[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76738-76813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26981]
[[Page 76737]]
Vol. 87
Thursday,
No. 240
December 15, 2022
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 84
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of Certain
Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection (i) the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 76738]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 84
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643; FRL-8831-01-OAR]
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of
Certain Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection (i) the American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act of 2020
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to issue
regulations to implement certain provisions of the American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act, as enacted on December 27, 2020. This rulemaking
proposes to: restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons in specific sectors
or subsectors in which they are used; establish a process for
submitting technology transitions petitions; establish recordkeeping
and reporting requirements; and address certain other elements related
to the effective implementation of the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act. The proposed restrictions on the use of
hydrofluorocarbons would, in part, address petitions granted on October
7, 2021, and September 19, 2022. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is also seeking advance information on certain topics that may
be helpful to developing a future proposed rule including on
restrictions on the use of hydrofluorocarbons for certain other sectors
and subsectors and on a third-party auditing program to verify
substances used in products.
DATES: Comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking must be received
on or before January 30, 2023. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
comments on the information collection provisions are best ensured of
consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a
copy of your comments on or before January 17, 2023. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold a virtual public
hearing on December 30, 2022. The date, time, and other relevant
information for the virtual public hearing will be available at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by docket identification
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For information on EPA's Docket Center, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments: Direct your comments to specific sections of this proposed
rulemaking and note where your comments may apply to future separate
actions where possible; explain your views as clearly as possible;
describe any assumptions that you used; provide any technical
information or data you used that support your views; provide specific
examples to illustrate your concerns; offer alternatives; and, make
sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline. Please
provide any published studies or raw data supporting your position.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system).
Do not submit any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) through https://www.regulations.gov. For
submission of confidential comments, please work with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For additional
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Cain, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (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 that
are used in this rulemaking that may be helpful include:
AC--Air Conditioning
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
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA--Clean Air Act
CARB--California Air Resources Board
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CBP--U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CDR--Chemical Data Reporting
CDX--Central Data Exchange
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
DX--Direct Expansion
DOE--U.S. Department of Energy
EAV--Equivalent Annualized Value
ECHO--Enforcement and Compliance History Online
e-GGRT--Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency
EPA--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FR--Federal Register
GDP--Gross Domestic Product
GHG--Greenhouse Gas
GHGRP--Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
GSHP--Ground-source Heat Pump
GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GWP--Global Warming Potential
HD--Heavy-duty
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HCFO--Hydrochlorofluoroolefin
HCPA--Household and Commercial Products Association
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
HPWH--Heat Pump Water Heater
IAM--Integrated Assessment Model
IAPMO--International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical
Officials
ICC--International Code Council
ICR--Information Collection Request
IPR--Industrial Process Refrigeration
IIAR--International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[[Page 76739]]
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
MMTCO2 e--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent
MVAC--Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
MY--Model Year
NAA--National Aerosol Association
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NATA--National Air Toxics Assessment
NFPA --National Fire Protection Association
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
OEM--Original Equipment Manufacturer
ODS--Ozone-depleting Substance
OMB--U.S. Office of Management and Budget
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-HFCs--Social Costs of Hydrofluorocarbons
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
TEAP--Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
TLV-TWA--Threshold Limit Value-Time-Weighted Average
TRI--Toxics Release Inventory
TSD--Technical Support Document
UL--Underwriters Laboratories Inc
VRF--Variable Refrigerant Flow
WSHP--Water-source Heat Pump
WMO--World Meteorological Organization
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. What is the purpose of this proposed regulatory action?
B. What is the summary of this proposed regulatory action?
C. What is the summary of the costs and benefits?
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?
C. How is EPA evaluating environmental justice?
IV. What factors will be considered for evaluating a petition?
V. What is the petition process under the technology transitions
program?
A. What is required to be included in a technology transitions
petition?
B. What happens after a petition is submitted?
C. Can I revise or resubmit my petition?
VI. 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?
VII. What is EPA's proposed action concerning restrictions on the
use of HFCs?
A. What definitions is EPA proposing to implement subsection
(i)?
B. How is EPA proposing to restrict the use of HFCs in the
sector or subsector in which the HFCs are used?
C. Applicability
1. Which uses is EPA proposing to restrict in this proposal?
2. Would the proposed use restrictions also apply to products
that are manufactured for export?
3. Would restrictions apply to existing equipment?
4. Effective and Compliance Dates of Rules Promulgated Under
Subsection (i)
D. How is EPA proposing to address restrictions on the use of
HFCs requested in petitions granted?
1. Petitions Granted on October 7, 2021
2. How is EPA proposing to address 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 phase-down period for
regulated substances under the final rule issued under subsection
(e)(3) of the AIM Act?
F. For which sectors and subsectors is EPA proposing to
establish restrictions on the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs?
1. How did EPA determine the degree of the proposed restrictions
for each sector and subsector?
2. Summary of Proposed Restrictions on the Use of HFCs
3. Refrigeration, Air conditioning, and Heat Pump
4. Foam Blowing
5. Aerosols
G. For what additional sectors or subsectors is EPA requesting
advance information on the use of HFCs?
VIII. What are the proposed enforcement and compliance provisions?
A. What is EPA proposing for labeling requirements?
B. What potential auditing and third-party testing programs is
EPA seeking advance information on?
1. Who should be subject to the independent third-party testing
and audits?
2. What elements and criteria should be included in the third-
party auditors and/or accreditation body requirements?
IX. What are the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
A. What reporting is EPA proposing to require?
B. What recordkeeping is EPA proposing?
X. What are the costs and benefits of this proposed action?
A. Assessment of Costs and Additional Benefits Utilizing
Transition Options
B. Scoping Analysis of Imports of Regulated Products
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Review
I. Executive Summary
A. What is the purpose of this proposed regulatory action?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
regulations that would 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 and their substitutes from equipment;
and facilitating sector-based transitions to next-generation
technologies. This proposal 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 is currently undertaking a separate
rulemaking to update certain aspects of that regulatory framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Thus, this
proposed
[[Page 76740]]
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 proposed 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. Additionally, it proposes
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.
Lastly, EPA is seeking advance information on certain topics that
may be helpful for developing a future proposed rule. Specifically, EPA
is seeking advance information on the application of restrictions on
the use of HFCs to heat pump water heaters and to certain retrofitted
equipment in the refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pump (RACHP)
sector. EPA is also seeking advance information on a third-party
auditing program to verify substances used in products. EPA does not
intend to finalize an auditing program or restrictions on the use of
HFCs for those sectors and subsectors on which it is seeking advance
information as part of this rulemaking process. Accordingly, EPA does
not intend to respond to any advance information received on the
options discussed in these sections in any final rulemaking for this
proposal.
B. What is the summary of this proposed regulatory action?
Technology transitions petitions: EPA is proposing the process for
petitions submitted under subsection (i) of the AIM Act and describes
how the Agency intends to evaluate petitions. EPA is proposing that
petitions be submitted electronically with required minimum
information. 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 also considered these factors to the
extent practicable in establishing the restrictions on the use of HFCs
in this proposed rulemaking.
Restrictions on the use of HFCs: EPA is proposing restrictions on
the use of certain HFCs within new products in the following sectors
and subsectors: refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pumps; foam
blowing; and aerosols. All proposed restrictions would occur in two
stages; the manufacture or import of products would be prohibited by
either 2025 or 2026, depending on the sector or subsector, followed a
year later by a prohibition on the sale, distribution, offer for sale
or distribution, export, and other activities pertaining to those
products.
Enforcement and compliance: To support compliance with the proposed
prohibitions on the use of HFCs with high global warming potentials
(GWPs) in specific sectors and subsectors, EPA is proposing labeling,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for products imported or
manufactured using an HFC. The Agency is proposing to use the same
reporting platform used in prior AIM Act rules and the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program (GHGRP).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The GHGRP requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) data
and other relevant information from large GHG emission sources, fuel
and industrial gas suppliers, and carbon dioxide (CO2)
injection sites in the United States. The program generally requires
reporting when emissions from covered sources are greater than
25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Publicly available
information includes facility names, addresses, and latitude/
longitude information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the summary of the costs and benefits?
EPA is providing information on the costs and benefits of
restricting use of HFCs consistent with this proposed rule. The
analyses, presented in 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 proposed rule. These analyses--as summarized below--highlight
economic cost and benefits, including benefits from HFC consumption and
emissions reductions. While significant, the benefits presented in this
summary are considered incidental and secondary to the rule's statutory
objective of facilitating the transition to next-generation
technologies by restricting use of HFCs in the sectors or subsectors in
which they are used.
Given that the provisions EPA is proposing concern HFCs, which are
subject to the overall phasedown of production and consumption under
the AIM Act, EPA relied on previous analyses conducted for the
Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021) and the
proposed 2024 Allocation Rule, ``Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons:
Allowance Allocation Methodology for 2024 and Later Years'' 87 FR
66372, November 3, 2022) as a starting point for the assessment of
costs and benefits of this rule. In this way, EPA analyzed the
potential incremental impacts of the proposed rule, attributing
benefits only insofar as they are additional to those already assessed
in the Allocation Framework RIA and proposed 2024 Allocation Rule RIA
addendum (collectively referred to as ``Allocation Rules'' in this
discussion).
As detailed in the RIA addendum and the Costs and Environmental
Impacts TSD, additional benefits of the proposed rule relative to the
Allocation Rules may vary depending on the mix and timing of industry
transitions made in order 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 would also be required by this
proposed rule. However, the 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 proposed 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 the proposed
rule: a ``base case'' and ``high additionality case.'' Both scenarios
use the results from the Allocation Rule as a starting point, and count
benefits in terms of reductions of consumption and emissions only in
cases where the proposed rule would result 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 the proposed
rule and not needed to reach the phasedown cap (so long as the
phasedown caps are otherwise met through consumption reductions in
subsectors that are covered by the proposed rule restrictions). By
contrast, the ``high additionality case'' is a less conservative
scenario and assumes that HFC consumption reduction activities not
covered by the proposed rule would remain consistent with the
Allocation
[[Page 76741]]
Rule reference scenario (i.e., neither increase nor decrease in
response to this proposed 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 be 5 to 35 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) annually.\4\ These
emission reductions generally lag the anticipated incidental
consumption reductions, which range from 735 to 1,121
MMTCO2e for 2025-2050 at an annual average of 28 to 43
MMTCO2e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As noted in the Allocation Framework Rule, 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 here 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 RIA addendum. The table shows the incremental
annual reductions--that is, the difference in reductions compared to
the Allocation Rule reference scenario--from the proposed rule for
selected years in the time period 2025-2050. Both the base case and
high additionality case results show a net reduction in consumption and
emissions on a cumulative basis through 2050. Emissions under the
proposed rule would decrease compared to the business-as-usual
estimates shown in the RIA, however they would not decrease as much as
under the Allocation Rule reference scenario for certain model years.
For these years, incremental emission reductions are therefore shown as
negative numbers in the table. This effect is due to assumptions about
the technological solutions used to comply with each rule.
Specifically, the base case excludes actions not required by this
proposed rule, such as improved leak reduction and enhanced recovery of
HFCs, which are assumed to otherwise yield relatively rapid emission
reductions. Since the Allocation Rule reference scenario includes those
actions, incremental emission reductions in the base case accrue more
slowly (and therefore are shown as negative in certain years) while
still yielding a net reduction on a cumulative basis.
Table 1--Incremental Consumption and Emission Reductions in the Technology Transitions Rule Base Case and High
Additionality Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental consumption reductions (MMTCO2e) Incremental emission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- reductions (MMTCO2e)
-------------------------------
Technology Technology Technology
transitions transitions Technology transitions
Year rule base high transitions high
case additionality rule base additionality
case case case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................ 9 42 -52 8
2029............................................ 27 53 -13 34
2034............................................ 35 49 2 43
2036............................................ 34 42 -3 36
2040............................................ 21 29 27 40
2045............................................ 35 44 27 37
2050............................................ 37 46 30 38
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total (cumulative).......................... 735 1121 134 903
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As reflected in the RIA addendum, however, although the base case
is a reasonable projection of the potential impacts of the proposed
rule, there is reason to believe that it is a conservative one, and
that the incremental emission reductions associated with this proposal
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, in the high additionality case we assumed certain abatement
options not covered by the proposed 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 the rule
is expected to yield incremental emission reductions ranging from 134
to 903 MMTCO2e through 2050 (respectively, about 3 percent
and 20 percent of the total emissions over that same time period in the
Allocations Rules analyses). In the RIA addendum, we estimate the
present value of these incremental benefits to be between $5 billion
and $51 billion in 2020 dollars.
EPA also estimates that the proposed rule would result in lower
compliance costs relative to 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 proposed requirements. The present value of these
cumulative incremental savings from 2025-2050 is estimated to be
between $2.2 billion and $4.2 billion, using a 7 percent discount rate,
or between $5.1 billion and $8 billion, using a 3 percent discount rate
(in 2020 dollars).
Table 2 summarizes key findings from the RIA addendum, including
the incremental annual climate benefits, costs, and net benefits of the
rule for selected years in the time period 2025-2050, with the climate
benefits discounted at 3 percent, for the base case and high
additionality case. The table also provides the present value (PV) and
equivalent annualized value (EAV) of the annual costs under a 3% and 7%
discount rate. We note that the climate benefits and net benefits
findings were not used for decisional purposes in this proposed rule
and are
[[Page 76742]]
provided for informational and illustrative purposes only.
Table 2--Summary of Annual Incremental Climate Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Technology Transitions Rule Base Case and High Additionality
Case Scenarios for the 2025-2050 Timeframe
[Millions of 2020$, discounted to 2022] a b c d e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base case High additionality case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual costs Net benefits Annual costs Net benefits
Incremental (negative (3% benefits, Incremental (negative (3% benefits,
Year climate values are 3% or 7% climate values are 3% or 7%
benefits (3%) savings) costs) \e\ benefits (3%) savings) Costs) \e\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025.................................................... -$3,603 -$395 -$3,209 $546 $31 $515
2029.................................................... -1,043 50 -1,092 2,563 335 2,227
2034.................................................... 141 -200 340 3,739 -77 3,816
2036.................................................... -404 -677 273 3,213 -635 3,848
2040.................................................... 2,669 -848 3,516 3,928 -784 4,712
2045.................................................... 2,946 -786 3,732 4,031 -717 4,748
2050.................................................... 3,606 -817 4,422 4,677 -743 5,419
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate 3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV............................................................ $5,084 -$8,045 -$4,225 $13,130 $9,309 $51,145 -$5,140 -$2,190 $56,285 $53,335
EAV........................................................... $311 -$492 -$438 $803 $748 $3,126 -$314 -$227 $3,440 $3,353
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
Some of the information regarding projected impacts of the 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.\5\ 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 VII.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 proposed rule, as summarized in
the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD, EPA considered estimates of
costs of the proposed action and estimates of cumulative consumption
and emission reductions for 2025-2050 of 735 to 1,121
MMTCO2e and 134 to 903 MMTCO2e, respectively,
neither of which incorporate the social costs of HFCs (SC-HFCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although EPA is using SC-HFCs for purposes of some of the analysis
in the RIA addendum, this proposed action does not rely on those
estimates of these costs as a record basis for the Agency action, and
EPA would reach the proposed conclusions even in the absence of the
social costs of HFCs.
Additional information on this analysis can be found in section X
of this preamble and in the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD and RIA
addendum contained in the docket.
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this rule if you manufacture,
import, export, package, sell or otherwise distribute products that use
or are intended to use HFCs, such as refrigeration and air-conditioning
(AC) systems, foams, and aerosols. You may also be potentially affected
by this action if you produce, import, export, destroy, use as a
feedstock, reclaim, package, or otherwise distribute HFCs. 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[dash]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.
[[Page 76743]]
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-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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76744]]
This table 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). 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 (k)(1)(C) of the Act also provides that Clean Air
Act (CAA) sections 113, 114, 304, and 307 apply to the AIM Act and any
regulations EPA promulgates under the AIM Act as though the AIM Act
were part of title VI of the CAA. 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.
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.\6\
(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 proposing to
restrict 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 (i)(4) of the AIM Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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)). Thus, EPA is addressing the
granted petitions under subsection (i) in this proposed action.
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 (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
negotiate with stakeholders prior to this proposal can be found in
section VI.B of this preamble.
In addition to proposing HFC use restrictions, this proposal
includes measures designed to assist with enforcement and to help
ensure compliance with those use restrictions, including recordkeeping,
reporting, and labeling requirements. The proposed reporting
requirements are also intended to inform EPA of market dynamics and the
transitions that are occurring in those sectors and subsectors
addressed by this rulemaking. 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.
III. Background
A. What are HFCs?
HFCs are anthropogenic \7\ fluorinated chemicals that have no known
natural sources. HFCs are used in a variety of applications such as
refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing agents, solvents,
aerosols, and fire suppression. HFCs are potent greenhouse gases (GHGs)
with 100-year GWPs (a measure of the relative climatic impact of a GHG)
that can be hundreds to thousands of times more potent than carbon
dioxide (CO2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC use and emissions \8\ have been growing worldwide due to the
global phaseout of ODS under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) and the increasing use of
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment globally. HFC emissions
had previously been projected to increase substantially over the next
several decades. In 2016, in Kigali, Rwanda, countries agreed to adopt
an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, known as the Kigali Amendment,
which provides for a global phasedown of the production and consumption
of HFCs. Global adherence to the Kigali Amendment would substantially
reduce future emissions, leading to a peaking of HFC emissions before
2040.9 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.
\9\ Ibid.
\10\ 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
[[Page 76745]]
accelerating rates. Total emissions of HFCs increased by 23 percent
from 2012 to 2016 and the four most abundant HFCs in the atmosphere, in
GWP-weighted terms, are HFC-134a, HFC-125, HFC-23, and HFC-143a.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ WMO, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, HFCs excluding HFC-23 accounted for a radiative forcing of
0.025 W/m\2\. This is a 36 percent increase in total radiative forcing
due to HFCs relative to 2012. 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 to the
radiative forcing projected in the business-as-usual scenario of
uncontrolled HFCs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 18 HFCs listed as regulated substances by the AIM Act are the
most commonly used HFCs and have high impacts as measured by the
quantity of each substance emitted multiplied by their respective
GWPs.\13\ These 18 HFCs are all saturated, meaning they have only
single bonds between their atoms and therefore have longer atmospheric
lifetimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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 Framework Rule that phasing down
HFC production and consumption according to the schedule provided in
the AIM Act will avoid cumulative consumption of 3,152 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). That
estimate included both consumption as defined in Sec. 84.3--i.e., with
respect to a regulated substance, bulk production plus bulk imports
minus bulk exports--and, although not requiring AIM Act allowances, the
amount in imported products containing a regulated substance, for the
abatement options necessary to meet the HFC cap. Annual avoided
consumption was estimated at 42 MMTCO2e in 2022 and 282
MMTCO2e in 2036. In order to calculate the climate benefits
associated with consumption abatement, the consumption changes were
expressed in terms of emissions reductions. EPA estimated that for the
years 2022-2050 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 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 are a result of the well-
documented buildup of GHGs due to human activities and are changing the
climate at a pace and in a way that threatens human health, society,
and the natural environment. In this section, EPA is providing 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 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 (CAA) (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009).\15\ 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). The 2009 Endangerment
Finding, together with the extensive scientific and technical evidence
in the supporting record, documented that climate change caused by
human emissions of GHGs (including HFCs) threatens the public health of
the population of the United States. It explained that by raising
average temperatures, climate change increases the likelihood of heat
waves, which are associated with increased deaths and illnesses (74 FR
66497, December 15, 2009). It noted that 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 United States (74 FR 66525,
December 15, 2009). The 2009 Endangerment Finding further explained
that compared with a future without climate change, climate change is
expected to increase tropospheric ozone pollution over broad areas of
the United States, including in the largest metropolitan 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In describing these 2009 Findings in this proposal, 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 \16\
in the United
[[Page 76746]]
States with resulting economic costs, including: changes in water
supply and quality due to changes in 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; and the potential for significant
agricultural disruptions and crop failures (though offset to some
extent by carbon fertilization). These impacts are also global and may
exacerbate problems outside the United States that raise humanitarian,
trade, and national security issues for the United States (74 FR 66530,
December 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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 greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft under
section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (81 FR 54422, August 15, 2016).\17\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In describing these 2016 Findings in this proposal, 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, greenhouse gas concentrations,
and sea level rise. Additionally, major scientific assessments continue
to be released that further improve 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.'' \18\ These updated observations and
projections document the rapid rate of current and future climate
change both globally and in the United States.\19\ \20\ \21\ \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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[acute]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.
\19\ 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.
\20\ IPCC, 2021.
\21\ 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.
\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. How is EPA evaluating environmental justice?
EPA provides the following discussion of the Agency's assessment of
environmental justice impacts in relationship to this proposal. This
analysis is intended to provide the public with information on the
potential environmental justice impacts of this action, if finalized as
proposed, and to comply with executive orders. This analysis was not
used for purposes of EPA's consideration of the statutory factors under
AIM Act subsection (i)(4). 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 12898's main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest
extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 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
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.\23\ 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.\24\ 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency. ``Environmental
Justice.'' Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
\24\ 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.
\25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A regulatory action may involve potential environmental justice
concerns if it could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts on people
of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples; (2)
exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on people of color, low-
income populations, and/or indigenous peoples; or (3) present
opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on people of
color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples through the
action under development.
Executive Order 14008 calls on agencies to make achieving
environmental justice part of their missions ``by developing programs,
policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and
adverse human health, environmental, climate-
[[Page 76747]]
related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as
well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts.''
Executive Order 14008 further declares a policy ``to secure
environmental justice and spur economic opportunity for disadvantaged
communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened
by pollution and under-investment in housing, transportation, water and
wastewater infrastructure, and health care.''
In addition, the Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing Regulatory
Review calls for procedures to ``take into account the distributional
consequences of regulations, including as part of 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.'' \26\ EPA also released its June 2016 ``Technical
Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis''
(2016 Technical Guidance) to provide recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing
that data limitations, time and resource constraints, and analytic
challenges will vary by media and circumstance.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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/.
\27\ 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 United States' phasedown of HFCs, which will achieve
significant benefits by reducing production and consumption of certain
chemicals with high GWPs. In that rulemaking, EPA described the
environmental justice analysis conducted in support of the 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 proposed
rule are similar to those addressed at length in the RIA \28\ developed
for the Allocation Framework Rule. The analysis of potential
environmental justice concerns for the Allocation Framework Rule
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 Framework Rule, 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. Similar to the Allocation Framework
Rule, EPA expects that this proposed rule would reduce GHG emissions,
which would 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 proposed rulemaking could affect production of
predominant HFC substitutes, such as hydrocarbons, ammonia (R-717), and
hydrofluoroolefins (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 byproducts, potentially
raising concerns about local exposure. Due to the limitations of the
current data, we cannot make conclusions about the impact this proposed
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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
proposed 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 proposed rule, which is available in the docket. EPA relied on
public data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI),\29\ GHGRP,
Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Program,\30\ EJScreen (an environmental
justice mapping and screening tool developed by EPA), Enforcement and
Compliance History Online (ECHO), Census data, and information provided
by industry stakeholders to identify the facilities. In addition, Air
Toxics Screening Assessment (AirToxScreen, formerly National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA)) data from 2017 (the most recent year available) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 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.
\30\ 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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76748]]
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 proposed rule, EPA identified
14 facilities producing predominant HFC substitutes that may be
impacted by this proposed 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 proposed rule would reduce GHG
emissions, which would 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 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 areas
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 facilities identified 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
identified 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 facilities in San Dimas, CA; Sibley, LA;
El Dorado, AR; Gregory, and Manvel, TX, along with those in Iowa,
Illinois, and West Virginia.
EPA is including 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 a variety of economic and
social science research and has been used before 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.
EPA seeks comment and further discussion of the use of
microsimulation approaches and techniques for regulatory impact
analysis and other program activities. Among other things, EPA seeks
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 (ACS). EPA
requests comment on other surveys or other geospatial datasets should
be the focus of EPA efforts to combine with the ACS 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.
In considering potential additional analysis for a final rule based
on this proposal, EPA is also considering assessing the estimated
exposure of the communities near the identified facilities to toxics
using the Risk Screening Environmental Index Geographic Microdata
(RSEI-GM). The Agency seeks comment on whether this additional analysis
would be useful and what additional insight it might provide for the
environmental justice analysis.
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's
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 in this section above, emissions from
facilities producing fluorinated and non-fluorinated substitutes may
also be affected by the phasedown of HFCs. For the forthcoming proposed
2024 Allocation Rule, EPA is updating the environmental justice
analysis that was previously conducted for the Allocation Framework RIA
to help determine how the implementation of the HFC phasedown may
affect production and emissions at facilities that produce HFCs. EPA is
following the analytical approach used in the Allocation Framework RIA
to provide an update to the characterization of community demographics
near HFC production facilities using updated data on the total
[[Page 76749]]
number of TRI facilities near HFC production facilities and the cancer
and respiratory risks to surrounding communities. More information will
be provided in conjunction with that proposed rule, which the Agency
anticipates publishing later this year.
EPA seeks input on the environmental justice analysis contained in
the RIA addendum for this proposed rule, as well as broader input on
other health and environmental risks the Agency should assess. To
support the development of comments, EPA is seeking data or analysis to
identify whether it is reasonable to expect net increases in emissions
and, if so, how we might isolate the impacts of this program (i.e.,
effects resulting from the transition to lower-GWP substitutes or some
other factor) in a manner that would enable the Agency to conduct a
more nuanced analysis of changes in releases associated with chemical
feedstocks and byproducts for HFC substitutes, given the inherent
uncertainty regarding where, and in what quantities, substitutes will
be produced.
EPA is also taking comment on whether there are other authorities
that would allow for the reporting of emissions tied to HFC substitute
production. This could complement the emissions reporting and/or
monitoring requirements in the proposed 2024 HFC Allocation Rule for
HFC production facilities. Emissions monitoring and/or reporting
provides communities with greater transparency and allows EPA to better
evaluate potential environmental justice impacts over time. For more
discussion of that proposal, see 87 FR 66372 (November 3, 2022).
Finally, EPA is seeking comment in order to aid our efforts to
understand further cumulative impacts and how they might be addressed.
Since the updated environmental justice analysis and proposed reporting
requirement are focused on chemical stressors, the Agency is requesting
additional information on how both the chemical and non-chemical
stressors associated with the HFC phasedown can alter the cumulative
impacts experienced by communities surrounding HFC production
facilities, how the Agency can share this information with the public,
and whether and how the Agency can assess and measure cumulative
impacts in the context of the HFC phasedown.
IV. What factors will be considered for evaluating a 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:
The best available data;
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;
Overall economic costs and environmental impacts, as
compared to historical trends; and
The remaining phase-down period for regulated substances
under the final rule issued under subsection (e)(3) of the AIM Act, if
applicable.
These factors under subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act were
considered in the process of making a determination on the granted
petitions, and will be the factors that EPA considers in evaluating
future petitions. A discussion on how EPA interprets these factors and
how they were considered in this proposed rulemaking is in section
VII.E of the preamble.
V. 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 proposed 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.
Subsection (i)(3)(A) of the AIM Act explicitly 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) would ensure 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 electronically. EPA is proposing to require future petitions to
also be submitted electronically. The Agency's preferred method is for
petitions to be submitted to the email address: [email protected]. A
link to this address is available on EPA's web page at: https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/technology-transition-petitions-under-aim-act. Petitions can also be submitted electronically through
an EPA electronic reporting system. For instructions on how to submit a
petition through an EPA electronic reporting system, please contact the
individual
[[Page 76750]]
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the preamble.
A. What is required to be included in a technology transitions
petition?
EPA is proposing to require standard content to be included in a
technology transitions petition, which would assist petitioners in
preparing their petitions and also enhance EPA's ability to review and
respond to them promptly. Under this proposal, in order to qualify for
a grant, a technology transitions petition would need to include the
elements described in the following paragraphs. We are seeking comment
on these proposed elements of a petition submission under AIM Act
subsection (i).
EPA is proposing that petitions must indicate either a GWP limit or
the specific name(s) of the regulated substance(s) (including whether
there are specific blend(s) that use the regulated substance(s), if the
petition seeks a restriction on use of the regulated substance(s) in
specific blends) to be restricted and their GWPs. Under this proposal,
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.\31\ 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 34-2019 \32\ (e.g., HFC-134a, 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) for the components not listed in ASHRAE
Standard 34. EPA intends to maintain a list of commonly used blends
containing HFCs and the GWPs of those blends at EPA's Technology
Transitions web page. Nevertheless, EPA is also proposing a process to
determine the GWP of blends containing regulated substances for
purposes of this rulemaking, using the following hierarchy. For the
regulated substances used in the blend, and as previously noted, the
petitioner would use as the GWP the exchange value provided in
subsection (c) of the AIM Act and codified as appendix A to 40 CFR part
84. EPA is proposing to use the 100-year GWP values from the IPCC's
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) for all substances or components of
blends, which for HFC regulated substances is numerically equal to the
exchange values provided in subsection (c), which are listed in AR4.
EPA is proposing to use AR4 100-year GWPs wherever possible given the
exchange values are numerically the same and because EPA considers such
an approach to be less complicated. For hydrocarbons (HCs) listed in
Table 2-15 of AR4, EPA is proposing to use the net GWP value. For
substances for which no GWP is provided in AR4, EPA is proposing to use
the 100-year GWP listed in World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
2018.\33\ For any substance listed in neither of these sources, EPA is
proposing to use the GWP of the substance in Table A-1 to 40 CFR part
98, as it exists on a specified date, such as the date this rule is
published in the Federal Register as a final rule, if such substance is
specifically listed in that table. EPA is aware of two potential
substances that might be included as components of blends containing
regulated substances that are not listed in these three sources, trans-
dichloroethylene (HCO-1130(E)) and HCFO-1224yd(Z) and is proposing to
set these GWPs to be five \34\ and one,\35\ respectively, for purposes
of this rulemaking. For any other substance not listed in the above
three source documents, EPA is proposing that the default GWPs as shown
in Table A-1 to 40 CFR part 98, as it exists on a specified date, such
as the date this rule is published in the Federal Register as a final
rule, shall be used. 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
proposing GWPs, is not listed in Table A-1 to 40 CFR part 98 and does
not fit within any of the default GWPs provided in Table A-1 to 40 CFR
part 98), EPA is proposing to use a GWP of zero. 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 proposing that the
value shown shall be used. As such, petitioners should provide GWP
values of the components of a blend based on the hierarchy proposed in
this section. 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\ 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.
\32\ Hereafter referred to as ASHRAE Standard 34.
\33\ WMO, 2018.
\34\ 81 FR 32244 (May 23, 2016).
\35\ 84 FR 64766 (November 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing that petitioners must indicate the sector or
subsector for which restrictions on use of the regulated substance
would apply. EPA is proposing definitions for ``sectors'' and
``subsectors'' in section VII.A of this preamble that generally reflect
how these terms are historically used and EPA's understanding of
sectors and subsectors where HFCs are currently or can be used.
However, 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.
EPA is proposing that petitions must include a date that the
requested restrictions would go into effect and information concerning
why the date or dates 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)).
Therefore, EPA is proposing that petitioners include such a request in
their petition. However, we are seeking comment on whether, in the
alternative, it is reasonable for EPA to interpret the petition process
under 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.
Most petitions received to date by the Agency complied with the
statute's requirement to request that EPA use negotiated
[[Page 76751]]
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. Regardless of whether we
finalize a requirement that petitioners affirmatively request
negotiated rulemaking or whether we finalize a requirement that
petitioners address negotiated rulemaking, EPA proposes that
petitioners must provide an explanation of their position on the use of
the negotiated rulemaking procedure and any considerations that would
either support use of a negotiated rulemaking process or disfavor it.
If a petition is granted, EPA intends to consider the petitioner's
statement on negotiated rulemaking as it determines whether to use the
procedure.
Lastly, EPA is proposing to require petitioners to 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.\36\ Given the relatively short
180-day statutory timeframe for EPA to grant or deny a petition, this
proposed requirement would ensure that information is available to EPA
at the start of its review, to the extent the petitioner has relevant
available information. This proposed requirement would clarify that EPA
may deny a petition where no information had been provided that would
allow the Agency to act on the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Section VII.E of this preamble provides information on
EPA's interpretation of these factors for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 information submitted by
petitioner could include estimates of the economic costs and
environmental impacts. 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 quantitative, accurate data to support that assessment
will be more likely to result in a timely, well-reasoned response to
the petitioner's request.
B. What happens after a petition is submitted?
Subsection (i)(3)(C)(iii) instructs EPA to make petitions publicly
available within 30 days after EPA receives the petition. As stated in
another Agency action (see ``Notice of Data Availability Relevant to
Petition Submissions Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing
Act of 2020,'' 86 FR 28099 (May 25, 2021)), 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 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. EPA notes that a petition granted under subsection (i) of the
AIM Act does not necessarily mean the Agency will propose or finalize
requirements identical to a petition's request. Rather, granting a
petition means that the requested restriction contained in a granted
petition warrants further consideration through rulemaking. During the
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?
As stated in section V.B of this preamble, receipt of a completed
petition received by EPA triggers two statutory deadlines: the posting
of the petition within 30 days of receipt and the granting or denying
the of petition within 180 days of receipt. 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 revising or resubmitting their petition, they should instead
submit supplemental or clarifying information regarding their petitions
to the docket created for additional information and material related
to petitions under consideration. 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 petitions in 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.
VI. How is EPA considering negotiated rulemaking?
In this section, EPA is providing 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, based on EPA's consideration to
use negotiating rulemaking procedures prior to this proposal.
