, EPA is retaining the requirement that each product have the
date of manufacture (at minimum the four-digit year) on a label on the
item, included in the associated packaging material, or available via a
QR code.
Comment: EPA received several comments related to requiring the
charge size on the label. One commenter stated that the label should
not have to indicate whether the charge size is above or below a
threshold as they believe that to be unnecessary. Another commenter
noted that the indication of the charge size threshold specific to this
rule (such as the 200 lb cutoff for supermarkets) may be useful for
enforcement of this rule, but a universal indication of charge size
would be useful for general enforcement for this regulation as well as
others that may exist for instance at the State level. This commenter
noted that knowing the exact charge size could be useful for estimating
the total extent of a violation. The commenter shared that certain U.S.
States already regulate some of these products based on a different
size threshold, therefore requiring an indication of intended charge
size would make these labels useful for States as well.
Response: EPA is finalizing the option for regulated entities to
label their equipment with the charge size either as the specific
charge size of the system or the charge size related to the threshold
of the related subsector. For example, the charge size for a
supermarket could be labeled as `Charge 150 lb' or `Charge < 200 lb'
For certain aspects of this rule, the GWP limit varies based on that
charge size threshold in that subsector, thus information about the
charge size is needed for the purposes of ensuring compliance.
Retaining both options will provide flexibility in meeting this
requirement while retaining the information necessary for the Agency
and others throughout the distribution chain to assess compliance.
Comment: Several commenters responded to EPA's request for comment
on alternative methods for satisfying the labeling requirements. Some
asked that EPA retain QR codes as an option as this would allow the
greatest flexibility for manufacturers and could be useful as it would
allow for changes to the label to comply with future regulations.
Others requested that EPA not mandate the use of QR codes as they are
costly to maintain and not widely used in the foam sector. Other
commenters stated that a QR code alone would not be sufficient for
providing information to the consumer and that accompanying text
explaining the purpose of the QR code would be required. Finally, one
commenter supported there being multiple ways to satisfy the labeling
requirement, such as QR codes, package labeling, and eCommerce
descriptions. That commenter also requested that EPA mandate that QR
code labels be accompanied by printed product information that can be
produced at any time if requested.
Response: EPA is finalizing the ability for manufacturers to meet
the labeling requirement by including the required information in
packaging materials (e.g., tag, pamphlet, or box containing the product
or specified component) or through an on-product QR code instead of a
traditional label. This associated packaging must be present with the
product or specified component at the point of sale and import to
fulfill the labeling requirement. To satisfy the labeling requirement,
the QR code must direct to the required information and meet all the
requirements of the on-product label. The label with the QR code must
include adjacent text to indicate the purpose of the QR code, such as
`contains HFC information' or `scan for HFC info.' A QR code may be
useful for products where there is limited space for on-product labels
or the accompanying packaging and allows for additional flexibility in
meeting the labeling requirements while still retaining the necessary
information for assessing compliance. A nonfunctional or unreadable QR
code does not fulfill the labeling requirement and would be treated as
a missing label. For products and specified components being sold
through eCommerce, the QR code would not be sufficient on its own and
the description on the eCommerce site would also have to contain the
required information.
Comment: EPA received several comments related to the idea for an
administrative process to address products that have been found to be
mislabeled or lacking a proper label. One commenter supported the
website highlighting noncompliance that was considered at proposal.
They noted that such a system would increase
[[Page 73190]]
compliance through transparency and inform the public of entities that
may be introducing illegal products into the marketplace. This
commenter recommends these entities be restricted from using regulated
substances as defined in the proposed rule for a set period of time,
with increasing lengths for repeated offenses, under the assumption
that repeated noncompliance is an attempt to avoid regulations and
should result in permanent use restrictions for the entity. Another
commenter suggested an option which would be a list of compliant
products. This list would aide purchasers and users in self-compliance
efforts and positively promote enforcement actions.
Response: EPA values approaches that inform the public. Therefore,
the Agency is finalizing use of an administrative process to address
equipment that has been found to be mislabeled or lacking a proper
label and that such a process will include an electronic means of
sharing information regarding noncompliance with the public. As EPA
noted in the proposed rule, this administrative process does not
supplant or replace any enforcement action that may be available for
violations of EPA's regulations or the AIM Act. Instead, such
consequences are in addition to any applicable enforcement action.
EPA's intent in establishing labeling provisions is to support the
enforcement of prohibitions on the use of certain HFCs and blends
containing HFCs that exceed the GWP limits or are otherwise prohibited.
Not providing a label or mislabeling equipment hampers EPA's ability to
enforce those prohibitions. As an administrative process for quickly
correcting mislabeled or unlabeled equipment, EPA is finalizing the
option of creating an electronic list that would provide a list of
entities that manufacture, import, sell, distribute, or offer for sale
or distribution, or export products or specified components that have
been found to be mislabeled or lacking a proper label.
Transparency is a significant means of ensuring compliance, as
discussed in detail in the Allocation Framework Rule (see 86 FR 55191,
October 5, 2021). EPA intends to employ similar processes for
notification and response finalized in 40 CFR part 84, subpart A. This
includes notifying the entity of the Agency's finding that a product or
specified component is mislabeled or lacking a label, and of our intent
to list them as not meeting the subsection (i) labeling provisions. The
Agency will provide 30 days from the initial notification for the
entity to respond, after which the entity would be publicly listed on
EPA's website. To be eligible for removal from the website, the entity
must submit a demonstration that the labeling issue has been resolved
along with a description of measures that the entity has put in place
to reduce the likelihood of future labeling problems. Publicizing
noncompliance could be an effective method to deter violations and
provide valuable information to consumers.
EPA requested comment on whether there should be a standardized
process to correct missing or inaccurate labels on products, and if so,
what that process should be.
Comment: EPA received several related comments, one commenter did
not support a standardized process for fixing labels, as they believed
that this could discourage necessary adjustments to labels from taking
place. Another commenter requested that EPA set up a standard process
for requesting new labels and certifying that they are accurate.
Response: The Agency is not finalizing a standardized process for
correcting missing, inaccurate, or otherwise noncompliant labels in
this rule. EPA may revisit this decision in the future but at this time
does not believe that a standardized process for correcting labels is
necessary to assess compliance and allow for enforcement actions under
this rule.
The labeling provisions are intended to support compliance with the
prohibitions on the use of high-GWP HFCs in certain sectors and
subsectors. Requiring a manufacturer or importer to affirmatively and
publicly specify the HFC being used through a label reinforces their
compliance with the limits established through this rulemaking.
Accurate labeling information also supports compliance with the limits
by allowing distributers, as well as competitors and the general
public, to assess whether a product uses a compliant HFC. The labeling
and packaging requirements may also ease inspection by EPA and CBP and
facilitate efforts to prevent the import or manufacture of noncompliant
products. Clearly and visibly identifying the HFC, or blend containing
an HFC, used provides one mechanism for inspectors to quickly identify
noncompliant products and/or identify products for further inspection.
As a secondary consideration, the information on the labels and
packaging materials can provide consumers with information about
whether a product uses an HFC or blend containing an HFC. This
information may alter consumer purchasing choices and could increase
market pressure for the transition away from products that use HFCs.
VIII. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
EPA is establishing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
any entity that domestically manufactures or imports products or
specified components that use or are intended to use regulated
substances or blends containing a regulated substance in the sectors
and subsectors covered in this rulemaking. As with labeling, this
requirement applies regardless of the GWP of the HFC or HFC blend used
or intended to be used.
EPA is not finalizing the proposed reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the installation of field-charged systems in this
rulemaking. The Agency may seek to establish reporting and/or
recordkeeping for installed systems in a future rulemaking under the
AIM Act. The proposed rule included both reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for importers and domestic manufacturers of products,
which as defined in the proposal was inclusive of field-charged
systems. The proposed rule also included an exemption for field
technicians or installers of systems from such requirements.
A subset of the entities subject to these reporting requirements
currently report under subpart QQ of the GHGRP.\164\ The GHGRP covers
the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and supplies from
certain facilities and suppliers. To meet the needs of this final rule
without unnecessarily increasing the administrative burden to those
entities that would be subject to both subpart QQ of 40 CFR part 98 and
this rulemaking, to the extent possible, EPA is aligning with the data
elements and reporting schedule collected by the GHGRP subpart QQ.
However, both subparts apply, and the reporter is expected to meet the
requirements codified under both subparts.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ, ``Importers and Exporters of
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or
Closed-Cell Foams.''
\165\ EPA is not making any changes to 40 CFR part 98 in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While many of the reporting elements overlap with those of the
GHGRP, the scope of the reporting universes is different in a few
important ways. First, this rule applies to both domestic manufacturers
and importers, whereas the GHGRP applies to importers and exporters.
Second, this rule requires reporting from all manufacturers and
[[Page 73191]]
importers of products and specified components regardless of the volume
of HFCs within those products. In contrast, the GHGRP excludes entities
that import and export less than 25,000 MTCO2e per year
\166\ (and are not otherwise required to report under 40 CFR part 98).
Third, this rule requires reporting from manufacturers and importers of
aerosol and aerosol solvent products containing HFCs which do not
report under the GHGRP. Requiring all entities to report is important
for understanding how HFCs are being used or are intended for use in
products and specified components and provides important information
for verifying compliance and allowing for better oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ Calculated as specified in 40 CFR 98.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is requiring covered entities to register and report
electronically.\167\ EPA intends to limit to the extent practicable
duplicative burden between the AIM Act and the GHGRP and plans to use a
mechanism to synchronize these systems similar to the Agency's efforts
under the HFC Allocation program. Entities already subject to reporting
under 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ may need to comply with the reporting
requirements of this rule but should not need to duplicate their
efforts. Where there is overlap in requested data, EPA intends to
internally direct data to the appropriate Agency data systems to reduce
duplicative burden as much as possible for reporters that fall under
this rule and under GHGRP subpart QQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ E-GGRT is EPA's electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
for certain sources and suppliers of GHGs in the United States to
report GHG emissions (https://ghgreporting.epa.gov/ghg/login.do).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The Agency received several comments with concerns about
the proposed approach to require manufacturers and importers to report
for field-charged systems. Some commenters indicated that these
requirements would result in duplicative reporting, with EPA receiving
reports for both components of systems and the completed system.
Additionally, some commenters indicated that data would be inaccurate,
as the manufacturers and importers would often have no way of knowing
the total volume of refrigerant charged in the field. Instead, one
commenter indicated that the reporting would be more accurate if it
occurred after the system is installed and charged as opposed to having
manufacturers or importers estimate an expected charge of a system,
which could be changed by numerous factors during installation.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that it is impractical for
manufacturers and importers to report on intended uses that they may
not know about. Reports for systems are most useful and effective for
ensuring compliance, allowing for enforcement, and understanding HFC
use when they are fully accurate and reflect how HFCs are being used.
As a result, in this rule, the Agency is focusing the reporting on the
information that can be known by the domestic manufacturer and importer
of products and specified components and is not finalizing a
requirement for reporting for systems prior to or upon their
installation.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for electronic
reporting and for the Technology Transitions program utilizing the
existing e-GGRT platform, which is used by reporters subject to the
GHGRP requirements codified under part 98, as regulated entities have
familiarity, access, and confidence in the system.
Response: EPA determined it could meet its goals under subsection
(i) of the AIM Act while using an existing platform that was already
familiar to many of the reporters. The Agency maintains that if in the
future, it cannot meet the needs of subsection (i) with existing
reporting mechanisms, EPA may require use of a different data system.
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA not create any new
recordkeeping and reporting requirements outside of what is already
covered in subpart QQ of the GHGRP, and by other EPA requirements, such
as the requirements overseen by the Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
Response: EPA is mindful of the various reporting requirements
across the Agency and has taken an approach to minimize duplicative
reporting where possible, but notes that the scope and purpose of this
rulemaking is separate from those regulations promulgated under
different statutory authorities for different programmatic goals. The
reporting and recordkeeping provisions specific to this rule are
necessary to implement and enforce subsection (i) of the AIM Act, which
directs EPA to restrict the use of HFCs in the sector or subsector in
which they are used. The broader scope of reporting in this rule allows
EPA to assess the threshold question of identifying which sectors or
subsectors use HFCs, which HFCs, and in what quantities, in order to
inform its decision-making under subsection (i) to act on petitions and
promulgate rules to facilitate the transition of sectors and subsectors
away from those HFCs.
A. What reporting is EPA requiring?
Covered entities in the refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat
pump sector must provide annual reports to EPA that include: (1) The
subsector of the product or specified component based on the
categorization in this rulemaking; (2) for each type of equipment with
a unique combination of charge size and regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance, the identity of the HFC or HFC blend
used, charge size (including holding charge or no charge, if
applicable), and number of each product type domestically manufactured,
imported, or exported; and (3) for each item in (2) in this list, the
total mass in metric tons of each HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used
in the product type, and the mass of the regulated substance, or blend
containing a regulated substance, per unit of equipment type.
Additionally, for products within the refrigeration, air-conditioning,
and heat pump sector that include closed-cell foams that contain HFCs,
the reporter must also provide; (1) the identity of the HFC or HFC
blend contained in the foam, (2) the mass of the HFC or HFC blend
contained in the foam in each product, and (3) the number of products
manufactured, imported, or exported with each unique combination of
mass and identity of HFC or HFC blend within the closed-cell foams.
Covered entities in the aerosols sector must provide annual reports
to EPA that include: (1) The subsector of the product based on the
categorization in this rulemaking; (2) for each type of product with a
unique regulated substance or combination of regulated substances, the
identity of the HFC(s) used, and if multiple HFCs are used, their
percentages, and number of each product type domestically manufactured,
imported, or exported; and (3) for each item in (2) in this list, the
total mass in metric tons of each HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used
in the product type, and the mass of the regulated substance, or blend
containing a regulated substance, per unit of product type.
Covered entities in the foam sector must provide annual reports to
EPA that include: (1) The subsector of the product based on the
categorization in this rulemaking; (2) for each type of product with a
unique regulated substance, or blend containing a regulated substance,
the identity of the HFC or HFC blend used, and the total volume of each
manufactured foam product type; and the number of foam products (e.g.,
polyols) type domestically manufactured, imported,
[[Page 73192]]
or exported; and (3) for each item in (2) in this list, the total mass
in metric tons of each HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used in the
product type, and the mass of the regulated substance, or blend
containing a regulated substance, per unit of product type.
