[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31284-31330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-10387]
[[Page 31283]]
Vol. 91
Tuesday,
No. 100
May 26, 2026
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 84
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Reconsideration of Certain Regulatory
Requirements Promulgated Under the Technology Transitions Provisions of
the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 31284]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 84
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0005; FRL-12166-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AW39
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Reconsideration of Certain
Regulatory Requirements Promulgated Under the Technology Transitions
Provisions of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
changes to regulations promulgated under the Technology Transitions
provision of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM
Act), which authorizes the Administrator to restrict fully, partially,
or on a graduated schedule, the use of a ``regulated substance'' in the
sector or subsector in which they are used. This final rule addresses
administrative petitions and input received from regulated industry and
other interested parties relevant to requirements and restrictions
across various refrigeration and air conditioning subsectors,
including: refrigerated transport--intermodal containers; industrial
process refrigeration and chillers for industrial process refrigeration
used in semiconductor manufacturing; retail food supermarket systems;
retail food remote condensing unit systems; cold storage warehouses;
refrigerated laboratory centrifuges and laboratory shakers; and
condensing units in residential and light commercial air conditioning
and heat pumps. This final rule also allows the inventory of
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump
equipment that was manufactured in the United States or imported into
the United States before January 1, 2025, to continue to be installed.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 27, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0005. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. The EPA does not place certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, on the internet; this material is publicly
available only as Portable Document Format versions and accessible only
on the EPA computers in the docket office reading room. The public
cannot download certain databases and physical items from the docket
but may request these items by contacting the docket office by
telephone at (202) 566-1744. The docket office has 10 business days to
respond to such requests. Except for these items, publicly available
docket materials are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or on the EPA computers in the docket office
reading room at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
final rule, contact Joshua Silver, Chemicals, Coatings, and Products
Division, Office of Clean Air Programs (Mail Code 6205A), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564-2473; email address: [email protected].
You may also visit the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction for further information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document,
whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' ``the Agency,'' or ``our'' is intended to
refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble.
While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following
terms and acronyms here:
AC Air Conditioning
AC/HP Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps
AHJ Authority Having Jurisdiction
AHRI Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
AIM Act American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
BTU British Thermal Units
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CRA Congressional Review Act
CUSER Coalition for the Use of Safe and Efficient Refrigerants, Inc.
EAV Equivalent Annualized Value
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FMI Food Industry Association
FR Federal Register
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
HARDI Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors
International
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO Hydrofluoroolefin
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBC International Building Code
ICC International Code Council
IEBC International Existing Building Code
IFC International Fire Code
IFR Interim Final Rule
IMC International Mechanical Code
IPR Industrial Process Refrigeration
ISO International Organization for Standardization
MCA Maximum Credible Accident
MMTEVe Million Metric Tons of Exchange Value Equivalent
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
ODS Ozone-Depleting Substance
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV Present Value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTC Response to Comments
SC-GHG Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
SEMI Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International
SMRE Semiconductor Manufacturing and Related Equipment
SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy
UL Underwriters Laboratories (formerly)
UMC Uniform Mechanical Code
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
II. Statutory Background and Regulatory History
A. What is the authority for this action?
B. Severability
C. Summary of 2023 Final Rule
D. Summary of 2023 Interim Final Rule
E. Summary of Administrative Petitions and Requests Related to
This Rulemaking
F. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
III. Summary of Final Action
A. Refrigerated Transport--Intermodal Containers
B. Industrial Process Refrigeration and Chillers for Industrial
Process Refrigeration in Semiconductor Manufacturing
C. Retail Food--Supermarkets
D. Retail Food--Remote Condensing Units
E. Cold Storage Warehouses
F. Replacement Condensing Units in the Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Subsector
[[Page 31285]]
G. Industrial Process Refrigeration in Certain Laboratory
Equipment
H. Preventing Stranded Inventory of Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment
I. Labeling Correction
J. Effective Date of Rules Under Paragraph (i)(6)
IV. Comments and Responses
A. Refrigerated Transport--Intermodal Containers
B. Industrial Process Refrigeration and Chillers for Industrial
Process Refrigeration in Semiconductor Manufacturing
C. Retail Food--Supermarkets
D. Retail Food--Remote Condensing Units
E. Cold Storage Warehouses
F. Replacement Condensing Units in the Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Subsector
G. Industrial Process Refrigeration in Certain Laboratory
Equipment
H. Preventing Stranded Inventory of Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment
I. Labeling Correction
J. Effective Date of Rules Under Paragraph (i)(6)
K. Other Comments and Responses
V. How do these final amendments impact the implementation of the
Technology Transitions Provisions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
The AIM Act was included as part of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021 that included funding for the Federal Government and the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations, 2021.\1\