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
[[Page 76752]]
negotiated rulemaking procedures established under subchapter III of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as 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 subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code. 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 this proposed 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 proposed rulemaking (86 FR 74080, December 29,
2021). The Agency found that using negotiated rulemakings was not in
the best interest of the public in the document 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. Further,
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. EPA believes
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 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 take into account
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.\37\ 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 proposed 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 using negotiated rulemaking
procedures and decided not to use them. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ These petitions were received from AHRI and IIAR and are
discussed in section VII.D.2 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. What is EPA's proposed action concerning restrictions on the use
of HFCs?
This section details the Agency's proposal for restricting HFCs in
accordance with the granted petitions, including: defining terms that
are new to 40 CFR part 84; presenting two approaches for the form that
prohibitions could take; describing the proposed 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 proposing to implement subsection (i)?
The Allocation Framework Rule established regulatory definitions at
40 CFR part 84, subpart A to implement the framework and begin the
regulatory phasedown of HFCs under the AIM Act. To maintain
consistency, except as otherwise explained in this rulemaking, EPA
intends to use terms in this rulemaking, and in the new subpart B which
is to be 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. A few terms (export, exporter, and importer) currently
exist in 40 CFR 84.3 in the context of bulk regulated substances. EPA
is proposing subpart B definitions for those terms that would clarify
how those terms apply to regulated substances that are used by or
contained in products under subpart B. Other than that proposed change,
these proposed definitions would mirror the text in the 40 CFR 84.3
definitions of export, exporter, and importer. 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).
EPA is also proposing to establish definitions for new terms that
are applicable only under 40 CFR part 84, subpart B and do not have a
counterpart in the definitions under 40 CFR part 84, subpart A. These
terms are: blend containing a regulated substance, manufacture,
product, regulated product, retrofit, sector, subsector,
[[Page 76753]]
substitute, and use. The definitions that EPA is proposing to include
in 84.52 for application to 40 CFR part 84, subpart B are as follows:
Blend containing a regulated substance. EPA is proposing to
establish 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 pump, foam blowing, and fire suppression. EPA is proposing to
define this term as ``any mixture that contains one or more regulated
substances used in a sector or subsector.'' EPA would consider any
quantity of a regulated substance within a mixture to qualify the
mixture as a ``blend containing a regulated substance.''
EPA is not proposing that a blend that uses one or more regulated
substances is itself a regulated substance. Rather, the Agency is
proposing use restrictions on the regulated substance(s) used in
certain blends, such that the use restriction on the regulated
substance(s) would also affect use of that blend. Most HFCs used in the
sectors and subsectors addressed by this proposed rule are components
of blends that contain other HFCs, HFOs, and hydrocarbons. As discussed
in section V.A of this preamble, 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 would be
prohibited.
Export. For purposes of subpart B, EPA is proposing to define this
term to mean the transport of a regulated product 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 proposing to define
this term to mean the person who contracts to sell any regulated
product for export or transfers a regulated product to an affiliate in
another country.
Importer. For purposes of subpart B, EPA is proposing to define
this term to mean any person who imports any regulated product 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 proposed definition of importer, specifically paragraphs (3)
and (4), would more closely align with the definition of ``importer''
at 19 CFR 101.1. Though the definition would vary in non-substantive
ways from that in subpart A of 40 CFR part 84, no difference in
interpretation between subparts is intended.
Manufacture. EPA is proposing to define this term 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 is intended to apply similarly to how this
term is applied in certain other use restrictions under title VI of the
CAA and 40 CFR part 82. Because those restrictions bear certain
similarities to restrictions proposed in this document, EPA is drawing
on its past experience in implementing those provisions in this
proposal, including for the definition of ``manufacture.'' EPA
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 85 FR 15267 (March 17,
2020) (describing the use restriction and when a field charged
appliance is manufactured). The proposed definition of manufacture in
this rulemaking is intended to address both products that are
manufactured at a factory, including factory-charged appliances, and
the assembly of field charged appliances. It is also intended to
address field-charged equipment beyond appliances in the RACHP sector
to include fire suppression equipment or other equipment that is
assembled and charged on-site.
Appliances used in commercial refrigeration, such as large chillers
and industrial process refrigeration (IPR), typically involve more
complex installation processes, which may require custom built parts,
and typically are manufactured on-site (or field charged). Consistent
with EPA's view of the term ``manufacture'' in its prior experience
under title VI of the CAA and its implementing regulations, appliances
such as these that are field charged or have the refrigerant circuit
completed on-site are manufactured at the point when installation of
all the components and other parts are completed, and the appliance is
fully charged with refrigerant and able to operate (see, e.g., 85 FR
15267, (March 17, 2020)).
EPA is seeking comment on whether it should expand the definition
for ``manufacture'' to include the manufacturing process, prior to the
completion of the product containing or manufactured with a regulated
substance or blend using a regulated substance.
Product. EPA is proposing to define this term as ``an item or
category of items manufactured from raw or recycled materials which is
used to perform a function or task. The term product includes, but is
not limited to: equipment, appliances, components, subcomponents,
foams, foam blowing systems (e.g., pre-blended polyols), fire
suppression systems or devices, aerosols, pressurized dispensers, and
wipes.'' This definition is based on the definition of the term
``product'' in regulations established under title VI of the CAA in 40
CFR part 82 subparts C and E. EPA's view of what constitutes a product
for purposes of use restrictions under subsection (i) mirrors its view
under those provisions. Maintaining the same definition will provide
clarity for the regulated community, as many are already familiar with
the existing definitions in part 82. One difference from the part 82
definition is the proposed addition of two examples: fire suppression
systems and foam blowing systems. There had been confusion during the
ODS phaseout whether these systems were a product or a bulk substance.
For example, some aircraft lavatory fire suppression systems consist of
trash containers equipped with a fire extinguisher, a discrete product
that automatically discharges the extinguishant in the event of a fire,
whereas more integrated fire suppression systems use a reservoir of gas
in a detachable cylinder and piping to discharge into the protected
space. EPA is proposing to clarify that the self-contained systems
would be considered products, while system cylinders independent of the
system would continue to be considered bulk. Polyol foam blowing
systems consist of two cylinders, one of which contains the foam
material and the other containing a blowing agent such as an HFC. The
cylinder containing an HFC is not considered a bulk gas as the two are
sold together and used as a single system.
[[Page 76754]]
Regulated product. EPA is proposing to define this term as ``any
product in the sectors or subsectors identified in Sec. 84.56 that
contains or was manufactured with a regulated substance or a blend that
contains a regulated substance, including products intended to be used
with a regulated substance, or that is otherwise subject to the
prohibitions of this subpart.'' EPA intends for this definition to
broadly cover all products that use HFCs, whether they are high-GWP
HFCs that are prohibited or lower-GWP HFCs that are subject to labeling
and reporting provisions.
Retrofit. The AIM Act defines ``retrofit'' 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 proposing to
adopt 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 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 proposing to add 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.
Sector. EPA is proposing to define this term as ``a broad category
of applications including but not limited to: refrigeration, air
conditioning and heat pumps; foam blowing; aerosols; chemical
manufacturing; cleaning solvents; fire suppression and explosion
protection; and semiconductor manufacturing.'' These categorizations
and groupings would be 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), the statutory language, and EPA's Vintaging
Model. Entities potentially subject to rulemakings proposed 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. Moreover, 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 TEAP defines sectors, and EPA's
proposed definition of sector would be relatable to their understanding
of the term.
Subsector. EPA is proposing to define 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 which more narrowly
highlights how the HFC is used. Entities potentially subject to
rulemakings proposed 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. Therefore, EPA is
proposing that the term ``subsectors'' include the concepts of ``end-
uses'' and ``applications'' under the SNAP Program (40 CFR 82.172). An
example subsector is cold storage warehouses under the refrigeration,
air conditioning and heat pump sector. Another example is the integral
skin polyurethane subsector under foams.
Substitute. EPA is proposing to define this term as ``any
substance, product, or alternative manufacturing process, whether
existing or new, that is used, or intended for use, in a sector or
subsector with a lower global warming potential than the regulated
substance, whether neat or used in a blend, to which a use restriction
would apply.'' Under this proposed definition, substitutes would
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), alternative substances (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).
Use. EPA is proposing 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, discharge, incorporation, transformation, or other
manipulation.''
EPA welcomes comment on these proposed definitions. EPA
acknowledges that historical contexts may not fully capture all the
ways that regulated substances are being used and is seeking comment on
additional sectors and subsectors where regulated substances are used
that would fit under this regulatory program.
B. How is EPA proposing to restrict the use of HFCs in the sector or
subsector in which the HFCs 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 a number of considerations EPA is to factor in, to
the extent practicable, when promulgating restrictions. EPA is
considering two possible approaches to structuring those restrictions
in this proposal but recognizes that other approaches could be
considered in the future that would also fit within the authority
granted by this statutory provision.
In considering the two approaches, we have 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, we also think the factors
listed in subsection (i)(4) are informative in our consideration of how
to structure restrictions, as some approaches may provide advantages
with respect to some of the factors listed in subsection (i)(4) over
others.
[[Page 76755]]
We also note that 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,'' we think that, given EPA's
authority to issue partial restrictions, the provision allows EPA to
establish restrictions for particular uses of HFCs, such as products or
applications, and that such restrictions do not need to 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 proposing
restrictions for HFCs used in chillers for comfort cooling. However,
chillers for comfort cooling with evaporating temperatures less than -
58 [deg]F are not included in this proposal due to limits in lower-GWP
technology to meet the proposed restriction at this time.
The two approaches to structuring subsection (i) restrictions that
we are considering at this time were identified in the subsection (i)
petitions granted by the Agency to date. They are: (1) to set GWP
limits for HFCs used within a sector or one or more subsectors; and (2)
to restrict specific HFCs, whether neat or used in a blend, by sector
or one or more subsectors.\38\ For purposes of the restrictions
proposed in this document, which largely respond to the subsection (i)
petitions granted to date by the Administrator, we propose to primarily
employ the GWP limit approach, with some exceptions where we think the
specific-listing approach is more appropriate. We seek comment on both
approaches and have provided sufficient information in this proposal
and the docket to allow the Agency to finalize restrictions using
either approach.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The restrictions on the use of an HFC under subsection (i)
of the AIM Act proposed in this rulemaking are intended to
complement and not conflict with existing restrictions established
through other authorities. Other authorities would still apply.
\39\ EPA provides a summary of sectors and subsectors affected
by the proposed action, along with the proposed restriction in the
form of GWP limits for most subsectors in section VII.F.2 of this
preamble. The docket contains a list of specific substances that EPA
is proposing to restrict should EPA finalize a specific listing
approach to establish use restrictions rather than a GWP limit
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWP Limit Approach
This proposed approach would restrict the use of HFCs by
establishing GWP limits for HFCs used in each sector or subsector,
whether neat or used in a blend. By establishing GWP limits, only HFCs
with GWPs below the proposed limit or HFCs used in blends with GWPs
below the proposed limit for a particular sector or subsector could be
used in that sector or subsector. If used neat, HFCs with GWPs at or
above the GWP limit would be prohibited from use in that sector or
subsector. If the HFC is used in a blend in the sector or subsector,
compliance with the GWP limit would be determined based on the GWP of
the blend. Blends containing an HFC with GWPs at or above the GWP limit
would be prohibited from use in that sector or subsector.
For HFCs used in a blend, EPA is proposing that the GWP of the
blend would be calculated to incorporate all components of the blend,
whether an HFC, HFO, HC or other constituent, using the 100-year
integrated AR4 values. 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.
For further details about determining the GWP of compounds that are not
listed in AR4, see section V.A of this preamble.
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. Under
this proposal, EPA is not restricting the use of all HFC blends. For
instance, if a GWP limit of 150 is established for regulated substances
used in a particular sector or subsector, HFC-134a, which has a GWP of
1,430, could not be used. However, R-451A, which is a blend of HFC-134a
and HFO-1234yf, has a GWP of 146 and could be used in a sector or
subsector with a GWP limit of 150. This approach would allow for the
continued use of an HFC with a GWP above the limit EPA establishes when
it is used in a blend with a GWP below the limit. There may be certain
characteristics associated with a higher-GWP HFC that makes use of that
substance in a blend particularly advantageous, such as reducing
flammability. Making available substitutes that would not otherwise be
available under an approach that did not permit the use of higher-GWP
HFCs, even when in a lower-GWP blend, would achieve beneficial
environmental impacts sooner, smooth the transition, and support
innovation. This approach is consistent with the approach used by other
governments including the European Union (EU). EPA notes that this
approach would 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.
Even where petitions have asked EPA to restrict specific regulated
substances or blends containing an HFC in various sectors and
subsectors, EPA can translate those requests into restrictions using
the GWP limit approach. EPA would select GWP limits that would, in
effect, prohibit the use of named HFCs (neat) and named blends in the
specified sector. For example, in its granted petition, Natural
Resources Defense Council et. al. (NRDC) requested that the Agency
restrict the use of R-507A (GWP 3,990), R-404A (GWP 3,920), R-428A (GWP
3,610), R-422C (GWP 3,390), R-434A (GWP 3,250), HFC-227ea (GWP 3,220),
R-421B (GWP 3,190), R-422A (GWP 3,140), R-407B (GWP 2,800), and R-422D
(GWP 2,730) for new remote condensing units. In this example, EPA's
starting point for considering a GWP limit for new remote condensing
units would be 2,730, to include within the prohibition the blend with
the lowest GWP among those in the petition. EPA then would use the
considerations laid out in subsection (i)(4) to determine the
appropriate GWP limit restriction that would also account for available
substitutes in the remote condensing unit subsector; by definition,
that proposed GWP limit would prohibit (or fully restrict) the specific
named HFCs and blends containing HFCs requested by the petitioner.
One benefit of the GWP limit approach is that the regulatory
certainty it would provide would encourage the continued development
and implementation of HFC substitutes with lower GWPs. Under this
approach, companies would be free to innovate so long as the substitute
did not exceed the GWP limit. Where EPA has established a GWP limit for
a particular sector or subsector, based on available and
technologically achievable substitutes, new HFCs or blends containing
an HFC used in that sector or subsector would need to meet that
threshold. This approach would also provide a more efficient and
streamlined process for companies to employ these lower-GWP substitutes
for new uses, because the existing restrictions would make clear
permissible uses. 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. By
establishing GWP limits, this program would foster
[[Page 76756]]
innovation to next-generation substitutes.
Perhaps recognizing these same advantages, other governments
undertaking programs to restrict HFCs have embraced this approach,
including the state of California, Canada, and EU member countries.
Many of the granted petitions including those submitted by
environmental advocates, industry trade associations, and state
governments, demonstrated broad support for using GWP limits.
Furthermore, many of the businesses in the potentially affected sectors
or subsectors are familiar with this approach already and may already
comply with GWP limits in certain markets. Therefore, EPA's use of the
GWP limit approach, which is familiar to companies operating in other
jurisdictions, could potentially support innovation, transition, and
compliance.
Specific Listing Approach
The second approach EPA is considering would be to list
specifically restricted HFCs and blends containing HFCs by sector or
subsector. Using the NRDC petition example described previously, under
this approach EPA would prohibit the use of the ten blends contained in
the petition (R-507A, R-404A, R-428A, R-422C, R-434A, HFC-227ea, R-
421B, R-422A, R-407B, and R-422D) in new remote condensing units. The
NRDC petition appears to be based on the SNAP Program's use of
acceptable, acceptable subject to use conditions, and unacceptable
lists and requests restrictions that would be equivalent to the changes
of status in SNAP Rules 20 and 21 which were partially vacated and
remanded to the Agency (80 FR 42870, July 20, 2015 and 81 FR 86778,
December 1, 2016, respectively).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ After a court challenge, the D.C. Circuit partially vacated
the SNAP 2015 Rule ``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 2016 Rule. See Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 760 Fed. Appx. 6
(Mem) (per curiam) (D.C. Cir. 2019) (``Mexichem II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While EPA's experience implementing the SNAP program under section
612 of the CAA provides some insight into the advisability of using a
substance specific listing approach to structure restrictions under
subsection (i), EPA recognizes that Congress provided separate
authority under subsection (i) of the AIM Act. 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 a number of 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 450 alternatives for eight
industry sectors and more than 40 end-uses since 1994.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ As noted in section VII.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on EPA's experience with using the substance-specific lists
to establish use conditions or narrowed use limits under SNAP, we
anticipate that using substance-specific lists to communicate the
restrictions established under subsection (i) could be unwieldy and
less advantageous. We note that in contrast to section 612(c) of the
CAA, subsection (i)(1) does not expressly mention publication of a list
for substances that are restricted. Moreover, the substance-specific
approach could present the challenge of needing to continually update
the list of HFCs and blends containing an HFC as they are introduced.
For example, if EPA has already restricted one particular use of an HFC
in a blend for a given use, a company could reformulate the blend
slightly, even increasing the high-GWP HFC component, and start using
it for that same use. EPA would then need to initiate a rulemaking to
restrict that new HFC formulation for that use, even though it was
clear from the outset that lower-GWP alternatives already existed.
However, we acknowledge that the substance-specific listing
approach may be simpler to implement in some instances, particularly
when there are only one or a few regulated substances used or
restricted in a specific sector or subsector. Listing these restricted
substances explicitly would provide specificity to the regulated
community as to exactly what is prohibited. It also allows anyone to
compare the regulated substance used to the list of restricted
substances and know whether the product is in compliance, avoiding the
intermediate step of determining the GWP of the HFC or blend containing
an HFC before knowing whether that particular substance meets the
established limit.
This approach may also be preferable when substitutes continue to
be in development. It may be beneficial to allow additional time before
establishing a GWP limit 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.
We think both approaches could also be used in combination, with
some subsectors having a GWP limit and others where specific substances
are restricted. We note that petitions granted under subsection (i)
requested restrictions using both of these approaches, and one possible
approach for the final rule would be to establish, if appropriate, the
type of restriction (GWP limit or substance-specific) requested in the
petitions for that particular subsector. For example, most petitions
regarding the RACHP subsectors requested GWP limit restrictions. EPA
suspects that this may be due to the number of HFCs and blends
containing an HFC used in those subsectors. However, in some cases not
all petitioners were in agreement on the structure of the restriction.
For example, some petitions regarding the cold storage warehouse
subsector requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of 150 while others
requested EPA to prohibit the use of listed HFCs and blends containing
an HFC.
The Agency is proposing to establish restrictions on the use of
HFCs by establishing GWP limits by sector or subsector in most
instances. As discussed further in section VII.F.3.e of this preamble,
EPA is proposing to restrict specific HFCs, whether neat or used in a
blend, in some instances where the situation making the substance
specific listing approach is advantageous. EPA is seeking comment on
the GWP limit approach, the specific listing approach, other possible
regulatory models that the Agency should consider, and a combination of
approaches either for this proposed rule or for future rulemakings
under subsection (i) of the AIM Act.
C. Applicability
The AIM Act provides that the Administrator may by rule restrict,
[[Page 76757]]
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. HFCs are used in a wide variety of applications, including
refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing agents, solvents,
aerosols, and fire suppression. In these applications, HFCs are often
used as a refrigerant, foam blowing agent, and fire suppression agent
or may be contained and used within a product. HFCs can also be used in
processes such as solvent cleaning, blowing open cell foam,
semiconductor manufacturing, or chemical usage.
The AIM Act does not define ``use.'' The dictionary definitions for
that term include ``to put into action or service'' \42\ and ``to take,
hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or
achieving a result; employ.'' \43\ For several reasons, we think
``use,'' in the context of subsection (i)(1), was intended to include
actions taken with respect to regulated substances that occur at the
market or industry level, such as manufacture, distribution, sale,
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Merriam-Webster. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use.
\43\ Lexico.com. Available at: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, 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.'' While sectors and subsectors are not defined in
the AIM Act, those terms suggest groupings or categories of related
activity at an industry level, and as discussed in section VII.A of
this preamble, EPA is proposing definitions for ``sectors'' and
``subsectors'' that are consistent with historical usage of those terms
in other programs--grouping together similar or related industrial or
market uses in distinct sectors, for example, refrigeration and air
conditioning, or foam blowing, or aerosols. ``Use of a regulated
substance in the sector or subsector in which the regulated substance
is used'' indicates that the grant of authority under subsection (i)
was intended to cover a sector or subsector's use of a regulated
substance, and that use certainly covers the inclusion of a regulated
substance in a product \44\ to achieve a particular purpose or the
employment of a regulated substance in a process, as those are
prototypical uses for sectors that are most likely to be using
regulated substances, such as the inclusion of an HFC as a refrigerant
in a refrigerator or air conditioner for cooling purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 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. In order to address the
regulated substance within a blend, it may be 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, 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
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, in
subsection (i)(4)(B), the Act 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 substance that a sector or subsector could
use, indicating feasibility, readiness, advisability, and degree of a
sector or subsector 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
away from the use of regulated substances in a sector or subsector.
Third, 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 the term ``use'' to be broad enough to achieve a full
transition. In order 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'' as being broad enough to reach
points such as transport or offer for sale.
EPA therefore proposes 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'' covers all of the links on the chain representing how regulated
substances would be introduced, incorporated into products or
processes, circulated, and made available in the U.S. market. To the
extent EPA has determined, considering the (i)(4) factors, such as the
availability of substitutes, that it is appropriate and possible to
fully restrict the use of an HFC in a particular sector or subsector,
we think that restriction must be able to extend across all the points
in the chain. For example, if stakeholders submit a petition to EPA
asserting that the Agency should fully restrict use of a certain HFC or
HFCs over a certain GWP in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC), and
EPA agrees such restriction is appropriate, based on consideration of
the (i)(4) factors to the extent practicable, we interpret subsection
(i) to authorize the restriction of such use of HFCs in every part of
the market chain. A narrower interpretation could hamper EPA's ability
to
[[Page 76758]]
effectively implement a full restriction on HFC use in a sector or
subsector. For example, if EPA were to define ``use'' as only the
manufacture of a product containing an HFC but not sale of that
product, then the manufacture of a MVAC system with the restricted HFC
would be prohibited, because the air conditioning sector would be
restricted from that ``use'' of the HFC. Sale of MVAC systems
manufactured with the restricted HFC would not be considered part of
the sector's ``use'' of an HFC and would therefore be permissible,
either because the unit had been imported or because it had made it to
store shelves, despite a restriction on its manufacture. This would
circumvent the intended full transition of the MVAC subsector away from
use of HFC. Covering all points in the chain of ``use in the sector or
subsector'' ensures that the use restrictions we establish achieve
their intended purpose. However, even though EPA's proposed definition
of ``use'' is broad in order 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, including in this proposed
action, EPA may issue partial restrictions that target only certain
uses.
The AIM Act also provides EPA other authorities to issue certain
regulations for the purpose of maximizing reclamation and minimizing
release of regulated substances from equipment and to ensure the safety
of technicians and consumers.\45\ We have not yet established
regulations under those provisions and therefore do not intend to apply
our authority under (i) to actions associated with steps in the
disposal or reclamation chain such as recovery, recycling, and
reclamation of a regulated substance at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ As explained in the Allocation Framework Rule that in the
context of allocating and expending allowances, EPA interprets the
word ``consume'' as the verb form of the defined term
``consumption.'' See 86 FR 55122, n. 7 Oct. 5, 2021); see also
definition of ``consumption'' in subsection (b)(3) of the AIM Act
and 40 CFR 84.3. The distinct term ``consumer'' is not defined in
the AIM Act. In the context of subsection (i) of the AIM Act, we
understand and are using the term ``consumer'' in a more general
way, consistent with its everyday dictionary meaning, for example to
refer to a person who purchases goods or services for personal use
or the ultimate consumer of a product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also do not intend that this rule apply to the ordinary
utilization or operation of a regulated product by an ultimate
consumer. Given that this is the outset of the phasedown of HFCs, there
is an opportunity to efficiently achieve significant emission
reductions by limiting the introduction of new products to the U.S.
market and restricting the circulation of those products (e.g., sale
and distribution) before they reach the ultimate consumer. We therefore
are proposing restrictions on the manufacture, import, export, sale,
and distribution of products, rather than on restricting ongoing,
ordinary operation and utilization by ultimate consumers.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ We note, however, that in some cases the ultimate consumer
may have purchased a product where the first incorporation of the
regulated substance occurs when the product is in the ultimate
consumer's ownership, and in those cases that incorporation would be
covered by the proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in this rule, EPA is not proposing to apply the
requirements established through this rulemaking to certain
applications of HFCs eligible for application-specific allowances under
40 CFR 84.13. Under subsection (i)(7)(B)(i) of the AIM Act, a rule
promulgated under subsection (i) ``shall not apply to . . . an
essential use under clause (i) or (iv) of subsection (e)(4)(B)'' of the
AIM Act, ``including any use for which the production or consumption of
the regulated substance is extended under clause (v)(II) of that
subsection'' of the Act. Subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv) lists six
applications which are to ``receive the full quantity of allowances
necessary, based on projected, current, and historical trends'' for the
five-year period after enactment of the AIM Act. EPA has codified these
six applications at 40 CFR 84.13 and established a framework for
allocation of allowances for these application-specific needs. Under
the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 84.13, the following
applications are currently eligible to receive application-specific
allowances for calendar years through 2025: (1) as a propellant in
metered dose inhalers; (2) in the manufacture of defense sprays; (3) in
the manufacture of structural composite preformed polyurethane foam for
marine use and trailer use; (4) in the etching of semiconductor
material or wafers and the cleaning of chemical vapor deposition
chambers within the semiconductor manufacturing sector; (5) for
mission-critical military end uses; and (6) for onboard aerospace fire
suppression. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to apply the requirements
under this rulemaking to these uses of HFCs in these six specific
applications at this time, since they are currently receiving
application-specific allowances under 40 CFR 84.13. This aspect of the
proposal is reflected in the proposed exemption in section 84.58.
Further, EPA has not at this point designated any essential uses under
subsection (e)(4)(B)(i). If EPA makes such a designation in the future,
EPA would consider at that point how to ensure consistency with
subsection (i)(7)(B)(i).
1. Which uses is EPA proposing to restrict in this proposal?
Under the proposed definition of ``use'' EPA would be exercising
its authority under subsection (i) to cover a broad chain of activities
associated with regulated products. In this rule, EPA's proposed
restrictions on that broad chain of activities are designed to apply
only at certain points in this chain, consistent with the direction
that EPA ``may by rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a graduated
schedule.'' With respect to the specific sector and subsector
restrictions proposed in this document, EPA proposes to adopt a uniform
understanding of when the restrictions would begin to apply and
explains in this section how the commencement of EPA's restrictions
would apply to both regulated products manufactured in the United
States and imported regulated products.
For purposes of this rule, EPA is proposing restrictions on newly
manufactured products (and the subsequent sale, distribution, export,
and offer for sale or distribution of those products) and is not
proposing to apply the specific use restrictions that are the subject
of this action to existing products or equipment and used products or
equipment, except as to the import of existing or used products or
equipment. For additional discussion regarding products for export, see
section VII.C.2 of this preamble. For additional discussion regarding
existing products or equipment, see section VII.C.3 of this preamble.
We think the most efficient and effective way to encourage
transition from the use of these HFCs is to restrict the incorporation
of HFCs into products entering the U.S. market for the first time. This
restriction would primarily be borne by original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and importers of products, as these are the
entities that introduce products into the U.S. market. Given that this
is the first rulemaking under subsection (i), and there are many
products that are currently being manufactured or imported using HFCs
and blends containing HFCs (or are intended to use HFCs and blends
containing HFCs) in the sectors and subsectors for which EPA is
proposing restrictions, the use restrictions in this proposed rule are
intended to only apply to the manufacture and import of regulated
products and the subsequent sale, distribution, export, and offer for
sale or distribution of those products.
[[Page 76759]]
EPA is proposing that the compliance date for the restrictions on
the sale, distribution, or export of a regulated product be one year
after the compliance date for the prohibition on production and import.
Most of the proposed restrictions on the manufacture and import of
products using HFCs have a proposed compliance date of January 1, 2025.
As such, restrictions on the sale and distribution of those products
would be January 1, 2026. Providing one year to sell existing inventory
should be sufficient given that compliance date would be more than two
years from the date of the final rule and many manufacturers are
anticipating this action. EPA prefers a time-limited period during
which products can continue to be sold over an approach that
indefinitely exempts the sale of existing inventory. Having a date
certain for the sale and distribution of regulated products facilitates
enforcement of the manufacturing and import restriction. Manufacturers,
importers, and distributors can avoid stranding inventory by promptly
beginning their transitions. EPA welcomes comment on the effect of a
one-year sell through, including the potential for stranding inventory
or disadvantaging entities that have completed their transitions.
As noted, for the most part, EPA is designing its restrictions to
apply to newly manufactured products and equipment rather than existing
or used products and equipment (both addressed below). However, EPA is
proposing to restrict the import of existing and used products that do
not meet the proposed GWP limits or other restrictions. EPA does not
interpret the AIM Act's restriction on EPA's authority to regulate
equipment in existence in the sector or subsector prior to December 27,
2020, as applying to imports of equipment that was manufactured prior
to that date but was not imported until after that date (see section
VII.C.3 of this preamble for additional discussion). EPA is electing to
apply its GWP limit restrictions or other restrictions to imports of
existing and used products and equipment because failing to prohibit
the import of these products could have the effect of undermining the
transition from higher-GWP HFCs in the sectors and subsectors that are
the subject of this proposal. Permitting the import of existing and
used products that did not meet the proposed restrictions could shift
market share away from domestically manufactured products that use
conforming lower-GWP HFCs or substitutes, towards imported products
that continue to use higher-GWP HFCs. The goal of restricting the use
of regulated substances (i.e., higher-GWP HFCs) in the named sectors
and subsectors would be undermined if those sectors and subsectors
simply shifted use to imported existing or used products containing
higher-GWP HFCs. EPA is seeking comment on its proposal to apply
restrictions on the use of HFCs to the import of existing and used
products.
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 we have proposed to codify that definition into our
subpart B regulations. We note that this statutory definition contains
no threshold volume of business an entity would need to undertake in
order to qualify as an importer. As such, EPA intends its proposed
restrictions to cover any importation of regulated products. The
Agency's intention is to cover the activities of importers bringing
large shipments of products or equipment into the country, as well as
activities of entities bringing smaller groups of regulated 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).
As discussed above, because EPA proposes to interpret ``use'' to
include activities in the market chain involving regulated products
that occur subsequent to manufacture or import, the proposed use
restrictions would also apply to any person who sells, distributes,
offers for sale or distribution, makes available for sale or
distribution, or exports any regulated product in the sectors or
subsectors controlled under subsection (i). Applying the restriction 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 EPA's intention in this proposal is to restrict use
across that chain. Therefore, even if a manufacturer or importer
improperly introduces a regulated product that does not meet the
proposed restriction into the U.S. market, distributors and retailers
offering that product for sale, including online retailers, are also
restricted from covered activities related to that product. The intent
of the proposed restriction is to remove products that do not meet the
proposed limits from circulation in the U.S. market.
However, EPA is proposing not to apply its GWP limit restrictions
or other restrictions to the sale or distribution, or offer for sale or
distribution, of used products. By used products, we mean products that
have been in the ownership of an ultimate consumer and have experienced
ordinary operation or utilization by an ultimate consumer. Some
regulated products, 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 regulated
products 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 products or equipment that
use HFCs likely 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). Extending the proposed
restriction to the sale of used products could 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. EPA typically has not restricted the sale of
used products containing ODS and proposes to maintain a similar
approach for this rule. We note that our proposed exemption for the
sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of used
products is intended to cover both individuals selling products they
have used (e.g., an appliance they have owned and used for a period of
time) 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 products that are subject to the
proposed restrictions on manufacture and import, hold those products
for a period of time, and then re-sell the products. We have
accordingly specified that products must have experienced ordinary
operation or utilization by an ultimate consumer for a period of time
in order to qualify for the proposed used product exemption.
[[Page 76760]]
2. Would the proposed use restrictions also apply to products that are
manufactured for export?
As discussed above, EPA interprets a sector or subsector's ``use''
to cover not only manufacture and import of a regulated product, but
also the subsequent activities in the market chain related to regulated
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, we believe it would be
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 proposed
restrictions to all domestically manufactured regulated products treats
materially similar uses of HFCs in the same manner. Including exports
as one of the activities subject to the proposed rule's prohibitions
would prevent the limited supply of HFCs in the United States from
being exported in products that could use substitutes. A company cannot
file for a request for additional consumption allowances based on the
export of a product 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 regulation is to ensure that sectors and subsectors that
are currently using HFCs and that are well-positioned, per EPA's
determination under the (i)(4) factors, to transition to substitutes,
actually make that transition, leaving more of the limited supply of
HFCs for those sectors and subsectors that currently cannot use
substitutes. In addition, including exports as a prohibited activity
also supports global efforts to address HFC uses in light of the Kigali
Amendment, and could be welcomed by countries that have or intend to
also restrict the use of HFCs in a similar manner.
3. Would restrictions apply to existing equipment?
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 the
date of enactment of this Act.'' 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(7)(B)(ii). As such,
EPA's proposed restrictions would not apply to the sale or
distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, or export of any
equipment that was in existence in the sector or subsector prior to
December 27, 2020, the date on which the AIM Act was enacted.
EPA is codifying the statutory exemption for equipment in existence
in a sector or subsector prior to December 27, 2020, into the proposed
regulations. We propose that modifications, servicing, or repairs to
equipment in existence prior to December 27, 2020, would not be
considered ``manufacture'' under this proposed rule, and that these
actions with respect to existing equipment would therefore not change
the status of whether this equipment ``existed'' prior to December 27,
2020, and render such equipment subject to the proposed restrictions.
Subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii) of the Act refers to equipment in existence
before December 27, 2020. ``Equipment'' could encompass not just a
product or appliance, but also components or parts of that product or
appliance. Even if a person were to service, repair, or replace parts
of a product or appliance, other parts of that equipment would still
have been in existence prior to December 27, 2020, and would arguably
be outside the scope of EPA's regulatory authority under subsection
(i)(7)(B)(ii). In limited cases, where every part of a piece of
equipment had been altered or replaced after December 27, 2020, such
equipment would fall outside the statutory and regulatory exemption. In
addition, under the AIM Act subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii), EPA retains
authority to apply its 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 achieve system compatibility and (ii) may include
changes in lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings, or
equipment components for that purpose.'' EPA is not at this time
proposing provisions addressing retrofits.
EPA interprets subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii)'s limit on authority to
regulate existing equipment to be applicable to equipment that existed
before December 27, 2020, but is proposing that equipment be in the
United States to qualify for that exception. Subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii)
provides an exception for ``equipment in existence in a sector or
subsector before December 27, 2020,'' (emphasis added) which EPA is
proposing to interpret as a sector or subsector in the United States.
In general, where those terms appear in 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 in a sector or
subsector under subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA is proposing to, in general,
analyze the various subfactors--consumer costs, building codes,
appliance efficiency standards, contractor training costs--vis a vis
the domestic impacted sector or subsector.\47\ Therefore, EPA is
proposing that a product that was manufactured in another country and
existed prior to December 27, 2020, but was not imported to the United
States until after that date is not subject to subsection (i)(7)(B)'s
limitation, because until it is imported into the United States, it is
not ``in existence in the sector or subsector.'' EPA therefore proposes
that its prohibitions on import would apply to all regulated products
imported after the effective date of the rule, even if those products
existed in another country prior to December 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Effective and Compliance Dates of Rules Promulgated Under Subsection
(i)
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 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 proposing compliance dates for the proposed
restrictions on the manufacture and import of regulated products that
are at least one year from the date the rule is promulgated, in
accordance with this statutory provision. Factors that may affect these
compliance dates include the timing for availability of substitutes,
the HFC phasedown schedule, and other factors such as building code
updates.
The proposed provisions that are focused on program administration
and petitions processing (i.e., Sec. 84.64), do not include a delayed
compliance date, so EPA proposes that those provisions come into effect
30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
This approach is based on an interpretation that (i)(6) does not apply
to those provisions because ``applicable rules'' in (i)(6) are
[[Page 76761]]
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 this action proposes to impose, we think 30
days is a reasonable timeframe in which to do so. EPA is soliciting
comment on this interpretation and is also soliciting comment on
whether it should instead interpret subsection (i)(6) to apply to the
other provisions under subsection (i) and provide at least a year to
come into compliance with those provisions as well.
D. How is EPA proposing to address restrictions on the use of HFCs
requested in petitions granted?
EPA is addressing three sets of petitions in this proposed 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 proposals. 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 proposing restrictions on the use of HFCs in certain
sectors and subsectors that were not included in petitions received by
the Agency to date.
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 EPA's 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.\48\ 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 EPA's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 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 proposing to address 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'' \49\ 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.\50\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 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.
\50\ A discussion on the status of safety standards and building
codes that may impact compliance dates is in section VII.E 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 petitions is the lower
GWP limits with later compliance dates. Since EPA is considers these
two petitions as addenda to petitions granted on October 7, 2021, this
proposed 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 refrigerant charge capacities less than
200 pounds) 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 this proposed
rulemaking which addresses restrictions 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 streamline rulemakings, EPA is addressing these newer
petitions in this proposal, as well. Copies of the AHRI and IIAR
petitions can be found in the docket for this proposal.
E. Subsection (i)(4) Factors for Determination
Subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act directs EPA to factor in, to the
extent practicable, a number of considerations in evaluating petitions
and in carrying
[[Page 76762]]
out a rulemaking. EPA is not proposing regulatory text regarding these
factors at this point; however, this section provides a summary of how
the Agency interprets the (i)(4) factors and how EPA considered them
for the current proposal. EPA's consideration of the (i)(4) factors
served as the basis for the restrictions the Agency is proposing for
each sector and subsector covered by this proposal (for additional
discussion see section VII.F.1 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. EPA
notes best available data may not always mean the latest data. For
example, the latest data may 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 is the best available data
in particular situations.
The best available data that the Agency is considering for this
proposal includes, but is not limited to, the following: SNAP program
listing decisions; Montreal Protocol reports by TEAP and its Technical
Options Committees, and Temporary Subsidiary Bodies (e.g., Task
Forces); \51\ TSDs from states with HFC restrictions; \52\ information
from other federal agencies and departments (e.g., Department of
Energy); 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 is considering information
provided to the Agency from industry, trade associations, environmental
non-governmental organizations, academia, standard-setting bodies,
petitioners, 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 we think
such information represented best available data. EPA welcomes comment
on these and other sources that the Agency should consider concerning
the (i)(4) factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 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.
\52\ An example is CARB's Initial Statement of Reasons and
Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) report. Available
at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the rulemaking or petition,
as applicable, in a sector or subsector. Several factors inform the
availability of substitutes for use in sectors and subsectors, based on
the statutory language in subsection (i)(4)(B). As part of EPA's
consideration of availability of substitutes, the AIM Act directs us to
take into account, to the extent practicable, 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 relevant factors, including the quantities of
regulated substances available from reclaiming, prior production, or
prior import.
EPA is not proposing definitions for each of these subfactors but
is providing an interpretation of how consideration of the subfactors
relates to the consideration of the availability of substitutes. EPA is
considering the (i)(4)(B) subfactors collectively, with no one
subfactor solely governing the restrictions proposed 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.'' Furthermore, not all the subfactors in (i)(4)(B) may be
applicable to each sector or subsector. For example, appliance
efficiency standards would not be applicable to aerosols. Similarly, it
may not be practicable to consider some subfactors in some situations;
for example, there may not be sufficient available data regarding a
specific subfactor. Likewise, 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). For this
proposal, the Agency's consideration of the availability of substitutes
took into account, to the extent practicable, the relevant subfactors
using the best available data. Additional information on some of these
subfactors is available in the docket.
Lower-GWP HFCs and substitute substances and technologies that can
be used in place of 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 proposal. EPA has therefore
drawn upon information generated by these efforts in considering the
subsection (i)(4) factors in the context of this proposal, 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
refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pumps (RACHP); aerosols; and
foams. To a very large extent, HFCs are used in the same sectors and
subsectors as where ODS historically have been used. Under SNAP, EPA
evaluates acceptability of substitutes for ODS based primarily on the
potential human health and environmental risks, relative to other
substances used for the same purpose. In so doing, EPA assesses
atmospheric effects such as ozone depletion potential and global
warming potential, exposure assessments, toxicity data, flammability,
and other environmental impacts. This assessment could take a wide
range of forms, such as a theoretical evaluation of the properties of
the substitute, a computer simulation of the substitute's performance
in the sector or subsector, lab-scale (table-top) evaluations of the
substitute, or equipment tests under various conditions. 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
[[Page 76763]]
consideration of the (i)(4) factors and establishment of use
restrictions under subsection (i).
Further, manufacturers and formulators submit substitutes to EPA
for evaluation under SNAP which can lead to the substitute being added
to the list of acceptable substances. EPA believes that if a
manufacturer has submitted a substance for evaluation under SNAP, it
would be reasonable to consider that as a possible indication that the
substitute is technologically achievable for a given sector and that
there is commercial demand for it. In addition, a substitute listed by
EPA as acceptable for a given end-use under SNAP would most likely have
been submitted by industry only if the submitter felt that the
substitute was possibly technologically achievable and that there could
be a market for such substitute.
In this proposal, EPA has also considered 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.\53\ In TEAP's evaluation of HFC
substitutes, subfactors such as technological achievability and
affordability have been considered to some extent. For this proposal,
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.\54\ \55\ \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 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.
\54\ 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).
\55\ TEAP 2022 Progress Report (May 2022) and 2018 Quadrennial
Assessment Report. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap.
\56\ 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 with requirements that restrict the use of
HFCs. Many of these jurisdictions highlight available substitutes that
can be used for regulated substances that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking. This is not an exhaustive list of sources that EPA
could use in the future to consider the availability of substitutes.
Section VII.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 notes that the Agency may augment or
omit sources where appropriate to be consistent with the Agency's
interpretation of subsection (i)(4)(A).
In this proposal, EPA is identifying substitutes \57\ for use of
regulated substances in 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
substitutes available that informed the GWP limit or restriction that
EPA is proposing. 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 (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 proposing restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that some of the substitutes EPA lists as available for a
sector or subsector may not be available uniformly throughout the
United States and/or be subject to state or local regulations,
including building codes (see section VII.E.2.d of this preamble). The
AIM Act directs EPA to factor in, to the extent practicable, the
availability of substitutes but does not limit our consideration to
only those substitutes that can be used without restrictions, including
state or local regulations. EPA is also considering research and
development both in the United States and in other countries, which may
indicate the availability of substitutes for use in the near or long
term. EPA notes that the list of substitutes in the docket, in
isolation, does not represent EPA's complete analysis of the
availability of substitutes.
The rest of this section provides information on EPA's
interpretation of the subfactors that subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA
to take into account, to the extent practicable, in assessing the
availability of substitutes.
a. Commercial Demands and Technological Achievability
Two of the separate 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 product
manufacturers to use substitutes in products for ultimate sale or
distribution. An OEM's interest in using a substitute is tied to their
ability to meet consumer needs. One method to determine commercial
demands is to assess what types of products 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 information
concerning planned releases of products or equipment using substitutes.
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 the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or use through testing
and demonstration labs and projects.
EPA is providing additional information in the TSD American
[[Page 76764]]
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 information on products
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
using substitutes as an indication of both commercial demand and
technological achievability. In other words, a product 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 are already available as well as where products 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, SNAP listings, news articles, market
reports, and communication with industry experts. EPA also considers
information that was provided to relevant state bodies as informative
when considering 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.\58\ EPA notes that the Agency did not attempt to consider
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 may be introduced in a few markets first. The information
provided in this proposed 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.
EPA is seeking comment on the Agency's interpretation of commercial
demand and technological achievability and their potential impact on
availability of substitutes.
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. For this proposed action, which is
targeted at restricting the use of HFCs in products by certain sectors
and subsectors, EPA is considering these two subfactors together. EPA
views residential and small business consumers as a subset of consumers
at large, and any estimated costs to consumers because of proposed use
restrictions includes costs to these groups. Most small businesses and
most consumers, including residential consumers, would be downstream of
the actions that would be taken in response to the proposed
restrictions. Upstream users would include manufacturers who could be
introducing new products that conform with the proposed restrictions,
while most small businesses, such as installers and service
technicians, would be further downstream of such actions, as would most
consumers, including residential customers.
EPA evaluated the impacts of the rule on small business consumers
in affected sectors and found that the vast majority of affected small
businesses will experience zero or positive net impacts due to the
reduced costs of substitute chemicals as compared to HFCs. EPA also
expects the impacts on service technicians to be minimal because the
transitions to different refrigerants required by this proposed rule
are already occurring in many of the subsectors addressed due to
compliance with other regulations being implemented in some states.
Although not affecting the entire United States, the advantages of
having products that can be sold nationally and comply with regulations
in export markets has led many manufacturers to begin the transition to
HFC alternatives. Further, several corporations have established
internal sustainability goals and as part of those efforts they are
addressing the HFC used in their businesses and products. Additional
information on potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
businesses can be found in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) \59\ screening analysis located in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 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 that, for some subsectors, may
ease the transitions. Such costs, however, do not have to be borne
immediately by either residential or small business consumers. This
rule does not propose that equipment be retired by any specific date,
nor are estimates of emission reductions associated with these proposed
restrictions predicated on the assumption that equipment would be
retired prematurely. Additionally, HVAC services generally comprise
only a small fraction of income for residential consumers.
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. There already exists a
network of reclaimers who offer reclaimed HFCs that can be used to
service existing equipment for its full useful life. EPA notes that
reclaimed chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
remain available in the United States for servicing equipment that was
designed, sold, installed, and may today still be operated by
residential consumers and small businesses throughout the United
States. Furthermore, as explained in this section below, we find that
overall, the proposed rule is expected to provide net savings to the
economy, which may in turn be passed on to small businesses and
residential consumers.
For this proposal, which covers a wide range of sectors and
subsectors, EPA has prepared a Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD
summarizing some analytical results--including the expected costs and
negative costs (i.e., savings) to industry associated with
transitions--that we factored in, in our consideration of these
subfactors. Specifically, the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD
summarizes the increase in costs, or the savings, to industry
associated with transitioning from a regulated substance to a
substitute. EPA believes that the best way to analyze consumer costs
and affordability is to look not at the cost of a product using a
substitute, but rather at expected changes in costs resulting
[[Page 76765]]
from the transition. Hence, this discussion (and the Costs and
Environmental Impacts TSD) refers to the cost of a regulated product
with a substance that complies with the proposed restriction compared
to that same product 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. To the extent available, energy
efficiency changes, which can result in savings to, or costs borne by,
the consumer, were factored into the transition scenarios analyzed. EPA
notes that the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD analysis indicates
that the substitute used could be more or less expensive than the
regulated substance currently or recently used. However, we note that
the cost of using a regulated substance or substitute generally
represents only a small fraction of the total cost of the product.\60\
Even a large change in the cost of the substance that is realized as a
result of the transition (i.e., from using a regulated substance to
using a substitute) would therefore not usually have a significant
impact on the overall cost of the product. Further, given that many
substitutes are engineered to perform in a similar manner as the
regulated substance (e.g., R-513A, R-452B, and R-454B are designed to
perform like HFC-134a, R-404A, and R-410A, respectively), the equipment
to use them would typically not need extensive redesign and would be
expected to have a similar cost and similar performance with either the
regulated substance or the substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, and EPA also
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
proposed rule, using EPA's Vintaging Model and, the resulting costs and
abatement were used in a similar manner as the Marginal Abatement Cost
(MAC) analysis explained in the Allocation Framework RIA.
It is likely the costs for HFCs will increase given the phasedown
of HFC production and consumption mandated in the AIM Act and the
global HFC phasedown under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol. The Agency is aware of some price increases to date. However,
EPA notes that 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\ In most cases, with newer, more
efficient refrigerants, less refrigerant is necessary in the finished
product. This can decrease the amount of copper, steel, and aluminum
necessary for the product since it decreases the amount of raw material
needed to create heat transfer elements in the equipment. The most
recent increases in the price of HFCs are not included in this
analysis, and the savings from using less raw materials and improved
energy efficiency are only applied where literature supporting such
claims was found. Thus, estimated costs of these proposed restrictions
(as presented in the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD) are
conservative, and the net savings would likely be higher than
estimated. Further, the costs of substitutes are likewise not modeled
as changing over time. Although some substitutes are modeled as being
more costly than HFCs today, the experience with the ODS phaseout has
been that prices generally decline as production increases, as more
producers negotiate licensing agreements for certain chemicals, and as
patents expire. For example, EPA 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.\62\ Here again, estimated costs, as presented in
the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD, are conservative. EPA will
continue to monitor these markets to determine whether updates to our
analysis are appropriate. As such, we request comment on information
regarding up-to-date costs of HFCs and substitutes, and the energy-
efficiency implications when applied to equipment in the subsectors
addressed in this proposed rule, to help inform our analysis of costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\62\ See memo 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has previously analyzed ``consumer costs'' in relation to
``compliance costs'' and found very little difference in these.\63\ EPA
performed this analysis, placed in the docket, as Congress was
considering the AIM Act in 2019. Part of the reason for this is that
energy efficiency changes of equipment when switching from a regulated
substance to a substitute, where available, are included in our
estimates of compliance costs. These costs (or savings) would likely
not affect the installer or service technician, but would be considered
a consumer cost, as it is the consumer who would be affected by this
change in energy efficiency through a higher or lower electric bill.
The consumer could be a residential consumer or a small business
consumer, for instance a restaurant buying a new air conditioning unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See ``American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2019:
Compliance and Consumer Cost Estimates'' document in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another cost that can be assumed to be a cost to consumers is the
possible mark-up costs of chemicals sold to the consumer, for example
as part of a bill for servicing or repairing an air conditioner where
additional refrigerant was needed. Compared to the regulated substance,
the substitute could be more or less expensive, and hence the mark-up
costs could be more or less than that of the regulated substance. EPA
incorporated this cost to consumers in a previous 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 (2020, 2024, 2029, and 2034 were analyzed).
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.
Therefore, our cost estimates take into account consumer costs and
affordability for residential and small business consumers insomuch as
the estimated costs are likely conservative, and the savings to
consumers would be greater.
EPA also analyzed whether the proposed action could have a
significant
[[Page 76766]]
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 one percent of
annual sales and that approximately 110 small businesses could incur
costs in excess of three percent of annual sales. Based on this
analysis, we do not anticipate a broad, significant economic impact on
small businesses as a result of this proposal.
EPA is seeking comment on the Agency's interpretation of consumer
costs and affordability for small business and residential consumers
and their potential impact on availability of substitutes.
c. Safety
Subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to the extent practicable, to
take into account safety in its consideration of availability of
substitutes. As part of EPA's consideration of safety, EPA is providing
additional information in the TSD American Innovation and Manufacturing
Act of 2020--Subsection (i)(4) Factors for Determination: Safety,
referred to in this preamble as the ``Safety TSD''; this TSD supports
the Agency's consideration of the safety subfactor and is available in
the docket. EPA is reviewing 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 are
evaluating information from recognized industrial sources, including
standard-setting bodies, the SNAP program, international technical
committees, and information from petitions. Safety information on
substitutes may impact the availability of substitutes for use 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 may also be an indication of safety and,
therefore, impact the use of a particular substitute.
EPA does not believe that taking into account safety in its
consideration of the availability of substitutes is intended to limit
substitutes to only those that are risk free. EPA has noted under the
SNAP program that the Agency does not require substitutes 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 into account safety, to the extent practicable, as
encompassing consideration of information on the risks associated with
the substitute as well as other information that concerns risk
mitigation.
EPA has considered the listings under the SNAP program in its
assessment of the availability of substitutes in this proposed rule.
The SNAP program, in making decisions to list a substitute as
acceptable or unacceptable, considers whether a substitute presents
human health and environmental risks that are lower than or comparable
to overall risks from other substitutes that are currently or
potentially available. Under this comparative risk evaluation, the
human health risks analyzed include safety, and in particular,
flammability, toxicity, exposure to workers, consumers, and the general
population of 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. 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 limits, 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,'' indicating that a substitute may be used only
within certain specialized applications within a sector and end-use and
may not be used for other applications within an end-use or sector. EPA
lists a substitute as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits because
of a lack of available substitutes within the specialized application.
Under the acceptable for narrowed use limits category, users of a
restricted substitute within the narrowed use limits category must make
a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or 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 substitute. 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.
In its evaluation of the safety subfactor under subsection
(i)(4)(B), EPA is also considering the safety group classification of
refrigerants as designated by the ASHRAE Standard 34. This standard
assigns to a refrigerant, including those that could be used under
EPA's proposed restrictions, a safety group classification 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. However, some refrigerants that are listed under
the B (higher toxicity) classification of ASHRAE 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 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 for example by requiring 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. Tests for flammability are conducted
in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
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, when tested, show no flame propagation. The
flammability classification ``2'' is given to refrigerants that, when
tested, exhibit flame propagation, have a heat of combustion less than
19,000 kJ/kg (8,169 Btu/lb), and have a lower flammability limit (LFL)
greater than 0.10 kg/m\3\. The flammability classification ``2L'' is
given to refrigerants that, when tested, 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
[[Page 76767]]
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, when tested,
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, 2019. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2019: 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.
Figure 1. Refrigerant Safety Group Classification
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE22.028
Information on the ASHRAE classification of each substitute
identified by EPA for this proposal and additional information on EPA's
consideration of safety are available in the Safety TSD in the docket.
EPA is seeking comment on the Agency's interpretation of safety and its
potential impact on availability of substitutes and the effect of
switching to substitutes on worker and consumer safety in the
subsectors affected by this proposed action.
d. Building Codes
Subsection (i)(4)(B) directs EPA, to the extent practicable, to
take into account building codes in its consideration 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 for particular
sectors and subsectors. 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
is considering this information, to the extent practicable, to evaluate
how building codes may affect the availability of substitutes to
regulated substances. EPA is providing additional information 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 changes to every jurisdiction's
building codes as EPA does not view that as practicable.
Model building codes, which serve as the basis for many state and
local building codes, 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. For this proposed action, EPA is
considering, 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 is
considering whether current building codes permit the installation and
use of products using substitutes.
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 (i.e., for the 2024 codes) could enhance the
availability of HFC substitutes under model building codes in future
years. For example, ICC, an international developer of model codes,
standards, and building safety solutions, approved fourteen code
changes that affect the availability of A2L refrigerants for the RACHP
sector. These code changes, which will go into effect in 2024, are
consistent with updated industry standards that allow the use of
substitutes identified in this proposed rulemaking; however, state and
local building code agencies do not automatically adopt updates to the
model codes. As a result, there may be delays between when the model
codes are updated and when the updated codes are adopted by state and
local agencies.
Information from stakeholders, including petitioners, indicates
that building codes are being updated both as part of the cyclical
review and off cycle that would allow for the use of additional HFC
substitutes. For example, several states such as 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
[[Page 76768]]
for flammable refrigerants in certain applications and installations.
Given that building codes can vary greatly throughout the United
States and that many of the most relevant building codes have either
been updated recently or are likely to be updated in the near future,
EPA's consideration of building codes is limited to model building
codes. Additional information on EPA's consideration of building codes
can be found in the Building Codes TSD in the docket. EPA is seeking
comment on to what extent EPA can take into account building codes
recognizing that they vary based on local circumstance.
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, the appliance efficiency standards
that are applicable to products in the affected sectors and subsectors.
The Agency consulted with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regarding
relevant minimum energy efficiency standards and the timing for any
planned changes to the current standards.\65\ DOE, through its Building
Technologies Office and Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, sets
minimum energy efficiency standards for more than 60 different
products, including appliances and equipment used in homes, businesses,
and elsewhere. Several of these categories are within the RACHP sector
and may use HFCs that are covered in this proposed action. Among
product categories relevant to this action are consumer products (e.g.,
refrigerators, freezers, and room air conditioners) and commercial and
industrial products (e.g., automatic commercial ice machines, vending
machines, walk-in coolers, and walk-in freezers).\66\ EPA is providing
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 efficiency standards subfactor
and is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ For additional information, please refer to 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 test procedures and appliance efficiency
standards. Future revisions to existing appliance efficiency standards
could impact what substitutes can be used in regulated products in
specific sectors and subsectors. Therefore, EPA is consulting with DOE
so both agencies are aware of the schedules for these separate but
related actions. EPA has identified a list of applicable standards in
relevant sectors and subsectors and which standards may be undergoing
current revision in the Appliance Efficiency Standards memo. We
understand that for redesign and testing of equipment, industry prefers
that DOE and EPA regulations are synchronized where possible. Given DOE
and EPA operate under separate mandates, that 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.
EPA also recognizes the potential to greatly increase climate
protection by both reducing the GWP of substances used in the relevant
applications (e.g., construction foams, appliances foams, and
refrigerants) covered by this action in the sectors and subsectors we
are addressing and supporting energy efficiency in such applications.
EPA is seeking comment on to what extent the Agency should consider
current and future minimum energy efficiency standards in taking into
account appliance efficiency standards in the context of subsection
(i)(4)(B). EPA further solicits information on the opportunities to
further climate protection by supporting energy efficiency at the same
time we are restricting the use of HFCs.
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, foam blowing, and fire
suppression subsectors). EPA obtained some contractor training and exam
cost data through a review of publicly available literature and from
industry trade and training associations in these sectors as well as
information submitted to EPA in petitions under subsection (i). EPA
notes that it would not be 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,
including but not limited to flammable (A3 or B3), lower flammability
(A2L or B2L), higher toxicity (B1, B2L, B2, or B3) refrigerants, and
other substitutes with unique or different issues such as those
operating at higher pressures than HFCs, may require specialized or
additional training, knowledge, or expertise to ensure their safe
handling and use. To the extent practicable, the Agency is considering
the cost of trainings to contractors for handling products and
equipment containing substitutes for HFCs or blends containing HFCs
substitutes.
Manufacturers and trade organizations often provide training and
certification beyond what is required under the regulations
implementing sections 608 and 609 of the CAA for installing and
servicing equipment in conjunction with the release of new equipment.
This is not a new practice; however, as the transition to lower-GWP
refrigerants continues, more technicians are expected to work with A2L
and A3 refrigerants, and a variety of training and education resources
are anticipated to include the incorporation of A2L and A3 refrigerants
into existing curriculum. There are already courses, trainings, and
conferences that focus on lower-GWP refrigerants available among
product categories and across the country. Costs of trainings may be
dependent on several factors, such as the organization providing the
study materials, how the exam is administered, and the location.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ In some cases, continued RACHP education may be required at
the state level as a part of a state licensing requirement; training
on using flammable refrigerants may be incorporated to fulfill this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the foam blowing and aerosols sectors, certain applications may
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 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
[[Page 76769]]
available beyond the basic required safety training and may vary in
costs depending on the level and amount of training a contractor
obtains.
EPA is seeking comment on our consideration of contractor training
costs in the context of subsection (i)(4)(B) in the sectors and
subsectors covered in this proposed action.
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; this TSD supports the Agency's consideration of the
quantities available from reclaiming, prior production, or prior import
subfactor and is available in the docket HFCs available from stockpiles
or reclamation can smooth transitions to alternative technologies and
ensure that existing equipment can continue to be serviced. The Agency
knows from its experience under the ODS phaseout the important role
reclamation in particular plays by providing an ongoing supply of
material. This is true not only for the RACHP sector but a similar
approach is also used for the fire suppression sector. Some companies
choose to stockpile substances and use them to smooth transition. 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 is considering 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; \68\ 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; \69\ and data reported to the GHGRP under subparts
OO and QQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 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. As this information becomes available
in future, it can inform EPA's consideration of this factor.
\69\ Available at www.regulations.gov, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is seeking comment on the likely quantities of regulated
substances available from reclaiming and stockpiling and how that may
be factored into the availability of substitutes in the sectors and
subsectors covered in this proposed action. In addition, EPA is
interested in information on stockpiles of used HFCs that do not
require reclamation (e.g., same ownership) that may also be stored by
companies and how those stockpiles may be used.
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) would apply to cases where
EPA is considering a broad swath of restrictions--such as this proposed
action, which if finalized would cover more than 40 sectors and
subsectors--as well as cases where EPA is contemplating a much more
limited set of restrictions--potentially for only one sector or
subsector. There may be instances, then, where it is appropriate 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 inappropriate. As discussed in this
section, EPA considered several different sources of information when
factoring in subsection (i)(4)(C) to EPA's consideration of potential
use restrictions. 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, industry reports, information developed by the TEAP, the
Montreal Protocol's Science Assessments, and other research.
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 restrictions
to those trends. Here too we think 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 proposed 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, we
think it is practicable and reasonable to in part interpret our
obligation to factor in the considerations under subsection (i)(4)(C)
for this proposal by looking at the overall economic costs and the
anticipated environmental impacts of our proposed restrictions as
compared to a scenario where historical trends had continued into the
future, that is, a projection of ``business as usual'' conditions. For
purposes of this proposal, we think a reasonable reading of that
scenario is conditions that would occur if only the Allocation
Framework Rule and the proposed 2024 Allocation Rule were in effect,
and the analysis in
[[Page 76770]]
the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD therefore uses as a baseline
what would occur absent these proposed restrictions. As noted, we do
not think subsection (i)(4)(C) requires a specific type of analysis,
like the one EPA has conducted for purposes of this 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.
Additionally, as this is the first set of proposed restrictions
under subsection (i) and, if finalized, would result in the first
requirements under the AIM Act to transition away from certain
regulated substances in certain sectors and subsectors, we also think
information about impacts to costs from historical comparable
technology transitions in similar contexts is appropriate. As noted
elsewhere, HFCs are used mainly in the same sectors and subsectors
where ODS were used. EPA therefore has considered the overall economic
costs and environmental impacts of actions taken under the CAA title VI
regulations on ODS in a memo \70\ available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See ``Overview of CFC and HCFC Phaseout'' document in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA acknowledges that the ODS phaseout and transitions away from
HFCs as a result of use restrictions each have their own unique
regulatory features and technological transitions at play, potentially
leading to different overall economic impacts and environmental
benefits. 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. This same information has been made available by
EPA previously.
One key historical trend observed during the ODS phaseout, and that
may be relevant to similar technology transitions for HFCs during 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.\71\ From 1972 through 2015, household refrigerators sold in the
United States underwent several design changes in response to
regulations requiring transition away from ODS refrigerant, ODS-
containing insulation foam, and increases in 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
away 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 EPA report American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2019: Compliance and Consumer Cost Estimates,
which can be found in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the memo that summarizes the costs of the ODS
phaseout,\72\ the most comprehensive analysis was in a 1999 peer-
reviewed report to Congress. In that report, we 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.\73\ 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.\74\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Consumer Cost Impacts of the U.S. Ratification of the
Kigali Amendment, JMS Consulting in partnership with INFORUM,
November 2018. Available in the docket.
\73\ Approximately $36 billion and $111 billion, respectively,
in 2020 dollars.
\74\ 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 proposed rule is to restrict the
use of high-GWP HFCs, making the benefits difficult to compare.
However, the phaseout of ODS also provided global warming 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.\75\ Although such benefits have not been calculated
specifically for the United States (though as one of the largest
producers and consumers of ODS it is possible to make certain
assumptions), the benefits can be significant given the high GWPs of
the most common ODS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other sources of information the Agency has available for our
consideration include industry commissioned studies (see for example
JMS Consulting in partnership with INFORUM),\76\ journal articles, and
reports provided to the Montreal Protocol from the SAP and the TEAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Consumer Cost Impacts of the U.S. Ratification of the
Kigali Amendment, JMS Consulting in partnership with INFORUM,
November 2018. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is soliciting comment on its interpretations of subsection
(i)(4)(C) and its consideration of economic costs and environmental
impacts, as compared to historical trends, in the context of this
proposed rulemaking.
4. How is EPA considering the remaining phase-down period for regulated
substances under the final rule issued under subsection (e)(3) of the
AIM Act?
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. Accordingly, for this proposal, EPA notes that we are at
the beginning stages of the overall HFC phasedown, having promulgated
the Allocation Framework Rule (86 FR 55116, October 5, 2021) in 2021.
In that rule, EPA established the allocation program under subsection
(e) of the AIM Act, which is codified at 40 CFR part 84, subpart A. One
of the key provisions 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 listed 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.
EPA views this proposed action on restricting the use of HFCs in
specific sectors and subsectors as supportive of the overall phasedown
schedule. While this rule is being promulgated under a separate
statutory provision under the AIM Act, the proposed restrictions on the
use of HFCs in sectors and subsectors is expected to have a
complementary effect on meeting the HFC phasedown schedule by
facilitating necessary transitions to lower-GWP substitutes.
[[Page 76771]]
Imposing restrictions on the use of HFCs, and considering the
timing of those restrictions, is expected to play a role in reducing
the demand for HFCs as well as support innovation. The production and
consumption caps established by the AIM Act follow a stepwise reduction
schedule, and EPA anticipates new substitutes and technologies will
continue to emerge as the reductions in the production and consumption
caps continue. If EPA is aware of information indicating that certain
sectors and subsectors are well positioned to transition to new
substitutes and technologies, then proposing restrictions on the use of
HFCs in those sectors and subsectors would be consistent with
subsection (i) and, if finalized, such restrictions could also support
the overall production and consumption phasedown. Similarly, the Agency
notes that title VI of the CAA 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 were supportive of 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).
EPA seeks comment on the relationship between the overall HFC
phasedown and this action being proposed under subsection (i).
F. For which sectors and subsectors is EPA proposing to establish
restrictions on the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs?
1. How did EPA determine the degree of the proposed 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 proposed restrictions--e.g., 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 a number of 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 proposed 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 (i)(4)(B)
subfactors) and with consideration of how this proposal 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 proposed use restrictions would
not interfere with, and instead would support, that schedule.
As noted in section VII.B of this preamble, EPA is proposing
restrictions on the use of HFCs by, for the most part, setting GWP
limits. In that section, 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. However, we note that
if EPA were to finalize use restrictions under a substance-specific
approach, the same principles and methodology employed here would apply
equally, as the GWP limits for each sector and subsector can be
translated to restrict specific regulated substances and blends used in
the named sectors and subsectors.
Because this proposed rulemaking was 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 requested use restrictions in
the petitions--either in the form of GWP limits or specific substances
to be restricted--as a starting point for the level of our proposed
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 typically 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. As such, they
are in many instances well-positioned and incentivized to gather and
have access to information regarding many of the factors in subsection
(i)(4), including the best available data on many if not most of the
subfactors in subsection (i)(4)(B).
In addition, the impetus for this proposed rulemaking, in part, is
to address the granted petitions requesting restrictions on the use of
HFCs in certain sectors and subsectors. Therefore, the requested
restrictions, including specific substances or GWP limits and the
available substitutes, are a natural starting point for the Agency's
inquiry.
Subsection (i)(4) requires that EPA take into account, to the
extent practicable, the factors described in section VII.E of this
preamble. In following this statutory directive, EPA is considering the
(i)(4) factors collectively, with no single (i)(4) factor (or
subfactor) driving the proposed 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.
To that end, our approach to selecting the level and timing of each
proposed use restriction for the sectors and subsectors in this
proposed action was to balance the factors provided in (i)(4): again,
to maximize environmental benefit while ensuring adequate availability
of substitutes (as informed by the (i)(4)(B) subfactors) and with
[[Page 76772]]
consideration of how this proposal 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 proposed use restrictions would not interfere with,
and instead would support, that schedule. We are cognizant that the
phasedown schedule could carry more significance as a factor in future
rulemakings under subsection (i) when EPA is further along in the HFC
phasedown.