For the requirement to report the total mass in metric tons of each
HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used in the relevant products and
specified components in the RACHP and aerosols sectors, but excluding
those in the foam blowing sector, reporters shall use the following
equation:
I = [Sigma3]t St x Nt x 0.001
where:
I = Total mass of the regulated substance or blend containing a
regulated substance (metric tons) in all products the reporter
imports and/or domestically manufacturers annually.
t = Equipment/product type using a regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance.
St = Mass of the regulated substance or blend containing
a regulated substance per unit of equipment type t (charge per piece
of equipment, kg).
Nt = Number of units of equipment type t imported or
domestically manufactured annually (pieces of equipment).
0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons.
For the RACHP sector, and for those foams that are an integrated
part of a product (e.g., the foam in a household refrigerator or
freezer), St shall be the mass of the regulated substance,
or blend containing a regulated substance, in the foam used as part of
the product, and all other factors in the equation above shall remain
the same.
For containers or foam blowing products (e.g., polyols) which
contain foam blowing agent, and are intended for use to blow foam,
St shall be the mass of the regulated substance, or blend
containing a regulated substance, in the container or foam blowing
product, and all other factors in the equation above shall remain the
same.
For those foams that are considered the product itself (e.g.,
extruded polystyrene boardstock), St shall be the density of
the regulated substance, or blend containing a regulated substance, in
foam (amount per cubic foot of foam, kg of regulated substance per
cubic foot), Nt shall be the total volume of foam imported
or domestically manufactured annually (cubic feet of foam), and all
other factors in the equation above shall remain the same.
This equation is used in 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ for imports and
exports of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams that contain a
fluorinated GHG, as defined under 40 CFR part 98, and is already in use
and familiar to those currently subject to reporting under subpart QQ.
EPA is also requiring that all entities subject to the reporting
requirements in this rule provide necessary identifying information to
EPA that includes: (1) The name of the importer or manufacturer, and
the physical street address including city, State, and zip code; (2)
the year covered under the report; (3) the date of submittal; (4) a
signed and dated certification statement provided by the designated
representative of the owner or operator; and (5) NAICS code(s) that
apply.
As proposed, EPA is requiring that reports be signed and attested.
Entities subject to the proposed reporting requirements must provide a
statement of certification that the data they provide are accurate.
Reporters must also certify that their products use only allowed HFCs,
do not exceed any applicable GWP limit, and are properly labeled.
For equipment that is shipped without an HFC but is intended to use
an HFC (e.g., dry-shipped specified components of a field-charged
system), EPA is requiring that the manufacturer or importer report on
(1) the sector and subsector of the equipment based on the
categorization in this rulemaking, if known; (2) the number of units,
by unique combination of intended charge size and HFC; (3) the HFC or
HFC blend intended to be used in the sector and subsector; and (4) the
expected quantity of HFC or HFC blend that the equipment would contain
when fully charged.
Requiring reporting from entities that are manufacturing or
importing equipment that is intended for but does not contain HFCs or
HFC blends will provide EPA with the full universe of relevant uses of
HFCs or HFC blends in the covered sectors and subsectors including the
quantity and type of HFCs used. It will allow the Agency to identify
the entities that manufacture and import this equipment and support
EPA's efforts to assess compliance. EPA seeks to ensure a level playing
field for the regulated community and views reporting as a central
mechanism for ensuring compliant companies are not placed at a
competitive disadvantage. Importers and manufacturers who fail to
report required information or provide inaccurate information would be
considered in violation.
In addition to the required reporting elements being finalized, EPA
had proposed that reporters provide (1) the GWP of the HFC or HFC blend
used or intended for use in the products and (2) the date of
manufacture or import. EPA is not finalizing requirements for either of
these proposed reporting elements. First, EPA has the ability to
calculate GWPs for provided HFCs and HFC blends. Removing this
requirement will prevent unintentional reporting errors due to
inaccurate GWP calculations, particularly as the AIM Act directs EPA to
use values that are equivalent to AR4 values, whereas other entities
may calculate GWPs differently. Second, EPA is removing the requirement
to report the exact date of manufacture or import as a necessary data
element.
Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about the Agency's
proposal to include date of manufacture or import in the reports. The
commenters described this requirement as being unjustifiably burdensome
and indicated that it would provide little to no value for assessing
compliance.
Response: EPA is mindful of the time and resources that reporters
dedicate to fulfilling reporting requirements. Based on a review of the
comments, EPA reconsidered and determined that the specific dates of
import or manufacture will not be necessary. For other regulatory
programs, knowing the specific day of import has utility in assessing
compliance (e.g., for imports of bulk HFCs in accordance with the HFC
Allocation program), but knowing the specific day that a product was
manufactured or imported would not provide significant additional value
to the Agency's understanding of the market transition from using high-
GWP HFCs. EPA is therefore removing these two data elements, GWP and
date of import or manufacture from finalized reporting requirements.
Because EPA is finalizing annual reporting, these reports would
necessarily capture imports and production from a specific calendar
year.
Comment: Numerous commenters requested that the Agency limit
reporting to aggregated use of HFCs in equipment. These commenters
raised concern about the detail requested in the reports and indicated
that reporting more detailed information than a summary of the
aggregated use of each chemical by subsector would be highly burdensome
and costly for the reporters. EPA interprets ``bulk use of HFCs'' to
mean reporting aggregated data, not the reporters' purchases of bulk
HFCs as defined in subpart A of this part.\168\
[[Page 73193]]
Reporting ``bulk use of HFCs'' would not be sufficient for ensuring
compliance and allowing for enforcement of subsection (i). The Agency
must have enough information in the reports to assess if the products
and equipment are being reported in the correct subsector and that they
meet all the specifications related to the restrictions. For instance,
for certain products the GWP limit changes based on factors such as
charge size. If reporters do not provide information related to the
charge size of the products, it will not be possible for the Agency to
assess market demand and other relevant aspects for the Technology
Transitions program. Additionally, the specific level of data requested
is in alignment with data already submitted under GHGRP and has been
required for over a decade. As a result, the Agency disagrees with the
commenters' assertion that the level of detail requested will be highly
burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Under 40 CFR 84.3, EPA has defined bulk as it relates to
HFCs as ``a regulated substance of any amount that is in a container
for the transportation or storage of that substance such as
cylinders, drums, ISO tanks, and small cans. A regulated substance
that must first be transferred from a container to another
container, vessel, or piece of equipment in order to realize its
intended use is a bulk substance. A regulated substance contained in
a manufactured product such as an appliance, an aerosol can, or a
foam is not a bulk substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several commenters noted that the public release of
certain data elements, such as information related to production and
sales volumes and GWPs of proprietary blends for foams, could result in
financial damage to companies. Commenters requested that EPA use a
confidential platform, such as e-GGRT, for reporting and ensure that
the data collected are properly secured and Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is treated as such.
Additional commenters noted that aggregated data could be released
publicly by the Agency. One commenter noted that Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act provides that `emission data' shall be publicly available
and cannot be withheld from the public as confidential information. The
commenter also noted that EPA has long-standing regulations that define
`emission data' expansively to include `a description of the device,
installation, or operation constituting the source' of those emissions.
Response: The Agency understands the need to properly manage and
secure CBI and is mindful of the concerns around specific data elements
being released and will ensure that appropriate protections are in
place for such data collected under this rulemaking. The Agency also
agrees that there is substantial value in sharing reported data with
the public. EPA plans to publicly share aggregated data collected under
this rule through reports, or other public-facing material. EPA intends
to protect CBI by aggregating data in public reports as well as
implementing data reporting and management platforms appropriate for
handling CBI.
1. What is the frequency and timing of reporting?
EPA is requiring annual reporting from domestic manufacturers and
importers subject to the reporting requirements. EPA had proposed
quarterly reporting to allow the Agency to review data throughout the
year to identify trends and noncompliance on an ongoing basis.
Quarterly reporting is also consistent with other reporting under the
Allocation Framework Rule. EPA is requiring that reports be submitted
to the Agency within 90 days of the end of the reporting period, rather
than 45 days as proposed.
Comment: EPA received significant comment in opposition to the
proposed reporting frequency. Most commenters requested that the Agency
instead finalize annual reporting. These commenters indicated that
quarterly reporting would be overly burdensome and costly for reporters
and requested annual reporting as a more feasible frequency. The
commenters stated that quarterly reporting would be cumbersome for the
Agency, and they did not believe it would provide greater clarity on
the total impact of the HFC phasedown than annual reports and would not
be necessary to ensure compliance with this rule. Commenters also noted
that annual reporting is sufficient under other reporting programs
across the Agency, such as the GHGRP. Additionally, some commenters
raised concerns about the costs associated with quarterly reporting
disproportionately harming small businesses. Some commenters were
supportive of quarterly reporting as they believed it would allow EPA
to spot trends faster than annual reporting and noted that it is
consistent with other reporting requirements under the AIM Act.
Response: After taking into consideration the information submitted
in the comments on the proposed reporting frequency, EPA has decided
that annual reporting will be sufficient for the Agency's purposes and
will be less burdensome to regulated entities. While EPA agrees that
quarterly reporting could allow for more detailed trends analyses and
is consistent with other AIM Act reporting such as for imports of bulk
HFCs, EPA agrees with commenters that annual reports will provide the
information necessary for the Agency to meet the goals of the
Technology Transitions program and should assist with compliance of
this rule. The Agency will be able to react to reports in a meaningful
way with information collected on an annual basis. If as implementation
on subsection (i) continues, the Agency determines that more frequent
reporting is necessary, EPA would propose a change in reporting
frequency. At this time, the Agency views annual reporting to be a
reasonable timeframe that would meet the Agency's information need and
would be less burdensome than quarterly reporting. Therefore, the
Agency is finalizing annual reporting.
Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about their ability to
submit reports within 45 days. These commenters stated that 45 days was
not sufficient time to compile and report the necessary data. The
commenters also noted that this is significantly shorter than the 90-
day requirement in subpart QQ of the GHGRP and requested that EPA allow
reporters 90 days to submit their reports. Commenters mentioned that
the longer timeline has been proven to be sufficient in the GHGRP and
that aligning these timelines would be beneficial for those that report
under both programs. One commenter explicitly supported the 45-day
reporting requirement.
Response: EPA is mindful of the need for reporters to have
sufficient time to compile and submit accurate and timely data. The
Agency is also seeking to reduce burden by aligning with other existing
requirements. EPA proposed 45 days to match the timing of reports for
the production and import of bulk HFCs under the Allocation Framework
Rules. However, EPA finds it more appropriate to align with the
reporting schedule of the GHGRP given the greater overlap of reporters
between this rule and that program.
EPA requested comment on whether to require reporters to provide
notification to the Agency prior to an import. EPA is not finalizing
such a requirement.
Comment: Some commenters indicted that pre-notification for
imported products could result in delayed shipments, could strain
supply chains, and negatively impact price stability and product
availability. These commenters believe that a pre-notification system
would not increase compliance or enhance enforcement efforts.
Response: While EPA considers pre-notification to be an important
tool that EPA uses in a range of situations, the Agency agrees that for
the purposes of implementing the Technology Transitions program under
subsection (i) it is not necessary for EPA to require pre-notification
at this time. EPA understands the concerns raised with regard to the
timely import of compliant products; however, EPA has effectively used
pre-notification processes with
[[Page 73194]]
other programs and does not consider pre-notification to create
barriers to timely imports. Pre-notification can be useful for ensuring
compliance at the point of import.
2. When do reporters need to begin reporting?
The Agency received a request for clarity regarding the compliance
date for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. A commenter
asked when EPA would consider the start date for reporting to be. The
proposed rule did not clearly specify when the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements would begin to apply.
EPA is requiring that the reporting period for all sectors and
subsectors start on January 1, 2025. This means that the first reports
must be submitted to the Agency by March 31, 2026. Starting the
reporting period on the same day for all sectors and subsectors will
allow the Agency to monitor the full scope of the transition resulting
from this rule. For subsectors with initial restrictions starting on
January 1, 2025, the start date to the reporting period is needed to
ensure compliance with the active restrictions. Reporting data provided
from subsectors with restrictions starting after January 1, 2025, will
provide valuable data to help EPA assess the use of HFCs in subsectors
prior to the compliance restrictions. This information will be helpful
to the Agency in its efforts to better understand the landscape of HFC
use across the country, and it will also allow for proactive efforts by
the Agency to ensure that subsectors are adequately preparing for the
transition to lower GWP HFCs.
B. What recordkeeping is EPA requiring?
EPA is requiring that entities that import or domestically
manufacture products or specified components that use or are intended
to use a regulated substance in the sectors and subsectors covered by
this rule maintain records that form the basis of the reporting
requirements. These entities must retain records for a minimum of three
years and make them available to EPA upon request. The importer or
domestic manufacturer must also retain records of the company or
retailer to whom the product or specified component was sold,
distributed, or in any way conveyed to. Information regarding where
products and specified components have been distributed, sold, or
conveyed to after import or manufacture may be necessary for tracking
noncompliant equipment when it is identified and removing it from the
market.
In addition, EPA is requiring that importers retain the following
records substantiating each of their imports: (1) A copy of the bill of
lading for the import, (2) the invoice for the import, (3) the CBP
entry documentation if applicable, (4) ports of arrival and entry
through which the products passed, and (5) country of origin and if
different the country of shipment to the United States. These
provisions are consistent with the recordkeeping required for the
subset of importers subject to subpart QQ of the GHGRP and will allow
EPA to enforce the restrictions by tracking the movement and sources of
noncompliant products when they are identified.
Comment: Numerous commenters supported the proposed recordkeeping
requirements. These commenters indicated that retaining records for a
period of three years is manageable for industry and requested that no
additional data other than the items proposed be required for the
purposes of recordkeeping. One commenter supported a recordkeeping
period of five years instead of three years, as five years would align
with the retention period of the HFC Framework rule.