The AIM Act authorizes the EPA to regulate hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in
three main areas: phasing down the production and consumption of listed
HFCs; management of 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. The AIM
Act is inherently inflationary because it phases down the production
and consumption of HFCs, which increases the consumer prices of goods
and services that rely upon or use HFCs for refrigeration or other
purposes. This final rule addresses where the AIM Act was forcing more
expensive technology onto consumers (through the Technology Transitions
provisions). This reconsideration ensures that the EPA meets our
statutory obligations under the AIM Act while ensuring that the Agency
keeps the cost of living as low as legally possible for all Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 116-260, div. S, Sec. 103, 134 Stat. 1182, 2255
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Purpose of the Deregulatory Action
Subsection (i) of the AIM Act provides that the Administrator ``may
by rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a graduated schedule, the use
of a regulated substance \2\ in the sector or subsector in which the
regulated substance is used.'' \3\ The EPA may exercise this
discretionary authority either on its own initiative or in response to
petitions for a restriction on the use of one or more regulated
substance(s). In deciding whether and how to exercise this authority,
the EPA must consider the best available data, the availability of
substitutes (including technological achievability, commercial demand,
affordability for consumers, safety, and other relevant factors),
overall economic costs and environmental impacts as compared to
historical trends, and the remaining phasedown period for the regulated
substance(s), if applicable.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Regulated substance'' and ``HFC'' are used interchangeably
in this rule. The AIM Act defines ``regulated substance'' by
reference to a list of HFCs and the EPA has not attempted to add any
additional saturated hydrofluorocarbons to the statutory list
pursuant to subsection (c)(3). See 42 U.S.C. 7675(c)(1), (c)(2)(A).
\3\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(1).
\4\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(4)-(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2023, the EPA published a final rule under
subsection (i) of the AIM Act entitled ``Phasedown of
Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of Certain
Hydrofluorocarbons Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act
of 2020'' (2023 Final Rule).\5\ This final rule restricted the use of
HFCs in specific sectors or subsectors, established a process for
submitting technology transitions petitions, established recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, and addressed certain other elements
related to the effective implementation of the AIM Act. The 2023 Final
Rule became effective on December 26, 2023. The 2023 Final Rule applied
to over 40 subsectors across the aerosols, foams, and refrigeration,
air conditioning, and heat pumps sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 88 FR 73098 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After publication of the 2023 Final Rule, manufacturers, importers,
and distributors of residential and light commercial air conditioning
and heat pump equipment informed the EPA that the compliance date for
the restriction on installation will result in substantial stranded
inventory in that subsector for residential new construction, including
both single-family and multi-family dwellings, where builders order
heating and cooling equipment well in advance of knowing the exact date
of installation. In response, the EPA issued an interim final rule
(IFR) \6\ to address the unique circumstances of that particular
subsector to prevent such equipment from being stranded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 88 FR 88825 (December 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also received four administrative petitions for
reconsideration and several requests to adjust certain provisions of
the 2023 Final Rule after its publication.
On January 31, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14192
(Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation).\7\ On March 12, 2025,
against this backdrop, the EPA announced plans for deregulatory actions
to, among other things, lower the cost of living for American
families.\8\ On that same day, and as part of the larger Agency plan,
the EPA announced plans to reconsider the regulations promulgated via
the 2023 Final Rule ``that forces companies to use certain technologies
that increased costs on food at grocery stores and semiconductor
manufacturing.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 90 FR 9065 (February 6, 2025).
\8\ See EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S.
History, March 12, 2025, in the docket for this action.
\9\ See Trump EPA Announces OOOO b/c Reconsideration of Biden-
Harris Rules Strangling American Energy Producers, March 12, 2025,
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 3, 2025, the EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled ``Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Reconsideration
of Certain Regulatory Requirements Promulgated Under the Technology
Transitions Provisions of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act
of 2020'' (October 2025 Proposal) \10\ that proposed revisions for
restrictions applicable to: certain intermodal refrigerated transport
containers, certain
[[Page 31286]]
industrial process refrigeration and chillers for industrial process
refrigeration equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing, retail
food--supermarket systems, retail food--remote condensing units, cold
storage warehouses, residential and light commercial air conditioning
and heat pump systems, and certain laboratory equipment, among other
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 90 FR 47999 (October 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action
This final rule addresses significant issues raised in
administrative petitions and input received from regulated industry and
other interested parties with respect to regulatory provisions
promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pursuant to the
AIM Act subsection (i). In particular, the EPA received four
administrative petitions \11\ to reconsider certain provisions of 40
CFR part 84, subpart B, entitled ``Restrictions on the Use of
Hydrofluorocarbons,'' that were finalized in the 2023 Final Rule. We
also received other requests to reassess compliance dates and/or other
provisions finalized in the 2023 Final Rule. Specifically, this final
rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See administrative petitions for reconsideration in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Amends the intermodal refrigerated transport provisions at 40
CFR 84.54(a)(6) and 84.54(c)(7) to: (a) adjust the lower bound
temperature exclusion threshold of -50 [deg]C to -35 [deg]C, and (b)
change the location where that temperature is measured.