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, we think subsection (i)(4)(C)'s focus 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), and we address how EPA did so in the
following paragraphs.
For this proposal, in factoring in environmental impacts, our aim
was to propose GWP limits for each sector or subsector at a level that
was as low as we thought supportable while considering the other
primary considerations under subsection (i), specifically, availability
of substitutes and cost. We think it is reasonable to prioritize
maximizing the climate change benefits of restricting the regulated
substances that are the focus of this proposed rule, given that these
impacts are and have been one of the central concerns with the use of
HFCs. We also note that much of the information relied upon in our
analysis of available substitutes comes from EPA's SNAP program, 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 proposed levels of
restrictions for each sector and subsector, we attempted to set the GWP
limit at the lowest level that will provide a sufficient range of
substitutes for applications within a subsector. In addition, EPA is
proposing four GWP limits across all the sectors and subsectors--i.e.,
0 GWP, 150 GWP, 300 GWP, and 700 GWP. This approach has a number of
advantages over a methodology that tightly tailors the GWP limit for
each subsector to the specific GWPs of the currently identified
available substitutes for a particular sector or subsector.
Establishing limits at these regular intervals (e.g., applying a 300
GWP limit for multiple subsectors, rather than GWP limits of 237, 258,
and 290 based on the particular substitutes currently available in
specific subsectors) avoids minor discrepancies in calculating GWP,
promotes development of new variations on substitutes that are still
within the permissible range, and enhances ease of implementation of
the restrictions for regulated parties, consumers, and enforcement.
As noted in section VII.E.2 of this preamble, EPA developed a non-
exhaustive list of substitutes that can be used in lieu of the
regulated substances that EPA is proposing to restrict for each sector
and subsector subject to this proposal. We also note that, relevant to
the direction in (i)(4)(C)'s direction to factor in, to the extent
practicable, overall environmental impacts as compared to historical
trends, we anticipate that the proposed use restrictions would achieve
an average annual additional \77\ emission reduction of 5 to 54
MMTCO2e, and an average annual additional consumption
reduction of 28 to 49 MMTCO2e, from 2025 through 2050. See
Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ These reductions would be in addition to the consumption
reductions from the Allocation Framework Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure adequate availability of substitutes, we looked at a
range of information relevant to the subfactors provided in subsection
(i)(4)(B) from a variety of sources (see section VII.E.1 of this
preamble). In general, where we were able to identify multiple
substitutes that could be used in a sector or subsector (taking into
consideration the various (i)(4)(B) subfactors to the extent
practicable), that weighed in favor of prohibiting the use of certain
HFCs and blends that use HFCs that had GWPs above the level of the
available substitutes in a sector or subsector. 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 proposed use
restrictions also factored in considerations of cost, both in
identifying availability of substitutes and in assessing overall costs
of the levels of the proposed restrictions. First, 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 (e.g., consumer costs). 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.
Second, 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
proposal. With respect to the proposed restrictions in this action, to
inform our consideration of overall economic costs as compared to
historical trends, we propose to look to our findings in the Costs and
Environmental Impacts TSD summarizing the economic cost of the proposed
restrictions. As discussed in that TSD, we anticipate that the
incremental economic cost of the proposed restrictions would result in
a savings to the regulated industry, i.e., that complying with the
proposed use restrictions and transitioning from higher-GWP regulated
substances to lower GWP substitutes would, on the whole, reduce costs
for industry. For additional information, see the Costs and
Environmental Impacts TSD provided in the docket.
We take comment on these guiding principles and methodology to
establishing use restrictions under subsection (i) and on our
application of this methodology in the proposed restrictions for each
sector and subsector in this action.
2. Summary of Proposed Restrictions on the Use of HFCs
Table 4 lists the sectors and subsectors for which EPA is proposing
to establish restrictions, the type of restriction, and the proposed
compliance date. For each sector and
[[Page 76773]]
subsector, sections VII.F.3 through VII.F.5 of this preamble provide a
description of the sector or subsector, a summary of information from
granted petitions, and discussion on EPA's proposed use restriction.
Table 4-Proposed HFC Restrictions and Compliance Dates by Subsector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed GWP limit or
Sectors and subsectors prohibited substance Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pump
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial process refrigeration systems 150............................ January 1, 2025.
with refrigerant charge capacities of
200 pounds or greater.
Industrial process refrigeration systems 300............................ January 1, 2025.
with refrigerant charge capacities less
than 200 pounds.
Industrial process refrigeration, high 300............................ January 1, 2025.
temperature side of cascade systems.
Retail food refrigeration--stand-alone 150............................ January 1, 2025.
units.
Retail food refrigeration--refrigerated 150............................ January 1, 2025.
food processing and dispensing
equipment.
Retail food refrigeration--supermarket 150............................ January 1, 2025.
systems with refrigerant charge
capacities of 200 pounds or greater.
Retail food refrigeration--supermarket 300............................ January 1, 2025.
systems with refrigerant charge
capacities less than 200 pounds charge.
Retail food refrigeration--supermarket 300............................ January 1, 2025.
systems, high temperature side of
cascade system.
Retail food refrigeration--remote 150............................ January 1, 2025.
condensing units with refrigerant
charge capacities of 200 pounds or
greater.
Retail food refrigeration--remote 300............................ January 1, 2025.
condensing units with refrigerant
charge capacities less than 200 pounds.
Vending machines........................ 150............................ January 1, 2025.
Cold storage warehouse systems with 150............................ January 1, 2025.
refrigerant charge capacities of 200
pounds or greater.
Cold storage warehouse systems with 300............................ January 1, 2025.
refrigerant charge capacities less than
200 pounds.
Cold storage warehouse--high temperature 300............................ January 1, 2025.
side of cascade system.
Ice rinks............................... 150............................ January 1, 2025.
Automatic commercial ice machines--self- 150............................ January 1, 2025.
contained with refrigerant charge
capacities of 500 grams or lower.
Automatic commercial ice machines--self- R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, January 1, 2025.
contained with refrigerant charge R-422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-
capacities more than 500 grams. 408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A,
R-422D, R-421A, R-125/R-290/R-
134a/R-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), HFC-134a.
Automatic commercial ice machines-- R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, January 1, 2025.
remote. R-422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-
408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A,
R-422D, R-421A, R-125/R-290/R-
134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-
422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5,
R-417A, R-438A, R-410B.
Transport refrigeration--intermodal 700............................ January 1, 2025.
containers.
Transport refrigeration--road systems... R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, January 1, 2025.
R-422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-
408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A,
R-422D, R-421A, R-125/R-290/R-
134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-
422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5,
R-417A, R-438A, R-410B.
Transport refrigeration--marine systems. R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, January 1, 2025.
R-422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-
408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A,
R-422D, R-421A, R-125/R-290/R-
134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-
422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5,
R-417A, R-438A, R-410B.
Residential refrigeration systems....... 150............................ January 1, 2025.
Chillers--industrial process 700............................ January 1, 2025.
refrigeration.
Chillers--comfort cooling............... 700............................ January 1, 2025.
Residential and light commercial air 700............................ January 1, 2025.
conditioning and heat pump systems.
Residential and light commercial air 700............................ January 1, 2026.
conditioning--variable refrigerant flow
systems.
Residential dehumidifiers............... 700............................ January 1, 2025.
Motor vehicle air conditioning--light- 150............................ Model year 2025.
duty Passenger Vehicles.
Motor vehicle air conditioning--medium- 150............................ Model year 2026.
duty passenger vehicles.
Motor vehicle air conditioning--heavy- 150............................ Model year 2026.
duty pick-up trucks.
Motor vehicle air conditioning--Complete 150............................ Model year 2026.
heavy-duty vans.
[[Page 76774]]
Motor vehicle air conditioning--Nonroad 150............................ Model year 2026.
vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam blowing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polystyrene--extruded boardstock and 150............................ January 1, 2025.
billet.
Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 0.............................. January 1, 2025.
laminated boardstock.
Rigid polyurethane--slabstock and other. 150............................ January 1, 2025.
Rigid polyurethane--appliance foam...... 150............................ January 1, 2025.
Rigid polyurethane--commercial 150............................ January 1, 2025.
refrigeration and sandwich panels.
Rigid polyurethane--marine flotation 150............................ January 1, 2025.
foam*.
Rigid polyurethane--low pressure, two- 150............................ January 1, 2025.
component spray foam.
Rigid polyurethane--high-pressure two- 150............................ January 1, 2025.
component spray foam.
Rigid polyurethane--one-component foam 150............................ January 1, 2025.
sealants.
Flexible polyurethane................... 0.............................. January 1, 2025.
Integral skin polyurethane.............. 0.............................. January 1, 2025.
Polystyrene--extruded sheet............. 0.............................. January 1, 2025.
Polyolefin.............................. 0.............................. January 1, 2025.
Phenolic insulation board and bunstock.. 150............................ January 1, 2025.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosol products *...................... 150............................ January 1, 2025.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As described in greater detail in section VII.C of this preamble, EPA is proposing an exemption for certain
applications as long as they are receiving application-specific allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the
Act, including: as a propellant in metered dose inhalers; in the manufacture of defense sprays; and in the
manufacture of structural composite preformed polyurethane foam for marine use and trailer use.
3. Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pump
Subsectors in the RACHP sector typically use a refrigerant in a
vapor compression cycle to cool and/or dehumidify a substance or space,
like a refrigerator cabinet, room, office building, or warehouse. Based
on EPA's consideration of the factors listed in subsection (i)(4) of
the AIM Act, as discussed in section VII.E of this preamble, EPA is
proposing the restrictions on the use of HFCs in the following
subsectors:
a. Industrial Process Refrigeration (IPR)
Background on Industrial Process Refrigeration
``Industrial process refrigeration'' systems are used to cool
process streams at a specific location in manufacturing and other forms
of industrial processes and applications used in, for example, the
chemical production, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and manufacturing
industries. This also includes appliances used directly in the
generation of electricity and for large scale cooling of heat sources
such as data centers and data servers. 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)--that is, it is not very low temperature
refrigeration equipment.
IPR systems are complex, customized systems that are directly
linked to the industrial process, meaning the refrigerant leaving the
condenser and metering device is delivered directly to the heat source
before returning to the compressor. Where one appliance is used for
both IPR and other applications, it is considered an IPR system if 50
percent or more of its operating capacity is used for IPR. Such IPR
appliances could be cooling a room or building in which the industrial
process is located, for instance if 50 percent or more of its capacity
is to cool manufacturing or other processing lines within the room or
building. Cooling or IPR that involves using a chiller, i.e., 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 (see section VII.F.3.h of this
preamble below). IPR not using a chiller is regulated as IPR equipment
and is discussed here.
Many food products require refrigeration during the production
process. EPA is considering the application of refrigerating equipment
used during the production of food and beverages to fall under
``industrial process refrigeration'' except where using a chiller. In
other words, if the food production process requires cooling and that
cooling is 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, for purposes of this proposed rule we consider the
equipment to fall under the IPR subsector; whereas if a chiller is used
to cool a secondary fluid (e.g., water) which is used to provide the
required cooling, we consider the appliance as part of the chiller
subsector. The IPR subsector would include all equipment and operations
that use a refrigerant to make and prepare food that is not immediately
available for sale (or supply, if the product is not ``sold'') to the
ultimate consumer and would require shipping or delivering it, possibly
through intermediate points, to the point where such sale would occur.
The IPR subsector could include facilities where food is processed and
packaged by the food producer. An example could be a meat processor
that prepares and packages individual cuts of meat within a single
facility or building while maintaining the required temperatures within
that facility or building. 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
[[Page 76775]]
food producer operates a refrigerated storage area solely for the
holding of already packaged products, and possibly packing such
products in larger containers or bundles for shipment, that application
would fall under 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 a
product 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 chiller on products that they will store for later use after they
receive products 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 shipped
refrigerated at one temperature and bring it down to a lower
temperature for storage.
IPR systems typically have large refrigerant charge 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-507, and R-134a.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Industrial Process Refrigeration
EPA granted six petitions that requested restrictions on the use of
HFCs and blends containing HFCs for IPR equipment excluding chillers,
which were submitted by EIA, CARB, IIAR (two petitions), and AHRI (two
petitions). All petitioners separated chillers used for IPR into a
different category.
EIA's and CARB's petitions requested that EPA establish a GWP limit
of 150 for HFCs used in new IPR equipment by January 1, 2025. CARB
requested that the GWP limit apply to IPR equipment containing more
than 50 pounds of refrigerant.
IIAR submitted two petitions regarding new IPR equipment. One of
IIAR's petitions requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of 150 for
HFCs used in new IPR equipment with refrigerant charge capacities
greater than 50 pounds by January 1, 2022. In a subsequent petition,
IIAR requested a GWP limit of 150 for new IPR equipment with
refrigerant charge capacities greater than 200 pounds, by January 1,
2026. In this second petition, IIAR also requested that EPA establishes
a GWP limit of 300 for new IPR equipment with refrigerant charge
capacities less than 200 pounds and for the high temperature side of
cascade systems by January 1, 2026.
AHRI also submitted two petitions regarding IPR equipment. One of
AHRI's petitions requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of 300 for
HFCs used in new IPR equipment by January 1, 2026,\78\ but requested
that medical, scientific, and research applications be exempted.
Another AHRI petition requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of 150
for new equipment in IPR with refrigerant charge capacities greater
than 200 pounds by January 1, 2026. For new IPR equipment with
refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds and for the high
temperature side of cascade systems, AHRI requested a GWP limit of 300
by January 1, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ The AHRI petition submitted on April 13, 2021, available at
www.regulations.gov in Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289, requested
a 1,500 GWP limit with a compliance date of January 1, 2024, for new
IPR equipment. The AHRI petition received by EPA on August 19, 2021,
requested a 300 GWP limit with a compliance date of January 1, 2026.
As EPA explains in section VII.D.2 of this preamble, EPA is treating
AHRI's August 19, 2021, petition as an addendum to their April 13,
2021, petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
industrial process refrigeration?
EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs with a GWP of 150 or greater in IPR systems with refrigerant
charge capacities greater than 200 pounds beginning January 1, 2025.
For IPR systems with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds
and for the high temperature side of cascade systems, EPA is proposing
to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs with a GWP of
300 or greater, beginning January 1, 2025. These proposed GWP limits
would apply to new equipment used in IPR other than chillers used for
IPR. Chillers used for IPR are discussed in section VII.F.3.h of this
preamble.
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 system 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 and has become more common to use R-717 in the high
temperature side. For low temperature systems, or the ``low temperature
side,'' low boiling refrigerants such as R-744 and R-508B can be used.
Considerations for the choice of refrigerant on the high or low
temperature side of the cascade systems are influenced by many factors
including, but not limited to, a refrigerant's toxicity and
flammability, its temperature glide, and its suitability to lower
temperature applications. In our consideration of safety and building
codes under subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA understands that use of flammable
or toxic refrigerants, such as R-717, on the high temperature side of a
cascade may be limited in certain circumstances (e.g., in areas that
are heavily populated based on building codes and/or standards).
Therefore, EPA is proposing a higher GWP limit of 300 for HFCs used in
the high temperature side of cascade systems to expand the refrigerant
options that can comply with local building codes and industry safety
standards. EPA is proposing a GWP limit of 150 for HFCs used in the low
temperature side of cascade systems based on its consideration of the
(i)(4) factors, noting in particular that there are a number of
substitutes available that can meet this proposed limit for this part
of the cascade system.
Similarly, EPA is proposing to establish two different GWP limits
for equipment used in IPR, based on the refrigerant charge capacity of
the system. This distinction is consistent with information provided by
certain petitioners and EPA's understanding of technical challenges
that these smaller capacity systems currently face. Specifically, for
smaller-footprint applications, the use of A2Ls (lower flammability
refrigerants) is limited due to safety standards ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
15-2019 and UL 60335-2-89.79 80 The two standards, which are
used to update building codes, set charge limits to under 200 pounds
for
[[Page 76776]]
applications in smaller floor areas.\81\ For example, if an application
subject to these standards required 100 pounds charge in a 1,000 square
foot area, A2L refrigerants would not be permitted. The proposed higher
GWP limit of 300 GWP for smaller refrigerant charge systems would
enable the use of a wider set of available substitutes to manage safety
(in particular, flammability and toxicity), efficiency, capacity,
temperature glide, and other performance factors. Systems with larger
refrigerant charge capacities i.e. greater than 200 pounds charge) are
expected to be less space-constrained, so system designers can
accommodate a narrower set of lower-GWP substitutes below 150 GWP, as
demonstrated by the widespread use and commercial demands of lower-GWP
substitutes in these systems. Therefore, EPA is proposing a lower GWP
limit of 150 for HFCs used in new equipment with refrigerant charge
greater than 200 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ ASHRAE. (2019). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2019: Safety
Standard for Refrigeration Systems.
\80\ 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).
\81\ The specific charge size limit depends on flammability
characteristics of each A2L refrigerant, the volume of the room
housing the system, the system design, and other parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified several substitutes \82\ which are
available in place of the higher-GWP substances that EPA is proposing
to prohibit. These available substitutes include HCFO-1224yd(Z) (GWP
1), R-717 (GWP 0), R-1270 (GWP 2), R-290 (GWP 3), R-600 (GWP 4), HCFO-
1233zd(E) (GWP 3.7), R-471A (GWP 139), R-454C (GWP 146), and, for
smaller capacity systems, and R-454A (GWP 237). EPA is aware of a
statement by one stakeholder that R-717 and hydrocarbons (R-600, R-
1270, R-290) are 90-95 percent of the market share for IPR systems in
2019, indicating the technological achievability and commercial demands
of systems using available substitutes.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ EPA notes for all substitutes identified in section VII.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 VII.E.2 of this preamble for a discussion on availability of
substitutes.
\83\ Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI). 2019. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in IPR systems
with refrigerant charge capacities greater than 200 pounds, and a GWP
limit of 300 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in IPR
systems with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds and for
the high temperature side of cascade systems. EPA is considering
whether a GWP limit lower than the proposed limit of 300 would be
appropriate for systems with smaller refrigerant charge capacities
(i.e., less than 200 pounds). Accordingly, EPA seeks comment on other
technical and design challenges that exist for such systems to use
refrigerants with GWPs less than 150, and strategies that can be
employed to mitigate these challenges.
b. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
Background on Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
Retail food refrigeration is characterized by storing and
displaying, generally for sale, food and beverages at different
temperatures for different products (e.g., chilled and frozen food).
The designs and refrigerating capacities of such equipment vary widely.
Vending machines are a type of self-contained system used to sell a
variety of products, including cold drinks in cans or bottles, ice
cream, milk, cold drinks in cups, and perishable food items (e.g.,
fruit, prepared sandwiches). 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. Vending
machines are a subset of commercial refrigeration that EPA is
considering as a separate subsector due to differences in where such
equipment is placed and the additional mechanical and electronic
components required to accept payment, provide the selected product,
and prevent theft or damage from vandalism.
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;
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment; remote
condensing units; and supermarket systems, the latter often in designs
referred to as multiplex or centralized refrigeration systems. Stand-
alone units in retail food refrigeration (hereafter, ``stand-alone
units'') consist of refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers
(either open or with doors) where all refrigeration components are
integrated and, for the smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is
entirely brazed or welded. These systems are charged with refrigerant
at the factory and typically require only an electricity supply to
begin operation. Under the technology transitions program, EPA intends
to distinguish medium-temperature stand-alone units from low-
temperature stand-alone units. Medium-temperature stand-alone units
maintain a temperature above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C). Most are typically
designed to maintain products at temperatures roughly between 32 [deg]F
(0 [deg]C) and 41 [deg]F (5 [deg]C). Low-temperature stand-alone units
designed to maintain products 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 self-contained
systems, with R-404A also commonly used in low temperature applications
(e.g., freezers, ice machines) and some high-capacity systems.
With respect to the second category of equipment to be included
under retail food refrigeration, refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment, the Agency considers equipment designed to make
or process cold food and beverages that are dispensed via a nozzle,
including soft-serve ice cream machines, ``slushy'' iced beverage
dispensers, and soft-drink dispensers, to be a separate subsector from
stand-alone units. Refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment dispenses and often processes a variety of food and beverage
products. For instance, some such equipment processes the product by
combining ingredients, mixing, and preparing the food at the proper
temperature, while others function mainly as a holding tank to deliver
the product at the desired temperature or to deliver chilled
ingredients for the processing, mixing, and preparation. Some may use a
refrigerant in a heat pump or utilize waste heat from the cooling
system to provide hot beverages. Some may also provide heating
functions to melt or dislodge ice or for sanitation purposes. This
equipment can be self-contained or can be connected via piping to a
dedicated condensing unit located elsewhere. Equipment within this
subsector category include but are not limited to equipment used to
make: chilled and frozen beverages (carbonated and uncarbonated,
alcoholic and nonalcoholic); frozen custards, gelato, ice cream,
Italian ice, sorbets and yogurts; milkshakes, ``slushies'' and
smoothies; and whipped cream.
[[Page 76777]]
Historically, refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment
relied on ODS refrigerants, including CFC-12 and HCFC-22. In response
to the phaseout of ODS under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal
Protocol, refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment 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 3,920, respectively.
With respect to the third category of equipment to be included
under retail food refrigeration, remote condensing units exhibit
refrigerating capacities ranging typically from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to
5.7 refrigeration tons). They are composed of one (and sometimes two)
compressor(s), one condenser, and one receiver assembled into a single
unit, which is 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. Remote condensing units are commonly installed in convenience
stores and specialty shops such as bakeries and butcher shops. Remote
condensing units historically used the ODS HCFC-22. While many HCFC-22
systems remain in use today, newly manufactured systems primarily use
R-404A or HFC-134a. Other blends that use HFCs--including R-407A, R-
407C, R-407F, and R-507A--are also in use.
With respect to the fourth category of equipment to be included
under retail food refrigeration, typical supermarket systems are known
as multiplex or centralized systems. They operate with racks of
compressors installed in a machinery room; different compressors turn
on to match the refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures.
Two main design classifications 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. The supermarket walk-in cold rooms are often
integrated into the system and cooled similarly, but another option is
to provide a dedicated condensing unit for a given storage room.
Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop systems and
cascade refrigeration.\84\ 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, more or fewer of the
chillers are active. Compact chillers are used in a secondary loop
system whereby the chillers cool a secondary fluid that is then
circulated throughout the store to the display cases. Each compact
chiller is an independent unit with its own refrigerant charge,
reducing the potential volume of refrigerant that could be released
from leaks or catastrophic failures. Despite the term ``chiller'' used
in the above examples, these systems would be regulated as supermarket
systems under this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See section VII.F.3.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 5-10 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 many
of these systems remain in use, some have been retrofitted to replace
the ODS refrigerant with a blend that uses an HFC (e.g., R-404A, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422D, R-427A, R-438A, and R-507A). For newly
manufactured systems, refrigerant blends containing HFCs (e.g., R-404A,
R-507A, R-407A, R-407C, and R-407F) dominate the market.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
EPA granted seven petitions that requested restrictions on the use
of HFCs for retail food refrigeration and/or vending machines. These
petitions were submitted by NRDC, CARB, IIAR (two petitions), EIA, and
AHRI (two petitions).
NRDC and CARB individually petitioned EPA to restrict specific
substances for new equipment used in the following subsectors (specific
substances are in parenthesis):
``Stand-alone low-temperature units'' (HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003
formulation))
``Stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor
capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 btu/hour and stand-alone
medium-temperature units containing a flooded evaporator'' (FOR12A,
FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A,
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-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, THR-03))
``Stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor
capacity below 2,200 btu/hour and not containing a flooded evaporator''
(FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B,
R-417A, 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-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03))
``Remote condensing units'' (HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A)
``Retail food refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment'' (HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-
417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation),
``Supermarket systems'' (HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A) and
``Vending machines'' (FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-
417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E).
Both petitioners also requested that EPA restrict the use of
specific substances used for retrofitted equipment in:
``Supermarket systems'' (R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-
422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A)
``Remote condensing units'' (R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A,
R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A)
[[Page 76778]]
``Stand-alone units'' (R-404A, R-507A)
``Vending machines'' (R-404A, R-507A)
NRDC requested that EPA establish a January 1, 2023, compliance
date for restrictions in all of these subsectors. CARB's petition
further included a request to establish a GWP limit of 150 for HFCs
used in new retail food refrigeration equipment \85\ with charge sizes
greater than 50 pounds but did not specify a compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Under CARB's HFC regulation, retail food refrigeration
includes stand-alone units (equipment), refrigerated food processing
and dispensing units (equipment), remote condensing units, and
supermarket systems. Available in the docket and at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hfc2020/frorevised.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIAR submitted two petitions for certain applications with ``retail
food refrigeration.'' One petition requested that EPA establish a GWP
limit of 150 for retail food refrigeration by January 1, 2022. In
another granted petition, IIAR requested that EPA establish a GWP limit
of 150 for new retail food refrigeration equipment with refrigerant
charge capacities greater than 200 pounds and a GWP limit of 300 for
new retail food refrigeration equipment with refrigerant charge
capacities less than or equal to 200 pounds, by January 1, 2026. IIAR
also requested that a GWP limit of 300 be established for the high
temperature side of cascade systems by January 1, 2026.
EIA's petition requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of 150 for
HFCs used in new supermarket systems with refrigerant charge sizes
greater than 50 pounds by January 1, 2023, or one year following
finalization of rulemaking.
Lastly, EPA granted two petitions from AHRI. One petition asked for
restrictions on the use of HFCs used in ``standalone/self-contained
refrigeration systems'' and ``remote refrigeration systems.'' \86\
Specifically, AHRI requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of 300 for
new ``standalone/self-contained refrigeration systems'' and a GWP limit
of 300 for new ``remote refrigeration systems'' by January 1, 2026.
AHRI's petition also requested that ``medical, scientific and research
applications'' be exempted. AHRI's second granted petition requested
that EPA establish a GWP limit of 150 for new supermarket systems and
remote condensing units with refrigerant charge capacities greater than
200 pounds, and a GWP limit of 300 for the same equipment with
refrigerant charge capacities less than or equal to 200 pounds by
January 1, 2026. AHRI also requested a GWP limit of 300 for the high
temperature side of cascade systems. This petition also requested that
EPA establish a GWP limit of 150 for new stand-alone and refrigerated
food processing and dispensing equipment by January 1, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Another petition submitted by AHRI on April 13, 2021,
available at www.regulations.gov in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0289, requested different restrictions for the same subsectors. As
discussed in section VII.D.2 of this preamble, EPA is treating
AHRI's later petition as an addendum to AHRI's earlier petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket. What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA
proposing for new retail food refrigeration--stand-alone units?
EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater beginning January 1, 2025, in
retail food refrigeration--stand-alone units. This proposed GWP limit
would apply to new equipment used in retail food refrigeration--stand-
alone units, irrespective of compressor capacity or evaporator design.
For new equipment, several substitutes are available in place of
the HFCs and blends containing HFCs that EPA is proposing to restrict,
which informed EPA's consideration of the availability of substitutes.
These include R-744 (GWP 1), R-290 (GWP 3), R-600a (GWP <1), and R-441A
(GWP 3). In addition to these substitutes' lower GWP, some of these
substitutes also offer additional environmental benefits via increased
energy efficiency. For example, several sources show that R-290 offers
significant efficiency benefits as compared to traditional higher-GWP
refrigerants used for commercial refrigeration. Studies have shown that
energy use can be reduced between 21 and 34 percent, depending on
operating conditions, for commercial refrigeration systems utilizing R-
290 instead of R-404A.87 88 89 One company claimed that
equipment using R-290 as the refrigerant consumed between 11 and 63
percent, depending on the model, when compared to an equivalent model
using HFC-134a \90\ ``without sacrificing quality.'' \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Emerson, October 2016. The Case for R-290. E360 Outlook.
Available at: https://e360hub.emerson.com/emersons-r-290-product-offerings/the-case-for-r-290-5.
\88\ 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.
\89\ 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.
\90\ True Manufacturing, 2019, Hydrocarbon (Natural Refrigerant)
Brochure. Available at: https://www.truemfg.com/Media-Center/Marketing-Collateral.
\91\ True Manufacturing, Company Profile. Video. Available at:
https://truemfg.com/Media-Center/Videos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, use of R-290 and other lower-GWP refrigerants has
increased over the past seven years in various stand-alone equipment
types, indicating that use of substitutes is technologically achievable
and that there is commercial demand for equipment that use substitutes.
EPA is also aware of several available low and medium temperature units
using substitutes such as R-290 and R-600a. Commercial demands for
equipment types that use R-290, based on EPA's research,\92\ include
reach-in refrigerators and freezers, beverage coolers, and food service
equipment and types of equipment that use R-744 include beverage
coolers and vending machines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See Commercial Demands and Technological Achievability TSD
in the docket for a list of products in the affected sectors and
subsectors using substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also notes that several states have banned the use of higher-
GWP refrigerants in stand-alone units. The states/commonwealths of
California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington all
have legal restrictions on the use of HFCs and HFC blends in stand-
alone equipment, and, depending on the state, these restrictions went
into effect at various times between the years 2020 through 2022.
Stand-alone equipment using lower-GWP substitutes are being sold in
these markets to comply with regulatory requirements, clearly
indicating that these types of equipment using available substitutes
are available, which informs our consideration of the availability of
substitutes under subsection (i)(4)(B), including our consideration of
subfactors such as technological achievability and commercial demands.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
retrofitted retail food refrigeration--stand-alone units?
EPA is not proposing any restrictions on the use of HFCs in
retrofitted stand-alone units. For future consideration in a potential
subsequent rulemaking, the Agency is taking comment on and seeking data
and information regarding the prevalence of retrofitting in stand-alone
units. EPA is also seeking comment on what refrigerants are commonly
used in retrofitted stand-alone units. EPA is also seeking comment on a
GWP limit to set for these
[[Page 76779]]
units. As noted earlier in the preamble, EPA does not intend to respond
to any advance comments or information received regarding retrofitted
retail food refrigeration--stand-alone units.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for new
retail food refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment?
EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater beginning January 1, 2025, in
retail food refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment. This proposed GWP limit would apply to new equipment used in
retail food refrigeration-- refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment.
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified substitutes such as R-744 and R-
717 which are available for use in this subsector in place of the HFCs
and blends containing HFCs that EPA is proposing to restrict.
Additionally, EPA is aware that companies have expressed interest in
using other substitutes such as R-290 for this subsector.
Based on the Agency's review of available information as well as
state regulatory activities, EPA is proposing a compliance date of
January 1, 2025. 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.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See the TSD on building codes in the docket for additional
information on building codes and list of substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for new
retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems?
EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs with a GWP of 150 or greater in supermarket systems with
refrigerant charge capacities equal to or greater than 200 pounds
beginning January 1, 2025. For supermarket systems with refrigerant
charge capacities less than 200 pounds and for the high temperature
side of cascade systems, EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs
and blends containing HFCs with a GWP of 300 or greater, beginning
January 1, 2025. These proposed GWP limits would apply to new retail
food refrigeration--supermarket systems.
As with IPR systems, EPA is proposing to distinguish between larger
supermarket systems (i.e., those with refrigerant charge capacities
equal to or greater than 200 pounds) and smaller systems (i.e., those
with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds). EPA is also
proposing different GWP limits for refrigerants used in cascade
systems. See section VII.F.3.a in the preamble for a discussion on
EPA's rationale for making these distinctions.
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified substitutes that are available in
place of the proposed restricted substances that EPA is proposing to
restrict for larger refrigerant charge capacities (i.e., those with
refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds). 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. For systems with
smaller refrigerant charge capacities, substitute refrigerants R-454C
(GWP 146), R-471A (GWP 139), and R-516A (GWP 140) can serve as other
potential candidates for use in place of the HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that EPA is proposing to restrict.
EPA notes that the proposed GWP limits would support the transition
to lower-GWP substitutes and innovative technologies including those
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. For
example, the global market of transcritical R-744 systems, which are
manufactured by a number of U.S. companies, is expected to grow
significantly, at a compound annual growth rate of 12.69 percent,
between 2018 and 2025.\94\ R-744 systems may also provide additional
beneficial environmental impacts via increased energy efficiency in
some cases; however, R-744 systems can experience declining
efficiencies in high ambient temperature (e.g., Bahrain) although
technologies continue to be under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
retrofitted retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems?
EPA is not proposing restrictions on the use of HFCs in retrofitted
retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems. EPA acknowledges that
two granted petitions contained requests for EPA to restrict the use of
specific substances in retrofitted supermarkets systems (as described
in this section above). However, the Agency did not find specific
information on substitutes used in retrofitted supermarkets, though the
Agency is aware of possible substitutes (e.g., R-450A, R-513A, R-448A,
and R-449A). EPA, therefore, is seeking comment on what substitutes are
commonly used in retrofitted supermarket systems. As noted earlier in
the preamble, EPA does not intend to respond to any advance comments or
information received regarding retrofitted retail food refrigeration--
supermarket systems.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for new
retail food refrigeration--remote condensing units?
EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs with a GWP of 150 or greater for remote condensing units with
refrigerant charge capacities greater than 200 pounds beginning January
1, 2025. For remote condensing units with refrigerant charge capacities
less than 200 pounds, and for the high temperature side of cascade
systems, EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends
containing HFCs with a GWP of 300 or greater, beginning January 1,
2025. These proposed GWP limits would apply to new equipment used in
remote condensing units.