Response: The Agency agrees that there may be benefits to aligning
with the five-year retention period under the HFC Framework. However,
EPA notes that a requirement to retain records for three years is
common practice across other programs at EPA and we consider it will be
sufficient for ensuring compliance and allowing for enforcement actions
under this rule. Covered entities may choose to retain records longer
and may have other reasons why doing so is beneficial. However, EPA is
only requiring records be retained for three years.
Comment: Several commenters requested the Agency clarify the
requirement that the importer or domestic manufacturer must retain
records of the company or retailer to whom the product was sold,
distributed, or in any way conveyed to. These commenters noted that
manufacturers and importers often do not know the end purchaser of a
product and requested that EPA clarify that manufacturers and importers
are not required to keep records of all sales throughout the
distribution chain.
Response: EPA is clarifying that this requirement only applies to
the initial sale, distribution, or conveyance from the domestic
manufacturer or importer to another entity. The Agency understands the
complexity of distribution channels and does not intend for the
manufacturer or importer to be required to retain records beyond the
first conveyance.
IX. What are the costs and benefits of this action?
EPA estimated the costs and benefits of restricting HFCs consistent
with this final rule. This analysis, presented in the RIA addendum
contained in the docket, is intended to provide the public with
information on the relevant costs and benefits of this action and to
comply with executive orders. To the extent that EPA has relied upon
costs and benefits estimates for purposes of analyzing factors under
subsection (i)(4), as discussed in sections VI.E and VI.F of this
preamble, EPA has summarized those estimates in the Costs and
Environmental Impacts TSD.
The RIA addendum also includes estimates of the social cost of HFCs
in order to quantify climate benefits, chiefly for the purpose of
providing useful information to the public and to comply with Executive
Order 12866. Although EPA estimated the social costs of HFCs for
purposes of that assessment, this action does not rely on these costs
as a record basis for the Agency action, and EPA would reach the
conclusions of this final rule in the absence of the social costs of
HFCs.
A. Assessment of costs and additional benefits utilizing transition
options
The RIA addendum follows a methodology that is consistent with the
costs and benefits analysis of the Allocation Framework RIA, released
in 2021, and the Addendum to that RIA accompanying the 2024 Allocation
Rule. In the Allocation Framework RIA and that Addendum, EPA calculates
costs and benefits using a marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve to
evaluate the availability and cost of abatement required to meet the
AIM Act phasedown caps for production and consumption. Similarly, for
this rulemaking, EPA quantified the costs associated with the
transitions necessary for compliance, but based on the sector- and
subsector-specific restrictions finalized in this rule as opposed to an
overall production and consumption cap. Both approaches, as discussed
in the RIA and this RIA addendum, respectively, also quantify the
monetized climate benefits associated with the reduction in emissions
over time as a result of decreased consumption of regulated
substances.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ For the sake of comparison, results from both sets of
analyses are included in the RIA addendum contained in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73195]]
Because the phasedown in HFC consumption and production has already
been codified under the Allocation Framework Rule, with further changes
under the 2024 Allocation Rule, the full extent of consumption and
emissions reductions as well as associated costs (or cost savings)
estimated for this rule are not considered additional. Therefore, in
calculating the impacts from this rule, we calculate the
``incremental'' costs and environmental impacts (either increased or
decreased) relative to those previously estimated for the Allocation
Framework Rule as updated by the 2024 Allocation Rule RIA Addendum.
EPA estimates that this rule will have incremental benefits
relative to those assessed for the Allocation Rules, although--as
discussed in the RIA addendum and the Costs and Environmental Impacts
TSD--the extent of these benefits varies depending on the mix and
timing of industry transitions made in order to achieve compliance in
the affected sectors and subsectors. In its analysis of the Allocation
Rules, EPA estimated that regulated entities would adopt specific
technology transition options to achieve compliance with the statutory
allowance cap step-downs. Industry is already making many of these
transitions, and we expect that achieving the allowance cap step-downs
will require many of the same subsector-specific technology transitions
that are required by this rule. However, this rule may in some cases
require regulated entities to further accelerate transitions in
specific subsectors, relative to what EPA previously assumed in its
analysis of the Allocation Rules. Conversely, entities in a discrete
set of subsectors not covered by this rule could conceivably forgo or
delay adopting abatement options that were assumed to be undertaken to
comply with the Allocation Rules.
Given this uncertainty, EPA analyzed two scenarios to represent the
range of potential incremental impacts resulting from this rule: a
``base case'' and ``high additionality case.'' Based on this approach,
EPA estimates average annual incremental HFC emissions and consumption
reductions from 2025-2050 of approximately 3 to 34 MMTCO2e
and 28 to 43 MMTCO2e, respectively. The annual incremental
consumption and emissions avoided are shown in Table 5 for select years
as well as on a cumulative basis.
Table 5-Incremental Consumption and Emission Reductions, Relative to Allocation Rule Reference Case 2025-2050
[MMTCO2e]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumption reductions Emission reductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Year High High
Base case additionality Base case additionality
case case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................ -5 30 -54 7
2030............................................ 23 50 -15 33
2035............................................ 38 49 3 44
2040............................................ 22 30 25 38
2045............................................ 37 45 28 37
2050............................................ 39 47 32 40
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative total............................ 720 1,113 83 876
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the climate benefits associated with consumption
abatement, the consumption changes are expressed in terms of emission
reductions. Emissions avoided in each year can be less than the
consumption avoided in the same year because of the delay between when
an HFC is produced or imported and when it is emitted to the
atmosphere.
As noted above, the base case scenario of incremental benefits
shows overall emission reductions over the full-time horizon for
implementation. However, the incremental emission reductions under the
transition pathway evaluated for this rule are in some cases assumed to
be more gradual than those EPA previously estimated to occur with
implementation of the Allocation Rules. This is primarily because (1)
the base case does not include certain actions to reduce consumption
(and, consequently, reduce emissions) previously assumed in the
Allocation Framework Rule reference case, including increased leak
reduction and enhanced recovery of HFCs, and (2) the assumed timing of
emission reductions achieved or forgone differs depending on assumed
equipment lifetime and the subsector and technology being modeled.
Overall, the abatement options analyzed for compliance with this rule
result in more consumption reductions on a cumulative basis; however,
some of the emission reductions come at a later time than the emission
reductions from the Allocation Framework Rule reference case. As a
result, when compared to the analysis of the Allocation Rules, the base
case scenario results in slightly higher emissions in earlier model
years while yielding greater emission reductions in later years and
overall.
Although the base case scenario is a reasonable projection of the
potential impacts of this rule, there is reason to believe that it is a
conservative one, and that the incremental emission reduction benefits
associated with this rule could be substantially greater than reflected
in the base case scenario. Previous regulatory programs to reduce
chemical use in the affected industries show that regulated entities do
not limit their response to the required compliance level; rather,
regulated entities may take additional actions that transform industry
practices for various reasons, including the anticipation of future
restrictions, strengthening their competitive position, and supporting
overall environmental goals. The industries affected by this rule have
historically reached compliance with chemical phaseouts ahead of
schedule. For instance, with a 1996 phaseout of CFCs, nearly all home
refrigerators and motor vehicle air conditioners had transitioned from
CFC-12 to HFC-134a by 1994. Likewise, with a 2010 phaseout of HCFC-22
for new equipment, air conditioners using R-410A were available more
than 10 years earlier than required. For this reason, in the high
additionality case we assumed certain abatement options not covered by
this rule--but which were assumed in the prior accounting of benefits
for the
[[Page 73196]]
Allocation Rules--are also included to illustrate the potential for
incremental benefits. In both scenarios, on a cumulative basis this
rule is expected to yield incremental emission reductions, ranging from
83 to 876 MMTCO2e through 2050 (respectively, about 2
percent and 20 percent of the total emissions over that same time
period in the Allocation Rules analyses). In the RIA addendum, we
estimate the present value of these incremental benefits to be between
$3.01 billion and $50.4 billion in 2020 dollars.
Table 6 presents a summary of the annual incremental costs and net
benefits of this rule for selected years in the time period 2025-2050,
with the climate benefits discounted at 3 percent.
Table 6--Summary of Annual Incremental Climate Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Technology Transitions Rule Base Case and High Additionality
Case Scenarios for the 2025-2050 Timeframe
[millions of 2020$, discounted to 2022] a b c d e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base case High additionality case
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual costs Net benefits Annual costs Net benefits
Year Incremental (negative (3% benefits, Incremental (negative (3% benefits,
climate values are 3% or 7% climate values are 3% or 7%
benefits (3%) savings) costs) \e\ benefits (3%) savings) costs) \e\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025.................................................... -$3,730 $73 -$3,803 $486 $532 -$46
2029.................................................... -1,253 208 -1,461 2,451 498 1,953
2034.................................................... -73 -28 -45 3,636 98 3,538
2036.................................................... -613 -424 -190 3,121 -381 3,501
2040.................................................... 2,448 -677 3,125 3,831 -618 4,449
2045.................................................... 3,080 -587 3,667 4,164 -523 4,687
2050.................................................... 3,869 -619 4,488 4,938 -549 5,488
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate 3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV...................................... $3,013 ($4,549) ($2,073) $7,561 $5,086 $50,406 ($1,601) $1 $52,007 $50,405
EAV..................................... 184 (278) (215) 462 399 3,081 (98) 0 3,179 3,081
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits include only those related to climate. Climate benefits are based on changes in HFC emissions and are calculated using four different
estimates of the SC-HFCs (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). For
purposes of this table, we show the effects associated with the model average at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not have a single
central SC-HFC point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-HFC estimates. As
discussed in Chapter 5 of the RIA addendum a consideration of climate effects calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and
lower, is also warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts.
\b\ Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
\c\ The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated as if they occur over a 26-year period from 2025 to 2050.
\d\ The costs presented in this table are annual estimates.
\e\ The PV for the 7% net benefits column is found by taking the difference between the PV of climate benefits at 3% and the PV of costs discounted at
7%. Due to the intergenerational nature of climate impacts the social rate of return to capital, estimated to be 7 percent in OMB's Circular A-4, is
not appropriate for use in calculating PV of climate benefits.
Climate benefits presented in Tables 5 and 6 are based on changes
(increases or reductions) in HFC emissions compared to the Allocation
Framework Rule reference case (i.e., after consideration of benefits
previously accounted for in Allocation Framework Rule RIA and 2024
Allocation Rule RIA Addendum) and are calculated using four different
global estimates of the social cost of HFCs (SC-HFCs): the model
average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates and the
95th percentile at a 3 percent discount rate. For the presentational
purposes of Table 6, we show the incremental benefits associated with
the average SC-HFCs at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does
not have a single central SC-HFCs point estimate.
EPA estimates the climate benefits for this rule using a measure of
the social cost of each HFC (collectively referred to as SC-HFCs) that
is affected by this rule. The SC-HFCs is the monetary value of the net
harm to society associated with a marginal increase in HFC emissions in
a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle,
SC-HFCs includes the value of all climate change impacts, including
(but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human
health effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural
disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict,
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. As with
the estimates of the social cost of other GHGs, the SC-HFC estimates
are found to increase over time within the models--i.e., the societal
harm from one metric ton emitted in 2030 is higher than the harm caused
by one metric ton emitted in 2025--because future emissions produce
larger incremental damages as physical and economic systems become more
stressed in response to greater climatic change, and because gross
domestic product (GDP) is growing over time and many damage categories
are modeled as proportional to GDP. The SC-HFCs, therefore, reflects
the societal value of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one
metric ton. The SC-HFCs is the theoretically appropriate value to use
in conducting benefit-cost analyses of policies that affect HFC
emissions.
The gas-specific SC-HFC estimates used in this analysis were
developed using methodologies that are consistent with the methodology
underlying estimates of the social cost of other GHGs (carbon dioxide
(SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O)), collectively referred to as SC-GHG, presented in
the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and
Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 published
in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (IWG) (IWG 2021). As a member of the IWG involved in
the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, EPA agrees that the
TSD represents the most appropriate methodology for estimating the
social cost of greenhouse gases until revised estimates have been
developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science. Therefore, EPA
views the SC-HFC estimates used in analysis to be
[[Page 73197]]
appropriate for use in benefit-cost analysis until improved estimates
of the social cost of other GHGs are developed.
As discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG emphasized the
importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all
four estimates (model average at 2.5, 3, and 5 percent discount rates,
and 95th percentile at a 3 percent discount rate). In addition, the TSD
explained that a consideration of climate benefits calculated using
discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, is also
warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts. As a member of
the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 TSD, EPA
agrees with this assessment for the purpose of estimating climate
benefits from HFC reductions as well, and will continue to follow
developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
Table 7 presents the sum of incremental climate benefits across all
HFCs reduced for the Technology Transitions Rule for 2025, 2029, 2034,
2036, 2040, 2045, and 2050 in the base case scenario.
Table 7--Incremental Climate Benefits for the Final Rule for Select Years From 2025-2050 (Base Case Scenario) a
b
[Billions of 2020$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental climate benefits by discount rate and statistic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 3% (95th
5% (average) 3% (average) 2.5% (average) percentile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................ -1.6 -3.7 -5.0 -9.9
2029............................ -0.5 -1.3 -1.7 -3.3
2034............................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2
2036............................ -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -1.7
2040............................ 1.0 2.4 3.2 6.5
2045............................ 1.4 3.1 4.0 8.2
2050............................ 1.8 3.9 5.0 10.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits include only those related to climate. See Table 6-3 in the RIA addendum for the full time series
of climate benefits using the SC-HFC.
\b\ Climate benefits are based on changes in HFC emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of
the SC-HFCs (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; and 95th percentile at 3
percent discount rate). The IWG emphasized, and EPA agrees with, the importance and value of considering the
benefits calculated using all four estimates. As discussed in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (IWG 2021), a consideration
of climate benefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, are also
warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts.
EPA estimates that the present value of cumulative net incremental
benefits evaluated from 2025 through 2050 ranges from $7.6 billion to
$52.0 billion at a 3 percent discount rate, or $5.1 billion to $50.4
billion at a 7 percent discount rate. These comprise cumulative
incremental climate benefits due to reducing HFC emissions (with a
present value ranging from $3.01 billion to $50.4 billion) as well as
cumulative incremental compliance savings (with a present value ranging
from $1.6 billion to $4.5 billion at a 3 percent discount rate or -$1
million to $2.1 billion at a 7 percent discount rate).