2. Amends the compliance date for certain chillers used for
industrial process refrigeration (IPR) and certain IPR equipment used
to manufacture semiconductors from January 1, 2026, and January 1,
2028, as applicable, to January 1, 2030.
3. Amends the global warming potential (GWP) limit (hereafter
``limit'') for retail food remote condensing units at 40 CFR
84.54(c)(11) from 150 or 300, as applicable, to 1,400 until January 1,
2032, and either 150 or 300, depending on charge size or whether it is
part of the high temperature side of a cascade system, starting January
1, 2032.
4. Amends the limit for supermarket systems at 40 CFR 84.54(c)(12)
from 150 or 300, as applicable, to 1,400 until January 1, 2032, and
either 150 or 300, depending on charge size or whether it is part of
the high temperature side of a cascade system, starting January 1,
2032.
5. Amends 40 CFR 84.54(e)(2) to allow supermarket systems to
increase system cooling capacity up to 15 percent from zero percent
compared to original installed capacity without this being considered
the installation of a new system.
6. Amends the limit for cold storage warehouses at 40 CFR
84.54(c)(9) from 150 or 300, as applicable, to 700 until January 1,
2032, and either 150 or 300, depending on charge size or whether it is
part of the high temperature side of a cascade system, starting January
1, 2032.
7. Amends the compliance date for refrigerated laboratory
centrifuges and laboratory shakers from January 1, 2026, to January 1,
2028.
8. Removes the installation deadline for systems in the residential
and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps (AC/HP) subsector,
where all specified components of such systems were domestically
manufactured or imported before January 1, 2025.
9. Corrects a typographical error at 40 CFR 84.58(b).
3. Impacts From This Rule
Table 1 of this preamble below provides a summary of both monetized
and non-monetized impacts. Monetized impacts include estimated
engineering cost savings for equipment owners in affected subsectors.
These cost savings arise from cases where additional flexibility
provided by the rule allows for the use of refrigerant-containing
equipment with lower capital and/or operating costs than equipment that
would otherwise likely be chosen without additional flexibility. As
part of fulfilling analytical guidance with respect to Executive Order
12866, the EPA presents estimates of the present value (PV) of the
benefits and costs over the full time series included in this analysis
(2026-2050). To calculate the PV of the cost savings of the rule,
annual savings are discounted to 2025 at three percent and seven
percent discount rates as directed by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-4. The EPA also presents the equivalent annualized
value (EAV), which represents a flow of constant annual values that,
had they occurred in each year in the time series, would yield a sum
equivalent to the PV, discounted at three percent and seven percent.
Table 1--Summary of Monetized and Non-Monetized Economic Impacts, 2026-2050
[Millions of 2024 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Cost Savings in Affected Subsectors. 3 Percent discount rate
7 Percent discount rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
PV EAV PV EAV
---------------------------------------------------------------
$976 $56 $653 $56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Monetized Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits and Cost Savings:
Avoided loss of ability to produce semiconductor wafers within the United States...................
National security benefits.........................................................................
Costs and Forgone Benefits:
Indirect costs via HFC market impacts..............................................................
Costs to equipment manufacturers and suppliers related to incremental investments required.........
Forgone benefits from potential increased emissions of HFCs........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA anticipates that this action will result in indirect market
and/or distributional consumer effects not explicitly included in the
monetized impacts. For example, as supermarkets operate with extremely
thin margins (1-
[[Page 31287]]
2%), supermarkets are not able to internalize additional regulatory
costs much and externalize those costs on customers, thereby driving up
costs of food and other goods. Therefore, we expect that almost all, if
not all, of the cost savings for supermarkets will be passed onto
customers, thus reducing the burden of AIM Act implementation under
subsection (i) on consumers in the form of increased prices for food
and other goods.