EPA is proposing to distinguish between larger remote condensing
units (i.e., those with refrigerant charge capacities equal to or
greater than 200 pounds) and smaller systems (i.e., those with
refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds) and is proposing a
different GWP limit for the high temperature side of a cascade system,
based on the rationale stated in section VII.F.3.a in the preamble.
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified available substitutes in place of
the proposed restricted substances, including R-744 (GWP 1) and R-717
(GWP 0). Additional refrigerants that could potentially be available
substitutes include R-454C (GWP 146), R-471A (GWP 139), and R-455A (GWP
146). R-744 remote condensing units are now commercially available in
several markets, including in the United States. Although market
penetration is low at present globally, it is expected to increase in
the near future.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76780]]
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
retrofitted retail food refrigeration--remote condensing units?
EPA is not proposing restrictions on the use of HFCs in retrofitted
remote condensing units. EPA acknowledges that two granted petitions
contained requests for EPA to restrict the use of specific substances
in retrofitted remote condensing units. However, the Agency did not
find sufficient information demonstrating that there would be available
substitutes for use in remote condensing units undergoing retrofits.
However, the Agency is aware of substances that could potentially be
available substitutes (e.g., R-450A, R-513A, and R-448A) and is
therefore seeking comment on whether there are substitutes to HFCs that
are commonly used in retrofitted remote condensing units. As noted
earlier in the preamble, EPA does not intend to respond to any advance
comments or information received regarding retrofitted retail food
refrigeration--remote condensing units.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for new
vending machines?
EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater in vending machines beginning
January 1, 2025. This proposed GWP limit would apply to new vending
machines.
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified available substitutes in place of
the proposed restricted substances including, R-290 (GWP 3), R-600a
(GWP <1), R-744 (GWP 1), and R-441A (GWP 3).
Vending machines using lower-GWP refrigerants, primarily R-290 and
R-744, are technologically achievable 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.96 97 Recently,
industry safety standards and building codes have been revised to allow
the use of 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 those locations where they were not previously allowed prior to
the modification of industry standards. UL also modified their standard
covering this equipment ``for the unrestricted placement of vending
machines refrigerated with advanced, environmentally-friendly
coolants.'' \98\ Beginning January 1, 2020, the 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.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 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.
\97\ PepsiCo, 2020. Sustainability Focus Area: Climate.
Available at: https://www.pepsico.com/our-impact/sustainability/focus-area/climate.
\98\ 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.
\99\ NAMA, 2019. NAMA Foundation Annual Report 2019. Available
at: https://namanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-NAMA-Foundation-Annual-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on the proposed GWP limits for subsectors
in retail food refrigeration and vending machines described in this
section. EPA is also specifically requesting comment for new
supermarket systems and remote condensing units and its proposal to
establish a GWP limit of 150 or greater for HFCs and blends used in new
systems with refrigerant charge capacities greater than 200 pounds, and
a GWP limit of 300 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used
in new systems with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds
and for the high temperature side of cascade systems. EPA is
considering whether a GWP limit lower than the proposed limit of 300
would be appropriate for systems with smaller refrigerant charge
capacities (i.e., less than 200 pounds). Accordingly, EPA seeks comment
on technical and design challenges that exist for such systems to use
refrigerants with GWPs less than 150, and strategies that can be
employed to mitigate these challenges.
c. Cold Storage Warehouses
Background on Cold Storage Warehouses
Cold storage warehouses are refrigerated facilities used for the
storage of temperature-controlled substances. 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 of a walk-in facility 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 Clean Air Act and the
Montreal Protocol, in the 1990s many manufactures began the transition
from CFCs to HCFC-22, and then later from HCFC-22 to HFCs--primarily R-
404A and R-507, which have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985, respectively.\100\
Some ODS users transitioned to R-717, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Cold Storage Warehouses
EPA granted six petitions that requested restrictions on the use of
HFCs in cold storage warehouses, which were submitted by EIA, IIAR (two
petitions), CARB, AHRI, and NRDC. Three petitions--submitted by EIA,
IIAR, and CARB--requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of 150 for
HFCs used in new cold storage warehouses that contain more than 50
pounds of refrigerant. EIA requested a compliance date of January 1,
2023, or one year following the finalization of rulemaking. IIAR
requested a compliance date of January 1, 2022. CARB did not specify a
compliance date.
Two petitions--AHRI and IIAR's second petition--requested that EPA
establish a GWP limit of 150 for HFCs used in new cold storage
warehouses with refrigerant charge capacities greater
[[Page 76781]]
than 200 pounds and a GWP limit of 300 for HFCs used in new cold
storage warehouses with refrigerant charge capacities less than or
equal to 200 pounds. Both petitions also requested a GWP limit of 300
for the HFCs used in the high temperature side of cascade systems.
These petitions requested a January 1, 2026, compliance date for these
restrictions.
NRDC's petition requested that EPA specifically restrict the use of
the following substances in new cold storage warehouses: HFC-227ea, R-
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A,
R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A,
R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).
Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket. What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA
proposing for cold storage warehouses?
EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs with a GWP of 150 or greater in cold storage warehouse systems
with refrigerant charge capacities equal to or greater than 200 pounds
beginning January 1, 2025. For cold storage warehouse equipment with
refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds and for the high
temperature side of cascade systems, EPA is proposing to prohibit the
use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs with a GWP of 300 or greater,
beginning January 1, 2025. These proposed GWP limits would apply to new
equipment used in cold storage warehouses.
EPA is proposing to distinguish between larger equipment in new
cold storage warehouses (i.e., those with refrigerant charge capacities
equal to or greater than 200 pounds) and smaller systems (i.e., those
with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds) and is
proposing a different GWP limit for the high temperature side of a
cascade system, based on the rationale stated in section VII.F.3.a in
the preamble.
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
(i)(4)(B), EPA identified several substitutes that are available in
place of the substances that EPA is proposing to restrict. For systems
with refrigerant charge capacities equal to or greater than 200 pounds,
these include R-717 vapor compression, R-744 (GWP 1), HCFO-1233zd(E)
(GWP 3.7), R-454C (GWP 146), and R-471A (GWP 139); for smaller systems,
R-454A (GWP 237) is an available substitute, in addition to those
listed for larger systems. In addition to traditional vapor-compression
cycle systems, several other types of systems that operate using
thermodynamic cycles other than vapor compression such as R-717
absorption, evaporative cooling, desiccant cooling, and Stirling cycle
systems can be used in this subsector. These systems could also be used
to comply with the GWP limit proposed.
Market trends show that a significant portion of cold storage
warehouses have transitioned from, or completely avoided, using higher-
GWP substances. Most cold storage warehouses in the United States use
R-717 due to its long-standing use, lower cost per kilogram, and energy
savings.\101\ While R-717 is not used extensively in many other
subsectors of the RACHP sector, certain characteristics of cold storage
warehouses reduce their typical proximity to people and have
facilitated the widespread use of that refrigerant in this application,
even though R-717 is listed as a lower flammability, higher toxicity
(B2L) refrigerant in ASHRAE Standard 34. For example, because cold
storage warehouses are often large 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. These factors reduce the risk of using R-717, compared with
other applications where more people might be present such as an office
building. Additionally, R-717 is considered by many users to be a cost-
effective option for use in cold storage warehouses despite a higher
capital cost for the equipment compared to HFC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new cold
storage warehouse systems with refrigerant charge capacities greater
than 200 pounds, and a GWP limit of 300 or greater for HFCs and blends
containing HFCs used in new cold storage warehouses with refrigerant
charge capacities less than 200 pounds and for the high temperature
side of cascade systems. EPA is considering whether a GWP limit lower
than the proposed limit of 300 would be appropriate for systems with
smaller refrigerant charge capacities (i.e., less than 200 pounds).
Accordingly, EPA seeks comment on technical and design challenges that
exist for such systems to use refrigerants with GWPs less than 150 and
strategies that can be employed to mitigate these challenges.
d. Ice Rinks
Background on Ice Rinks
Ice rinks use equipment that move a fluid through pipes embedded in
the concrete flooring of the facility 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).
Where local codes may not allow the use of ammonia in ice rinks,
ice rinks first used ozone depleting CFC/HCFC refrigerants, such as R-
22, before transitioning to high-GWP HFCs such as R-404A and R-507A.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Ice Rinks
EPA granted three petitions, submitted by EIA, CARB, and IIAR,
which requested restrictions on the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs for ice rinks. All three petitions requested that EPA establish a
GWP limit of 150 for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new ice
rinks with more than 50 pounds of refrigerant by January 1, 2024. EIA
also requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of 750 for HFCs and
blends containing HFCs used in retrofitted ice rinks with more than 50
pounds of refrigerant by January 1, 2024. Additional information,
including the relevant petitions, is available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for new ice
rinks?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs or blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater in new ice
[[Page 76782]]
rink systems beginning January 1, 2025. These proposed GWP limits would
apply to HFCs used in new ice rinks.
For its consideration of availability of substitutes under
(i)(4)(B), EPA identified substitutes that are available in place of
the substances that the Agency is proposing to restrict. These include
R-717 (GWP 0), R-744 (GWP 1), and HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 3.7). R-471A (GWP
139) also meets the proposed GWP limit and can serve as a potential
candidate for use in place of the substances that EPA is proposing to
restrict.
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.\102\ 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-
side chiller) in locations with access limited to trained service
personnel only. In TSDs submitted with their petition, CARB estimated
that more than 80 percent of ice rinks in California use R-717.\103\
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 technical achievability and commercial demand of substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Packages--Design and Build, Toromont[verbar]CIMCO
Refrigeration. Available at: https://www.cimcorefrigeration.com/packages-design-build.
\103\ Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, CARB, October
2020. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in this section above, other refrigerant options exist for
new ice rinks that meet the proposed GWP limit. HCFO-1233zd(E) has been
recently listed as acceptable through the SNAP program for use in new
ice rinks. 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. Further, EPA identified commercially available
products containing some of these substitutes.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See the Commercial Demands and Technological Achievability
TSD in the docket for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
retrofitted ice rinks?
One granted petition contained a request for EPA to restrict the
use of specific substances in retrofitted remote condensing (as
described previously in this section). However, the Agency did not find
specific information on available substitutes for retrofitted ice
rinks, although the Agency is aware of possible substitutes (e.g., R-
450A and R-513A). EPA is therefore not proposing restrictions on the
use of HFCs in retrofitted ice rinks. As noted earlier in the preamble,
EPA does not intend to respond to any advance comments or information
received regarding retrofitted ice rinks.
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new ice
rinks.
e. Automatic Commercial Ice Machines
Background on Automatic Commercial Ice Machines
Automatic commercial ice machines (ACIM) are used in commercial
establishments such as hotels, restaurants, and convenience stores to
produce ice for consumer use. Many ACIM can be self-contained units,
while some have the condenser separated from the portion of the machine
making the ice and have refrigerant lines running between the two
(referred to as remote-condensing ACIM). Self-contained or stand-alone
units are a type of ACIM in which the ice-making mechanism and storage
compartment are in an integral cabinet. Stand-alone ACIM contain both
evaporator and condenser, have no external refrigerant connections, and
are entirely factory-charged and factory-sealed with refrigerants.
These types of systems are analogous to other types of stand-alone
equipment like vending machines or refrigerated display cases. These
types of systems generally have lower refrigerant charge sizes.
Like other types of remote-condensing RACHP equipment, remote-
condensing ACIM utilize a split-system design where the evaporator
(which freezes water into ice) is located indoors, while the condensing
unit (which rejects heat to surrounding air) is located outdoors. In
remote-compressor systems, the heat is still rejected in the indoor
room 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 the overall refrigerant charge size
required as compared to a self-contained system.
R-404A and R-410A are the most common HFC refrigerants used
currently for ACIM and replaced the use of ozone depleting HCFCs such
as R-22.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Automatic Commercial Ice Machines
EPA granted one petition which requested restrictions on the use of
HFCs and blends containing HFCs for ACIM, which was submitted by AHRI.
AHRI specifically requested that EPA establishes a GWP limit of 2,200
for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new ``ACIM'' \105\ with
charge sizes greater than 50 pounds excluding medical, scientific, and
research applications by January 1, 2022. Additional information
regarding this petition is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ EPA believes AHRI used ``ACIM'' to refer to automatic
commercial ice machines and for the purposes of this proposed
action, the Agency will be using that acronym.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for automatic
commercial ice machines?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater for self-contained ACIM with
charge sizes less than or equal to 500 grams beginning January 1, 2025.
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of the following HFCs and blends
containing HFCs in new self-contained ACIM with refrigerant charge
capacities exceeding 500 grams beginning January 1, 2025: 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/R-290/R-134a/R-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. EPA is proposing to restrict the use of the following HFCs
and blends containing HFCs in new remote condensing ACIM beginning
January 1, 2025: 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/R-290/R-134a/R-
600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-417A, R-438A,
and R-410B. These proposed restrictions would apply on the use of HFCs
and blends containing HFCs used in new ACIM.
EPA is proposing three different sets of restrictions on the use of
HFCs and blends containing HFCs in ACIM, depending on the type of ACIM.
This distinction is based on EPA's current understanding of refrigerant
options available for each type of ACIM due to revised industry safety
standards. All categories of ACIM are covered by UL Standard 60335-2-89
Standard for Safety for Household and Similar Electrical Appliances--
Safety--Part 2-
[[Page 76783]]
89: Particular Requirements for Commercial Refrigerating Appliances and
Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-
Compressor. UL 60335-2-89 2nd edition recently increased the allowable
charge limits for flammable refrigerants in commercial refrigeration
equipment, including both flammable (i.e., ``A3'') refrigerants and
lower-flammability (i.e., ``A2L'') refrigerants. UL 60335-2-89 2nd
edition increases the current charge limit for stand-alone systems
using propane (R-290, A3) from a maximum of 150 grams per refrigerant
circuit to a maximum of either 300 grams or 500 grams per refrigerant
circuit, depending on construction. For stand-alone ACIM, the UL safety
standard dictates a 300 gram limit for propane 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, then a 500 gram limit is allowed when using
propane and a similar amount for other A3 refrigerants. Further, the UL
standard 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., ``A3'' or ``A2'') are not allowed in any quantities in split-
systems with field-constructed refrigerant piping. (22.110 DV.3)
Based on this reading of the industry safety standard, and other
information related to the (i)(4)(B) factors contained in the docket,
available substitutes for self-contained ACIM include R-290 (GWP 3)
where the charge size is no more than 500 grams, and R-450A (GWP 601),
and R-513A (GWP 630) where the charge size is above that amount.
Substitute refrigerants R-455A (GWP 146), R-454C (GWP 146), and R-454A
(GWP 237) also meet the proposed GWP limit and can serve as other
potential candidates for use in place of the HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that EPA is proposing to restrict in self-contained units, except
that R-454A would not be allowed if the charge size was less than or
equal to 500 grams. 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 1386) and R-449A (GWP 1396), which are being pursued for
other R-404A applications, are potential candidates for self-contained
ACIM with charge sizes exceeding 500 grams. Available substitutes for
remote condensing ACIM include R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, and HFC-134a.
EPA is not proposing a GWP limit for remote condensing ACIM and
stand-alone ACIM with refrigerant charge capacities exceeding 500 grams
in this action and instead is proposing to restrict the use of specific
HFCs and blends containing HFCs. EPA believes a GWP limit of 2,200, as
requested in a granted petition, is high compared to the GWP limits
that the Agency is proposing in other commercial refrigeration
applications. For remote condensing ACIM, the Agency intends to propose
a GWP limit at a later time. Likewise, if EPA finalizes a restriction
of specific HFCs and blends containing HFCs for standalone ACIM with
charge sizes exceeding 500 grams, we intend to propose a GWP limit at a
later time. In this action, EPA is proposing to restrict specific
substances used in new remote condensing ACIM, and a separate set of
specific substances used in new self-contained ACIM with refrigerant
charge capacities exceeding 500 grams. As stated in section VII.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 for this subsector while still restricting those
substances that have the highest environmental impact.
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on: proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new self-
contained ACIM with charge sizes less than or equal to 500 grams;
proposing to restrict the use of 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/
R-290/R-134a/R-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
ACIM with charge sizes greater than 500 grams; and proposing to
restrict the use of 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/R-290/R-
134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-417A, R-
438A, and R-410B in remote condensing ACIM. EPA is seeking comment on
the types of ACIM and substitutes (i.e., refrigerants) that may be used
in each type of ACIM and whether certain aspects of the ACIM (e.g.,
charge size, harvest rate) or refrigerant (e.g., flammability
classification, glide, discharge temperature) affect the alternatives
that may be used. EPA is requesting comment on the charge size of 500
grams as the differentiation between the proposed 150 GWP limit and the
proposed restricted substances for new standalone ACIM. EPA also
requests comment on the proposed transition dates and the potential
environmental benefits of finalizing a later transition date for one or
more of these types of ACIM. For new standalone ACIM with a charge size
greater than 500 grams, EPA is also considering a restriction based on
a GWP limit, possibly higher than the 150 GWP limit proposed for other
standalone ACIMs. We request comment on the advantages or disadvantages
of both possible approaches as compared to the proposed restriction.
For consideration in a subsequent rulemaking, EPA further seeks
information on a GWP limit for new remote condensing ACIM.
f. Refrigerated Transport
Background on Refrigerated Transport
The refrigerated transport subsector primarily moves perishable
goods (e.g., food) and pharmaceuticals at temperatures between -22
[deg]F (-30 [deg]C) and 61 [deg]F (16 [deg]C) by various modes of
transportation, including roads, vessels, and intermodal containers.
For this action, EPA is proposing three distinct subsectors:
refrigerated transport--road, refrigerated transport--marine, and
refrigerated transport--intermodal containers.
Refrigerated transport--road consists of refrigeration for
perishable goods in refrigerated vans, trucks, or trailer-mounted
systems and is the most common mode of refrigerated transport. 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, (ii)
refrigerated containers that are less than 8 feet 4 inches in width,
(iii)
[[Page 76784]]
refrigeration units used on containers that require a separate
generator to power the refrigeration unit, or (iv) ship holds.
Refrigerated transport--marine consists of refrigeration for
perishable goods on refrigerated vessels and various modes of
transportation via water, including merchant, naval, fishing, and
cruise-shipping. And lastly, refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers are refrigerated containers that allow uninterrupted storage
during transport on different mobile platforms, including railways,
road trucks, and vessels.
Refrigerated transport equipment manufacturers have used HFC
refrigerants, mainly R-404A and HFC-134a, after phasing out ozone
depleting CFC and HCFC refrigerants such as R-12 and R-22.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Refrigerated Transport
EPA granted one petition which requested restrictions on the use of
HFCs and blends containing HFCs for refrigerated transport, which was
submitted by AHRI. AHRI specifically requested that EPA establish a GWP
limit of 2,200 for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new
``transport refrigeration'' by January 1, 2023. Additional information
from this petition available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
refrigerated transport--road?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of the following HFCs and
blends containing HFCs in new refrigerated transport--road systems
beginning January 1, 2025: 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/R-
290/R-134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-
417A, R-438A, and R-410B.
Similar to EPA's approach in addressing use of HFCs and blends
containing HFCs in remote condensing ACIM, EPA is not proposing a GWP
limit for refrigerated transport--road in this action and instead is
proposing to restrict the use of specific HFCs and blends containing
HFCs. EPA believes a GWP limit of 2,200, as requested in a granted
petition, is high compared to the GWP limit that the Agency is
proposing in other commercial refrigeration applications, and the
Agency intends to propose a GWP limit at a later time. In this action,
EPA is proposing to restrict specific substances used in new
refrigerated transport--road. As stated in section VII.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 3,920, is a
commonly used refrigerant in this subsector that EPA is proposing to
restrict).
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 proposing to restrict. 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, in particular, cool cargo by injection of
stored liquid R-744 or nitrogen (R-728) to 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
products containing the lower-GWP alternative 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 systems for refrigerated transport--road offer systems
using R-452A, 106 107 an indication of the commercial
demands and technological achievability of units using one of the
available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 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.
\107\ 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 proposing for
refrigerated transport--marine?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of the following HFCs and
blends containing HFCs in new refrigerated transport--marine systems
beginning January 1, 2025: 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/R-
290/R-134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-
417A, R-438A, and R-410B. Similar to refrigerated transport--road, EPA
is not proposing a GWP limit at this time.\108\ EPA's rationale for
restricting specific substances in this subsector and not proposing a
GWP limit can be found in section VII.B of this preamble, with
additional information in section VII.F.3.e (under the proposed
restrictions on the use of HFCs in ACIM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See discussion in refrigerated transport--road for EPA's
rationale for not proposing a GWP limit for this subsector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available substitutes that can be used in refrigerated transport--
marine in place of the substances that EPA is proposing to restrict
include R-744, R-450A, R-513A, and R-452A. Marine transport
refrigeration systems cover a wide range of merchant, naval, fishing,
and cruise-shipping applications and often require specialized and
custom refrigeration solutions. Historically, this sector used R-22, R-
404A, R-507, R-407C, and R-134a. Today, manufacturers market lower-GWP
substitutes for marine applications such as R-717, R-744, and R-290.
According to TEAP, HFC/HFO blends with lower GWPs may also be suitable
for some applications and system designs.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ 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 proposing for
refrigerated transport--intermodal containers?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for new refrigerated transport--
intermodal containers beginning January 1, 2025.
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 proposing to restrict. These
include R-744 and R-450A. R-513A, R-513B, and R-456A are also potential
candidates. According to one TEAP report, thousands of intermodal
containers operating with R-744 were purchased or leased in 2016 and
2017.\110\ Further, several manufacturers now offer intermodal
containers using R-513A for new and retrofit
applications.111 112 113 Additionally, EPA
[[Page 76785]]
identified one manufacturer that offers an intermodal container using
R-744.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Ibid.
\111\ Maersk Container Industry, Star Cool--Refrigerants.
Available at: https://www.mcicontainers.com/products/star-cool/refrigerants.
\112\ 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.
\113\ Thermo King, Container Fresh and Frozen. Available at:
https://www.thermoking.com/na/en/marine/refrigeration-units/container-fresh-and-frozen.html.
\114\ Carrier Transicold ``NaturaLINE'' products. Additional
information available at: https://www.carrier.com/container-refrigeration/en/worldwide/products/Container-Units/naturaline/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
700 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new
refrigerated transport--intermodal containers and proposing to restrict
the use of 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/R-290/R-134a/R-600a
(55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-417A, R-438A, and R-
410B in marine and road applications. EPA is seeking comment on its
subdivision of the refrigerant transport subsector and substitutes that
may be used in each application. For consideration in a subsequent
Agency action, EPA further seeks information on a GWP limit for marine
and road applications in refrigerated transport.
g. Residential Refrigeration Systems
Background on Residential Refrigeration Systems
Household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator/
freezers, grouped together in this preamble as ``residential
refrigeration systems,'' are appliances intended primarily for
residential use, although they may be used outside the home. 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 proposed rule, other small
refrigerated household appliances such as chilled kitchen drawers, wine
coolers, 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 systems are charged with refrigerant
at the factory and typically require only an electricity supply to
begin operation.
CFC-12 was a commonly used refrigerant in household refrigerators
and freezers prior to the Montreal Protocol and CAA restrictions on
CFCs. The household refrigeration industry transitioned to HFC-134a and
HCs. According to the TEAP's 2022 progress report, R-600a (isobutane)
is used in 75 percent of all new units globally with HFC-134a used in
the remaining 25 percent.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Residential Refrigeration
EPA granted two petitions, submitted by NRDC and CARB, that
requested restrictions on the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs
for household refrigerators and freezers. NRDC and CARB requested that
EPA restrict specific HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new
household refrigerators and freezers applications, replicated from SNAP
Rule 21. The petitions subdivided household refrigerators and freezers
into ``household refrigerators and freezers--non-compact or built-in
appliances,'' ``household refrigerators and freezers--compact,'' and
``household refrigerators and freezers--built in appliances'' but
requested the same set of restrictions for each group. Specifically,
the petitions requested that EPA restrict FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 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-507A, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03. NRDC's
petition requested that these restrictions take effect on January 1,
2023, for all subsectors; CARB did not request a specific compliance
date. Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for household
refrigerators and freezers?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater for residential refrigeration
systems beginning January 1, 2025. EPA is proposing this same date for
the entire subsector, including all subdivisions differentiated in the
petitions. This GWP limit would apply to new residential refrigeration
systems.
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 proposing to restrict. These
include R-290 (GWP 3), R-600a (GWP <1), R-441A (GWP 3), and HFC-152a
(GWP 124).
According to the TEAP and its Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and
Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC), R-600a is the main
energy-efficient and cost-competitive alternative used in domestic
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.''
\115\ This report also indicated that globally domestic refrigerators
are predominantly using R-600a. For the U.S. market, RTOC reports
``substantial progress is being made to convert from HFC-134a to R-600a
with the market introduction of small refrigerators and freezer[s] that
typically do not use electric defrost. During recent years, this
conversion has progressed'' and noted ``[a] major U.S. manufacturer
introduced auto-defrost refrigerators using R-600a refrigerant to the
U.S. market as early as in 2010.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several states and other countries have banned the use of HFC-134a
refrigerant in household refrigerator-freezers. The states/
commonwealths of California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont,
and Washington all have legal restrictions on refrigerator-freezers
beginning 2021 through 2023. The EU has prohibited refrigerants that
contain HFCs with a GWP greater than 150 in household refrigerator-
freezers since January 1, 2015.\116\ Commercially available and
technologically achievable lower-GWP technologies are already being
sold in these markets to comply with regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ For additional information, please refer to the EU
legislation to control F-gases web page available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/fluorinated-greenhouse-gases/eu-legislation-control-f-gases_en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new
residential refrigeration systems.
h. Chillers
Background on 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
[[Page 76786]]
cool the air that is supplied to the 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 buildings within the same complex. Chillers may also be used to
maintain operating temperatures in various types of buildings, for
example, in data centers, server farms, and agricultural/food
operations.
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 VII.F.3.a
of this preamble. 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.
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, rotary, screw, scroll, and reciprocating compressors. The
last four compressor types are also called positive displacement
chillers.
Centrifugal chillers utilize a centrifugal compressor in a vapor-
compression refrigeration cycle. They are typically used for commercial
comfort AC although other uses exist. Centrifugal chillers tend to be
used in larger buildings and can be found in office buildings, hotels,
arenas, convention halls, airport terminals, and other occupied
buildings.
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.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Chillers
EPA granted four petitions, submitted by CARB, EIA, NRDC, and IIAR,
which requested restrictions on the use of HFCs for applications
related to chillers for comfort cooling. EPA also granted five
petitions which requested restrictions on the use of HFCs for chillers
for IPR; these were submitted by AHRI, CARB, EIA, and IIAR (two
petitions).
For chillers used for comfort cooling, CARB and NRDC individually
petitioned EPA to restrict specific substances in new centrifugal
chillers and in new positive displacement chillers.\117\ In new
centrifugal chillers, these substances are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a,
HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-
417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A,
R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and THR-03. In new positive
displacement chillers, these are: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea,
KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003
composition), SP34E, and THR-03. NRDC's petition requested a compliance
date of January 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ NRDC's petition, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0289, excludes those substances subject to narrowed use limits
in the previously vacated SNAP Rule 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EIA and IIAR separately requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of
750 for new chillers used in the air conditioning sector with a
compliance date of January 1, 2024.
For new chillers used for IPR, AHRI, CARB, EIA, and IIAR (two
petitions) requested that EPA establish GWP limits. AHRI requested for
a GWP limit of 750 for all chillers but requested a compliance date of
January 1, 2024, for ``chillers (designed for chilled fluid leaving
temperature >+35 [deg]F)'' and a January 1, 2026, compliance date for
other types of chillers.\118\ CARB and EIA separately petitioned EPA to
establish a GWP limit of 750 for ``chillers for industrial process
refrigeration (new, minimum evaporator temp designed for >35 [deg]F)'';
a GWP limit of 1,500 for ``chillers for industrial process
refrigeration (new, minimum evaporator temp designed for -10 [deg]F to
35 [deg]F)''; and a GWP limit of 2,200 for ``chillers for industrial
process refrigeration (new, minimum evaporator temp designed for -58
[deg]F to -10 [deg]F).'' EIA's petition specifies a compliance date of
January 1, 2024, for these chillers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See AHRI's petition received by EPA on August 19, 2021,
available at www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0289, for other chiller types identified in their petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIAR's first petition requested that EPA establish a GWP limit of
150 for ``chillers for industrial process refrigeration (>50 lbs)''
with a compliance date of January 1, 2026. In a second petition, IIAR
requested that EPA establish the same limit for ``chillers for
industrial process refrigeration (>200 lbs),'' but a GWP limit of 300
for ``chillers for industrial process refrigeration (<200 lbs).'' \119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ EPA assumes that the ``50 lbs'' and ``200 lbs'' weight
denoted in IIAR's petition refers to the refrigerant charge capacity
of the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
chillers--comfort cooling?
EPA is proposing to restrict 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 proposed GWP limit would apply 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 proposing to restrict.
These include HCFO-1224yd(Z) (GWP 1), HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 3.7), HFO-
1234yf (GWP <1), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP <1), R-514A (GWP 3), R-454C (GWP
146), R-515B (GWP 287), R-454B (GWP 465), R-450A (GWP 601), R-513A (GWP
630), and HFC-32 (GWP 675). 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 commercially available. Under the SNAP program, EPA recently
proposed to expand the list of substitutes listed as acceptable for
chillers, and EPA anticipates these substitutes could be used as
substitutes to higher-GWP HFCs and blends containing HFCs.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See proposed SNAP Rule 25. EPA has proposed listing R-454A
(GWP 237), R-454B (GWP 465), R-452B (GWP 698), and HFC-32 (GWP 675)
as acceptable for chillers--comfort cooling (87 FR 45508, July 28,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76787]]
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
chillers--industrial process refrigeration?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for chillers--industrial process
refrigeration beginning January 1, 2025. This proposed GWP limit would
apply to new equipment, except for new equipment where the temperature
of the chilled fluid leaving the chiller (i.e., the supply temperature
to the facility) is less than -58 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C). These lower
temperature units are excluded from this proposal.
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 proposing to restrict. These
include R-717 (GWP 0), R-744 (GWP 1), R-1270 (GWP 2), R-290 (GWP 3), R-
600 (GWP 4), R-450A (GWP 601), and R-513A (GWP 630). Chillers for IPR
that use lower-GWP substitutes are currently available in both U.S. and
international markets. In the United States, chillers for IPR using R-
717, R-290, R-744, and R-513A are all available on the market.
Internationally, equipment using R-1270 is available as well.
The proposed GWP limit of 700 for chillers for IPR would enable the
use of available substitutes to manage safety (in particular,
flammability and toxicity), efficiency, capacity, temperature glide,
and other performance factors. In evaluating safety in terms of
availability of substitutes for chillers for IPR, EPA notes there may
be situations in which the use of hydrocarbons or R-717 may be limited
due to safety concerns around flammability and toxicity risks and
therefore is proposing a GWP limit that expands the number of
refrigerant options for this subsector.
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
700 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new
chillers--comfort cooling and chillers--IPR. For consideration in a
subsequent rulemaking, EPA is seeking comment on a lower GWP limit to
propose for both subsectors. EPA is also seeking comment on its
subdivision of the chiller subsector.
i. Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps
Background on Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and
Heat Pumps
The residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps 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 either cool or 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 pumps subsector includes both self-contained and
split systems. Self-contained systems include some rooftop AC units
(e.g., those ducted to supply conditioned air to multiple spaces) and
many types of room ACs, including packaged terminal air conditioners
(PTACs), packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), some rooftop AC units,
window AC units, portable room AC units, and wall-mounted self-
contained ACs, designed for use in a single room. 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. Water-source and ground-source heat
pumps often are packaged systems similar to the self-contained
equipment described in this section above but could be applied 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 called 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 units 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 units
that fit in a window with the condenser extending outside the window;
PTACs and PTHPs. These are self-contained units 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
units that are designed to be moved easily from room to room, usually
having wheels. They may contain an exhaust hose that can be placed
through a window or door to eject heat to the outside;
Water-source heat pumps (WSHPs) and ground-source heat
pumps (GSHPs). These 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; and
Variable refrigerant flow/variable refrigerant volume
systems. These are engineered direct expansion (DX) multi-split systems
incorporating the following: a split system air-conditioner or heat
pump incorporating a single
[[Page 76788]]
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 stages, with air or water as the heat source.
All of these types of air-conditioning equipment would be subject
to the restrictions on the use of HFCs under this proposal, if
finalized.
Common HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in mini-splits, multi-
splits, unitary splits, and VRF are R-410A and to a lesser extent, R-
407C, with GWPs of 2,090 and 1,770, 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.
Other types of equipment, such as window air conditioners, PTACs,
PTHPs, rooftop AC units, portable room air conditioners, and often
GSHPs and WSHPs, are self-contained equipment with the condenser,
compressor, evaporator, and tubing all within casing in a single unit.
Such self-contained equipment is generally charged with refrigerant in
a factory and later installed in its place of use. Common HFCs and
blends containing HFCs used in such equipment include R-410A and R-
134a.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat
Pumps
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 this category as ``residential and non-residential''; AHRI
refers to this category as ``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.'' \121\
AHAM did not refer to this category in general but rather 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. For the purposes of this action, EPA is considering this equipment
under the subsector ``residential and light commercial air conditioning
and heat pumps.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EIA, CARB, and AHRI petitions requested a GWP limit of 750 for
HFCs used in this subsector with a compliance date of January 1, 2025,
for most types of equipment and January 1, 2026, for VRF systems. CARB
also requested a 750 GWP and compliance date of January 1, 2023, for
window, room and portable ACs.