The estimation of incremental benefits due to reductions in HFC
emissions resulting from the restrictions involved three steps. First,
the difference between the consumption of HFCs realized under this rule
and the consumption that would have been expected based on the analysis
in the Allocation Framework RIA as adjusted by the Addendum for the
2024 Allocation Rule was calculated for each year of the restrictions
in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e).
Although the Allocation Framework Rule only required allowances for
domestic bulk consumption (i.e., in that rule, EPA defines consumption,
with respect to a regulated substance, to mean bulk production plus
bulk imports minus bulk exports), the consumption reduction estimates
in the Allocation Framework RIA included reductions in imported
products containing HFCs. Second, using EPA's Vintaging Model, the
changes in consumption were used to estimate changes in HFC emissions,
which generally lag consumption by some time as HFCs incorporated into
equipment and products are eventually released to the environment.
Finally, the climate benefits were calculated by multiplying the HFC
emission reductions for each year by the appropriate social cost of HFC
to arrive at the monetary value of HFC emission reductions.
The incremental climate benefits of this rule derive mostly from
preventing the emissions of HFCs with high GWPs, thus reducing the
damage from climate change that would have been induced by those
emissions. The emission reductions attributed to this rule are only
those beyond the reductions previously estimated for the Allocation
Framework Rule as updated by the 2024 Allocation Rule, due to more
rapid and/or comprehensive transitions to HFC substitutes in certain
sectors or subsectors than would otherwise occur in the Allocation
Framework Rule reference case. The reduction in emissions follows from
a reduction in the production and consumption of HFCs measured in
millions of MTCO2e, or MMTCO2e, that would occur
as a result of the restrictions in this rule. It is assumed that all
HFCs produced or consumed would be emitted eventually, either in their
initial use (e.g., as propellants), during the lifetime of HFC-
containing products (e.g., off-gassing from closed-cell foams or leaks
from refrigeration systems), or during servicing--including the reuse
of HFC recovered and possibly reclaimed--or disposal of HFC-containing
products. However, because the emissions lag the consumption in time,
all the consumption reductions are not realized as emission reductions
during the time period analyzed; hence, the cumulative emission
reductions calculated are lower than the cumulative consumption
reductions.
EPA recognizes the shortcomings and limitations associated with the
current interim IWG estimates and underlying methodology. Since the SC-
HFC estimates are based on the same methodology underlying the SC-GHG
estimates presented in the IWG February 2021 TSD, they share
limitations that are common to those SC-GHG estimates. The limitations
were outlined in the February 2021 TSD
[[Page 73198]]
and include that the current scientific and economic understanding of
discounting approaches suggests discount rates appropriate for
intergenerational analysis in the context of climate change are likely
to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or lower. Additionally, the
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) used to produce these estimates do
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature,
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research.
The modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in
terms of their influence on the SC-HFC estimates. However, as discussed
in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken together,
the limitations suggest that the SC-GHG estimates likely underestimate
the damages from GHG emissions. Therefore, as a member of the IWG
involved in the development of the February 2021 TSD, EPA agrees that
the interim SC-GHG estimates represent the most appropriate estimate of
the SC-GHG until revised estimates have been developed reflecting the
latest, peer reviewed science.
B. Scoping Analysis of Imports of Products
In the Technology Transitions Rule RIA addendum, EPA examined the
scope of HFCs supplied in and emitted from equipment and products that
are imported to the United States containing HFCs. We explained that
the Allocation Framework Rule program does not require the expenditure
of allowances when importing products with HFCs to the United States.
We also indicated in the Allocation Framework Rule that subsection (i)
of the AIM Act provided authority that would be appropriate to address
such imports. In this rule, under subsection (i) of the AIM Act,
restrictions apply equally to imported and domestically manufactured
products that contain regulated substances or blends containing a
regulated substance.
In the RIA addendum, we reiterate that while the Allocation
Framework Rule did not restrict imports of products containing HFCs,
the analysis performed for that rule as well as the 2024 Allocation
Rule assumed a whole-market approach. In other words, transitions that
were selected by the models to meet HFC consumption reductions were
assumed to apply equally to imported products and domestically
manufactured products. We were not at the time able to distinguish the
two because the models used (i.e., the Vintaging Model and the Marginal
Abatement Cost model) are agnostic as to the location of product
manufacture. The models are used to project demand for and emissions
from products containing HFCs in the United States or HFC emitting
processes carried out in the United States.
To understand the historical and potential future scope of imports
in products, and the effects that the restrictions could have, EPA
evaluated additional information to analyze eight scenarios as
explained in Annex D to the RIA addendum. The scenarios derived from
two approaches to estimate what HFCs or substitutes are contained in
the imported products, two scenarios for how future imports would grow,
and two methods of evaluating the substitutes that would be used in
imported products to comply with the restrictions. From these
calculations of reductions in the supply of HFCs inside products, we
applied a simplified emission model to estimate the time-dependent
emission reductions, which due to the multi-year use of some products
lag the initial supply. We used these emission reduction estimates, by
HFC over time, and the same SC-HFCs factors from the Allocation
Framework RIA, to derive climate benefits. The climate benefits were
not used for decisional purposes and are provided for informational and
illustrative purposes only. As described in the RIA addendum, these
estimates are provided as a scoping analysis and are considered in
whole just a subset of the climate benefits achieved from other actions
taken under the AIM Act.
As detailed in Annex D to the RIA addendum, annual reductions in
the supply of HFCs in imported products ranged from 30.0 to 50.4
MMTCO2e in 2029, from 31.0 to 59.0 MMTCO2e in
2034, and from 31.0 to 62.5 MMTCO2e in 2036, depending on
the scenario. The cumulative reductions for the years 2025 through 2050
ranged from 828 to 1,720 MMTCO2e, equal to about 12 to 25
percent of the projected reductions in the Allocation Rules analysis
and about 10 to 23 percent of the combined projected reductions due to
the Allocation Rules plus the incremental reductions due to this
Technology Transitions Rule.
The emission reductions lag the reductions in supply as previously
explained in this section but increase significantly as products and
systems reach the end of their lifecycle and HFCs are emitted. The
cumulative emission reductions for the years 2025 through 2050 ranged
from 317 to 598 MMTCO2e, equal to about 7 to 13 percent of
the projected reductions in the Allocation Rules analysis and about 6
to 13 percent of the combined projected reductions in the Allocation
Rules analysis plus the incremental reductions due to this Technology
Transition Rule.
Climate benefits of the emission reductions are shown in Table 8.
As noted in this section, these benefits are not considered additional
to the Allocation Framework Rule or to this rule and are shown to
inform the reader of the scope of the benefits from restricting
imported products using HFCs.
Table 8--Climate Benefits From Restricting Imports of Regulated Products
for 2025-2050
[Billions of 2020$, discounted to 2022]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net climate benefits at 3%
(average) discount rate
Year -----------------------------------
Range of eight scenarios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025................................ 0
2029................................ 0 to 0.2
2034................................ 0 to 0.3
2036................................ 0.1 to 0.5
2040................................ 2.2 to 3.0
2045................................ 3.0 to 4.5
2050................................ 4.0 to 7.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. How is EPA evaluating environmental justice?
EPA provides the following discussion of its assessment of
environmental justice impacts in relationship to this rulemaking. This
analysis is intended to provide the public with information on the
potential environmental justice impacts of this action. This analysis
was not used for purposes of EPA's consideration of the statutory
factors under AIM Act subsection (i)(4) or any determinations EPA has
made in this action.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and Executive
Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021) establish Federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Executive Order 14096, signed April
21, 2023, builds on the prior Executive Orders to further advance
environmental justice (88 FR 25251).
Executive Order 12898's main provision directs Federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
[[Page 73199]]
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on people of color and low-income populations in the United
States. EPA defines \170\ environmental justice as the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.\171\ Meaningful involvement means that: (1) Potentially
affected populations have an appropriate opportunity to participate in
decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment
and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the
regulatory Agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all participants
involved will be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the
rule-writers and decision-makers seek out and facilitate the
involvement of those potentially affected.\172\ The term
``disproportionate impacts'' refers to differences in impacts or risks
that are extensive enough that they may merit Agency action. In
general, the determination of whether there is a disproportionate
impact that may merit Agency action is ultimately a policy judgment
which, while informed by analysis, is the responsibility of the
decision-maker. The terms ``difference'' or ``differential'' indicate
an analytically discernible distinction in impacts or risks across
population groups. It is the role of the analyst to assess and present
differences in anticipated impacts across population groups of concern
for both the baseline and proposed regulatory options, using the best
available information (both quantitative and qualitative) to inform the
decision-maker and the public.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ EPA recognizes that E.O. 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 21,
2023) provides a new terminology and a new definition for
environmental justice, as follows: ``the just treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race,
color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency
decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human
health and the environment so that people: (i) Are fully protected
from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental
effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to
climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other
burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic
barriers; and (ii) have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable,
and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow,
worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.'' For
additional information, see https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
\171\ See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency.
``Environmental Justice.'' Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
\172\ The criteria for meaningful involvement are contained in
EPA's May 2015 document ``Guidance on Considering Environmental
Justice During the Development of an Action.'' Environmental
Protection Agency, 17 Feb. 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/guidance-considering-environmental-justice-during-development-action.
\173\ The definitions and criteria for ``disproportionate
impacts,'' ``difference,'' and ``differential'' are contained in
EPA's June 2016 document ``Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis.'' Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 14096 calls on agencies to make achieving
environmental justice part of their missions and further declares a
policy to ``advance environmental justice and help create a more just
and sustainable future for all.'' \174\ The January 2021 Presidential
Memorandum on Modernizing Regulatory Review calls for procedures to
``take into account the distributional consequences of regulations,
including as part of a quantitative or qualitative analysis of the
costs and benefits of regulations, to ensure that regulatory
initiatives appropriately benefit, and do not inappropriately burden
disadvantaged, vulnerable, or marginalized communities.'' \175\ EPA
also released its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis'' to provide
recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality
analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, time and resource
constraints, and analytic challenges will vary by media and
circumstance.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ 88 FR 25251 (Apr. 26, 2023).
\175\ Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing Regulatory Review,
January 20, 2021. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/modernizing-regulatory-review.
\176\ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis, June 2016. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Allocation Framework Rule, among other things, established the
framework for the phasedown of HFCs in the United States, which will
achieve significant benefits by reducing the production and consumption
of HFCs on a GWP-weighted basis. In that rulemaking, EPA described the
environmental justice analysis conducted in support of this rule and
summarized the public health and welfare effects of GHG emissions
(including HFCs), including information that certain parts of the
population may be especially vulnerable to climate change risks based
on their characteristics or circumstances, including the poor, the
elderly, the very young, those already in poor health, the disabled,
those living alone, and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or
limited resources due to factors including but not limited to
geography, access, and mobility. Potential impacts of climate change
raise environmental justice issues. Low-income communities, for
example, can be especially vulnerable to climate change impacts because
they tend to have more limited capacity to bear the costs of adaptation
and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local
water and food supplies. In corollary, some communities of color,
specifically populations defined jointly by both ethnic/racial
characteristics and geographic location, may be uniquely vulnerable to
climate change health impacts in the United States.
Many of the environmental justice implications of this rule are
similar to those addressed at length in the RIA \177\ developed for the
Allocation Rules. The analysis of potential environmental justice
concerns for the Allocation Rules focused mainly on characterizing
baseline emissions of air toxics that are also associated with chemical
feedstock use for HFC production. As detailed in the RIA for the
Allocation Rules, the phasedown of high-GWP HFCs in the United States
will reduce GHG emissions, thereby reducing damages associated with
climate change that would have been associated with those emissions.
EPA expects that this rule will also reduce GHG emissions, which will
benefit populations that may be especially vulnerable to damages
associated with climate change. We also expect that the restriction on
use of certain HFCs will increase the production of HFC substitutes.
However, there continues to be significant uncertainty about how the
transition to lower-GWP substitutes and market trends independent of
this rulemaking could affect production of predominant HFC substitutes,
such as hydrocarbons, ammonia (R-717), and HFOs at individual
facilities and how those changes in production could affect associated
air pollutant emissions, particularly in communities that are
disproportionately burdened by air pollution. Some predominant HFC
substitutes, such as HFOs, use the same chemicals used in the
manufacture of HFCs as feedstocks in their production or release the
same chemicals as
[[Page 73200]]
byproducts, potentially raising concerns about local exposure. Due to
the limitations of the current data, we cannot make conclusions about
the impact this rule may have on individuals or specific communities
near facilities producing HFC substitutes. For the purpose of
environmental justice, however, it is important to understand the
characteristics of the communities surrounding these facilities to
better ensure that future actions, as more information becomes
available, can improve outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ The RIA for the Allocation Framework Rule is available in
the docket for that rulemaking at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0044-0227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2016 Technical Guidance does not prescribe or recommend a
specific approach or methodology for conducting an environmental
justice analysis, though a key consideration is consistency with the
assumptions underlying other parts of the regulatory analysis when
evaluating the baseline and regulatory options. Therefore, for this
rule, EPA followed the format used for the Allocation Framework RIA to
analyze the demographic characteristics and baseline exposure of the
communities near facilities producing HFC substitutes. The complete
analysis is described in the RIA addendum developed for this rule,
which is available in the docket. EPA relied on public data from the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI),\178\ GHGRP, Chemical Data Reporting
(CDR) Program,\179\ EJScreen (an environmental justice mapping and
screening tool developed by EPA), Enforcement and Compliance History
Online, Census data, and information provided by industry stakeholders
to identify the facilities. In addition, updated Air Toxics Screening
Assessment (AirToxScreen, formerly National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA)) data from 2019 for census tracts within and outside of a 1-, 3-
, 5-, and 10-mile distance were used to approximate the cumulative
baseline cancer and respiratory risk due to air toxics exposure for
communities near the production facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ TRI tracks the management of certain toxic chemicals that
may pose a threat to human health and the environment. U.S.
facilities in different industry sectors must report annually how
much of each chemical is released to the environment and/or managed
through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. Facilities submit
a TRI Form R for each TRI-listed chemical it manufactures,
processes, or otherwise uses in quantities above the reporting
threshold.