There are economic effects with potentially significant
consequences related to other provisions as well, including for
semiconductor manufacturing. For example, under the baseline
requirements, semiconductor facilities using IPR or Chillers for IPR
equipment with charge sizes of 100 pounds or less faced technically
infeasible requirements. Such facilities would have been forced to
delay operations or invest in costly pre-commercial technologies. To
the extent productivity may have been impacted, the costs could have
been significantly larger than the costs of refrigeration
equipment.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Comment from Semiconductor Equipment and Materials
International (SEMI): ``The economic costs of downtime in
semiconductor production are extraordinary. A modern fabrication
plant can lose millions of dollars per day in halted output.'' See
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0005-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, this action may result in increased demand for HFCs.
This in turn may result in tighter supply \13\ and higher HFC prices
for downstream consumers, including users of HFCs in subsectors outside
the scope of this final rule. In combination with other AIM Act rules,
the adjustments in this action can continue to support an efficient
transition from HFCs to lower-GWP alternatives, consistent with the
statutory requirements under the AIM Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Overall supply of HFCs is constrained by the statutory HFC
phasedown caps contained in subsection (e) of the AIM Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more detailed information, see the memorandum entitled Analysis
of Economic and Environmental Impacts--Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons:
Reconsideration of Certain Regulatory Requirements Promulgated Under
the Technology Transitions Provisions of the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020 (``Economic and Environmental Impacts
Memo''). The information provided in the Economic and Environmental
Impacts Memo and in this section of the preamble is descriptive and for
informational purposes only; it is not part of the rationale for
reaching the decisions in this final rule. The EPA is not relying on
this section or the Economic and Environmental Impacts Memo as a record
basis for the final action.
B. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this rule if you manufacture,
import, export, sell, distribute, install, or use refrigerated
transport intermodal containers, chillers and industrial process
refrigeration equipment used in the manufacture of semiconductors,
retail food refrigeration equipment for remote condensing units and
supermarkets, refrigeration systems in cold storage warehouses,
refrigerated centrifuges, refrigerated laboratory shakers, or
residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pump
systems. Potentially affected categories, by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code, are:
236116; New Multifamily Housing Construction (except For-Sale
Builders)
236117; New Housing For-Sale Builders
236118; Residential Remodelers
236210; Industrial Building Construction
236220; Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
238220; Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors
325120; Industrial Gas Manufacturing
333242; Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing
333415; Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing
333998; All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery
Manufacturing
334413; Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing
335220; Major Household Appliance Manufacturing
423620; Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and
Consumer Electronics 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
424410; General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers
424420; Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers
445110; Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience)
Stores
445131; Convenience Retailers
449210; Electronics and Appliance Retailers
452311; Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
483111; Deep Sea Freight Transportation
484230; Specialized Freight (Except Used Goods) Trucking,
Long-Distance
493120; Refrigerated Warehousing Storage
531110; Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings
531120; Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except
Miniwarehouses)
541380; Testing Laboratories
561210; Facilities Support Services
811412; Appliance Repair and Maintenance
This list is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This list includes the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed could also be regulated. To determine whether your
entity may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 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.
II. Statutory Background and Regulatory History
A. What is the authority for this action?
The AIM Act authorizes the EPA to regulate HFCs in three main
areas: phasing down the production and consumption of listed HFCs;
management of 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 rule
focuses on the third area: the transition to next-generation
technologies.
Subsection (i) of the AIM Act, titled ``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.''
\14\ Unlike other provisions in the AIM Act, the Administrator's
subsection (i) authority is discretionary. When deciding whether and
how to exercise this discretionary authority, the EPA ``shall, to the
extent practicable, factor in'' several enumerated considerations,
including use of ``the best available data,'' ``the availability of
substitutes for
[[Page 31288]]
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 applicable regulations.\15\ In this
way, Congress expressly required the EPA to consider the cost of
subsection (i) rules, including costs to consumers, as well as
additional factors like technical feasibility, and authorized the
Agency to consider ``other relevant factors'' pertaining to the
availability of substitutes. For additional discussion of the EPA's
authorities under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, please refer to the
2023 Final Rule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(1).
\15\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(4)(A)-(D); see also id. 7675(i)(5)
(``In carrying out this subsection, the Administrator shall--(A)
evaluate substitutes for regulated substances in a sector or
subsector, taking into account technological achievability,
commercial demands, safety, overall economic costs and environmental
impacts, and other relevant factors; and (B) make the evaluation
under subparagraph (A) available to the public, including the
factors associated with the safety of those substitutes.'').
\16\ See 88 FR 73098 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, subsection (k)(1)(A) of the AIM Act authorizes the EPA
to promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out the AIM
Act's functions, including its obligations to ensure that requirements
of the AIM Act are satisfied.\17\ Subsection (k)(1)(C) of the AIM Act
further provides that CAA sections 113, 114, 304, and 307 apply to the
AIM Act and any regulations promulgated thereunder as though the AIM
Act were part of title VI of the CAA.\18\ Accordingly, this rulemaking
is subject to the procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(k)(1)(A).