AHAM requested a GWP limit of 750 for substances used in portable
ACs and in the two types of room ACs included in their petition, with
two separate compliance deadlines--January 1, 2023, for portable ACs
and for room ACs without electric heat and a capacity of 25,000 Btu/hr
or less and January 1, 2024, for room ACs with electric heat and a
capacity of 25,000 Btu/hr or less. AHAM requested that room AC products
with a capacity over 25,000 Btu/hr be excluded from restrictions, since
these products require charge sizes that for flammable refrigerants
would exceed the limits allowed in UL Standard 60335-2-40, are
hermetically sealed, and comprise less than 2 percent of total
shipments. Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for new residential and light
commercial air-conditioning units and heat pumps beginning January 1,
2025. For new VRF systems, EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs
and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater beginning
January 1, 2026.
EPA is proposing to prohibit 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 or will soon be available for
use in residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pump
applications. For example, R-452B, HFC-32, and R-454B have respective
GWPs of approximately 698, 675, and 465, respectively, and are
acceptable for use under the SNAP program. Considering the lack of
refrigerants with a GWP between 700 and 750, EPA is proposing to base
its GWP cutoff at 700 rather than at 750.
EPA is proposing to prohibit HFCs and blends containing an HFC in
new residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps by January 1,
2025, and in new VRF systems by January 1, 2026, depending on the
specific application. January 1, 2025, is roughly three and a half
years after EPA's SNAP program issued listings allowing use of five
lower-GWP refrigerants for residential and light commercial AC and heat
pumps. Further, EPA anticipates that states will adopt the 2021 revised
versions of the International Building Code and the Residential
Building Code that allows for use of several lower-GWP refrigerants
that exhibit lower flammability (2L flammability classification). EPA
understands that by 2025 building codes may be updated or updates will
be under consideration which is relevant for some but not all of the
potential lower-GWP HFC refrigerants and other non-HFC substitutes.
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.122 123
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 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.
\123\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of VRF systems, the petitioner AHRI suggested a later
date of January 1, 2026. EPA agrees that more time is required for this
subsector as these AC systems are larger and more complicated--this
additional time is needed for designing, testing, and implementing the
use of substitutes in these systems. EPA notes that California has
already adopted these dates for a transition to lower-GWP refrigerants;
thus, if EPA adopts the same dates for this subsector, this would allow
for consistency nationwide.
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
700 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in residential
and light commercial air-conditioning units and heat pumps and
proposing a GWP limit of 700 for VRF systems. EPA is also seeking
comment on the additional year proposed for VRF systems. Further, EPA
is seeking comment on whether the Agency should provide an exception
for room AC products with a capacity over 25,000 Btu/hr, or some other
threshold, and any issues that these products may
[[Page 76789]]
face in using substitutes with GWPs less than 700.
j. Residential Dehumidifiers
Background on Residential Dehumidifiers
Residential dehumidifiers are 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. While AC systems
often combine cooling and dehumidification, residential dehumidifiers
only serve the latter purpose and are often used in homes for comfort
purposes. This equipment is self-contained and circulates air from a
room, passes it through a cooling coil, and collects condensed water
for disposal.
Some dehumidifiers for residential or light commercial use 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).
EPA includes this subsector under residential or light commercial AC
system or heat pump.
Similar to other subsectors under residential and light commercial
AC and heat pumps, the majority of residential dehumidifiers introduced
previously used R-410A to originally replace R-22.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Residential Dehumidifiers
EPA granted petitions submitted by CARB and AHAM which requested
restrictions on the use of HFCs for residential dehumidifiers. The CARB
petition requested a GWP limit of 750 as of January 1, 2023, for HFCs
used in this subsector. The AHAM petition also requested a GWP limit of
750 and requested a compliance date of two years after EPA approval of
HFC-32 refrigerant for dehumidifiers. EPA understands this latter
request as referring to the two years after the date that EPA finalizes
an acceptable listing for HFC-32 in residential dehumidifiers under the
SNAP program. Additional information, including the relevant petitions,
is available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
residential dehumidifiers?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for residential dehumidifiers
beginning January 1, 2025. This proposed GWP limit would apply to new
residential dehumidifiers.
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of regulated substances that
have a GWP greater than 700 because there are refrigerants listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program, or refrigerants that have been
proposed to be listed as acceptable, that have GWPs of 700 or lower.
For example, R-513A with a GWP of 630 is listed as acceptable. Through
a separate rulemaking under the SNAP program, EPA has also proposed to
list as acceptable, subject to use conditions, refrigerants such as R-
452B, HFC-32, and R-454B, with respective GWPs of approximately 698,
675, and 465 (87 FR 45508, July 28, 2022).
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of regulated substances in
residential dehumidifiers as of January 1, 2025. CARB petitioned EPA
for January 1, 2023, as the date for restrictions of HFCs for this
subsector; however, that date would not be allowable under subsection
(i)(6) of the AIM Act. AHAM's petition requested that EPA establish a
compliance date that is two years after the date that EPA would
finalize an acceptable listing for HFC-32. As noted, EPA has issued the
proposed rule and intends to finalize a rule in 2023. EPA is not tying
the proposed date for compliance with a restriction under this
subsection of the AIM Act for dehumidifiers to the timing for the
issuance of a final rule under the SNAP program. However, EPA is
proposing a date that is consistent with most other dates for
restrictions in this proposed rule; EPA is proposing restrictions on
HFCs in this subsector that would apply beginning January 1, 2025. That
said, the Agency will keep abreast of the relevant SNAP rulemakings.
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
700 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in residential
dehumidifiers.
k. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (MVAC)
Background on MVAC
MVAC systems cool the passenger compartment of light-duty (LD)
vehicles, heavy-duty (HD) vehicles (e.g., large pick-ups, delivery
trucks, and semi-trucks), nonroad (also called off-road) vehicles,
buses, and passenger rail vehicles. Systems 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. The vehicle types that are addressed in
this action include passenger cars (including electric and hybrid
passenger cars) and light-duty trucks,\124\ referred to jointly in this
action as LD vehicles, limited types of HD vehicles (i.e., medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPVs),\125\ HD pickup trucks, and complete HD
vans), and 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 (UTVs)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Defined at 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
\125\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vehicle types covered in this proposed rule include LD, MD, and
HD hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric vehicles
(EVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).\126\ Hybrids, PHEVs and EVs are
currently a small portion of the fleet but are expected to grow
rapidly, as most manufacturers have made recent public announcements
committing to billions of dollars in research towards electrification,
and in some cases, manufacturers have announced specific targets for
entirely phasing out internal combustion
engines.127 128 129 130 For example, more than 300,000 EVs,
PHEVs, and FCVs were produced in the 2020 model year (MY).\131\ Of
those vehicles, about 78 percent were EVs, 22 percent were PHEVs, less
than 1 percent were FCVs. As more EVs are introduced into the market,
use of heat pumps will
[[Page 76790]]
increase to redirect heat into vehicle cabins and control temperatures.
This may lead to the development of more energy efficient, alternative
refrigerants and technologies (e.g., dual-loop systems) for EV MVAC
systems and heat pumps in electrified vehicles, similar to SAE
International's current, industry-led Cooperative Research Program
assessing alternative refrigerants for heat pumps.132 133
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Hybrid vehicles store some propulsion energy in a battery,
and often recapture braking energy, allowing for a smaller, more
efficiently operated engine. Plug-in hybrids operate similarly to
hybrids but their batteries can be charged from an external source
of electricity, and generally have a longer electric only operating
range. Electric vehicles operate only on energy stored in a battery
that is charged from an external source of electricity, and rely
exclusively on electric motors for propulsion instead of an internal
combustion engine. Fuel cell vehicles use a fuel cell stack to
create electricity from an onboard fuel source (usually hydrogen),
which then powers an electric motor or motors to propel the vehicle.
\127\ EPA, 2021. The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013L1O.pdf.
\128\ U.S. Department of Energy. Model Year 2022 Alternative
Fuel and Advanced Technology Vehicles. Available at: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/search/download.pdf?year=2022.
\129\ U.S. Department of Energy. Electric Vehicle Basics.
Available at: https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/electric_vehicles.pdf.
\130\ Preston, B., Bartlett, J. ``Automakers Are Adding Electric
Vehicles to Their Lineups. Here's What's Coming.'' Consumer Reports.
Available at: https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the-usmarket-a9006292675/.
\131\ EPA, 2021. The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013L1O.pdf.
\132\ 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.
\133\ SAE International, 2022. Thermal Management Refrigerant
Cooperative Research Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Weight Classification
Table 5--Vehicle Weight Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty Heavy-duty vehicles
vehicles -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class ------------------
1-2a 2b & MDPV 3 4 5 6 7 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVWR (lb)....................................... <8,500 8,501-10,000 10,001-14,000 14,001-16,000 16,001-19,500 19,501-26,000 26,001-33,000 >33,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle weight classes and categories are used by the Federal
Highway Administration, the U.S. Census Bureau, and EPA. The vehicle
weight classes are defined by the Federal Highway Administration and
are used consistently throughout the industry. These classes, 1 through
8, are based on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the maximum weight
of the vehicle, as specified by the manufacturer. GVWR includes total
vehicle weight plus fluids, passengers, and cargo. EPA defines vehicle
categories, also by GVWR, for the purposes of emissions and fuel
economy certification. As illustrated in Table 5, EPA classifies
vehicles as LD (GVWR <8,500 pounds) or HD (GVWR >8,501 pounds). MDPVs,
HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans are Class 2b and 3 vehicles with
GVWRs between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds. MDPVs are classified as HD
vehicles based on their GVWR, but due to their similarities to LD
vehicles they are subject to the GHG emissions standards established
for LD trucks.
The HD vehicle types addressed in this action (i.e., MDPVs, HD
pickup trucks, and HD vans) are technologically similar to LD vehicles
and most are manufactured by companies with major LD markets in the
United States and in a similar manner to LD vehicles.\134\ Ford,
General Motors, and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler Automobiles)
produce approximately 100 percent of HD pickup trucks and approximately
95 percent of HD vans, with Mercedes-Benz (formerly Daimler) and Nissan
producing the remaining approximately five percent of HD vans.\135\ In
many cases, these types of HD vehicles are versions of their LD
counterparts.136 137 The primary difference between HD
pickup trucks and vans and their LD counterpart vehicles is that HD
pickups and vans are occupational or work vehicles that are designed
for much higher towing and payload capabilities than are LD pickups and
vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ This is more broadly true for HD pickup trucks than vans
because every manufacturer of HD pickup trucks also makes LD pickup
trucks, while only some HD van manufacturers also make LD vans. (80
FR 40148, July 13, 2015).
\135\ EPA, 2016. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Rulemaking
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2. August 2016.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100P7NS.PDF?Dockey=P100P7NS.PDF.
\136\ ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation:
Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van
Efficiency Technology in the United States. Available at: https://theicct.org/publication/regulatory-considerations-for-advancing-commercial-pickup-and-van-efficiency-technology-in-the-united-states/.
\137\ U.S. News, 2022. What Makes a Pickup Truck Heavy Duty?
Available at: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/what-makes-trucks-heavy-duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete vehicles are sold by vehicle manufacturers to end-users
with no secondary manufacturer making substantial modifications prior
to registration and use. Incomplete vehicles are sold by vehicle
manufacturers to secondary manufacturers without the primary load-
carrying device or container attached. With regard to HD pickup trucks
and vans, 90 percent are sold as complete vehicles while only 10
percent are sold as incomplete (80 FR 40331, July 13, 2015). Of the 10
percent of HD pickups and vans that are sold as incomplete vehicles to
secondary manufacturers, about half are HD pickup trucks and half are
HD vans.
Examples of modifications by secondary manufacturers to HD pickup
trucks are installing a flatbed platform or tool storage bins. EPA is
not aware of any equipment added by a secondary manufacturer to an
incomplete HD pickup truck that would result in a secondary
manufacturer modifying or adjusting the already installed MVAC system
to provide cooling capacity.
Nonroad Vehicles
Nonroad vehicles can be grouped into several categories (e.g.,
agriculture, construction, recreation, and many other purposes).\138\
The nonroad vehicles addressed in this action are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ EPA, 2021. Basic Information about the Emission Standards
Reference Guide for On-road and Nonroad Vehicles and Engines.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/basic-information-about-emission-standards-reference-guide-road and at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100K5U2.PDF?Dockey=P100K5U2.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural tractors greater than 40 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; 139 140
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Wagner, 2021. May 24, 2021, email from John Wagner of the
Association of Equipment Manufacturers to EPA. Available in the
docket.
\140\ 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;
\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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; \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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; \143\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial UTVs that are primarily used for ranching,
farming, hunting/fishing, construction,
[[Page 76791]]
landscaping, property maintenance, railroad maintenance, forestry, and
mining.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These nonroad vehicles are almost exclusively used and operated by
professionals (e.g., agricultural owners or skilled employees/
operators) and vary by size, weight, use, and/or horsepower.\145\ For
example, commercial UTVs typically weigh between 1,200 and 2,400
pounds, while agricultural tractors >40 HP typically weigh between
39,000 and 50,000 pounds.146 147 MVAC systems in these
nonroad vehicles can have charge sizes ranging from 650 grams (23
ounces) to 3,400 grams (120 ounces) depending on the manufacturer and
cab size, compared to a range of 390 grams (14 ounces) to 1,600 grams
(56 ounces) for MVAC systems in light and medium duty passenger
vehicles, HD pickups, and complete HD vans.\148\ Additionally, unlike
onroad passenger vehicles, for example, nonroad vehicles are limited to
non-highway terrain (e.g., fields, construction sites, forests, and
mines), have more robust components, are operated at low working
speeds, and there are typically a limited number of vehicles in the
same location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ EPA, 2021. Basic Information about the Emission Standards
Reference Guide for On-road and Nonroad Vehicles and Engines.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/basic-information-about-emission-standards-reference-guide-road and in the docket.
\146\ Heavy-duty vehicles are often subdivided by vehicle weight
classifications, as defined by the vehicle's gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR), which is a measure of the combined curb (empty)
weight and cargo carrying capacity of the truck. Heavy-duty vehicles
have GVWRs above 8,500. See https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/vehicle-weight-classifications-emission-standards-reference-guide.
\147\ Wagner, 2021. May 24, 2021, email from John Wagner of the
Association of Equipment Manufacturers to EPA. Available in the
docket.
\148\ ICF, 2016. Technical Support Document for Acceptability
Listing of HFO-1234yf for Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning in Limited
Heavy-Duty Applications. Available in the public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for MVAC
EPA granted two petitions which requested restrictions on the use
of HFCs for applications related to MVAC. The first was submitted by
NRDC, the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, and the
Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development and requested that
EPA restrict the use of HFC-134a in LD vehicles beginning January 1,
2023. The second petition was submitted by CARB requesting that EPA
restrict the use of HFC-134a in new LD vehicles in MY2021. Additional
information, including the relevant petitions, is available in the
docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for MVAC?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater for MVAC systems in newly
manufactured LD vehicles starting in MY 2025, as of one year after
publication of a final rule, including vehicles manufactured
exclusively for export. EPA is also proposing to restrict the use of
HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater for
MVAC systems in limited types of HD vehicles in Class 2b-3 (i.e., newly
manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans), and
certain nonroad vehicles (i.e., agricultural tractors greater than 40
HP; self-propelled agricultural machinery; compact equipment;
construction, forestry, and mining equipment; and commercial UTVs)
starting in MY 2026, including vehicles manufactured exclusively for
export.
For LD vehicles, EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and
blends containing HFCs starting in MY 2025, as of one year after
publication of a final rule, because three technologically achievable
substitutes, R-744, HFO-1234yf, and HFC-152a, meet the proposed GWP
limit of 150. HFO-1234yf is a chemical substance identified as 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1) and has a GWP of
<1.149 150 HFC-152a and R-744 have GWPs of 124 and 1,
respectively. Under SNAP, HFO-1234yf is listed as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, for new LD vehicles, MDPV, HD pick-up trucks,
complete HD vans, and certain types on nonroad vehicles.\151\ R-744 and
HFC-152a are listed under SNAP as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in new LD and HD vehicles in the United States;
152 153 however, EPA is not aware of the use or development
of HFC-152a or R-744, in any LD or HD vehicle in the United States. Use
conditions for these refrigerants under the SNAP program require
labeling and the use of unique fittings. The use conditions also
mitigate flammability and toxicity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ Nielsen et al., 2007. Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CF=CH2:
Kinetics and mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH
radicals, and O3. Chemical Physics Letters 439, 18-22. Available at:
www.lexissecuritiesmosaic.com/gateway/FedReg/network_OJN_174_CF3CF=CH2.pdf.
\150\ Papadimitriou et al., 2007. CF3CF=CH2 and (Z)-CF3CF=CHF:
temperature dependent OH rate coefficients and global warming
potentials. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2007, Vol. 9, p. 1-13.
Available at: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2008/CP/b714382f.
\151\ HFO-1234yf is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new LD passenger cars and trucks (76 FR 17488, March
29, 2011), new MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans (81 FR
86778, December 1, 2016), and new nonroad vehicles (86 FR 26276, May
4, 2022) at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
\152\ CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G;
final rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33315).
\153\ HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G;
final rule published June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33304).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234yf has gained significant market share in LD vehicles in
the United States since its introduction in MY 2013.\154\ According to
the 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report, approximately 85 percent of MY
2020 LD vehicles sold used HFO-1234yf and some manufacturers have
implemented HFO-1234yf across their entire vehicle brands.\155\ EPA
considers MY 2025 the date by which automobile manufacturers would be
able to redesign the MVAC system of the remaining 15 percent of LD
vehicle models for use with a lower-GWP refrigerant, consistent with
the use conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.''
\155\ EPA, 2021. The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013L1O.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, lower-GWP refrigerants, such as HFO-1234yf, are
predominantly being used in new LD vehicles in Europe and Japan.\156\
For example, the proposed 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 MVAC systems. The directive sets
a GWP limit of 150 for refrigerants used in MVAC systems installed in
any LD vehicle sold in the European market after 2017, regardless of
its model year. This proposed rule would harmonize with the Directive
and allow adequate lead time for manufacturers to transition to lower
GWP refrigerants. Similar to the Directive, EPA is proposing to limit
the GWP of refrigerants used in LD MVACs rather than specifying the use
of a particular refrigerant or system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA previously considered the MY by which manufacturers of LD
vehicles would be able to transition from use of
[[Page 76792]]
HFC-134a for LD vehicles in support of the July 2015 SNAP final rule
(80 FR 42870, July 20, 2015) and greenhouse gas and fuel economy
standards for MY 2017-2025 LD vehicles issued jointly by EPA and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on August 28, 2012.\158\
For this action, EPA is proposing that restrictions on 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, start
in MY 2025 and become effective one year after publication of a final
rule. This is because a manufacturer's annual production period or
model year could be as early as January 1 of the previous calendar
year. Therefore, MY 2025 vehicles could be manufactured as early as
January 1, 2024, which may be earlier than the effective date of a
final rule. EPA is seeking comment on whether the Agency should propose
restrictions for LD vehicles with a calendar year compliance date
(e.g., January 1, 2025) rather than a model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ 77 FR 62624, 62807-810 (October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR
25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue for MY
2012-2016 light-duty vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, complete HD vans, and certain nonroad
vehicles addressed in this action, EPA is proposing to restrict the use
of HFCs and blends containing HFCs starting MY 2026, because at least
three technologically achievable substitutes, R-744, HFO-1234yf, and
HFC-152a, meet the proposed GWP limit of 150. EPA is also seeking
comment on whether the Agency should propose restrictions for MDPVs, HD
trucks, complete HD vans, and certain nonroad vehicles with a calendar
year compliance date (e.g., January 1, 2026) rather than a model year.
HFO-1234yf was listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in
2016 under SNAP for new MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, complete HD vans and
is in use or under various stages of development for these vehicle
types. Because of the similarities in the MVAC systems used for these
vehicles and LD vehicles, EPA considers January 1, 2026, the date by
which it will be feasible for manufacturers to safely, but
expeditiously, transition MVAC systems for these vehicle types.
EPA is proposing that the GWP limit of 150 or greater for MVAC
systems apply to vehicles covered in this proposed rule that are
manufactured exclusively for export. In the July 2015 SNAP final rule
(80 FR 42870, July 20, 2015), based on comments received on the
proposed rule (79 FR 46126, August 6, 2014), EPA established a narrowed
use limit for MVAC systems in LD vehicles exported to countries that
did not have infrastructure to service vehicles containing the
alternatives found to pose less overall risk. The narrowed use limit
allows for the use of HFC-134 in MVACs until MY 2026. EPA understands
that certain countries to which vehicles are exported do not, and may
not for some period of time, have in place the infrastructure for
servicing MVAC systems with lower-GWP, flammable refrigerants (e.g.,
HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a). EPA seeks comment regarding the technical
feasibility of servicing MY 2027 and later model vehicles manufactured
for export with lower-GWP refrigerants (e.g., HFO-1234yf).
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in MVAC systems
in newly manufactured LD vehicles starting in MY 2025, as of one year
after publication of a final rule, including vehicles manufactured
exclusively for export. EPA is also requesting comment on the proposal
to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP
of 150 or greater for MVAC systems in limited types of HD vehicles in
Class 2b-3 and certain nonroad vehicles starting in MY 2026, including
vehicles manufactured exclusively for export. Additionally, EPA is
requesting comment on the proposal to establish GWP limit restrictions
for MVAC based on calendar year rather than model year.
4. Foam Blowing
Background
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 foam
plastics manufacturing industries, the markets they serve, and the
blowing agents used are extremely varied. The range of uses 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.
Historically, a variety of foam blowing agents have been used for
these applications. CFCs and HCFCs were typically used. In the early
1990s, ahead of the CAA and Montreal Protocol CFC phaseout, regulations
implementing section 610 of the CAA included bans on the sale or
distribution of foam products blown with CFCs and HCFCs, with an
exception only for HCFCs used for foam insulation products as defined
at 40 CFR 82.62. Blowing agents which remain in a liquid state at room
temperature have been used more commonly in polyisocyanurate,
polyurethane and phenolic foams, such as CFC-11, CFC-113, HCFC-141b,
HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc. Blowing agents that are gases at room
temperature have more commonly been used in polyolefin and polystyrene
foams, such as CFC-12, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, HFC-134a, and HFC-152a.
The foam blowing subsectors addressed in this action include:
Flexible polyurethane includes open-cell foam in
furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles;
Integral skin polyurethane includes open-cell foam used in
car steering wheels, dashboards, upholstery, and shoe soles;
Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation
for roofing and walls;
Polyolefin (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene) includes
foam sheets and tubes;
Polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet includes
closed cell insulation for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes;
Polystyrene--extruded sheet includes closed cell foam for
packaging and buoyancy or flotation;
Rigid polyurethane--appliance foam includes insulation
foam in domestic refrigerators and freezers and hot water heaters;
Rigid polyurethane--slabstock and other includes
insulation for panels and pipes, taxidermy foam, and miscellaneous uses
of rigid polyurethane foam;
Rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration includes
insulation for vending machines, coolers, commercial refrigeration
equipment, pipes, shipping containers for perishable goods, and
refrigerated transport vehicles; \159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ As described in greater detail in section VII.C of this
preamble above, EPA is proposing an exemption for certain
applications as long as they are receiving application-specific
allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the Act, including
structural composite preformed polyurethane foam for trailer use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid polyurethane--sandwich panels include insulation
panels for walls and metal doors;
Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock
[[Page 76793]]
includes laminated board insulation for roofing and walls;
Rigid polyurethane--marine flotation foam includes
buoyancy or flotation foams; \160\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ As described in greater detail in section VII.C above, EPA
is proposing an exemption for certain applications as long as they
are receiving application-specific allowances under subsection
(e)(4)(B) of the Act, including structural composite preformed
polyurethane foam for marine use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spray foam is applied in situ and includes insulation for
building envelopes, roofing, walls, doors, and other construction uses,
as well as foam for building breakers for pipelines. Spray foam is
broken down further into rigid polyurethane high-pressure two-
component, rigid polyurethane low-pressure two-component, and rigid
polyurethane 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 those three applications, see the preamble
to SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86778 at 86846-86847, December 1, 2016).
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Foam Blowing
EPA granted five petitions which requested restrictions on the use
of HFCs for foam blowing. Petitions were submitted separately by NRDC
and by CARB, both requesting that EPA restrict certain HFCs in:
Rigid Polyurethane (PU) and Polyisocyanurate Laminated
Boardstock. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends
thereof;
Rigid Polyurethane--Slabstock and Other. Specifically,
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6;
Rigid Polyurethane--Appliance Foam. Specifically, HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6;
Rigid Polyurethane--Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich
Panels. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6;
Rigid Polyurethane--Marine Flotation Foam. Specifically,
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6;
Rigid PU--high-pressure two-component spray foam.
Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc;
and Formacel TI.
Rigid PU--one-component foam sealants. Specifically, HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at least
four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to
13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel TI;
Flexible Polyurethane. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,
HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof;
Integral Skin Polyurethane. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-
245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6;
Polystyrene--Extruded Sheet. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-
245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6;
Polystyrene--Extruded Boardstock and Billet. Specifically,
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI,
Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6;
Polyolefin. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc,
and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel Z-6;
Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock. Specifically, HFC-
143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; and
Rigid PU--low-pressure two-component spray foam.
Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc;
and Formacel TI.
NRDC requested a January 1, 2023, compliance date for most foam
blowing subsectors listed, except for ``military or space- and
aeronautics-related applications'' in rigid PU--high-pressure two-
component spray foam and rigid PU--low-pressure two-component spray
foam. For military or space- and aeronautics-related applications in
these two subsectors, NRDC requested a January 1, 2025, compliance
date. For all foam blowing subsectors, CARB requested that EPA ``not
select later compliance dates than those provided in [SNAP] Rules 20
and 21.''
DuPont Performance Building Solutions submitted two petitions, one
requesting that EPA restrict the use of HFC-134a in polystyrene--
extruded boardstock and billet by January 1, 2023, and the second
requesting that EPA restrict the use of HFCs \161\ in rigid
polyurethane--low-pressure two-component spray foam by January 1, 2022.
The final petition for foams was submitted by the American Chemistry
Council's Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI), requesting that
EPA restrict HFC use for the polyurethane industry.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ DuPont's second petition requests EPA to ``. . . reinstate
SNAP Rule 21 with regard to Rigid Polyurethane Low-pressure Two-
component Spray Foam (2K-LP SPF) end-use. . .''.
\162\ CPI requested that to reinstate the restrictions on the
use of HFC foam blowing agents in the polyurethanes industry that
were originally promulgated in EPA's Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Rules 20 and 21 effective January 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for foam
blowing?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs with a GWP of 150 or greater for new phenolic insulation board and
bunstock; polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet; rigid
polyurethane--appliance foam; rigid polyurethane--slabstock and other;
rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration; rigid polyurethane--
sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane--marine flotation foam; and spray
foam (rigid polyurethane high-pressure two-component, rigid
polyurethane low-pressure two component, rigid polyurethane one-
component foam sealants) beginning January 1, 2025. For new flexible
polyurethane; integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin; polystyrene--
extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, EPA is proposing to fully restrict the use of HFCs and
blends containing HFCs beginning January 1, 2025. This proposal would
in effect prohibit the use of regulated substances for these foam
subsectors.
HFCs have been widely used as blowing agents in rigid polyurethane
insulation foam (e.g., appliance, commercial refrigeration, sandwich
panels, and spray) 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 of greater concern. Over the past ten years, the
number of available substitutes, both fluorinated and non-fluorinated,
has increased, and the variety of uses for acceptable blowing agents
has also expanded. These include carbon dioxide (GWP 0), light
saturated
[[Page 76794]]
hydrocarbons with three to six carbons (GWP <1), methyl formate (GWP
11), HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 3.7), and HFO-1336mzz(Z) (GWP 2).
The opportunity to use HCs, CO2, and water in the 1990s
for a range of foam blowing applications in the United States has
allowed many foam blowing subsectors and applications to transition
directly from ODS to available substitutes, thus reducing the
subsectors that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have been a lower-GWP and
cost-effective substitute available 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. HCs
also are used in most of the other subsectors, but less extensively
than in these five subsectors. In EPA's consideration of safety of
available substitutes, flammability of foam blowing agents, including
HCs, 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. In addition, other non-fluorinated
compounds such as methyl formate and methylal are being used as blowing
agents, alone or in combination with other compounds, particularly for
use as a blowing agent in polyurethane foams.
EPA is proposing to exclude space vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR
84.3, from the proposed use restriction for spray foams. Such equipment
faces unparalleled and highly demanding operating conditions and
requires long lead times for their 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.
A number of new fluorinated chemicals with lower GWPs have been
introduced as foam blowing agents during the past several years. Many
end users have indicated interest in these newer foam blowing agents,
often to improve energy efficiency of the foam products manufactured
with the foam blowing agent. For example, EPA's SNAP program has listed
HCFO-1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(E), and HFO-1336mzz(Z) as
acceptable. These newer substitutes, which do not raise the
flammability concerns of HCs, may prove appropriate for subsectors
where highly flammable blowing agents raise safety concerns. The
process and timing for retooling facilities that use the 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 useful foam
blowing agents with lower GWP than other HFCs. For example, 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 have recently starting
using blowing agents that are blends of HFC-152a and non-HFCs such as
CO2, HFO-1234ze(E), and/or HFO-1336mzz(Z), in order to
transition away from using HFC-134a.
For the flexible polyurethane; integral skin polyurethane;
polyolefin; polystyrene--extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock subsectors, EPA understands that
there is little or no use of HFCs. As noted, water and HCs are commonly
used available substitutes used as blowing agents for flexible
polyurethane, polyolefin, polystyrene--extruded sheet, and rigid
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs for new phenolic
insulation board and bunstock; polystyrene--extruded boardstock and
billet; rigid polyurethane--appliance foam; rigid polyurethane--
slabstock and other; rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration;
rigid polyurethane--sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane--marine
flotation foam; and spray foam (rigid polyurethane high-pressure two-
component, rigid polyurethane low-pressure two component, rigid
polyurethane one-component foam sealants). EPA is also requesting
comment on proposing to fully restrict HFCs and blends containing HFCs
for new flexible polyurethane; integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin;
polystyrene--extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
5. Aerosols
Background on 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 and many also contain a
solvent. The propellant, typically a gas at atmospheric pressure but a
pressurized liquid in the product canister, is emitted during use. In
addition to propellants, some aerosols also contain a solvent. 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 industrial spray paints
and document preservation sprays.
In this proposed rule and as discussed previously in section VII.C
of this preamble, EPA is proposing an exemption for certain
applications as long as they are receiving application-specific
allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the Act, including for certain
aerosol applications. Subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv) of the AIM Act lists six
applications which are to ``receive the full quantity of allowances
necessary, based on projected, current, and historical trends'' for the
five-year period after enactment of the AIM Act. Under the implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 84.13, the following applications which typically
use aerosols are currently eligible to receive application-specific
allowances for calendar years through 2025: (1) for a propellant in
metered-dose inhalers, (2) in the manufacture of defense sprays, and
(3) for mission-critical military end uses. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to apply the requirements under this rulemaking to these uses
of HFCs in these applications at this time, since they are currently
receiving application-specific allowances under 40 CFR 84.13.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Aerosols
EPA granted three petitions, submitted by NRDC, CARB, and HCPA with
the National Aerosol Association (HCPA/NAA), which requested
restrictions on the use of HFCs for applications related to aerosol
[[Page 76795]]
propellants. NRDC submitted a petition under subsection (i) of the AIM
Act that requested EPA to replicate the provisions contained in SNAP
Rules 20 and 21. Petitioners requested a start date for the
restrictions of January 1, 2023.
HCPA/NAA submitted a petition that requested EPA prohibit the use
of specific HFCs as aerosol propellants starting January 1, 2023;
however, the petitioners also requested that EPA except the use of HFCs
in certain types of aerosols (e.g., cleaning products for removal of
grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment).
CARB submitted a petition that requested EPA regulations should not
limit States' ability to further limit or phase out the use of HFCs in
their jurisdictions.
Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for aerosols?
EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs in new aerosols that have a GWP of 150 or greater beginning
January 1, 2025. Available aerosol propellants that meet this proposed
GWP limit include HFC-152a (GWP 124), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP <1), dimethyl
ether (GWP 1), saturated light hydrocarbons (GWP 3-10), and
CO2 (GWP 1). Manufacturers have transitioned to HFC-152a,
saturated light hydrocarbons, HFOs, compressed gases, and oxygenated
organic compounds (e.g., dimethyl ether).\163\ Available aerosol
solvents that meet this GWP include HCFO-1233yd(Z) (GWP<1), HFO-
1336mzz(Z) (GWP 2), methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) (GWP
2.5), HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 3.7), HFE-569sf2 (GWP 59), and petroleum
hydrocarbons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Transitioning to Low-GWP Alternatives in Aerosols, EPA,
December 2016. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/transitioning_to_low-gwp_alternatives_in_aerosols.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in aerosol products.
In SNAP Rule 20, EPA allowed the use of HFC-134a for certain
aerosol propellant applications because of technical limitations, such
as a requirement for non-flammability and/or a specific vapor pressure.
EPA has received information that indicates some of these applications
may still require use of HFC-134a as a propellant; however, from our
own research, we are aware of possible substitutes with lower
GWPs.\164\ \165\ Nevertheless, in this proposal, EPA is not explicitly
proposing exceptions. We are taking 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, namely:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ See email from HCPA to EPA, dated August 8, 2022.
\165\ See Evaluation of Continued Need for HFC-134a in Specific
Aerosol Propellant Applications memo in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 spinnerettes 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.
We also are interested in comments related to whether these uses
that were excepted under SNAP Rule 20 have transitioned or can
transition to a lower GWP propellant. If a commenter suggests including
an exception for use of HFC-134a in an aerosol application, we would
also be interested in any supporting data and information to explain
why the exception is needed.