\179\ The CDR program, under the Toxic Substances Control Act,
requires manufacturers (including importers) to provide EPA with
information on the production and use of chemicals in commerce.
Under the CDR rule, EPA collects information on the types,
quantities, and uses of chemical substances produced domestically
and imported into the United States. The information is collected
every four years from manufacturers of certain chemicals in commerce
generally when production volumes are 25,000 pounds or greater for a
specific reporting year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the restriction on use of certain HFCs, EPA anticipates that
the production of HFC substitutes will increase. Accordingly, for the
environmental justice analysis for this rule, EPA identified 14
facilities producing predominant HFC substitutes that may be impacted
by this rule and where production changes may impact nearby
communities. The relatively small number of facilities that may be
affected by this rule enabled EPA to assemble a uniquely granular
assessment of the characteristics of the facilities and the communities
where they are located. Overall, this rule will reduce GHG emissions,
which will benefit populations that may be especially vulnerable to
damages associated with climate change. However, the manner in which
producers transition from high-GWP HFCs could drive changes in future
risk for communities living near facilities that produce HFC
substitutes, to the extent the use of toxic feedstocks, byproducts, or
catalysts changes, and those chemicals are released into the
environment with adverse local effects.
The environmental justice analysis, which examines racial and
economic demographic and health risk information, found heterogeneity
in community characteristics around individual facilities. The analysis
showed that more individuals identified as African American or Black
and as Hispanic with respect to race live in proximity to the
identified facilities compared with the national average or the rural
area national average. Importantly, the comparison to the rural area
national average is more striking because so many of the facilities are
rural. While median income is not significantly different for the
communities near the facilities (slightly lower than the national
average but slightly above or equal to the rural median income), there
are more very low-income households in these communities. Additionally,
total cancer risk and total respiratory risk is higher than either the
rural national average or the overall national average in communities
near the facilities. The analysis shows that the risks are higher for
those within the 1-mile average radius and decrease at the 3-mile, 5-
mile, and 10-mile radii.
EPA notes that the averages may obfuscate potentially large
differences in the community characteristics surrounding individual
production facilities. Analysis of the demographic characteristics and
AirToxScreen data for the 14 identified facilities shows that there are
significant differences in the communities near these facilities. The
racial, ethnic, and income results are varied but, in almost all cases,
total cancer risk and total respiratory risk are higher for the
communities in proximity to the sites than to the appropriate (rural or
overall) average when compared with the national or State results.
Additionally, some facilities are in communities that are quite
different from the aggregate results discussed in this section above.
The aggregate results show that the communities near the facilities
tend to have slightly fewer neighboring individuals identified as White
and more identified as African American or Black and as Hispanic with
respect to race, in several cases. In several cases, however, the
communities near specific facilities have higher percentages of White
individuals than either the State or national averages. This is true
for the HFC substitute-producing facilities in San Dimas, CA; Sibley,
LA; El Dorado, AR; Gregory and Manvel, TX; along with those in Iowa,
Illinois, and West Virginia.
EPA included a demonstration of a microsimulation approach in the
RIA addendum to analyze the proximity of communities to potentially
affected facilities. Microsimulation is a technique relying upon
advanced statistics and data science to combine disparate survey and
geospatial data. It has long been used in economic and social science
research and by EPA (in the context of understanding the implications
of underground storage tank impacts on groundwater). Recent advances in
data science and computational power have increased the availability of
microsimulation for applications such as environmental justice
analysis. The demonstration analysis included in the RIA addendum
contributes to understanding communities that may warrant further
environmental justice analysis.
In the proposed rule EPA sought comment on the use of
microsimulation approaches and techniques for regulatory impact
analysis and other program activities. Among other things, EPA sought
information on what microsimulation tools are appropriate for better
understanding the burdens faced by communities, and in what
circumstances. The demonstration analysis presented in the RIA addendum
uses a dataset of ``synthetic households'' based on geospatial data
combined through microsimulation techniques with information from the
U.S. Decennial Census and the American Communities Survey. EPA
requested comment on other surveys or other geospatial datasets should
be the
[[Page 73201]]
focus of EPA efforts to combine with the American Communities Survey
and/or Decennial Census data; how microsimulation tools supplement
other EPA tools for understanding demographics, multiple burdens facing
communities, and assessing the impact of EPA programs; and how
microsimulation and other techniques to use current survey information
can be used to identify data gaps which might be filled with
refinements or improvements to existing survey tools.
EPA noted in the Allocation Framework Rule, and reiterates here,
that it is not clear the extent to which these baseline risks are
directly related to potential future HFC substitute production, but
some feedstocks, catalysts, and byproducts are toxic, particularly with
respect to potential carcinogenicity (e.g., carbon tetrachloride). All
HFC substitute production facilities are near other industrial
facilities that could contribute to the cumulative AirToxScreen cancer
and respiratory risk, and, at this time, it is not clear how emissions
related to HFC substitute production compare to other chemical
production at the same or nearby facilities. Because of the limited
information regarding where substitutes will be produced and what other
factors might affect production and emissions at those locations, it is
unclear to what extent this rule may affect baseline risks from
hazardous air toxics for communities living near HFC substitute
production facilities.
Additionally, as mentioned previously, emissions from facilities
producing fluorinated and non-fluorinated substitutes may also be
affected by the phasedown of HFCs. For the 2024 Allocation Rule, EPA
updated the environmental justice analysis that was previously
conducted for the Allocation Framework RIA to help understand how the
implementation of the HFC phasedown may affect production and emissions
at facilities that produce HFCs. EPA followed the analytical approach
used in the Allocation Framework RIA to provide updated data on the
total number of TRI facilities near HFC production facilities and the
cancer and respiratory risks to surrounding communities. This update
included the use of the most recent data available for the AirToxScreen
data set from 2019, replacing the 2014 NATA data used in the previous
analysis. Additionally, EPA updated the list of HFC production
facilities as part of the HFC Allocation analysis to include a ninth
facility that reported production of HFCs in 2022. Finally, EPA has
updated the list of toxic chemicals potentially used as a feedstock or
catalyst or released as a byproduct of HFC production based on
information reported to EPA under the Allocation Framework Rule (see 40
CFR 84.31(b)(1)).
Comment: EPA received two comments related to the use of
microsimulation in the EJ analysis. The first commenter asserted that
it is imperative that the Agency recognize the limitations of any
output from microsimulation analyses and ensure such data are utilized
within the context of their limitations and that these analyses should
be a starting point to inform further dialogue and analysis rather than
being used as the sole basis for future regulatory action. The second
commenter stated that they appreciate EPA's use of microsimulation
models to better model the environmental justice impacts of this rule
and encourages EPA to explore longitudinal American Community Survey
datasets in any forecasting it attempts. IPUMS may be a helpful
resource for tracking this data over time.
Response: EPA continues to explore the use of microsimulation
approaches to better understand the characteristics of communities.
IPUMS is one of several datasets EPA is considering for additional
analyses. The Agency recognizes that these analyses have limitations
and is not currently contemplating using them as the sole basis for
future regulatory action under the AIM Act.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should fully evaluate the
health and environmental risks of HFC and HFO usage in addition to the
impacts on communities near facilities particularly with regard to PFAS
and trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) from HFCs and HFOs as an area of
concern.
Response: With regard to PFAS, EPA notes that currently, there is
no single commonly agreed definition of PFAS, and whether HFCs or HFOs
are classified as PFAS depends on the definition being used. EPA's PFAS
roadmap, available at https://www.epa.gov/pfas, sets timelines for
specific actions and outlines EPA's commitments to new policies to
safeguard public health, protect the environment, and hold polluters
accountable. This rule does not in any way establish a definition of
PFAS, nor do the listing decisions depend on a specific definition. As
described in section VI.E, substitutes identified as available for use
in the subsectors covered in this rulemaking have, for the most part,
also been evaluated under the SNAP program. In evaluating alternatives,
SNAP uses a comparative risk framework, and considers potential risks
to human health and the environment.
With regard to the commenter's concern regarding atmospheric
decomposition of certain HFCs and HFOs to TFA, EPA notes that TFA is a
perfluorinated acid. Where TFA has been included in a particular
definition of PFAS, it is often part of a class of chemicals containing
more than 4,730 substances. According to the United Nations Environment
Program's Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) about 256 PFAS
are in commercial use, with widely differing physical, chemical, and
biological properties.\180\ An EEAP 2022 Assessment Report \181\
explained that one source of TFA in the environment is the degradation
of some HFCs, HCFCs, HFOs, and HCFOs, other potential sources of TFA
include geogenic sources; effluents and releases from the manufacture
of fluorinated chemicals; combustion, and degradation of fluorinated
chemicals in commercial and household waste; and biological and
environmental degradation of chemicals such as certain pharmaceuticals
and pesticides. The 2022 EEAP Report indicates that while TFA ``is
unlikely to cause adverse effects in terrestrial and aquatic organisms,
[continued] monitoring and assessment are nevertheless advised due to
uncertainties in the deposition of TFA and its potential effects on
marine organisms.'' The report notes that ``TFA does not bioaccumulate
nor is it toxic at the low to moderate exposures currently measured in
the environment or those predicted in the distant future.'' Because the
HCFCs and HFCs are long-lived in the atmosphere, they distribute
globally and TFA from these substances is more evenly deposited. The
HFOs and HCFOs have shorter lifetimes in the atmosphere and deposition
of TFA from these substances is likely to be more localized. This will
result in greater concentrations near the locations of release. This is
unlikely to present a risk to humans or the environment in these
locations but changes in concentration in surface water (or soil) would
respond rapidly to releases. The 2022 EEAP report states,
``[monitoring] of the environment for residues of TFA would provide an
early warning if trends in concentration indicate rapid increases.''
EPA reiterates that the SNAP program,
[[Page 73202]]
which is one of the sources the Agency considered when determining
availability of alternatives, considers ecotoxicity as a criterion when
evaluating alternatives under its comparative risk framework, and the
Agency has considered the potential impacts of TFA in past actions
where SNAP found HFO-1234yf acceptable in certain end uses. The myriad
studies EPA referenced all concluded that the additional TFA from HFO-
1234yf did not pose a significant additional risk, even if it were
assumed to be used as the only refrigerant in all refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment (76 FR 17492-17493, March 29, 2011). The Agency
intends to continue its approach to evaluating the potential risks from
TFA in future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ UNEP. 2022 Assessment Report of the Environmental Effects
Assessment Panel. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/EEAP-2022-Assessment-Report-May2023.pdf.
\181\ The EEAP is an advisory body to the Montreal Protocol
Parties that evaluates the consequences of stratospheric ozone
depletion and additional areas of potential importance to the
Montreal Protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter, echoing comments submitted on the
Allocation Rule, noted that EPA should monitor indirect pollution
impacts (e.g., increased truck traffic and increased diesel exhaust) on
communities impacted by the proposed rule.
Response: This rule promulgated under subsection (i) will require
manufacturers to restrict the use of HFCs in certain subsectors. Those
restrictions on the use of HFCs will, along with the rule implementing
the phasedown under subsection (e), likely have the effect of
increasing the production of HFC substitutes. We do not disagree that
this increase in production may result in changed traffic conditions
near facilities producing HFC substitutes, but EPA did not propose to
monitor indirect pollution impacts near facilities producing
substitutes, nor are we finalizing such monitoring at this time.
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA should directly engage
with the communities' surrounding facilities that produce HFC
substitutes. EPA should hold in-person informational workshops in
potentially affected communities, provide for relevant translation
services to disseminate information about potential impacts, and ensure
that community feedback is representative. This commenter also
recommends that after this rule is finalized, EPA should provide
effective technical assistance and promote compliance in an equitable
manner by holding informational workshops and providing translation
services to members of the regulated community, including small
businesses in underserved and Tribal communities.
Response: EPA reached out to EJ organizations when developing the
proposed rule. EPA specifically invited EJ groups to public meetings on
this rule and shared information using established channels. EPA
received comments from environmental organizations, States, and other
stakeholders raising EJ concerns. As a part of implementation of this
rule, EPA will continue outreach to stakeholders to ensure a smooth
implementation of this rule.
Comment: A wide range of commenters said that EPA should, as a part
of its EJ analysis, assess or consider the potential for a negative
impact on the availability and cost of equipment for underserved
communities; low- and medium-income households whose ability to
purchase and maintain air conditioning may be negatively impacted; and
small businesses, especially retailers in rural and urban food deserts,
such that they cannot afford to replace equipment. The commenters note
that small food retail stores including ``Mom and Pop'' shops have slim
profit margins and may be forced to continue to operate old leaky
equipment with lower energy efficiency performance or purchase
refurbished equipment without energy efficiency and refrigerant
upgrades because they cannot afford new equipment. One commenter noted
that underserved and Tribal communities could be impacted by losing
access to nutritious food as the cost of refrigeration in business
increases. Some of these commenters requested that EPA review the
potential financial costs of this rulemaking on small or locally owned
businesses, such as convenience stores, markets, other small local
businesses, and the communities they serve. One commenter requested
that EPA should disclose whether small businesses potentially impacted
are located in underserved communities and consider financial
assistance options for compliance with this rule. Some of these
commenters also noted that underserved communities are already
experiencing worse health outcomes and increased mortality from
climate-change induced extreme heat events and that EPA should assess
whether this regulation would result in an increase in cost for cooling
homes, schools, and workplaces.
Response: EPA responds to comments regarding potential costs to
food retailers in section IV.F.1.c.iv. EPA disagrees that this rule
will result in store closures or the loss of access to food. EPA is not
requiring the retrofit or early replacement of equipment that operates
using GWPs over the thresholds specific in this rule. Rather, it
effectively requires that lower-GWP equipment be phased in once
existing equipment reaches the end of its useful life. EPA has outlined
provisions in this rule allowing for consumers and small businesses to
replace components of existing equipment for the purposes of repair and
extending the useful life of equipment without having to upgrade to a
lower-GWP system. EPA's intention is to permit ordinary servicing and
repair of equipment and not to apply restrictions in a way that would
prevent such maintenance. Store owners may replace broken or
inefficient HFC components and save money by repairing leaks in their
existing systems. Further, EPA has revised this rule to clarify that
importers and manufacturers can continue to supply components and parts
for existing systems so that these systems can be serviced throughout
their useful life.