\18\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(k)(1)(C).
\19\ See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA noted in the preamble to the proposed rule that this
rulemaking does not merit the use of negotiated rulemaking procedures
described in paragraph (i)(2). The EPA received no comments on this
issue and is not revisiting it in this final rule.
Unless provided otherwise by statute, an agency may revise or
rescind prior actions so long as it acknowledges the change in
position, provides a reasonable explanation for the new position, and
considers legitimate reliance interests in the prior position.\20\
Relevant case law confirms that legitimate reliance interests do not
create a higher bar for adopting a new policy but rather serve as
relevant considerations along with other relevant factors informing the
new policy.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See FDA v. Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC, 145 S. Ct. 898
(2025); FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009); Motor
Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29
(1983); Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(``Agencies obviously have broad discretion to reconsider a
regulation at any time.'').
\21\ DHS v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 21 (2020)
(``Agencies are not compelled to explore every alternative device
and thought conceivable by the mind of man. But, because DHS was not
writing on a blank slate, it was required to assess whether there
were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant,
and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns.'')
(internal citations omitted); MediNatura, Inc. v. FDA, 998 F.3d 931,
942-43 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (in withdrawing a 30-year old guidance
document on enforcement of homeopathic drugs, FDA considered
reliance interests and reasonably explained that the new policy was
supported by safety concerns, the continued expansion in the
impacted industry, and the agency's general interest in its risk-
based enforcement approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has considered the reliance interests presented to the
Agency in this rulemaking in the comments and elsewhere. Here, the
Agency has considered the reliance interests detailed in the comments
along with other considerations, including the AIM Act's subsection
(i)(4) statutory factors, and has determined that the requirements
should be amended as is detailed in this rulemaking. The EPA received
specific comments on reliance interests relating to the retail food--
supermarkets, retail food--remote condensing units, and cold storage
warehouses subsectors. For particular responses to those comments, see
section IV.K.2 of this preamble.
B. Severability
This final rule addresses restrictions in several distinct
refrigeration and air conditioning applications regulated under
subsection (i) of the AIM Act. The EPA has independently considered
each of those provisions in this rule, and intends that each change to
restrictions in distinct applications be severable from all other
changes to restrictions in distinct applications. The changes made for
each application are supported by their own record and analyses,
including separate analysis of the AIM Act statutory factors under
subsection (i)(4). If a court were to review the EPA's final action and
invalidate any particular change to a restriction, the Agency would
intend that any remaining changes remain effective. This final rule
also includes an interpretation of the requirements contained in
subsection (i)(6) of the AIM Act. If a court were to review the EPA's
final action and invalidate the Agency's interpretation of subsection
(i)(6), the EPA would intend that the substantive amendments to
applicable restrictions remain with an effective date reflecting the
outcome of judicial review.
C. Summary of 2023 Final Rule
In the 2023 Final Rule, the EPA considered a number of petitions
submitted under subsection (i)(3) to restrict, fully, partially, or on
a graduated schedule, the use of HFCs in the sector or subsector in
which the regulated substance is used.\22\ The Agency's analysis
supporting that final rule endeavored to apply the factors in
subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act to the information available to the
EPA at that time, including with respect to availability of
substitutes, overall economic costs and environmental impacts, and the
remaining phasedown period for HFCs. Among other things, the 2023 Final
Rule prohibited the domestic manufacture and import of aerosols, foams,
and factory-completed refrigeration, AC, and heat pump products as well
as the installation of refrigeration, AC, and heat pump systems that
use HFCs or HFC blends above specified limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 88 FR 73098 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The compliance dates for these restrictions varied by sector and
subsector and generally ranged from January 1, 2025, to January 1,
2028. The rule also prohibited the sale, distribution, and export of
factory-completed products that do not comply with the relevant
restrictions three years after the prohibition on domestic manufacture
and import goes into effect. The rule did not prohibit the sale,
distribution, and export of components needed to repair existing
refrigeration and air conditioning systems.
To meet the compliance dates and limits for the sectors and
subsectors with restrictions in the 2023 Final Rule, various degrees of
change were required. The Agency based decisions for compliance dates
and limits on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to:
petitions submitted under AIM Act subsection (i), comments received on
those petitions, information we provided in market characterization
technical support documents located in the docket for the 2023 Final
Rule, and comments on the proposal to the 2023 Final Rule. For example,
for sectors such as aerosols and foams, alternatives
[[Page 31289]]
below the limits were in use, often to large degrees. Similarly,
several subsectors in the refrigeration and AC sector, such as motor
vehicle air conditioning, household refrigerators and freezers, retail
food--refrigeration stand-alone units, and others, had alternatives
below the applicable limits that were widely available and in use.