EPA is aware that HFC-43-10mee (GWP 1,640) and HFC-245fa (GWP
1,030) may still be in use as aerosol solvents, particularly in niche
applications. We are taking comment on whether this or other HFCs are
currently being used as aerosol solvents. If so, we ask that commenters
include specific information on the application and what would be
needed to transition to a lower GWP solvent.
G. For what additional sectors or subsectors is EPA requesting advance
information on the use of HFCs?
Heat Pump Water Heaters
Heat pump water heaters (HPWH) are an energy-efficient alternative
to electric-resistance and combustion water heaters. Instead of heating
water by running electrical current through heating elements, or via
fossil fuel combustion, HPWHs use a vapor-compression refrigerant cycle
(the same basic mechanism used by standard heat pumps, air
conditioners, and refrigerators) to transfer heat from the surrounding
air to heat water.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ Heat Pump Water Heaters, U.S. Department of Energy.
Information available at: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-water-heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HPWHs are sold in the residential and commercial markets. The
integral design comprises a condenser combined with the storage tank in
one unit, where the heating components are installed at the top of the
storage tank. A split-system design differs from the integral design in
that it has a separate heat pump and storage tank, which can be
connected via refrigerant lines or water lines. Most HPWHs historically
and today contain the refrigerant HFC-134a. Some larger, commercial
models use R-410A for the low temperature cycle and HFC-134a at the
high temperature cycle.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Kleefkens, Onno M.Sc., Heat Pump Centre, Refrigerants for
Heat Pump Water Heaters, December 2019. Available at: https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/annex46/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2020/10/hpt-an46-04-task-1-refrigerants-for-heat-pump-water-heaters-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is seeking information on current uses of HFCs in HPWHs
to inform potential future regulatory decisions. EPA is not proposing
any regulatory requirements with respect to HPWHs in this rulemaking.
EPA is specifically requesting information in response to the following
questions:
1. What are the main reasons for the continued use of HFCs in HPWHs
and for which applications?
2. What work is underway to identify suitable lower-GWP
alternatives?
3. What would be the timeline for use of alternatives?
VIII. What are the proposed enforcement and compliance provisions?
EPA seeks to deter, identify, and penalize the import, manufacture,
sale, purchase, or distribution of products and other activities that
would be prohibited under the proposed
[[Page 76796]]
restrictions on the use of HFCs. Consistent with EPA's explanation in
the Allocation Framework Rule, based on prior experience with the ODS
phaseout in the United States, and global experiences transitioning
from ODS and HFCs, EPA anticipates there will be attempts to introduce
prohibited products in the United States.
Proposed tools for encouraging compliance and aiding enforcement
include requirements to label regulated products, to report the import
or manufacture of products using HFCs, a prohibition on import or
manufacture of regulated products above the allowable GWP level or
using a proposed restricted substance, and recordkeeping in support of
the reporting requirement. EPA seeks to ensure a level playing field
for the regulated community and discourage the illegal manufacture,
import, distribution, purchase, or sale of prohibited products.
A. What is EPA proposing for labeling requirements?
EPA is proposing to require information on labels for regulated
products in the sectors and subsectors covered by this proposed rule.
Knowing what HFC or blend containing an HFC is used in a product is a
necessary step to ensuring that the use of HFCs complies with the
restrictions to be established through this rulemaking for the
respective sectors and subsectors.
EPA is proposing on-product labeling for all regulated products in
the covered sectors and subsectors of this proposed rule. For products
that use HFCs or blends containing an HFC, EPA is proposing that the
label include (1) the HFC or blend containing an HFC used in the
product; (2) the GWP of that HFC or blend containing an HFC, labeled as
``global warming potential''; and (3) the date of manufacture, or at a
minimum, the four-digit year.
For products that are intended for use with HFCs or blends
containing an HFC, EPA is proposing that the unfilled products be
labeled to indicate (1) the HFC(s) or blend(s) containing an HFC
intended for use in the product; and (2) the GWP of the HFC(s) or
blend(s) containing an HFC, labeled as ``global warming potential.''
EPA further proposes that at the time of first charge the label must be
marked or a new label must be added to indicate: (1) the HFC or blend
containing an HFC used in the product, (2) the GWP of that HFC or blend
containing an HFC, labeled as ``global warming potential;'' and (3) the
date of first charge, or at a minimum, the four-digit year. The new
label would only need to include (1) and (2) if they are different from
what is listed on the first label or if the first label indicates that
the product is intended for use with multiple HFCs or blends containing
HFCs. If a new label is added, it must be affixed near but not covering
the original label. EPA proposes this structure as it would allow
purchasers to determine whether the product is compliant and discourage
the manufacture, import, distribution, purchase, or sale of products
that are intended for use with prohibited HFCs and would allow the
Agency to assess compliance of the products both before and after they
are charged. EPA requests comment on whether field-charged products
should be required to be labeled prior to being filled with an HFC or
if the label should only be required once the product contains an HFC
or blend containing an HFC. EPA also requests comment on how to best
structure labeling requirements for products that are intended for use
with multiple regulated substances and if requiring that each regulated
substance that could be used be included on the label is useful.
Additionally, EPA is proposing that labels for products in the
following subsectors indicate whether the full charge is greater than,
equal to, or less than 200 pounds: (1) IPR, (2) retail food
refrigeration--supermarket systems, (3) retail food refrigeration--
remote condensing units, and (4) cold storage warehouses. The GWP limit
varies based on that charge size threshold in these subsectors, thus
EPA is proposing a statement about the charge size be included in the
label for the purposes of ensuring compliance.
EPA notes that other markets including the EU and United Kingdom
require labels with similar information requirements for many products
containing HFCs.\168\ \169\ These labeling requirements that are
already in place in other markets indicate that the requirements are
feasible for the regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ 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://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG.
\169\ Labelling F-gas equipment you produce, import or install,
UK Environment Agency, August 2019. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/labelling-f-gas-equipment-you-produce-import-or-install.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing that the permanent label must 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, EPA is
proposing to require that labels or a description of the required
information be clearly included in product information, either in the
text description or photo of the product, for products being sold
electronically through eCommerce platforms. Regulated products would
need to have the required information clearly visible in either the
photos of the product or the description of the item. If a regulated
product is contained within a box or other overpack that reaches the
ultimate consumer, EPA is proposing that the exterior packaging must
also contain a label consistent with the formatting requirements
described previously. For imported products, labels must be visible and
readily available for inspection.
EPA requests comment regarding whether on-product labels may not be
practicable for certain products. If such products are identified,
commenters should provide information on alternative labeling methods
that EPA should consider in those instances. One such alternative could
be including the required information on packaging materials with the
product (e.g., tag, pamphlet, or box containing the product). This
associated packaging would need to be present with the product at the
point of sale and import to fulfill the labeling requirement.
Another alternative could be to allow the information to be
accessed by an on-product QR code instead of a traditional label. In
order to fulfill the labeling requirement, the QR code would need to
direct the consumer to a website that readily shows the required
information and meets the requirements of the on-product label. EPA
believes that products using a QR code also include adjacent text to
indicate the purpose of the QR code, stating that the QR code contains
HFC information. A QR code may be useful for products where there is
limited space for on-product labels or the accompanying packaging. A
nonfunctional or unreadable QR code would not fulfill the labeling
requirement and would be treated as a missing QR code. For products
being sold through eCommerce, the QR code would not be sufficient on
its own and the product description on the eCommerce site would also
have to contain the required information. The QR codes would not be
issued by EPA and are separate from the QR codes required under the
Allocation Framework Rule at Sec. 84.23. EPA requests comment on if QR
codes should be allowed to fulfill the labeling
[[Page 76797]]
requirement for all products, only products where traditional labels
are not practicable, or not at all and what benefits or challenges
allowing QR codes may pose. EPA also requests comment on alternative
methods that may be used to mark or otherwise label the product itself
that would be sufficient to convey the required information (for
example, color coding to identify the use of a regulated substance or
date codes to identify date of manufacture).
EPA is proposing that as of the applicable compliance date, no
person may sell or distribute, offer for sale or distribution, make
available to sell or distribute, or import in the sectors and
subsectors of the proposed rule a regulated product that contains, was
manufactured with, or is intended for use with HFCs that lacks a label
consistent with the requirements of this section. EPA proposes that
regulated products lacking a label are presumed to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global
warming potential equal to or greater than the limit proposed in this
rule.
EPA is requesting comment on whether there should be a standardized
process to correct missing or inaccurate labels on products, and if so,
what that should be. A potential option EPA is considering would be to
allow any entity within the distribution chain to label or re-label a
product within their possession if they find it to be missing a label
or mislabeled. EPA is also seeking comment on whether entities seeking
to correct a labeling error should be required to report the initial
labeling violation to the Agency. A corrected label would need to
comply with all relevant labeling requirements. Further, EPA would
anticipate that the entity doing the relabeling would conduct due
diligence to ensure that the new label is accurate and meets the
proposed labeling requirements in this rule. Allowing relabeling could
reduce the number of products that may be discarded due to missing or
incorrect labels, as they would not need to be returned to the importer
or manufacturer. However, it may not be a cost that a distributor of a
product is willing to bear, given the responsibility to correctly label
products is with the manufacturer or importer.
The proposed 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 state through the label that the HFC being used and its
GWP reinforces their compliance with the limits to be established
through this rulemaking. Accurate labeling information would also
support 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 proposed labeling and packaging requirements may
also ease inspection by EPA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) as appropriate, and facilitate efforts to prevent the import or
manufacture of noncompliant products. Clearly and visibly identifying
the HFC or blend containing an HFC used in the product would provide
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 could provide consumers with information about
whether a product uses an HFC or blend containing an HFC and its GWP.
This information may alter consumer purchasing choices and could
increase market pressure for the transition away from products that use
HFCs.
EPA recognizes that in this rulemaking the proposed definition of
``products'' includes components. EPA is considering how to best
address components that are intended for use with HFCs but do not
contain a regulated substance when shipped--i.e., is not a regulated
product when shipped--and whether instead of requiring each individual
component be labeled, the Agency should allow labeling of a subset of
the components of a single system to fulfill the requirement once the
full and proper amount of HFC or blend containing an HFC is added. For
example, for a supermarket refrigeration system, EPA requests comment
on whether each individual case within the same subsector and using the
same regulated substance in that system should be labeled or if
labeling a subset of the cases and/or other components of the system in
accordance with the proposed requirements would be sufficient. EPA
seeks comment on the benefits and challenges of allowing labeling a
subset of components to fulfill the requirement, along with specific
sectors or subsectors where this option should be considered. EPA also
seeks comment on how it can provide clarity on which components are
covered and which are not.
EPA seeks to design this proposal in a way that would minimize
compliance burden on the regulated community while maintaining the
necessary components for identifying and deterring noncompliance.
First, EPA recognizes that there may be products for which on-product
labels are not practicable and is requesting comment on alternative
labeling methods EPA should consider that would provide similar
enforceability. For products that are identified with a valid rationale
for why on-products labels cannot be used, EPA is considering whether
to allow the required information to be included in packaging materials
or available through an on-product QR code.
Second, existing labels that meet the proposed requirements and
include the required information would be sufficient. EPA recognizes
that certain information is already provided on products through
existing UL labels, nameplates, or other labels on the product or
packaging with the product at the time of import and sale. For
instance, a nameplate or certification sticker on a pre-charged air
conditioner might already contain the date of manufacture, the
refrigerant, and the charge size, and could be modified by including
the GWP of the refrigerant. Likewise, the label on a household
refrigerator-freezer could be modified to include the additional
information needed for the refrigerant and also the information
regarding the foam insulation. EPA requests comment on the proposal to
allow existing labels that contain required information to satisfy the
labeling requirements or if EPA should instead consider requiring a
separate standardized label containing all the required information.
EPA recognizes that products exist within the sectors and
subsectors covered by this proposed rule that do not contain or use any
regulated substance. EPA is considering developing a standardized
voluntary label for these products that would clearly state that the
product does not use HFCs. This voluntary label could assist compliance
with the proposed prohibitions by indicating that the product does not
use an HFC or blend containing an HFC. This would eliminate the
ambiguity associated with an unlabeled product in a controlled sector
or subsector (i.e., the product does not use an HFC and does not need
to be labeled; or the product uses an HFC and is mislabeled). This
voluntary label would also provide consumers with additional
information regarding HFCs and allow them to more easily differentiate
between products based on whether they use HFCs. Similar voluntary
labeling continues to be included on aerosol products to indicate they
do not use CFCs despite a prohibition on such use since 1994. (See
82.64(c)). EPA requests comment on the value of a voluntary label that
[[Page 76798]]
affirmatively states that the product does not use HFCs and any
benefits or challenges that such a label may pose.
EPA is considering whether to establish an administrative process
to address products that have been found to be mislabeled or lacking a
proper label. In the Allocation Framework Rule, EPA included a system
of administrative consequences as one method to deter illegal
production or import of HFCs. Under that program, EPA may adjust an
entity's production or consumption allowances by retiring, revoking, or
withholding them depending on the circumstances. EPA provides notice to
a company of an impending administrative consequence, and then the
company has an opportunity to respond prior to the Agency taking any
final action. The administrative consequences do 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 the proposed rule for establishing labeling
provisions is to support the enforcement of prohibitions on the use of
certain HFCs and blends containing HFCs that exceed the proposed GWP
limits or are otherwise prohibited. Not providing a label or
mislabeling a product hampers EPA's ability to enforce those
prohibitions. The administrative process considered here would have the
purpose of quickly correcting mislabeled or unlabeled products. EPA is
considering the option of creating a website that would provide a list
of entities that manufacture, import, export, sell, distribute, or
offer for sale or distribution products 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). In this scenario,
EPA would employ similar processes for notification and response
finalized in 40 CFR subpart A. This would include notifying the entity
of the Agency's finding that a regulated product or products is
mislabeled or lacking a label, and of our intent to list them as not
meeting the subsection (i) labeling provisions. The Agency would
provide thirty days from the initial notification for the entity to
respond, after which the entity would be publicly listed on the EPA's
website. The entity could be listed on the EPA website for a minimum
set time frame, such as a year. To be removed from the website, EPA is
considering whether the entity would be required to submit a
demonstration that the labeling issue has been resolved along with
measures that the entity has put in place to reduce the likelihood of
future labeling problems.
EPA requests comment on whether an administrative process as
described above would support compliance with these provisions. Also,
the Agency is interested in whether there are additional or alternative
actions that the Agency could consider to aid compliance with the
subsection (i) labeling provisions, including whether entities that are
listed on EPA's website as lacking proper labels could be fully
restricted from using (e.g., manufacture, import, sale, export, offer
for sale or distribution) any regulated substance for a set period of
time. Additionally, if the listed entity receives production or
consumption allowances, the Agency requests comment on whether EPA
could use its authority under subsection (e) to revoke or reduce the
entity's next allocation as a consequence for mislabeling products
under subsection (i).
B. What potential auditing and third-party testing programs is EPA
seeking advance information on?
EPA is asking for advance information on a variety of options for
third-party testing and auditing that it is considering pursuing in a
future rulemaking to strengthen compliance with requirements that may
be established in this rulemaking and potential future rulemakings
under subsection (i). Such auditing and third-party testing programs
would facilitate the verification that products and equipment imported,
manufactured, sold, or distributed within the United States contain
allowable HFCs. Audits would also serve the important function of
testing to ensure that products and equipment use allowable HFCs and
that labels identifying the HFCs are accurate. Audits would assist with
finding illegal products and removing them from the United States
market and help deter noncompliance, incentivize future compliance, and
ensure that companies that are complying with statutory and regulatory
obligations are not put at a competitive disadvantage. EPA is
considering a multifaceted approach for auditing and is soliciting
advance information on the aspects of auditing programs discussed in
the following sections, including the merits of the options discussed.
Numerous economic studies have found that third-party auditing
improves company and individual compliance with the
law.170 171 172 EPA has used third-party auditing to
improve regulatory compliance in rules, including the Renewable Fuel
Standard program.\173\ As noted in a Renewable Fuel Standard
rulemaking, there is expert consensus that well-implemented third-party
auditing is a good use of limited enforcement and oversight
resources.\174\ Independent and objective audits are a valuable tool to
improve compliance among all companies, not just those with covert
malicious intent to be inaccurate or unfair in their auditing or
reporting. EPA is seeking advance information on the advantages and
disadvantages of developing an auditing program to ensure compliance
and input on how to structure such a program. EPA does not intend to
finalize an auditing program as part of this proposed rule but seeks to
gather information that the Agency believes will be useful to inform a
potential future proposal. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to respond
to any advance information received on the options discussed in this
section in any final rulemaking for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ Esther Duflo, Michael Greenstone, Rohini Pande, and
Nicholas Ryan, ``Truth-Telling by Third-Party Auditors and the
Response of Polluting Firms: Experimental Evidence from India,''
Journal of Economics (2013), 1499-1545. doi:10.1093/qje/qjt024.
\171\ Henrik Kleven, Martin Knudsen, Claus Kreiner, S[oslash]ren
Pedersen, and Emmanuel Saez, ``Unwilling or Unable to Cheat?
Evidence From a Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark.'' Econometrica, 79:
651-692. (2011) https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA9113.
\172\ Marcelo B[eacute]rgolo, Rodrigo Ceni, Guillermo Cruces,
Matias Giaccobasso, and Ricardo Perez-Truglia, ``Tax Audits as
Scarecrows: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment,'' NBER
Working Paper No. 23631 July 2017, Revised January 2020 JEL No. C93,
H26, K42.
\173\ More information on the Renewable Fuel Standard program
available at: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program.
\174\ 79 FR 42080, July 18, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Who should be subject to the independent third-party testing and
audits?
EPA is seeking advance information on the framework for a third-
party testing program and is considering several different options for
this framework. The first option would be to require manufacturers of
regulated products to receive a third-party certification that the
products are compliant with this proposed rule. Under this option, any
manufacturer or importer of regulated products would be required to
show that the product is certified compliant with subsection (i) use
restrictions before that product could be imported, offered for sale,
sold, or otherwise distributed. It would be prohibited to import into
the United
[[Page 76799]]
States or domestically manufacture any uncertified regulated product.
The certification process would include registering the manufacturer or
importer into a third-party certification system that would have the
authority to test and verify products and report their findings
directly to EPA. Accordingly, EPA anticipates that this option could
involve use of foreign third-party certifiers.
An alternative to product certification for regulated products
would be to require a representative sample of all domestically
manufactured and imported regulated products to be tested for
compliance by a third-party at the point of manufacture (in the case of
domestically manufactured products), or on import (i.e., at the ports
in the case of importers). For imported products, EPA could consider
options that would allow for samples to be provided prior to arrival in
the U.S. or be tested following release. Another option EPA is
considering would require that all retailers that sell, offer for sale,
distribute, or make available for sale or distribution regulated
products to register and participate in a third-party auditing program.
Under this structure, third-party auditors would select a certain
number of products to test for compliance per year and report the
results to EPA.
EPA is seeking specific comment on the relative strengths and
weaknesses of these approaches to testing and auditing, and whether
they are optimally used singly or in combination. To facilitate such
comment, EPA notes that it believes a strength of the manufacturer and
importer-focused third-party certification for all products that may
contain HFCs is that it would reduce the likelihood that noncompliant
products will be manufactured or imported because it would signal the
need for compliance with subsection (i) restrictions early in the
market chain. We have particular concern about noncompliant imports
into the United States by retailers and through online eCommerce and
establishing auditing that would occur at the point of import may
minimize noncompliance. It would also reduce the burden on retailers to
identify whether they sell products that may contain HFCs and thus need
to register with the third-party certification program. This would be
especially beneficial for small businesses that may be less familiar
with environmental regulations and less familiar with what types of
products may contain HFCs.
Potential weaknesses of the third-party certification system
include difficulty in identifying which products would need to be
certified in order to be sold or distributed in the United States and
the degree to which EPA or an accreditation board would be able to
provide adequate oversight to foreign third-party certifiers.
Additionally, given that all products would need to be certified
compliant prior to import, EPA is concerned that accrediting enough
certifiers to conduct the required testing would be challenging. A
related challenge may concern how auditing results are shared with the
Agency including the format in which they are presented. EPA is seeking
input on ways to mitigate these potential challenges.
Alternatively, a potential strength of a retailer-focused third-
party auditing program is that products will consistently be tested for
compliance by various third-party auditors. This could provide a
continuous stream of data to understand how many tested products are
compliant and assist EPA in knowing which products to focus on for
enforcement. A potential weakness is that more noncompliant products
may be made available in the U.S. market, especially from foreign
distributors through eCommerce. Furthermore, it may be challenging to
assess compliance of products sold by foreign businesses through online
eCommerce as these entities would not be participants of the auditing
program. In order to reduce potential rates of noncompliance, EPA is
seeking input on the frequency with which third-party audits should be
conducted and methods of addressing potential noncompliance by foreign
eCommerce businesses.
In addition to either of these proposed structures, EPA is also
considering an auditing program for non-residential equipment that is
field charged with regulated substances. Two options EPA is considering
include either a periodic audit of the owners of the existing equipment
to review whether this field-charged equipment is being charged with a
compliant substance or to audit the field chargers when equipment is
charged to determine that it is being charged with a compliant
substance. EPA is seeking comment on the relative strengths or
weaknesses of either approach and whether the field chargers or
equipment owners should maintain sufficient documentation to support
such an audit. EPA believes a potential strength of auditing the owners
of the non-residential field-charged equipment is that it will narrow
the universe of audited parties to only those owners of the equipment
that is being periodically field-charged with regulated substances and
could encourage this industry to provide its own oversight of field
charging entities to ensure that its equipment is compliant.
In addition to seeking input on the relative strengths and
weaknesses of these two possible structures for a third-party testing
and auditing program, EPA is also seeking advance information on any
other structures that could be effective in ensuring noncompliant
products are unavailable in the U.S. market. As discussed in the Lesley
K. McAllister law review article, Third Party Programs to Assess
Regulatory Compliance,\175\ one of the metrics of success for such a
program is the rate of compliance that the program enhances.\176\
Common drivers of the rate of compliance includes the frequency with
which testing is carried out and the regularity that testing will be
conducted on a given regulated entity.\177\ For example, even if
testing will only be conducted on a regulated entity once every few
years, if the entity knows to anticipate testing with regularity, the
entity is more likely to change its processes to be compliant. EPA is
especially interested in any comments that address how the third-party
program can be structured to enhance rates of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ 53 B.C. L. Rev. 1 (Jan. 2012).
\176\ Id. at 44-45.
\177\ Id. at 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What elements and criteria should be included in the third-party
auditors and/or accreditation body requirements?
EPA is seeking advance information on how the accreditation process
should be structured for third-party auditors or certifiers and what
criteria should be included in the accreditation process. First, EPA is
seeking input on how accreditation of third-party auditors or
certifiers should be structured. The above-cited McAllister law review
article notes that different agencies have structured third-party
programs in a variety of ways. That article notes that the most common
structure is for the government agency to recognize a third-party
accreditation body that in turn accredits conformity assessment bodies,
i.e., third-party auditors or certifiers.\178\ However, the article
recognizes that this structure varies under different regulatory
programs, noting that in some instances the regulatory agency may
accredit the third-party auditors or certifiers directly, and that
other programs accredit a combination of third-party auditors and
testing bodies (e.g., laboratories).\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Id. at 7.
\179\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is seeking feedback on how the accreditation system could be
structured
[[Page 76800]]
for third-party auditors or certifiers, and whether that accreditation
system should be headed by accreditation bodies recognized by EPA. EPA
is seeking input on the relative strengths and weaknesses of
recognizing accreditation bodies to conduct the accreditation process
of third-party auditors or certifiers and the strengths and weaknesses
of EPA directly accrediting third-party auditors or certifiers.
If a comment recommends that EPA recognize accreditation bodies to
accredit third-party auditors or certifiers, EPA is also interested in
input on what criteria should be used to assess EPA's recognition of
these bodies. Such criteria could include, for example: how the
accreditation body must demonstrate legal authority (e.g., governmental
or contractual) to perform assessment of third-party auditors necessary
to assess the applicant's capability to conduct audits; criteria for
competency and capacity to adequately assess applicants' capabilities
as an auditor; criteria to reduce conflicts of interest and promote
independence in the assessment body; and what recordkeeping
requirements should exist to qualify for accreditation.
EPA is also seeking input on what criteria should be used, either
by EPA or by the accreditation body, to accredit third-party auditors.
Such criteria could include, for example: laboratory testing
capabilities the applicant must have, and requirements to ensure the
capabilities are adequate for testing for compliant HFCs; expertise the
applicant must have in order to adequately assess compliance beyond
testing capabilities; recordkeeping requirements that should be
required; criteria to reduce conflicts of interest and promote
independence in the third-party auditor; frequency that the applicant
should be re-assessed for accreditation; and how the reports should be
provided to EPA and/or the accreditation body.
Of particular interest to EPA is advance information on how the
third-party auditing program should be paid for. EPA is considering
implementing a fee-based system paid by all registered entities that
distribute products that may contain HFCs in the U.S. market. If using
a fee-based structure, EPA is seeking input on whether to provide a
fee-structure that is proportionate to the size of business in order to
mitigate impacts on small businesses. Although EPA is considering a
fee-based approach, EPA also welcomes comments on alternative payment
structures that could foster the greatest level of independence between
registered regulated entities and the third-party accreditation body
and/or third-party auditors.
The above-cited McAllister law review article notes that one of the
metrics of success for third-party auditing programs is the extent to
which the program produces reliable results. Primarily this metric is
driven by the extent to which the program requirements foster third-
party auditors' competency and independence.\180\ In order to foster
competency, EPA believes the testing capabilities to determine that any
HFCs in a product are compliant will be paramount. EPA is especially
interested in any comments regarding recommended requirements to ensure
that third-party auditors are capable of this type of testing and any
additional requirements that should be added to enhance the likelihood
that third-party auditors will be competent to assess products'
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, EPA is interested in advance information on enhancing the
independence of third-party auditors. EPA believes a fee-based system
will foster independence in auditors as they would not be paid directly
by the entity being audited. However, EPA is interested in comments on
additional criteria that would foster independence. Such criteria could
include a required amount of time that the auditor would not work for
the audited entity both before and after the audit. EPA believes such
criteria could help reduce commercial and financial pressures on the
auditor that could potentially compromise the audit.
Another metric of success discussed in the McAllister article is
the agency's capacity to administer the third-party program.\181\
Depending on how the third-party program is designed, implementing the
program may require a large investment of agency time and resources. In
particular, if EPA is directly accrediting third-party auditors rather
than delegating that to accreditation bodies, EPA will need enough
resources to adequately assess each of the third-party auditor
applicants. It would also require EPA personnel to develop the
necessary expertise to consistently evaluate capabilities of
applicants. EPA directly accrediting third-party auditors could present
additional challenges when assessing potential foreign third-party
auditor applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Id. at 45-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. What are the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
EPA is proposing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for any
entity that domestically manufactures or imports products that use or
are intended to use regulated substances or blends containing a
regulated substance and is subject to the restrictions in this proposed
rulemaking.
A subset of the entities that would be subject to these proposed
reporting requirements is currently subject to reporting requirements
under subpart QQ of the GHGRP.\182\ The GHGRP, 40 CFR part 98, covers
the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and supplies from
certain facilities and suppliers. To decrease the administrative
burden, particularly to those entities that would be subject to both
subpart QQ of 40 CFR part 98 and this proposed rulemaking, EPA is
proposing reporting requirements similar to the data elements required
by the GHGRP. The data elements in subpart QQ of the GHGRP form the
starting point for the proposed recordkeeping and reporting
requirements further outlined in this section.\183\ EPA is taking this
proposed approach because many of the data elements in subpart QQ
provide information necessary for EPA to assess compliance with this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ, ``Importers and Exporters of
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or
Closed-Cell Foams.''
\183\ EPA is not proposing any changes to 40 CFR part 98 in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some of the proposed requirements overlap with those of the
GHGRP, this proposal would require all manufacturers and importers of
products that use or are intended to use regulated substances or blends
containing a regulated substance subject to these proposed restrictions
to electronically report certain information to EPA. This is in
contrast to the GHGRP where reporting is not required for entities that
import and export less than the equivalent of 25,000 MTCO2e
per year and are not otherwise required to report under 40 CFR part 98.
Under subpart QQ, entities that import or export an annual quantity of
fluorinated greenhouse gases (as defined in 40 CFR part 98) contained
in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that is equivalent to
25,000 metric tons CO2e \184\ or more are required to
provide annual reports detailing certain
[[Page 76801]]
information regarding their imports or exports of such products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Calculated as specified in 40 CFR 98.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, for this rule EPA is proposing to apply the provisions to
all entities that domestically manufacture or import products that use
or are intended to use regulated substances or blends containing a
regulated substance subject to this proposed rulemaking regardless of
the amount of regulated substances in those products. EPA believes
requiring these entities to report will be important for understanding
how HFCs are being used or are intended for use in products and would
provide important information for verifying compliance and allowing for
oversight.
EPA is proposing that reports be submitted electronically using
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) \185\ through EPA's electronic
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT).\186\ EPA intends to avoid
duplicative burden between the AIM Act and the GHGRP and reporting
through e-GGRT will aid in the synchronization of these systems.
Entities already subject to reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ
may need to augment their reporting in order to comply with reporting
requirements under this proposal but would not need to duplicate their
efforts. Where there is overlap in requested data, EPA intends to
provide the ability to populate a draft annual GHGRP report with data
submitted under the AIM Act, which the GHGRP reporter could then revise
or augment as necessary, certify, and submit as required under 40 CFR
part 98. EPA seeks comment on additional ways the Agency can utilize
existing data collection to ensure compliance with the proposed
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Central Data Exchange is EPA's electronic reporting site
(https://cdx.epa.gov/).
\186\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. What reporting is EPA proposing to require?
EPA is proposing that covered entities provide reports to EPA that
include: (1) the sector and subsector of the product based on the
categorization in this rulemaking; (2) for each type of pre-charged
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 and its GWP, charge size (including holding
charge, if applicable), and number of each product type domestically
manufactured or imported; (3) for each element 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; and (4)
the dates on which the products were imported or domestically
manufactured.
For the proposed requirement to report the total mass in metric
tons of each HFC or blend containing an HFC used in the regulated
products, including those in the RACHP and aerosols sectors, but
excluding those in the foam blowing sector, reporters shall use the
following equation:
I = [Sigma]t St * Nt * 0.001
where:
I = Total mass of the regulated substance or blend containing a
regulated substance (metric tons) in all regulated products the
reporter imports and/or domestically manufacturers quarterly.
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 quarterly (pieces of equipment).
0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons.
For the foam blowing sector, 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 the foam blowing sector, 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 (charge per cubic foot of
foam, kg of regulated substance per cubic foot), Nt shall be
the total volume of foam imported or domestically manufactured
quarterly (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 requesting comment on the proposed reporting requirements
and whether specific data should additionally be required for other
sectors or subsectors such as: a list of each specific product model
using regulated substances that falls within each type and unique
combination of charge size and regulated substance or blend containing
a regulated substance as reported per above; a differentiation by model
number of the products as reported per above; an estimation of future
imports over some period of time such as the next quarter or next year;
information on the source of the HFC or HFC blend such as company name
and address; or other information that would prove useful for the
purposes of this proposed regulation.
For equipment that is shipped without an HFC but is intended to use
an HFC (e.g., field-charged equipment), EPA is proposing that the
manufacturer or importer of the dry shipped equipment report on the
number of products, the HFC or HFC blend the products are intended for
use with, and the expected quantity of HFC or HFC blend that the
product would contain when fully charged. EPA requests comment on
requiring additional data elements such as whether the product is also
intended for use with substances other than HFCs or HFC blends, the
sector(s) and subsector(s) the product is used in, and whether the
product is a component or subassembly. The Agency also requests comment
on other data points that may be useful in determining the number of
HFC products that are manufactured or imported without a charge.
Alternatively, EPA could require entities who manufacture or import
products that are designed for but do not contain an HFC or HFC blend
to affirm they are a covered entity on an annual basis and list the
types of products they manufacture or import, the quantity they
manufactured or imported last year, and the regulated substances their
equipment is designed to work with.
EPA notes that the definition of manufacture for this proposed rule
includes the entity responsible for charging a field charged product.
EPA proposes for the reporting and recordkeeping section, technicians
are not included as manufacturers and would therefore not be subject to
the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Requiring reporting from entities that are manufacturing products
that are intended for but do not contain HFCs and HFC blends would
ensure EPA knows the full universe of relevant products that likely
will contain HFCs or HFC blends in the covered sectors and subsectors
and know the full universe of entities that manufacture and import
these products. These proposed data requirements would provide
information regarding the quantity and type of HFCs used in the
[[Page 76802]]
three sectors (i.e., RACHP, foam blowing, and aerosols) covered in this
proposed rulemaking. This information will support EPA's efforts to
assess the compliance of the regulated industries and will assist with
efforts to enforce requirements established in this rulemaking. EPA is
proposing that importers and manufacturers of products using regulated
substances or blends containing a regulated substance who fail to
report required information or provide inaccurate information would be
considered a violation. EPA does not believe that reporting the
information listed in this section above will be overly burdensome for
the regulated community. Much of the information is already required
for a portion of those impacted by this proposed rulemaking. The
required data is limited to the information needed to ensure compliance
and monitor the import and manufacture of the use of HFCs in products.
EPA seeks to ensure a level playing field for the regulated
community and views regular reporting as a central mechanism for
ensuring compliant companies are not placed at a competitive
disadvantage. EPA requests comment on the proposed reporting
requirements, including comments related to whether additional data
should be collected or if complying with the proposed requirements will
be overly burdensome.