Regarding the opening of new stores, EPA responds that food
retailers, especially smaller format stores like convenience stores and
markets, can choose the most appropriate design options for their
retail footprint (e.g., centralized DX system, cascade system, remote
condensing units, stand-alone displays and cases, or combinations
thereof). A company's decision to open a new store specifically in
underserved communities is based on many socioeconomic factors outside
the scope of this rule. The incremental upfront cost of using lower-GWP
refrigeration equipment compared to HFC equipment is unlikely to be
determinative in that business decision. For most retail food
refrigeration equipment, EPA estimates that the transition to lower-GWP
alternatives will result in a net cost savings (after accounting for
energy efficiency gains and savings on the cost of refrigerant). In the
RIA addendum, EPA has provided details on these estimated savings in
tables A-4 and A-5. EPA has conducted a small business impact
assessment and has not found that a substantial number of small
businesses would be significantly impacted.
For transitions in residential air conditioning, EPA estimates that
window units that are compliant with this rule will result in moderate
cost savings (after accounting for energy savings and refrigerant cost
savings) relative to existing equipment, while unitary AC systems that
are compliant with this rule will have a moderate cost increase
relative to existing systems.
While financial assistance is beyond the scope of this rule and the
authority of subsection (i) of the AIM Act, there are multiple
programs, rebates, and incentives available for the design and
installation of energy efficient
[[Page 73203]]
refrigeration and comfort cooling systems using low-GWP
refrigerant.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ See https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-250-million-accelerate-electric-heat-pump.
See also https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-46-million-boost-energy-efficiency-and-slash-emissions-residential-and;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter noted that retail operations in
disadvantaged communities are the most likely to experience supply
disruptions and even store closures as a result of the limited
availability of equipment and trained personnel and the significant
costs associated with bringing existing stores into compliance with the
new requirements. The same commenter also noted that disadvantaged
communities are already struggling with a technician shortage, and it
is impossible to open a store that uses refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment that cannot be maintained.
Response: To clarify, this rule does not require any retailers to
replace existing equipment with new equipment, nor does it place
restrictions on the continued servicing, repair, and maintenance of
existing equipment. Rather, when retailers are replacing equipment that
has reached the end of its useful life, that equipment must meet the
new restrictions, where applicable. In setting those restrictions, and
assessing which substitutes are available for use in new equipment in
impacted subsectors, EPA considered affordability for small business
consumers as well as contractor training costs. In addition, EPA
understands that RACHP equipment manufacturers, trade associations,
trade schools, unions, and other groups are providing training for
technicians for equipment that uses newer refrigerants. EPA monitored
previous transitions from ODS refrigerants to HFC refrigerants and in
many cases to other alternatives. These transitions did not result in
large-scale shortages of equipment or technicians. EPA acknowledges as
a general matter that over the past several years the global pandemic
has affected supply chain and employment for many economic sectors.
However, EPA is not aware, nor did the commenters provide specific
information that would indicate that this rule would lead to additional
shortages in technicians or create a situation where properly trained
RACHP technicians would be unable to service newer equipment.
XI. Judicial Review
The AIM Act provides that certain sections of the CAA ``shall apply
to'' the AIM Act and actions ``promulgated by the Administrator of
[EPA] pursuant to [the AIM Act] as though [the AIM Act] were expressly
included in title VI of [the CAA].'' 42 U.S.C. 7675(k)(1)(C). Among the
applicable sections of the CAA is section 307, which includes
provisions on judicial review. Section 307(b)(1) provides, in part,
that petitions for review must only be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency
action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or
final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action
is locally or regionally applicable, but such action is based on such a
determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final actions,
the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the
exception in (ii).
The final action herein noticed is ``nationally applicable'' within
the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). It defines and interprets terms
under the AIM Act, establishes approaches to issuing use restrictions
under the AIM Act, and applies nationally applicable regulations for
sectors and subsectors using regulated substances as defined by the AIM
Act. The rule also establishes regulatory requirements applicable to
all entities seeking to submit a petition under subsection (i) of that
Act, and nationally applicable regulations for labeling, recordkeeping,
and reporting. In the alternative, to the extent a court finds the
action to be locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator is
exercising the complete discretion afforded to him under the CAA to
make and publish a finding that the action is based on a determination
of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the meaning of CAA section
307(b)(1).\183\ In deciding to invoke this exception, the Administrator
has taken into account a number of policy considerations, including his
judgement regarding the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's
authoritative centralized review, rather than allowing development of
the issue in other contexts, in order to ensure consistency in the
Agency's approach to implementing EPA's national regulations in 40 CFR
part 84. The final action treats all affected entities consistently in
how the 40 CFR part 84 regulations are applied. The Administrator finds
that this is a matter on which national uniformity is desirable to take
advantage of the D.C. Circuit's administrative law expertise and
facilitate the orderly development of the basic law under the AIM Act
and EPA's implementing regulations. The Administrator also finds that
consolidated review of the action in the D.C. Circuit will avoid
piecemeal litigation in the regional circuits, further judicial
economy, and eliminate the risk of inconsistent results for different
regulated entities. The Administrator also finds that a nationally
consistent approach to the issues addressed in this rule constitutes
the best use of agency resources. The Administrator is publishing his
finding that the action is based on a determination of nationwide scope
or effect in the Federal Register as part of this action. For these
reasons, this final action is nationally applicable, or alternatively,
the Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him
by the CAA and finds that the final action is based on a determination
of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) and
is hereby publishing that finding in the Federal Register. Under
section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia by December 26, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has scope or effect
beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323,
324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XII. Severability
This final rule includes definitions and interpretations of terms
under the AIM Act, new regulatory requirements regarding submitting a
petition under subsection (i) of that Act, and new restrictions for
sectors and subsectors using regulated substances as defined by the AIM
Act, many of which were the subject of petitions granted under
subsection (i). The rule also establishes labeling and recordkeeping
and reporting requirements to support the enforcement of the new
restrictions. Therefore, this final rule is multifaceted and addresses
many separate issues for independent reasons, as detailed in each
respective section of this preamble. Each interpretation, requirement,
and use restriction is supported by separate analysis and discussion.
While this rule contains separate parts that we intended to operate
independently of one another and to be severable from each other, we
took the approach of including all the parts in one rulemaking rather
than promulgating multiple rules.
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
[[Page 73204]]
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for Executive
Order 12866 review. Documentation of any changes made in response to
the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643). EPA prepared an analysis
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum: Impact of the
Technology Transitions Rule,'' is also available in the docket and is
briefly summarized in section IX of this preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2742.02. You can find a copy of the ICR supporting statement in
the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
Subsection (k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act states that section 114 of the
CAA applies to the AIM Act and rules promulgated under it as if the AIM
Act were included in title VI of the CAA. Thus, section 114 of the
Clean Air Act, which provides authority to the EPA Administrator to
require recordkeeping and reporting in carrying out provisions of the
CAA, also applies to and supports this rulemaking.
EPA is establishing labeling requirements to products and specified
components that use an HFC, or a blend containing an HFC, in the
sectors and subsectors covered by this rule. EPA is also establishing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for any entity that
domestically manufactures or imports products or specified components
to allow the Agency to review data and identify noncompliance with GWP
restrictions and monitor the import and manufacture of such equipment.
Respondents/affected entities: Respondents and affected entities
are individuals or companies that manufacture, import, sell,
distribute, offer for sale or distribution, or export equipment and
install systems within the sectors or subsectors addressed by this rule
that uses or is intended to use certain HFCs that are defined as a
regulated substance under the AIM Act, or blends that contain a
regulated substance.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (AIM Act and section
114 of the CAA).
Estimated number of respondents: 51,209,764.
Frequency of response: Annually.
Total estimated burden: 19,715 hours (per year) in the first year;
17,050 hours per year in all following years. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: \184\ $7,170,856 (per year) in the first
year, $6,832,015 per year thereafter, includes $5,137,952 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Costs are provided in 2022 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule. EPA addresses comments related
to the collection of information in section VIII.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action include
manufacturers and importers of equipment and products within the
affected subsectors (e.g., manufacturers of stand-alone/self-contained
air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, manufacturers of aerosol
products, and manufacturers of foam products and appliances containing
foam) and end-users of equipment within affected subsectors (e.g.,
supermarkets, warehouse clubs/superstores, convenience stores). EPA
estimates that approximately 162 of the 51,047 potentially affected
small businesses could incur costs in excess of one percent of annual
sales and that approximately 110 small businesses could incur costs in
excess of three percent of annual sales. Because there is not a
significant percentage of small businesses that may experience a
significant impact, it can be presumed that this action will have no
SISNOSE. Details of this analysis are presented in Economic Impact
Screening Analysis for Restrictions on the Use of Hydrofluorocarbons
under Subsection (i) of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act,
which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action contains a Federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the
private sector in any one year. This action contains no unfunded
Federal mandate for State, local, or Tribal governments as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included
in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized here. This rule
is estimated to result in average annual cost to the private sector of
$99 million for the period 2025 through 2050. This rule is also
estimated to result in average annual savings to the private sector of
$430 million over the same time period, for a net average annual
savings of approximately $330 million. When adjusted for inflation, the
$100 million UMRA threshold established in 1995 is equivalent to
approximately $184 million in 2022 dollars, the year dollars for the
cost estimates in this final rule. While EPA has estimated net savings
for affected subsectors in aggregate, the costs of this rule to some
portions of the private sector are estimated to exceed the inflation-
adjusted UMRA threshold in some years. This action is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. EPA is not aware of Tribal businesses engaged in
activities that would be directly affected by this action. Based on the
Agency's assessments, EPA also does not believe that potential effects,
even if direct,
[[Page 73205]]
would be substantial. Accordingly, this action will not have
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA
periodically updates Tribal officials on air regulations through the
monthly meetings of the National Tribal Air Association and will share
information on this rulemaking through this and other fora.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is significant under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on
children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or
safety effects of climate change on children.
GHGs, including HFCs, contribute to climate change. The GHG
emission reductions resulting from implementation of this rule will
further improve children's health. The assessment literature cited in
EPA's 2009 and 2016 Endangerment Findings concluded that certain
populations and life stages, including children, the elderly, and the
poor, are most vulnerable to climate-related health effects. The
assessment literature since 2016 strengthens these conclusions by
providing more detailed findings regarding these groups'
vulnerabilities and the projected impacts they may experience.
These assessments describe how children's unique physiological and
developmental factors contribute to making them particularly vulnerable
to climate change. Impacts to children are expected from heat waves,
air pollution, infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health
effects resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children
are among those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as
well as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and floods.
Additional health concerns may arise in low-income households,
especially those with children, if climate change reduces food
availability and increases prices, leading to food insecurity within
households. More detailed information on the impacts of climate change
to human health and welfare is provided in section III.B of this
preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. This action applies to certain regulated
substances and certain subsectors that use regulated substances, none
of which are used to supply or distribute energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to
this action result in or have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on
communities with environmental justice concerns. EPA carefully
evaluated available information on HFC substitute production facilities
and the characteristics of nearby communities to evaluate these impacts
in the context of this rulemaking. Based on this analysis, EPA finds
evidence of environmental justice concerns near facilities that produce
substitutes for HFCs from cumulative exposure to existing environmental
hazards in these communities. However, the Agency recognizes that the
phasedown of HFCs and use restrictions in this final rule may cause
significant changes in the location and quantity of production of HFCs
and their substitutes, and that these changes may in turn affect
emissions of hazardous air pollutants at chemical production
facilities. Thus, given uncertainties about where and in what
quantities HFC substitutes will be produced, EPA cannot determine the
extent to which this rule will exacerbate or reduce existing
disproportionate adverse effects.
EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether this
action is likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects
on communities with environmental justice concerns. A summary of the
Agency's approach for considering potential environmental justice
concerns as a result of this rulemaking can be found in Section X of
the preamble, and our environmental justice analysis can be found in
the RIA addendum, available in the docket. Based on the analysis, EPA
determined that this rule will reduce emissions of potent GHGs, which
will reduce the effects of climate change on communities with
environmental justice concerns, including public health and welfare
effects. As noted in Section X of this preamble, the Agency will
continue to evaluate the impacts of this program on communities with
environmental justice concerns and consider further action, as
appropriate, to protect health in communities affected by HFC
substitute production.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to Subtitle E of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the
Congressional Review Act or CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 84
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Climate change, Emissions, Imports,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 84
as follows:
PART 84--PHASEDOWN OF HYDROFLUOROCARBONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 84 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Public Law 116-260, Division S, Sec. 103.
0
2. Add subpart B, consisting of Sec. Sec. 84.50 through 84.64, to read
as follows:
Subpart B--Restrictions on the Use of Hydrofluorocarbons
Sec.
84.50 Purpose.
84.52 Definitions.
84.54 Restrictions on the use of hydrofluorocarbons.
84.56 Exemptions.
84.58 Labeling.
84.60 Reporting and recordkeeping.
[[Page 73206]]
84.62 Technology transitions petition requirements.
84.64 Global warming potentials.
Subpart B--Restrictions on the Use of Hydrofluorocarbons
Sec. 84.50 Purpose.
The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to implement
subsection (i) of 42 U.S.C. 7675, with respect to establishing
restrictions on the use of a regulated substance in the sector or
subsector in which the regulated substance is used, and to provide
requirements associated with the submission of petitions seeking such
restrictions.
Sec. 84.52 Definitions.
For the terms not defined in this subpart but that are defined in
Sec. 84.3, the definitions in Sec. 84.3 shall apply. For the purposes
of this subpart:
Blend containing a regulated substance means any mixture that
contains one or more regulated substances.
Export means the transport of a product or specified component
using a regulated substance from inside the United States or its
territories to persons outside the United States or its territories,
excluding United States military bases and ships for onboard use.
Exporter means the person who contracts to sell any product or
specified component using a regulated substance for export or transfers
a product or specified component using a regulated substance to an
affiliate in another country.