Other subsectors had known alternatives with more nascent technologies
such as retail food--supermarket systems. The subsectors with
identified alternatives with more limited use generally had later
compliance dates, such as Chiller for IPR systems and IPR systems that
operate at temperatures between -50 [deg]C to -30 [deg]C. Equipment in
such subsectors had compliance dates of January 1, 2028. See the 2023
Final Rule and the Regulatory Impact Analysis and other documents in
that docket for additional information.
D. Summary of 2023 Interim Final Rule
After publication of the 2023 Final Rule, manufacturers, importers,
and distributors of residential and light commercial AC/HP equipment
informed the EPA that the compliance date for the restriction on
installation will result in substantial stranded inventory in that
subsector for residential new construction, including both single-
family and multi-family dwellings, where builders order heating and
cooling equipment well in advance of knowing the exact date of
installation. In response, the EPA issued an IFR \23\ to address the
unique circumstances of that particular subsector to prevent such
equipment from being stranded. In particular, that rule extended the
installation compliance date from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026,
so long as all the components were manufactured in the United States or
imported into the United States before January 1, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 88 FR 88825 (December 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Summary of Administrative Petitions and Requests Related to This
Rulemaking
The EPA received four administrative petitions to reconsider
certain aspects of the 2023 Final Rule.\24\ One petitioner requested
that the EPA adjust the temperature threshold and temperature location
for transport refrigeration--intermodal containers. Another requested
an extension of the compliance date for process refrigeration equipment
used in semiconductor manufacturing. Two separate petitioners requested
that the EPA consider limiting import, domestic manufacture, and
installation of condensing units used for residential and light
commercial AC/HP systems. The EPA granted reconsideration of these
administrative petitions in June 2024 \25\ and the October 2025
Proposal for this rulemaking provided an opportunity for public comment
on a set of proposed changes based on these administrative petitions.
The EPA also received other requests to adjust certain restrictions at
40 CFR part 84, subpart B for certain retail food subsectors,\26\ cold
storage warehouses,\27\ refrigerated laboratory centrifuges,\28\ and
laboratory shakers.\29\ In response to these requests and additional
concerns identified by the Agency and stakeholders, the EPA announced a
reconsideration of aspects of the 2023 Final Rule on March 12, 2025, as
one of the deregulatory actions included in the Administrator's
``Powering the Great American Comeback'' initiative.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Three petitions for judicial review of the 2023 Final Rule
were also filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
and are being held in abeyance. See Semiconductor Equipment &
Materials Int'l v. EPA (D.C. Cir. Case No. 23-1344); Chemours Co.
FC, LLC v. EPA (D.C. Cir. Case No. 23-1345); and Food Marketplace,
Inc. et al. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. Case No. 23-1347).
\25\ The four administrative petitions for reconsideration and
the EPA's responses granting reconsideration are in the docket for
this action.
\26\ See letter from trade association dated February 11, 2025,
in the docket for this action.
\27\ See request from trade association dated March 6, 2025, in
the docket for this action.
\28\ See request from manufacturer dated June 6, 2024, in the
docket for this action.
\29\ See request from manufacturer, dated April 8, 2025, in the
docket for this action.
\30\ See EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S.
History, March 12, 2025, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
The AIM Act regulations promulgated herein may be challenged in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of the
AIM Act regulations must be filed in that court within 60 days after
the date notice of this final action is published in the Federal
Register.
The AIM Act provides that certain sections of the CAA ``shall
apply'' to the AIM Act and actions ``promulgated by the Administrator
of [EPA] pursuant to [the AIM Act] as though [the AIM Act] were
expressly included in title VI of [the CAA].'' \31\ Among the
applicable sections of the CAA is section 307, which includes
provisions on judicial review. CAA section 307(b)(1) provides, in part,
that petitions for review must only be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) when the agency
action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or
final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action
is locally or regionally applicable, but ``such action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(k)(1)(C).
\32\ See 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AIM Act regulations promulgated herein are ``nationally
applicable regulations'' within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1).
These regulations establish regulatory requirements applicable across
the entire United States to implement restrictions under subsection (i)
of the AIM Act. The regulations promulgated herein amend an existing
nationally applicable regulation by adjusting a compliance deadline for
certain systems. The deadlines in the amended regulation and the
conditions required to qualify for those extended deadlines are
nationally applicable to all affected entities. Accordingly, under CAA
section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of these AIM Act
regulations must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by July 27, 2026.