EPA is proposing that reports described in this section be
submitted to EPA within 45 days of the end of the applicable reporting
period, unless otherwise specified. The report would need to be signed
and attested by a responsible officer. EPA is proposing that importers
and domestic manufacturers of products subject to the proposed
reporting requirements provide a statement of certification that the
data they provide is accurate. EPA is also proposing that reporters be
required to certify that their products use only allowed HFCs, do not
exceed any applicable GWP limit, and are properly labeled. EPA requests
comment on the proposed certification requirements.
What is the proposed frequency of reporting?
EPA is proposing to require quarterly reporting from domestic
manufacturers and importers subject to the proposed reporting
requirement. The proposed frequency would allow for the Agency to
review data throughout the year, identify trends, and identify
noncompliance with the GWP limits and inaccurate reporting on an
ongoing basis. Quarterly reporting is consistent with other reporting
under the Allocation Framework Rule. Quarterly reporting may allow the
Agency to more quickly identify trends and enforce against any
production or import of a regulated product that uses or is intended to
use a regulated substance or blend containing a regulated substance
that is above the GWP limit or otherwise restricted as proposed in this
rule. Doing so may limit the amount of such noncompliant product that
enters commerce compared to an annual report. This frequency of
reporting may likewise provide manufacturers and importers the ability
to more quickly stop production or import of such noncompliant product
and return to compliance with the provisions of this proposed rule.
Quarterly reporting may also allow EPA to identify and correct
inaccurate reporting more quickly so that the errors can be corrected.
Quarterly reporting would also provide more information for
understanding where HFCs and blends containing HFCs continue to be used
in the sectors and subsectors covered by this rule, which would allow
the Agency to understand market dynamics and the transitions that are
occurring in those sectors and subsectors more quickly than semi-annual
or annual reporting. The reports could also inform potential future
rulemakings under subsection (i) of the AIM Act or potentially under
other subsections of the Act. In light of these considerations, EPA is
proposing the collection of quarterly reporting as the most appropriate
frequency. EPA is taking comment on whether semi-annual, annual
reporting, or another reporting frequency would adequately provide the
same level of information and enforcement potential.
EPA is also taking comment on whether it would be appropriate to
require notification to EPA prior to importing products that use or are
intended to use HFCs. This would be analogous to the requirements at 40
CFR 84.31(c)(7) that require importers of bulk HFCs to report to EPA
what they are importing early enough that EPA and CBP can determine if
there are sufficient allowances for the imported HFCs or blends
containing HFCs. In this case the notice would certify to EPA that the
products using HFCs are in compliance with these standards and would
provide the data required in the quarterly reporting program described
in this section above for the products in the shipment. This
information could be used to assist CBP as well as EPA personnel that
may need to assess if a given product is consistent with requirements
established in this rulemaking. While EPA notes that providing
information regarding regulated products prior to their import may have
compliance related advantages, such as enabling noncompliant products
to be stopped before entering the market, such a system would require
significant EPA resources to administer. EPA seeks comments on
potential advantages or disadvantages of importers reporting prior to
import in addition to quarterly, semi-annual, or annual reporting,
including whether reporting prior to import would be useful for
assessing compliance.
B. What recordkeeping is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing that entities that import or domestically
manufacture regulated products in the sectors and subsectors covered by
this rule maintain records that form the basis of the reports outlined
in section IX.A of this preamble above for a minimum of three years and
make them available to EPA upon request. EPA also proposes that the
importer or domestic manufacturer retain records of the company or
retailer to whom the regulated product was sold, distributed, or in any
way conveyed to. Information regarding where products have been
distributed, sold, or conveyed to after import or manufacture may be
necessary for tracking noncompliant products when they are identified
and removing them from the market.
In addition, EPA is proposing that importers retain the following
records substantiating each of the imports that they report: (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 though which the products passed, and (5) country of origin and
if different the country of shipment to the United States. These
requirements are consistent with the recordkeeping already required for
the subset of importers subject to subpart QQ of the GHGRP and will
allow EPA to enforce the proposed restrictions by tracking the movement
and sources of noncompliant products when they are identified.
EPA requests comment on the proposed recordkeeping requirements and
whether additional recordkeeping should be required. EPA also requests
comment on whether the Agency should consider a retention period for
records of five years in alignment with the HFC Framework rule.
[[Page 76803]]
X. What are the costs and benefits of this proposed action?
EPA estimated the costs and benefits of restricting HFCs consistent
with this proposal. 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, if
finalized as proposed, 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 VII.E and VII.F of this preamble, EPA has summarized those
estimates in the Costs and Environmental Impacts TSD.
In the RIA addendum, EPA also included 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 E.O.
12866. Although EPA is using the social costs of HFCs for purposes of
that assessment, this proposed action does not rely on the estimates of
these costs as a record basis for the agency action, and EPA would
reach the proposed conclusions even in the absence of the social costs
of HFCs.
A. Assessment of Costs and Additional Benefits Utilizing Transition
Options
The RIA addendum conducted for this proposed rule follows a
methodology that is consistent with the costs and benefits analysis
detailed in the Allocation Framework RIA, released in 2021, as well as
the Addendum to that RIA accompanying the proposed 2024 Allocation
Rule. In the Allocation Framework RIA and that Addendum, costs and
benefits are calculated for the entire compliance period of the HFC
phasedown (2022-2036), 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 proposed rule, EPA quantifies the costs associated with the
transitions necessary for compliance, but does so based on the sector-
and subsector-specific restrictions proposed by this rule as opposed to
an overall production and consumption cap. Both approaches, as
discussed in the respective RIAs, also quantify the monetized climate
benefits associated with the reduction in emissions over time as a
result of decreased consumption of regulated substances.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ For the sake of comparison, results from both sets of
analyses are included in the RIA addendum contained in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the phasedown in HFC consumption and production has already
been codified under the Allocation Framework Rule, with further changes
proposed under the 2024 Allocation Rule, the full extent of the
reductions that would result from this proposed rule are not considered
additional. Therefore, in calculating the impacts from this proposed
rule, we calculate the ``incremental'' costs and environmental impacts
(either increased or decreased) that this proposed rule would achieve
compared to what the Allocation Framework Rule as updated by the
proposed 2024 Allocation Rule achieves. This difference is considered
the additional costs and environmental impacts realized by this
proposed rule, should it be finalized as proposed.
EPA estimates that the proposed rule would 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 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 would also be required by this proposed rule. However,
the 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 proposed
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 the proposed
rule: a ``base case'' and ``high additionality case.'' Under the
proposed rule, EPA estimates that HFC emissions and consumption from
2025-2050 would be further reduced by an annual average of
approximately 5 to 35 MMTCO2e and 28 to 43
MMTCO2e, respectively. The annual incremental consumption
and emissions avoided are shown in Table 6 for select years as well as
on a cumulative basis.
Table 6--Incremental Consumption and Emission Reductions From the Proposed Rule, 2025-2050
[MMTCO2e]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumption reductions Emission reductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Year High High
Base case additionality Base case additionality
case case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................ 9 42 -52 8
2030............................................ 26 51 -12 35
2035............................................ 41 51 6 45
2040............................................ 21 29 27 40
2045............................................ 35 44 27 37
2050............................................ 37 46 30 38
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total (cumulative).............................. 735 1121 134 903
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76804]]
In order to calculate the climate benefits associated with
consumption abatement, the consumption changes were expressed in terms
of emissions reductions. Emissions avoided in each year can also 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 that this proposed rule would achieve overall emission reductions
over the full time horizon for implementation. However, the incremental
emissions reductions under the transition pathway evaluated for the
proposed 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 a) the base case does not include
certain actions to reduce consumption (and, consequently, reduce
emissions) previously assumed in the Allocation Rule reference case,
including increased leak reduction and enhanced recovery of HFCs, and
b) 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 proposed rule result in more consumption
reductions on a cumulative basis; however, some of the consequent
emission reductions in this proposal would come at a later time than
the emission reductions from the Allocation 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 proposed rule, there is reason to believe
that it is a conservative one, and that the incremental emission
reduction benefits associated with this proposed 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. For this reason, in the high additionality case we
assumed certain abatement options not covered by the proposed rule--but
which were assumed in the prior accounting of benefits for the
Allocation Rules--are also included to illustrate the potential for
incremental benefits. In both scenarios, on a cumulative basis the rule
is expected to yield incremental emission reductions, ranging from 134
to 903 MMTCO2e through 2050 (respectively, about 3 percent
and 20 percent of the total emissions over that same time period in the
Allocations Rules analyses). In the RIA addendum, we estimate the
present value of these incremental benefits to be between $5 billion
and $51 billion in 2020 dollars.
Table 7--Summary of Annual Incremental Climate Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Technology Transitions Rule Base Case and High Additionality
Case Scenarios for the 2025-2050 Timeframe
[Millions of 2020$, discounted to 2022] a b c d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year High additionality case
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual costs Net benefits Annual costs Net benefits
Base case 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.................................................... -$3,603 -$395 -$3,209 $546 $31 $515
2029.................................................... -1,043 50 -1,092 2,563 335 2,227
2034.................................................... 141 -200 340 3,739 -77 3,816
2036.................................................... -404 -677 273 3,213 -635 3,848
2040.................................................... 2,669 -848 3,516 3,928 -784 4,712
2045.................................................... 2,946 -786 3,732 4,031 -717 4,748
2050.................................................... 3,606 -817 4,422 4,677 -743 5,419
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate 3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV............................................ $5,084 -$8,045 -$4,225 $13,130 $9,309 $51,145 -$5,140 -$2,190 $56,285 $53,335
EAV........................................... 311 -492 -438 803 748 3,126 -314 -227 3,440 3,353
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 7, 8, and 9 are based on
changes (increases or reductions) in HFC emissions compared to the
Allocation Framework Rule compliance case (i.e., after consideration of
the Allocation Framework Rule and proposed 2024 Allocation Rule) 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 3 percent discount
rate. For the presentational purposes of Table 7, we show the
incremental benefits associated with the average SC-HFCs at a 3 percent
discount rate, but
[[Page 76805]]
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 the rule. The SC-HFCs is the monetary value of the net
harm to society associated with a marginal increase in HFC emissions in
a given year, or the 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, the 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 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 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 8 presents the sum of incremental climate benefits across all
HFCs reduced for the proposed Technology Transitions Rule for 2025,
2029, 2034, 2036, 2040, 2045, and 2050 in the base case scenario.
Table 8--Incremental Climate Benefits for the Proposed 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............................ -1.5 -3.6 -4.8 -9.5
2029............................ -0.5 -1.0 -1.4 -2.8
2034............................ 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4
2036............................ 1.1 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2
2040............................ 1.3 2.7 3.5 7.1
2045............................ 1.3 2.9 3.8 7.8
2050............................ 1.7 3.6 4.6 9.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 would range from $13.1
billion to $56.2 billion at a 3 percent discount rate, or $9.3 billion
to $53.3 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. These comprise
cumulative incremental climate benefits due to reducing HFC emissions
(with a present value ranging from $5 billion to $51.1 billion) as well
as cumulative incremental compliance savings (with a present value
ranging from $5.1 billion to $8 billion at a 3 percent discount rate or
$2.1 billion to $4.2 billion at a 7 percent discount rate).
The estimation of incremental benefits due to reductions in HFC
emissions resulting from the proposed restrictions involved three
steps. First, the difference between the consumption of HFCs realized
under this proposed 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 proposed 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
[[Page 76806]]
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 proposed rule are
only those beyond the reductions expected based on the Allocation
Framework Rule as updated by the proposed 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 compliance 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 proposed 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.
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 a number
of limitations that are common to those SC-GHG estimates. The
limitations were outlined in the February 2021 TSD 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 Regulated 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 proposed rule, under subsection (i) of the AIM
Act, restrictions are proposed to apply equally to imported and
domestically manufactured products and equipment 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 proposed 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 MAC 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 proposed 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 at estimates of 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 proposed 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
gas over time, and the same SC-HFCs factors from the Allocation
Framework RIA, to derive climate benefits. 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 46.6
MMTCO2e in 2029, from 31.0 to 54.1 MMTCO2e in
2034, and from 31.0 to 57.1 MMTCO2e in 2036, depending on
the scenario. The cumulative reductions for the years 2025 through 2050
ranged from 829 to 1,540 MMTCO2e, equal to about 12 to 23
percent of the projected reductions in the Allocation Rules analysis
and about 11 to 20 percent of the combined projected reductions due to
the Allocation Rules plus the incremental reductions due to this
proposed Technology Transitions Rule.
The emission reductions lag the reductions in supply as explained
in this section above but increase significantly as products expend
their lifecycle and HFCs are emitted. Annual emission reductions ranged
from 0 to 0.8 MMTCO2e in 2029, from 0 to 1.0
MMTCO2e in 2034, and from 0.9 to 2.8 MMTCO2e in
2036, depending on the scenario. The cumulative emissions reductions
for the years 2025 through 2050 ranged from 318 to 459
MMTCO2e, equal to about 7 to 10 percent of the projected
reductions in the Allocation
[[Page 76807]]
Rules analysis and essentially the same percentages for the combined
projected reductions in the Allocation Rules analysis plus the
incremental reductions due to this proposed Technology Transition Rule.
Climate benefits of the emission reductions are shown in Table 9.
As noted in this section above, these benefits are not considered
additional to the Allocation Framework Rule or to this proposed rule
and are shown to inform the reader of the potential scope of the
benefits from restricting imported products using HFCs.
Table 9--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.
2034................................ 0 to 0.1.
2036................................ 0.1 to 0.2.
2040................................ 2.2 to 2.7.
2045................................ 3.0 to 4.1.
2050................................ 4.0 to 6.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket. A summary of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action is included in
section X of this preamble, and EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action, which is
available in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed 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 [2742.01]. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket,
and it is briefly summarized here.
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 proposing to apply labeling and packaging requirements to
products using either an HFC or a blend containing an HFC, in the
sectors and subsectors covered by this proposed rule, in order to
encourage compliance and aid enforcement. EPA is also proposing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for any entity that
domestically manufactures or imports regulated products to allow the
Agency to review data and identify noncompliance with GWP restrictions
and inaccurate reporting.
Respondents/affected entities: Respondents and affected entities
will be individuals or companies that manufacture, import, export,
package, sell or otherwise distribute a product within the sectors or
subsectors addressed by this proposed 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: 199,086,175.
Frequency of response: Quarterly, annually, and as needed depending
on the nature of the report.
Total estimated burden: 69,355 hours (per year) in the first year;
56,520 hours per year in all following years. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost \188\: $27,107,658 (per year) in the first
year, $25,475,817 per year thereafter, includes $19,955,215 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ 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.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. Since OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than January 17, 2023.
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 of equipment or products within the affected subsectors
(e.g., manufacturers of stand-alone/self-contained refrigeration
systems, manufacturers of aerosol products, manufacturers of foam
products and appliances containing foam) or 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 Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.
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.
[[Page 76808]]
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. EPA periodically updates tribal officials on air
regulations through the monthly meetings of the National Tribal Air
Association and will share information on this rulemaking through this
and other fora.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and EPA believes that 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
emissions 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 applications containing 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
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make 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 minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
The EPA believes that 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 people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous
peoples. 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 proposed
rulemaking. Based on this analysis, EPA finds evidence of environmental
justice concerns near HFC production facilities from cumulative
exposure to existing environmental hazards in these communities.
However, the Agency recognizes that restricting HFC use under the
Allocation Framework Rule may cause significant changes in the location
and quantity of production of both 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 on communities of
color and low-income people as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The EPA believes that it is practicable to assess whether this
action is likely to result in new disproportionately high and adverse
effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous
peoples. A summary of the Agency's approach for considering potential
environmental justice concerns as a result of this rulemaking can be
found in section III.C 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, including the public health and welfare effects on people of
color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. As noted in
section III.C 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.
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 proposes to amend 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: Pub. L. 116-260, Division S, Sec. 103.
0
2. Add subpart B consisting of Sec. Sec. 84.50 through 84.66 to part
84 to read as follows:
Subpart B--Restrictions on the Use of Hydrofluorocarbons
Sec.
84.50 Purpose.
[[Page 76809]]
84.52 Definitions.
84.54 Prohibitions on use of hydrofluorocarbons.
84.56 Sectors and subsectors subject to use restrictions.
84.58 Exemptions.
84.60 Labeling.
84.62 Recordkeeping and reporting.
84.64 Technology transitions petition requirements.
84.66 Global warming potentials.
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 B:
Blend containing a regulated substance means any mixture that
contains one or more regulated substances used in a sector or
subsector.
Export means the transport of a regulated product 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 regulated
product for export or transfers a regulated product to an affiliate in
another country.
Importer means any person who imports any regulated product 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:
(i) The consignee;
(ii) The importer of record;
(iii) The actual owner; or
(iv) The transferee, if the right to withdraw merchandise from a
bonded warehouse has been transferred.
Manufacture means 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.
Product means an item or category of items manufactured from raw or
recycled materials which is used to perform a function or task. The
term product includes, but is not limited to: equipment, appliances,
components, subcomponents, foams, foam blowing systems (e.g., pre-
blended polyols), fire suppression systems or devices, aerosols,
pressurized dispensers, and wipes.
Regulated product means any product in the sectors or subsectors
identified in Sec. 84.56 that contains or was manufactured with a
regulated substance or a blend that contains a regulated substance,
including products intended to be used with a regulated substance, or
that is otherwise subject to the prohibitions of this subpart.
Retrofit means 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. 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; foam
blowing; aerosols; chemical manufacturing; cleaning solvents; fire
suppression and explosion protection; and semiconductor manufacturing.
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, product, or alternative
manufacturing process, whether existing or new, that is used, or
intended for use, in a sector or subsector with a lower global warming
potential than the regulated substance, whether neat or used in a
blend, to which a use restriction would apply.
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, discharge, incorporation,
transformation, or other manipulation.
Sec. 84.54 Prohibitions on use of hydrofluorocarbons.
(a) Effective January 1, 2025, no person may manufacture or import
any product that uses or is intended to use a regulated substance or
blend containing a regulated substance as listed in Sec. 84.56(a),
(c), (d), and (e).
(b) Effective January 1, 2026, no person may sell or distribute,
offer to sell or distribute, make available to sell or distribute,
purchase or receive, attempt to purchase or receive, or export any
product that uses or is intended to use a regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance as listed in Sec. 84.56(a), (c), (d),
and (e), except after a period of ordinary utilization or operation of
the product by an ultimate consumer.
(c) Effective [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], beginning model year 2025, no person may
manufacture or import any mobile vehicle air-conditioning system for
light-duty passenger cars and trucks that uses or is intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance as
listed in Sec. 84.56(b).
(d) Effective January 1, 2026, no person may sell or distribute,
offer to sell or distribute, make available to sell or distribute,
purchase or receive, attempt to purchase or receive, or export any
mobile vehicle air-conditioning system for light-duty passenger cars
and trucks that uses or is intended to use a regulated substance or a
blend containing a regulated substance as listed in Sec. 84.56(b),
except after a period of ordinary utilization or operation of the
product by an ultimate consumer.
(e) Effective [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], beginning model year 2026, no person may
manufacture or import any mobile vehicle air-conditioning system for
medium-duty passenger vehicles, heavy-duty pick-up trucks, complete
heavy-duty vans, and certain nonroad vehicles that uses or is intended
to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated
substance as listed in Sec. 84.56(b).
(f) Effective January 1, 2027, no person may sell or distribute,
offer to sell or distribute, make available to sell or distribute,
purchase or receive, attempt to purchase or receive, or export any
mobile vehicle air-conditioning system for medium-duty passenger
vehicles, heavy-duty pick-up trucks, complete heavy-duty vans, and
certain nonroad vehicles that uses or is intended to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance as listed in
Sec. 84.56(b), except after a period of ordinary utilization or
operation of the product by an ultimate consumer.
(g) Effective January 1, 2026, no person may manufacture or import
any
[[Page 76810]]
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump--
variable refrigerant flow system, that uses or is intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
global warming potential of 700 or greater.
(h) Effective January 1, 2027, no person may sell or distribute,
offer to sell or distribute, make available to sell or distribute,
purchase or receive, attempt to purchase or receive, or export any
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump--
variable refrigerant flow system, that uses or is intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
global warming potential of 700 or greater, except after a period of
ordinary utilization or operation of the product by an ultimate
consumer.
(i) Effective January 1, 2025, no person may import, sell,
distribute, offer for sale or distribution, or make available for sale
or distribution, any regulated product that is not labeled in
accordance with Sec. 84.60.
(j) No person may sell, distribute, offer for sale or distribution,
or make available for sale or distribution, any product within a sector
or subsector containing, using, or intended to use a regulated
substance or blend containing a regulated substance that is in
violation of paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section, except for
such actions needed to re-export or recover the regulated substance and
destroy the product. Every kilogram of a regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance contained in or used in a product in
contravention of this paragraph constitutes a separate violation of
this subpart. Every kilogram of a regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance intended for use in a product in
contravention of this paragraph constitutes a separate violation of
this subpart. Sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution,
of products containing, using, or intended to use less than one
kilogram of a regulated substance or blend containing a regulated
substance in contravention of this paragraph constitutes a violation of
this subpart.
(k) (1) No person may provide false, inaccurate, or misleading
information to EPA when reporting or providing any communication
required under this subpart.
(2) No person may falsely indicate through marketing, packaging,
labeling, or other means that a product sold or distributed, or offered
for sale or distribution, uses 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.
(l) 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 Sectors and subsectors subject to use restrictions.
(a) Refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pump. Products in the
following subsectors within the refrigeration, air conditioning, and
heat pump sector are subject to the prohibitions in Sec. 84.54(a) and
(b):
(1) Industrial process refrigeration systems with refrigerant
charge capacities of 200 pounds or greater, when using or intended to
use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance
with a global warming potential of 150 or greater, except as noted in
Sec. 84.56(a)(3);
(2) Industrial process refrigeration systems with refrigerant
charge capacities less than 200 pounds, when using or intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
global warming potential of 300 or greater, except as noted in Sec.
84.56(a)(3);
(3) Industrial process refrigeration, specifically the high
temperature side of cascade systems used in industrial process
refrigeration applications, when using or intended to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global
warming potential of 300 or greater;
(4) Retail food refrigeration--stand-alone units, when using or
intended to use a regulated substance, or a blend containing a
regulated substance with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(5) Retail food refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment, when using or intended to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global
warming potential of 150 or greater;
(6) Retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems with refrigerant
charge capacities of 200 pounds or greater, when using or intended to
use a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance
with a global warming potential of 150 or greater, except as noted in
Sec. 84.56(a)(8);
(7) Retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems with refrigerant
charge capacities less than 200 pounds, when using or intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
global warming potential of 300 or greater, except as noted in Sec.
84.56(a)(8);
(8) Retail food refrigeration--supermarket, specifically the high
temperature side of cascade systems used in retail food refrigeration--
supermarket applications, when using or intended to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global
warming potential of 300 or greater;
(9) Retail food refrigeration--remote condensing units with
refrigerant charge capacities of 200 pounds or greater, when using or
intended to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated
substance with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(10) Retail food refrigeration--remote condensing units with
refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds, when using or
intended to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated
substance with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(11) Cold storage warehouse systems with refrigerant charge
capacities of 200 pounds or greater, when using or intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
global warming potential of 150 or greater, except as noted in Sec.
84.56(a)(13);
(12) Cold storage warehouse systems with refrigerant charge
capacities less than 200 pounds, when using or intended to use a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
global warming potential of 300 or greater, except as noted in Sec.
84.56(a)(13);
(13) Cold storage warehouse, specifically the high temperature side
of cascade systems used in cold storage facility applications, when
using or intended to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a
regulated substance with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(14) Ice rink systems, when using or intended to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global
warming potential of 150 or greater;
(15) Automatic commercial ice machines--standalone, with
refrigerant charge capacities of 500 grams or lower, when using or
intended to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated
substance with a
[[Page 76811]]
global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(16) Automatic commercial ice machines--standalone, with
refrigerant charge capacities of more than 500 grams, when using or
intended to use any of the following: 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/R-290/R-134a/R-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;
(17) Automatic commercial ice machines--remote, when using or
intended to use any of the following: 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/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-
X5, R-417A, R-438A, and R-410B;
(18) Transport refrigeration--intermodal containers, when using or
intended to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated
substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(19) Transport refrigeration--road systems, when using or intended
to use any of the following: 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/R-
290/R-134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-
417A, R-438A, and R-410B;
(20) Transport refrigeration--marine systems, when using or
intended to use any of the following: 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/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-
X5, R-417A, R-438A, and R-410B;
(21) Residential refrigeration systems, when using or intended to
use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance
with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(22) Chillers--industrial process refrigeration, when using or
intended to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated
substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater, except
where the temperature of the chilled fluid leaving the chiller is less
than -58 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C);
(23) Chillers--comfort cooling, when using or intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(24) Residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat
pump systems, when using or intended to use 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 systems;
(25) Residential dehumidifiers, when using or intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
global warming potential of 700 or greater; and
(26) Vending machines, when using or intended to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global
warming potential of 150 or greater.
(b) Motor vehicle air conditioning. Products in the following
subsectors within the motor vehicle air conditioning subsector are
subject to the prohibitions in Sec. 84.54(c), (d), (e), and (f), when
using a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance
with a global warming potential of 150 or greater:
(1) Light-duty passenger cars;
(2) Light-duty trucks;
(3) Medium-duty passenger vehicles;
(4) Heavy-duty pickup trucks;
(5) Complete heavy-duty vans; and
(6) Certain nonroad vehicles (i.e., agricultural tractors greater
than 40 horsepower; self-propelled agricultural machinery; compact
equipment; construction, forestry, and mining equipment; and commercial
utility vehicles only).
(c) Foam blowing. Products in the following subsectors within the
foam blowing sector are subject to the prohibitions in Sec. 84.54(a)
and (b), when using a regulated substance or a blend containing a
regulated substance with a global warming potential of 150 or greater:
(1) Phenolic insulation board and bunstock;
(2) Polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet;
(3) Rigid polyurethane--appliance foam;
(4) Rigid polyurethane--slabstock and other;
(5) Rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration;
(6) Rigid polyurethane--sandwich panels;
(7) Rigid polyurethane--marine flotation foam; and
(8) Spray foam (i.e., rigid polyurethane high-pressure two-
component, rigid polyurethane low-pressure two-component, and rigid
polyurethane one-component foam sealants).
(i) Spray foam when used for space vehicles as defined in Sec.
84.3 is excluded from this prohibition.
(ii) [Reserved]
(d) Aerosols. Products in the aerosol sector are subject to the
prohibitions in Sec. 84.54(a) and (b), when using a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global
warming potential of 150 or greater.
(e) Full restrictions on the use of regulated substances. Products
in the following subsectors within the foam blowing sector are subject
to the prohibitions in Sec. 84.54(a) and (b), when using a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance:
(1) Flexible polyurethane;
(2) Integral skin polyurethane;
(3) Polyolefin;
(4) Polystyrene--extruded sheet; and
(5) Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
Sec. 84.58 Exemptions.
The regulations under this subpart do not apply to:
(a) Equipment in existence prior to December 27, 2020; and
(b) 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.
Sec. 84.60 Labeling.
(a) Any regulated product within a sector or subsector listed in
Sec. 84.56 that is imported, sold, distributed, offered for sale or
distribution, or made available for sale must have a permanent label
compliant with paragraph (b) 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 global warming potential of the regulated substance or
blend containing a regulated substance according to Sec. 84.66,
labeled as ``global warming potential'';
(3) The full date, or at minimum the four-digit year, of
manufacture. For field charged equipment, this shall be the date of
first charge and be completed at first charge.
(4) An indication that the full refrigerant charge is either
greater than two hundred pounds or less than two hundred pounds for
products in the following subsectors:
(i) Industrial process refrigeration;
(ii) Retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems;
(iii) Retail food refrigeration--remote condensing units; and
[[Page 76812]]
(iv) Cold storage warehouses.
(5) An indication that the full refrigerant charge is either
greater than 500 grams or is equal to or less than 500 grams for
products in the following subsector:
(i) Automatic commercial ice machines--standalone.
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) 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; and
(5) Displayed on a background of contrasting color.
(c) 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.
(d) Any regulated product lacking a label will be presumed to use a
regulated substance with a global warming potential that exceeds the
limit in Sec. 84.56.
Sec. 84.62 Recordkeeping and reporting.
(a) Reporting. (1) Any person, with the exception of persons in
(a)(3), who imports or manufactures a product that uses or is intended
to use a regulated substance or blend containing a regulated substance,
must comply with the following recordkeeping and reporting
requirements:
(i) Reports must be submitted quarterly to EPA within 45 days of
the end of the applicable reporting period;
(ii) Reports, petitions, and any related supporting documents must
be submitted electronically in a format specified by EPA;
(iii) Each report shall be signed and attested by a responsible
officer;
(iv) Each report must provide a statement of certification that the
data are accurate, the products use only allowed regulated substances
and are properly labeled.
(2) Reports provided to EPA must include the following information:
(i) The sector and subsector of the product based on the
categorization in Sec. 84.56;
(ii) For each type of factory-charged equipment with a unique
combination of charge size and regulated substance or blend containing
a regulated substance, the identity of the regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance and its global warming potential
according to Sec. 84.66, charge size (holding charge, if applicable),
and number of units imported or domestically manufactured;
(iii) For each type of dry shipped equipment with a unique
combination of intended charge size and intended regulated substance or
blend containing a regulated substance, the identity of the intended
regulated substance or blend containing a regulated substance and its
global warming potential according to Sec. 84.66, charge size, and
number of units imported or domestically manufactured;
(iv) Total mass in metric tons of each regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance imported or domestically manufactured
in factory-charged equipment pursuant to this paragraph (a)(2); and the
mass of the regulated substance or blend containing a regulated
substance per unit of equipment type.
(v) Dates on which the products were imported or domestically
manufactured.
(3) Persons that field-charge equipment in order to complete the
manufacture of a product are not subject to the reporting provision in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(4) Any failure by an importer or domestic manufacturer of a
product 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 importer or domestic manufacturer of a
product 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 and make them available to EPA upon request:
(i) Records that form the basis of the reports outlined in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and
(ii) The company or retailer to whom the regulated products 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 containing a regulated substance or a blend
containing a regulated substance must retain the following records for
each import:
(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 through which the products passed;
(v) Country of origin and if different the country of shipment to
the United States.
(3) Persons that field charge equipment in order to complete the
manufacture of a product are not subject to the recordkeeping provision
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
Sec. 84.64 Technology transitions petition requirements.
(a) Required elements. Each petition sent to the Administrator
under subsection (i) of the AIM Act shall include the following
elements:
(1) Identification of the sector or subsector. Petitioners must
identify the sector(s) or subsector(s) for which restrictions on use of
the regulated substance would apply.
(2) Identification of restriction on the use of a regulated
substance. For each sector or subsector identified in a petition,
petitioners must identify the restriction on the use of a regulated
substance through either 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 or blend containing
regulated substance to be restricted and its global warming potential
according to Sec. 84.66.
(3) Identification of effective date. For each restriction on the
use of a regulated substance contained in petitions, petitioners must
include an effective date on which the regulated substance use
restriction would commence, or state that the effective date should be
one year after promulgation of the rule. Petitioners should provide
information supporting the identified effective date.
(4) Statement on the use of negotiated rulemaking. Petitioners must
include a request that 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. Petitioners
must include an explanation of their position to support or oppose the
use of the negotiated rulemaking procedure.
(5) Information supporting the requested restriction. For each
requested restriction, to the extent practicable, petitioners must
provide information related to the considerations provided in AIM Act
subsection (i)(4) to facilitate the Agency's review of the petition.
(b) Submission of petitions. Any petition submitted to the
Administrator must be submitted electronically using the designated
email address listed on
[[Page 76813]]
the EPA Technology Transitions website.
Sec. 84.66 Global warming potentials.
(a) Regulated substances. 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) Blends containing a regulated substance. 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 that constituent's nominal mass fraction within the
blend. The global warming potential of each constituent shall be as
follows:
(1) For each constituent within the blend that is a regulated
substance, the global warming potential shall be as provided in Sec.
84.66(a);
(2) Where trans-dichloroethylene, also referred to as HCO-1130(E),
is a constituent of the blend, the global warming potential of this
constituent shall be one;
(3) Where cis-1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, also referred to
as HCFO-1224yd(Z), is a constituent of the blend, the global warming
potential of this constituent shall be five;
(4) For each constituent that is not a regulated substance, is not
HCO-1130(E), is not HCFO-1224yd(Z), but does have a global warming
potential listed in the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global warming potential
of the constituent shall be that listed as the 100-year integrated
global warming potential and shall be the net global warming potential;
(5) For each constituent that is not a regulated substance, is not
HCO-1130(E), is not HCFO-1224yd(Z), and is not listed in the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
global warming potential of the constituent shall be that listed as the
100-year integrated global warming potential in the 2018 report by the
World Meteorological Organization, titled ``Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Depletion: 2018'';
(6) For each constituent that is not a regulated substance, is not
HCO-1130(E), is not HCFO-1224yd(Z), is not listed in the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and
is not listed in the 2018 report by the World Meteorological
Organization, the global warming potential of the constituent shall be
that listed in Table A-1 to 40 CFR part 98, as it existed on December
15, 2022, including the use of default global warming potential values
for constituents that are not specifically listed in that table;
(7) For cases in (4) through (6) above where a qualifier, including
but not limited to approximately, ~, less than, <, much less than, <<,
greater than, and >, is provided with a global warming potential value,
the value shown shall be the global warming potential of the
constituent without consideration of the qualifier; (8) For
constituents that do not have a global warming potential as provided in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section, the global warming
potential of the constituent shall be zero.
[FR Doc. 2022-26981 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P