Importer means any person who imports any product or specified
component using or intended for use with a regulated substance into the
United States. Importer includes the person primarily liable for the
payment of any duties on the merchandise or an authorized agent acting
on his or her behalf. The term also includes:
(1) The consignee;
(2) The importer of record;
(3) The actual owner; or
(4) The transferee, if the right to withdraw merchandise from a
bonded warehouse has been transferred.
Install means to complete a field-assembled system's circuit,
including charging with a full charge, such that the system can
function and is ready for use for its intended purpose.
Manufacture means to complete the manufacturing and assembly
processes of a product or specified component such that it is ready for
initial sale, distribution, or operation.
Product means an item or category of items manufactured from raw or
recycled materials which performs a function or task and is functional
upon completion of manufacturing. The term includes, but is not limited
to: appliances, foams, fully formulated polyols, self-contained fire
suppression devices, aerosols, pressurized dispensers, and wipes.
Retrofit means to upgrade existing equipment where the regulated
substance is changed, which--
(1) Includes the conversion of equipment to achieve system
compatibility; and
(2) May include changes in lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers,
valves, o-rings, or equipment components for that purpose. Examples of
equipment subject to retrofit include air-conditioning and
refrigeration appliances, fire suppression systems, and foam blowing
equipment.
Sector means a broad category of applications including but not
limited to: refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pumps; foams;
aerosols; chemical manufacturing; cleaning solvents; fire suppression
and explosion protection; and semiconductor manufacturing.
Specified component for purposes of equipment in the refrigeration,
air conditioning, and heat pump sector means condensing units,
condensers, compressors, evaporator units, and evaporators.
Subsector means processes, classes of applications, or specific
uses that are related to one another within a single sector or
subsector.
Substitute means any substance, blend, or alternative manufacturing
process, whether existing or new, that may be used, or is intended for
use, in a sector or subsector with a restriction on the use of
regulated substances and that has a lower global warming potential than
the GWP limit or restricted list of regulated substances and blends in
that sector or subsector.
System means an assemblage of separate components that typically
are connected and charged in the field with a regulated substance or
substitute to perform a function or task.
Use means for any person to take any action with or to a regulated
substance, regardless of whether the regulated substance is in bulk,
contained within a product, or otherwise, except for the destruction of
a regulated substance. Actions include, but are not limited to, the
utilization, deployment, sale, distribution, offer for sale or
distribution, discharge, incorporation, transformation, or other
manipulation.
Sec. 84.54 Restrictions on the use of hydrofluorocarbons.
(a) No person may manufacture or import any product in the
following sectors or subsectors that uses a regulated substance as
listed in this paragraph:
(1) Effective January 1, 2025, self-contained residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pump products using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 700 or greater;
(2) Effective January 1, 2025, residential dehumidifiers using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(3) Effective January 1, 2025, household refrigerators and freezers
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(4) Effective January 1, 2025, retail food refrigeration--stand-
alone units using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a
regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(5) Effective January 1, 2025, vending machines using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 150 or greater;
(6) Effective January 1, 2025, refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers with the temperature of the refrigerant entering the
evaporator (for direct heat exchange systems) or the temperature of the
fluid exiting (for chillers) of -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) or higher using
a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance,
with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(7) Effective January 1, 2025, self-contained products in
refrigerated transport--road and refrigerated transport--marine
subsectors using any of the following: R-402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407B,
R-408A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/
1.5), RS-44 (2003 formulation) or GHG-X5;
(8) Self-contained automatic commercial ice machines as follows:
(i) Effective January 1, 2026, ice maker products with a harvest
rate as determined in accordance with 10 CFR 431.134, using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 150 or greater as follows:
[[Page 73207]]
(A) Batch type, as defined in 10 CFR 431.132, with a harvest rate
less than or equal to 1,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours;
(B) Continuous type, as defined in 10 CFR 431.132, with a harvest
rate less than or equal to 1,200 pounds of ice per 24 hours;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2027, batch type ice maker products, as
defined in 10 CFR 431.132, with a harvest rate greater than 1,000
pounds of ice per 24 hours, as determined in accordance with 10 CFR
431.134, and continuous type ice machine products, as defined in 10 CFR
431.132, with a harvest rate greater than 1,200 pounds of ice per 24
hours, as determined in accordance with 10 CFR 431.134, using any of
the following: R-402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F,
R-408A, R-410A, R-410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-417A, R-417C, R-420A, R-421A,
R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-442A, R-507A, HFC-134a, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/
42.5/1.5), RB-276, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation),
GHG-X5, G2018C, or Freeze 12;
(9) Self-contained refrigerated food processing and dispensing
products as follows:
(i) Effective January 1, 2027, products outside the scope of UL
621, ``Ice Cream Makers,'' Edition 7, dated May 07, 2010, with
revisions through September 16, 2020, as of December 26, 2023, with
refrigerant charge sizes less than or equal to 500 g using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 150 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2027, products outside the scope of UL
621, ``Ice Cream Makers,'' Edition 7, dated May 7, 2010, with revisions
through September 16, 2020, as of December 26, 2023, with refrigerant
charge sizes greater than 500 g, using any of the following: R-402A, R-
402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-407H, R-408A, R-410A,
R-410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-417A, R-417C, R-420A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A,
R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/
1.5), RB-276, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), GHG-
X5, or Freeze 12; and
(iii) Effective January 1, 2028, for refrigerated food processing
and dispensing products within the scope of UL 621, ``Ice Cream
Makers,'' Edition 7, dated May 7, 2010, with revisions through
September 16, 2020, as of December 26, 2023, using any of the
following: R-402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-
407H, R-408A, R-410A, R-410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-417A, R-417C, R-420A,
R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RB-276, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), GHG-X5, or Freeze 12.
(10) Chillers, when a stand-alone product, as follows:
(i) Effective January 1, 2025, chillers for comfort cooling using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2025, chillers for ice rinks using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(iii) Effective January 1, 2026, chillers for industrial process
refrigeration where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is
greater than -22 [deg]F (-30 [deg]C) using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential
of 700 or greater;
(iv) Effective January 1, 2028, chillers for industrial process
refrigeration where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is
greater than or equal to -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and less than or equal
to -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) using a regulated substance, or a blend
containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of
700 or greater;
(11) Effective January 1, 2027, self-contained products in data
center, information technology equipment facility, and computer room
cooling using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(12) Industrial process refrigeration products, other than
chillers, as follows:
(i) Effective January 1, 2026, products with a refrigerant charge
capacity of 200 pounds or greater and with the refrigerant temperature
entering the evaporator higher than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2026, products with a refrigerant charge
capacity less than 200 pounds and with the refrigerant temperature
entering the evaporator higher than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(iii) Effective January 1, 2028, where the temperature of the
refrigerant entering the evaporator is greater than or equal to -50
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and is less than or equal to -30 [deg]C (-22
[deg]F), using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(13) Motor vehicle air-conditioning as follows:
(i) Effective October 24, 2024, for Model Year 2025 and subsequent
model year light-duty passenger cars and trucks (vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating less than 8,500 lb) using or intended to use a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(ii) For Model Year 2028 and subsequent model year medium-duty
passenger vehicles, heavy-duty pick-up trucks, and complete heavy-duty
vans, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration at 40 CFR
86.1803-01, which have air conditioning equipment that will not be
modified by upfitters using or intended to use a regulated substance,
or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming
potential of 150 or greater;
(iii) Effective January 1, 2028, certain nonroad vehicles
(agricultural tractors greater than 40 horsepower; self-propelled
agricultural machinery; compact equipment; construction, forestry, and
mining equipment; and commercial utility vehicles) using or intended to
use a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance,
with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(14) Effective January 1, 2025, foam products (but not including
foam products in paragraph (a)(15) of this section) in the following
subsectors using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a
regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater:
(i) Rigid polyurethane appliance foam, commercial refrigeration
foam, laminated boardstock, marine flotation foam, sandwich panels, and
slabstock;
(ii) Flexible polyurethane;
(iii) Integral skin polyurethane;
(iv) Polystyrene--extruded boardstock, billet, and extruded sheet;
(v) Phenolic insulation board and bunstock;
(vi) Polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;
(vii) Polyolefin; and
(viii) Rigid polyurethane spray foam (i.e., high-pressure two-
component, low-
[[Page 73208]]
pressure two-component, and one-component foam sealants).
(15) Effective January 1, 2026, foam products in the formulations
specified in paragraphs (a)(14)(i) through (viii) of this section that
are for use in space and military applications, except spray and pour
foams that are for use in space vehicles as defined in Sec. 84.3,
which are not subject to a use restriction.
(16) Aerosol products as follows:
(i) Effective January 1, 2025, all aerosol products using a
regulated substance with a global warming potential of 150 or greater,
except products that use HFC-43-10mee (1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-
pentafluoropentane) or HFC-245fa (1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane) as an
aerosol solvent or those that use HFC-134a in the following specific
uses;
(A) Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils
from electrical equipment or electronics;
(B) Refrigerant flushes;
(C) Products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;
(D) Lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or
electronics;
(E) Sprays for aircraft maintenance;
(F) Sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the
maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or
military equipment;
(G) Pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in
total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use
pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-
GWP propellants;
(H) Mold release agents and mold cleaners;
(I) Lubricants and cleaners for spinnerets for synthetic fabrics;
(J) Duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from
photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron
microscopes, and energized electrical equipment;
(K) Adhesives and sealants in large canisters;
(L) Document preservation sprays;
(M) Wound care sprays;
(N) Topical coolant sprays for pain relief;
(O) Products for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
(ii) Effective January 1, 2028, all aerosol products using a
regulated substance with a global warming potential of 150 or greater.
(b) Effective three years after the dates listed for each subsector
in paragraph (a) of this section, no person may sell, distribute, offer
for sale or distribution, make available for sale or distribution,
purchase or receive for sale or distribution, or attempt to purchase or
receive for sale or distribution, or export any product that uses a
regulated substance as listed in paragraph (a).
(c) No person may install any system, nor have any such system be
installed through their position as a designer, owner, or operator of
that system, in the following sectors or subsectors that uses a
regulated substance as listed in this paragraph (c):
(1) Effective January 1, 2025, residential or light commercial air-
conditioning or heat pump systems using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential
of 700 or greater, except for variable refrigerant flow air-
conditioning and heat pump systems;
(2) Effective January 1, 2026, variable refrigerant flow systems
for use as residential and light commercial air-conditioning or heat
pumps, using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(3) Effective January 1, 2025, chillers for comfort cooling using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(4) Effective January 1, 2025, ice rinks using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 700 or greater;
(5) Effective January 1, 2026, chillers for industrial process
refrigeration where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is
greater than -22 [deg]F (-30 [deg]C) using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential
of 700 or greater;
(6) Effective January 1, 2028, chillers for industrial process
refrigeration where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is
greater than or equal to -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and less than or equal
to -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) using a regulated substance, or a blend
containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of
700 or greater;
(7) Effective January 1, 2025, refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers with the temperature of the refrigerant entering the
evaporator (for direct heat exchange systems) or the temperature of the
fluid exiting (for chillers) of -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) or higher using
a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance,
with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(8) Effective January 1, 2025, refrigerated transport--road or
refrigerated transport--marine systems using any of the following: R-
402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407B, R-408A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B,
R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A,
R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS-44 (2003 formulation) or GHG-
X5;
(9) Effective January 1, 2026, cold storage warehouse systems as
follows:
(i) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or
greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system,
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(ii) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200
pounds, using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(iii) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of
the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(10) Industrial process refrigeration systems, other than chiller
systems, as follows:
(i) Effective January 1, 2026, systems with a refrigerant charge
capacity of 200 pounds or greater and with the refrigerant temperature
entering the evaporator higher than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), that are
not the high temperature side of a cascade system, using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 150 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2026, systems with a refrigerant charge
capacity less than 200 pounds and with the refrigerant temperature
entering the evaporator higher than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F), using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(iii) Effective January 1, 2026, the high temperature side of
cascade systems with the refrigerant temperature entering the
evaporator higher than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 300 or greater;
(iv) Effective January 1, 2028, where the temperature of the
refrigerant entering the evaporator is greater than or equal to -50
[deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and is less than or equal to -30 [deg]C (-22
[deg]F), using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
[[Page 73209]]
(11) Effective January 1, 2026, remote condensing units in retail
food refrigeration systems as follows:
(i) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or
greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system,
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(ii) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200
pounds using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(iii) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of
the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(12) Effective January 1, 2027, supermarket systems as follows:
(i) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or
greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system,
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(ii) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200
pounds using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(iii) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of
the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(13) Effective January 1, 2027, data center, information technology
equipment facility, and computer room cooling systems using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 700 or greater;
(14) Effective January 1, 2027, automatic commercial ice machines
with a remote condenser using any of the following: R-402A, R-402B, R-
404A, R-407B, R-408A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B,
R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, R-125/290/134a/
600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RS-44 (2003 formulation), or GHG-X5.
(15) Effective January 1, 2027, refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment with a remote condenser using any of the
following: R-402A, R-402B, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-
407H, R-408A, R-410A, R-410B, R-411A, R-411B, R-417A, R-417C, R-420A,
R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), RB-276, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), GHG-X5, or Freeze 12.
(d) The compliance date for the installation of a system in
paragraph (c) of this section for the industrial process refrigeration
systems with a January 1, 2026, compliance date, retail food--
supermarket, cold storage warehouse, and ice rink subsectors is
extended one year beyond the specified compliance date when an approved
building permit issued prior to October 5, 2023, specifies the use of a
restricted regulated substance, or blend containing a regulated
substance, in a system detailed in that permit.
(e) The following actions, upon charging the system to full charge,
are considered an installation of a refrigeration, air conditioning,
and heat pump system under paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Assembling a system for the first time from used or new
components;
(2) Increasing the cooling capacity, in BTU per hour, of an
existing system; or
(3) Replacing 75 percent or more of evaporators (by number) and 100
percent of the compressor racks, condensers, and connected evaporator
loads of an existing system.
(f) Effective upon the dates listed for each subsector in
paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, no person may manufacture,
import, sell, distribute, offer for sale or distribution, make
available for sale or distribution, purchase or receive for sale or
distribution, or attempt to purchase or receive for sale or
distribution, or export any product or specified component that is not
labeled in accordance with Sec. 84.58.