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' \33\ Any person seeking to make
such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration
to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31290]]
III. Summary of Final Action
A. Refrigerated Transport--Intermodal Containers
The EPA is finalizing amendments to provisions related to
refrigerated transport--intermodal containers, as proposed.
Specifically, this final rule raises the lower-bound temperature
exclusion threshold of -50 [deg]C to -35 [deg]C and changes the
location where that temperature is measured to the inside of the
container, referred to as the box temperature.
1. Background
Refrigerated transport--intermodal containers are refrigerated
containers with an integrated power source that allow uninterrupted
storage during transport on different mobile platforms, including
railways, road trucks, and vessels.\34\ These intermodal containers
used for refrigerated transport are regulated as products and systems
at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(6) and (c)(7), respectively, depending on their
design. They primarily carry perishable goods (e.g., food) and
pharmaceuticals at temperatures between -30 [deg]C and 16 [deg]C and
can be designed to operate at higher and lower temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 88 FR 73171 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2023 Final Rule restricted the use of HFCs in intermodal
containers when the temperature of the refrigerant entering the
evaporator (for direct heat exchange systems) or the temperature of the
fluid exiting (for chillers) is -50 [deg]C or higher.\35\ These
regulations do not apply where temperatures are below -50 [deg]C. At
the time, the EPA understood that several substitutes were available
for refrigerated transport--intermodal containers, including R-744
(also known as carbon dioxide or CO2),\36\ R-450A, R-
513A.\37\ As discussed in the October 2025 proposal, the EPA received
comments on the proposal to the 2023 Final Rule, including a request
for a higher limit than 700 for such equipment operating below -50
[deg]C.\38\ The EPA did not receive information at the time indicating
that operating such equipment with refrigerants below a 700 limit at
temperatures above -50 [deg]C and below -35 [deg]C was infeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The restrictions for refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers began January 1, 2025. The EPA issued a no action
assurance on January 17, 2025, regarding the restrictions at 40 CFR
84.54(a)(6) and (c)(7), which remained in effect until January 1,
2026. The EPA extended the no action assurance on December 22, 2025,
until September 1, 2026, or the date this rulemaking is finalized,
whichever occurs earlier.
\36\ R-744 is the ASHRAE refrigerant designation for carbon
dioxide (CO2).
\37\ See 88 FR 73172 (October 24, 2023).
\38\ See 90 FR 48002 (October 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After publication of the 2023 Final Rule, a manufacturer of
intermodal containers that maintain a range of temperatures, petitioned
the EPA to raise the temperature threshold and change the temperature
measurement location for this subsector.\39\ The petitioner requested
the regulatory text at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(6) and (c)(7) be changed to,
``Effective January 1, 2025, refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers designed to reach and maintain -35 [deg]C box temperature or
higher using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater.'' In
particular, the petitioner requested that the EPA adjust the
temperature threshold to distinguish between refrigerants used for deep
frozen cargo and those used for fresh and frozen cargo. The petitioner
noted that deep frozen cargo containers are used to transport cargo
that require temperatures at or below -35 [deg]C and include critical
life sciences products such as blood plasma and pharmaceuticals. The
petitioner stated that intermodal containers used to transport deep
frozen cargo must use refrigerants with lower boiling points, including
R-404A and R-452A.\40\ This contrasts with fresh and frozen cargo
containers, which the petitioner noted require temperatures that range
from -30 [deg]C to 30 [deg]C, and previously could use R-134a. One
compliant refrigerant that can achieve temperatures in this range, and
is currently used, includes R-513A.\41\ The petitioner indicated that
there are no available refrigerants below the applicable limit that can
achieve and maintain box temperatures below -35 [deg]C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See manufacturer's administrative petition for
reconsideration in the docket for this action.
\40\ See email from manufacturer, dated January 16, 2025, in the
docket for this action.
\41\ See materials from manufacturer submitted November 2023 in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the administrative petition, the petitioner also requested an
adjustment to the location at which the temperature is measured from
the ``temperature of the refrigerant entering the evaporator (for
direct heat exchange systems) or the temperature of the fluid exiting
(for chillers)'' to the ``box temperature'' because this measurement is
more commonly used by the industry in this subsector. The box
temperature is the temperature within the intermodal refrigerated
transport container (i.e., the ``box''). The petitioner also requested
that the EPA clarify that the temperature measurement be based on the
lowest temperature at which the equipment is ``designed to reach and
maintain.'' The petitioner further explained that this subsector uses
direct expansion equipment, not chillers, so the reference to chillers
in the regulatory text is unnecessary.