(g) Every product or system using or intended to use a regulated
substance or blend containing a regulated substance that is
manufactured, imported, sold, distributed, offered for sale or
distribution, made available for sale or distribution, purchased or
received for sale or distribution, or attempted to be purchased or
received for sale or distribution, or exported in contravention of
paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section constitutes a separate
violation of this subpart.
(h) No person may provide false, inaccurate, or misleading
information to EPA when reporting or providing any communication
required under this subpart.
(i) No person may falsely indicate through marketing, packaging,
labeling, or other means that a product or specified component uses or
is intended to use a regulated substance, blend containing a regulated
substance, or substitute that differs from the regulated substance,
blend containing a regulated substance, or substitute that is actually
used.
(j) Section (k) of the AIM Act states that sections 113, 114, 304,
and 307 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7413, 7414, 7604, 7607) shall
apply to this section and any rule, rulemaking, or regulation
promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to this section as though
this section were expressly included in title VI of that Act (42 U.S.C.
7671 et seq.). Violation of this part is subject to Federal enforcement
and the penalties laid out in section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 84.56 Exemptions.
(a) The regulations under this subpart, including Sec. Sec. 84.54,
84.58, 84.60, and 84.62, do not apply to:
(1) Equipment in existence in the United States prior to December
27, 2020; and
(2) Any product using a regulated substance or a blend containing a
regulated substance, or intended to use a regulated substance or a
blend containing a regulated substance, in an application listed at
Sec. 84.13(a), for a year or years for which that application receives
an application-specific allowance as defined at Sec. 84.3.
(b) The prohibitions on the manufacture, import, sale,
distribution, offer for sale or distribution, or export of products in
Sec. 84.54(a) and (b) do not apply to components that use, or are
intended to use, any regulated substance.
(c) The prohibitions on the sale, distribution, offer for sale or
distribution, or export of products in Sec. 84.54(b) do not apply to:
(1) Products after a period of ordinary utilization or operation by
a consumer; or
(2) Products within the disposal or recycling chain.
(d) The prohibition on the import of used products in Sec.
84.54(a) does not apply to:
(1) Systems in use by a conveyance in trade travelling into U.S.
jurisdiction including refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump
systems in operation aboard ships, planes, motor vehicles, and
intermodal containers;
(2) Products in the possession of a consumer for personal use; or
(3) Products imported solely for recycling or disposal.
Sec. 84.58 Labeling.
(a) Effective upon the dates listed for each subsector in Sec.
84.54(a) and (c), any
[[Page 73210]]
product, specified component, or system manufactured, imported, or
installed within the refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump
sector using any regulated substance, or blend containing any regulated
substance, regardless of global warming potential must have a permanent
label compliant with paragraph (d) of this section stating:
(1) The chemical name(s) or American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers designation of the
regulated substance(s) or blend containing a regulated substance;
(2) The full date, or at minimum the four-digit year, of
manufacture. For field-charged system installations, this shall be the
date of first charge and the label shall be completed at first charge.
For MVACs listed in Sec. 84.54(a)(13)(i) and (ii), the model year may
be used instead of the date of manufacture.
(3) An indication of the full refrigerant charge capacity, either
as the specific charge size of the system, or the charge size as it
relates to the threshold for the relevant subsector. This means an
indication that the charge is either two hundred pounds or more, or
less than two hundred pounds, in the following subsectors:
(i) Industrial process refrigeration (without chillers);
(ii) Retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems;
(iii) Retail food refrigeration--remote condensing units; and
(iv) Cold storage warehouses.
(4) An indication of the charge size of the equipment or the charge
size as it relates to the threshold for self-contained refrigerated
food processing and dispensing products. This means an indication that
the charge is greater than or equal to 500 grams, or less than 500
grams.
(5) An indication of the harvest rate, either as the specific
harvest rate of the equipment, or the harvest rate as it relates to the
threshold for self-contained automatic commercial ice machines, and the
type of ice machine (either batch or continuous). This means an
indication that that harvest rate is either greater than 1,000 pounds
of ice per day or less than or equal to 1,000 pounds of ice per day for
batch type ice makers, and an indication that the harvest rate is
either greater than 1,200 pounds of ice per day or less than or equal
to 1,200 pounds of ice per day for continuous type ice makers.
(6) An indication of the designed exiting fluid temperature range
for industrial process refrigeration chillers and the designed
refrigerant temperature range when it enters the evaporator for
industrial process refrigeration systems without chillers.
(b) Effective upon the date listed for each subsector in Sec.
84.54(c), or the earliest date should the specified component be used
in multiple subsectors, any specified component manufactured or
imported and intended for use in those subsectors that uses or is
intended to use any regulated substance, or blend containing any
regulated substance, regardless of global warming potential, must have
a permanent label compliant with paragraph (c) of this section
containing the information in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For
specified components that are intended for use with a regulated
substance or blends containing a regulated substance that exceed the
applicable GWP limit or HFC restriction, the label must state ``For
servicing existing equipment only'' in addition to the other required
labeling elements.
(c) Effective upon the dates listed for each subsector in Sec.
84.54(a) and (c), any product manufactured, imported, or installed
within the foam or aerosol sectors using any regulated substance, or
blend containing any regulated substance, regardless of global warming
potential, must have a permanent label compliant with paragraph (d) of
this section stating:
(1) The chemical name(s) or American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers designation of any
regulated substance(s) or blend containing a regulated substance used;
(2) If an HFC with a GWP higher than the limit is used or if
multiple HFCs are used, either the weights of the HFC(s) relative to
the other blowing agents, propellants, solvents, or to the other HFCs
must be on the label, or the label must state ``GWP<150.''
(3) The full date, or at minimum the four-digit year, of
manufacture.
(d) The permanent label must be:
(1) In English;
(2) Durable and printed or otherwise labeled on, or affixed to, an
external surface of the product;
(3) Readily visible and legible;
(4) Able to withstand open weather exposure without a substantial
reduction in visibility or legibility, if applicable; and
(5) Displayed on a background of contrasting color.
(e) The requirements of this section may be met through the use of
existing labels required under other authorities that contain the
necessary information. The labeling requirements may also be met by
providing the required information in packaging materials or through an
on-product QR code. The packaging must be present with the product or
specified component at the point of sale and import. The QR code must
direct to the required information and meet all the requirements of the
on-product label. The QR code must be functional and include adjacent
text to indicate the purpose of the QR code.
(f) For products sold or distributed, offered for sale or
distribution, or made available electronically through online commerce,
the label must be readily visible and legible in either photographs of
the products, photographs of packaging materials that contain the
required information, or an item description that contains the required
information.
(g) Any product or system, using a regulated substance
manufactured, imported, or installed after the compliance date for that
sector or subsector, that lacks a label will be presumed to use a
regulated substance with a global warming potential that exceeds the
limit or is specifically listed in Sec. 84.54(a) or (c).
Sec. 84.60 Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) Reporting. (1) Effective January 1, 2025, any person who
imports or manufactures a product or specified component within a
sector or subsector listed in Sec. 84.54 that uses or is intended to
use a regulated substance or blend containing a regulated substance
must comply with the following reporting and recordkeeping
requirements:
(i) Reports must be submitted annually to EPA within 90 days of the
end of the reporting period;
(ii) Reports must be submitted electronically in a format specified
by EPA;
(iii) Each report shall be signed and attested;
(2) Each report must include:
(i) The reporting entity's name, address, contact person, email
address, and phone number of the contact person;
(ii) The year covered under the report and the date of submittal;
(iii) All applicable NAICS code(s); and
(iv) A statement of certification that the data are accurate and
that the products use regulated substances, or blends containing
regulated substances, that meet the requirements of Sec. 84.54, and
are labeled in accordance with Sec. 84.58.
(3) Reports for products and specified components in the
refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump sector must also include
the following information:
(i) For each set of products or specified components with the same
[[Page 73211]]
combination of charge size and regulated substance(s), the report must
specify the subsector of the product or specified component based on
the categorization in Sec. 84.54; the identity of the regulated
substance or blend containing a regulated substance, the charge size
(including holding charge or no charge, if applicable), and the number
of units imported, manufactured, and exported;
(ii) For products and specified components that include closed-cell
foam containing a regulated substance, the report must include the
identity of the regulated substance(s) in the foam, the mass of the
regulated substance(s) in the foam, and the number of products
manufactured, imported, or exported with the same combination of mass
and identity of regulated substance(s) within the closed-cell foam.
(iii) Total mass in metric tons of each regulated substance or
blend containing a regulated substance contained in all products or
specified components manufactured, imported, and exported annually.
(4) Reports for products in the foam sector must also include the
following information:
(i) For containers or foam blowing products that contain foam
blowing agent and are intended for use to blow foam, the report must
specify the subsector of the product based on the categorization in
Sec. 84.54, the identity of the regulated substance(s) contained in
the product, the mass of the regulated substance(s) used, and the
number of units manufactured, imported, or exported.
(ii) For each set of products, other than containers described in
paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, with the same combination of
density and identity of regulated substance(s), the report must specify
the subsector of the product based on the categorization in Sec.
84.54, the identity of the regulated substance(s) contained in the
foam, the volume of foam, and the number of units manufactured,
imported, or exported; and
(iii) Total mass in metric tons of each regulated substance
contained in all products manufactured, imported, and exported
annually.
(5) Reports for products in the aerosol sector must also include
the following information:
(i) For each set of products with the same combination of regulated
substance(s) and quantity of regulated substance(s), the report must
specify the subsector of the product based on the categorization in
Sec. 84.54, the identity of the regulated substance(s), their
percentages if more than one regulated substance is used, and the
number of units manufactured, imported, or exported; and
(ii) Total mass in metric tons of each regulated substance
contained in all products manufactured, imported, and exported
annually.
(6) Any failure by a domestic manufacturer or importer of a product
or specified component that uses or is intended to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance to report
required information or provide accurate information pursuant to this
section shall be considered a violation of this section.
(b) Recordkeeping. (1) Each domestic manufacturer or importer of a
product or specified component within a sector or subsector listed in
Sec. 84.54 that uses or is intended to use a regulated substance or
blend containing a regulated substance must retain the following
records for a minimum of three years from the date of creation of the
record and must make them available to EPA upon request:
(i) Records that form the basis of the reports required in
paragraph (a) of this section; and
(ii) The entity to whom the product or specified component using a
regulated substance were sold, distributed, or in any way conveyed to.
(2) In addition to the records in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
importers of products and specified components using or intended to use
a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance must
retain the following records for each import for a minimum of three
years from the date of creation of the record and must make them
available to EPA upon request:
(i) A copy of the bill of lading;
(ii) The invoice;
(iii) The U.S. Customs and Border Protection entry documentation;
(iv) Port of entry;
(v) Country of origin and the country of shipment to the United
States.
Sec. 84.62 Technology transitions petition requirements.
(a) Each petition sent to the Administrator under subsection (i) of
the AIM Act shall include the following elements:
(1) The sector and subsector(s) for which restrictions on use of
the regulated substance would apply.
(2) For each sector and subsector identified in a petition, the
restriction on the use of a regulated substance through any of the
following:
(i) A global warming potential limit that will apply to regulated
substances or blends containing regulated substances with global
warming potentials at or above that limit;
(ii) Identification of the regulated substance(s) or blend(s)
containing a regulated substance to be restricted and its global
warming potential according to Sec. 84.64; or
(iii) Another form of restriction with an explanation for why a
restriction under paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section would not
be appropriate.
(3) For each restriction on the use of a regulated substance
contained in a petition, the effective date on which the regulated
substance use restriction would commence and information supporting the
identified effective date.
(4) Address whether the Administrator negotiate with stakeholders
in accordance with the negotiated rulemaking procedure provided for
under subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code,
including an explanation of their position to support or oppose the use
of the negotiated rulemaking procedure.
(5) For each requested restriction, to the extent practicable,
information related to the considerations provided in subsection (i)(4)
of 42 U.S.C. 7675 to facilitate the Agency's review of the petition.
(b) Any petition submitted to the Administrator must be submitted
electronically using the methods prescribed by the Administrator.
Sec. 84.64 Global warming potentials.
(a) The global warming potential of a regulated substance is the
exchange value for the regulated substance listed in subsection (c) of
the AIM Act and in appendix A to this part 84.
(b) For blends containing a regulated substance, the global warming
potential of the blend is the sum of the global warming potentials of
each constituent of the blend multiplied by the nominal mass fraction
of that constituent within the blend. The global warming potential of
each constituent shall be as follows:
[[Page 73212]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100-Year global
Substance name warming
potential
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-chloropropane........................................ 1
Acetone................................................ 0.5
Acetone/isopentane blend............................... 1
Dimethyl ether......................................... 1
Formic acid............................................ 5
HCFO-1224yd(Z)......................................... 1
HCFO-1233yd(Z)......................................... 1
HCFO-1233zd(E)......................................... 4
HCO-1130(E)............................................ 5
HFE-347pcf2............................................ 987
HFE-449s1 (HFE-7100)................................... 297
HFE-569sf2............................................. 59
HFO-1234yf............................................. 1
HFO-1234ze(E).......................................... 1
HFO-1336mzz(E)......................................... 26
HFO-1336mzz(Z)......................................... 2
Hydrocarbons (C5-C20).................................. 1-2.7
Methoxytridecafluoroheptane (MPHE) isomers............. 2.5
Methyl formate......................................... 13
Methylal (dimethoxymethane)............................ 1
Oxygenated organic solvents (esters, ethers, alcohols, 1-13
ketones)..............................................
R-170 (ethane)......................................... 5.5
R-290 (propane)........................................ 3.3
R-600 (butane)......................................... 4
R-600a (isobutane)..................................... 1
R-717 (ammonia)........................................ 1
R-744 (carbon dioxide)................................. 1
R-1150 (ethylene)...................................... 3.7
R-1270 (propylene)..................................... 1.8
Saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6)................... 1-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) For constituents of a blend containing a regulated substance
that do not have a global warming potential as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, the constituent and its nominal mass fraction in
the blend shall be excluded from the calculation in paragraph (b).
[FR Doc. 2023-22529 Filed 10-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P