Based on the new information from the administrative petition, the
EPA agreed with the petitioner that there are currently no refrigerants
available with sufficiently low boiling points and high refrigeration
capacities for this temperature range. The EPA thus proposed to raise
the temperature threshold for this equipment from -50 [deg]C to -35
[deg]C. The EPA also agreed with the petitioner that the location at
which the temperature is measured is better suited as the box
temperature. The EPA thus also proposed to adjust the location at which
the temperature is measured to be the box temperature.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 90 FR 47999 (October 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Final Rule
The EPA is amending the provisions related to refrigerated
transport--intermodal containers as proposed. The EPA evaluated the
additional information provided by the petitioner \43\ after
publication of the 2023 Final Rule, the comments provided on the
proposed rule, and other information, and reassessed the factors under
AIM Act subsection (i)(4). The Agency concludes that refrigerants used
to reach and maintain such low temperatures in intermodal containers
require refrigerants with sufficiently low boiling points and high
refrigeration capacities.\44\ Among other rationale provided within
this section, section IV.A of this preamble, and in the Response to
Comments document, the Agency finds that there is no alternative that
is currently available that meets the limit established in the 2023
Final Rule and which could meet the needs of intermodal refrigerated
transport equipment designed to operate at box temperatures below -35
[deg]C. Given the transportation conditions necessary for shipping
blood plasma, pharmaceuticals, temperature-sensitive enzymes, dangerous
goods, and other materials at temperatures below -35 [deg]C, the EPA
concludes that targeted relief is appropriate and consistent with the
factors and considerations set out in AIM Act subsection (i)(4) given
the change in our understanding of availability of substitutes for this
temperature range for this equipment. The Agency describes and responds
to
[[Page 31291]]
comments in section IV.A of this preamble and the Response to Comments
document in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See materials from manufacturer submitted November 2023 in
the docket for this action.
\44\ See table of refrigerants (R-404A, R-452A, R-513A, R-450A,
R-744), their boiling points, and refrigeration capacities in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Industrial Process Refrigeration and Chillers for Industrial Process
Refrigeration in Semiconductor Manufacturing
The EPA is finalizing amendments to provisions related to IPR and
Chillers for IPR used to manufacture semiconductors as proposed.
Specifically, the EPA is extending the compliance date for certain IPR
and Chillers for IPR. The compliance date is extended from January 1,
2026, and January 1, 2028, as applicable, to January 1, 2030. This
extension is limited to equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing
that has a charge size of 100 pounds or less.
1. Background
The EPA considers refrigeration equipment used in semiconductor
manufacturing to fall within the IPR and Chillers for IPR
subsectors.\45\ The refrigeration equipment is often built into
specialized machines that sort, mark, and cut wafers during the
semiconductor manufacturing process, referred to as ``Semiconductor
Manufacturing and Related Equipment,'' or SMRE, throughout this rule.
SMRE may operate at a range of temperatures depending on the function
being performed and typically must maintain precise temperatures to
produce high-quality semiconductor wafers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 88 FR 73119 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPR systems are used to cool process streams at a specific point in
manufacturing and other industrial processes (e.g., in the chemical,
pharmaceutical, and petrochemical industries). IPR systems 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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 88 FR 73141-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A chiller is a type of equipment that uses refrigerant to cool
water or a brine solution that is then pumped to fan coil units or
other air handlers to cool the air that is supplied to the conditioned
spaces. The heat absorbed by the water or brine can be used for heating
purposes and/or transferred directly to the air (``air-cooled''), to a
cooling tower or body of water (``water-cooled''), or through
evaporative coolers (``evaporative-cooled'').\47\ Chillers can be used
to cool process streams in industrial applications; in such instances,
these chillers are regulated as ``Chillers for IPR'' and not as
``IPR.'' Throughout this rule, the term ``IPR'' refers to IPR equipment
that does not use chillers. The term ``Chillers for IPR'' refers to IPR
equipment that utilizes chillers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 88 FR 73174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restrictions on the use of HFCs and HFC blends in IPR and Chillers
for IPR, including process equipment used to manufacture
semiconductors, are implemented at different limits (150, 300, and
700). The restrictions put in place by the 2023 Final Rule start on
either January 1, 2026, or January 1, 2028, depending on charge size
and the temperature at which the equipment is designed to operate.\48\
IPR and Chillers used for IPR at temperatures below -50 [deg]C are not
subject to restrictions under the 2023 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The EPA issued a no action assurance on December 22, 2025,
for this equipment that lasts until September 1, 2026, or until this
rule is finalized, whichever comes sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A trade association representing the semiconductor industry
petitioned the EPA on December 22, 2023, to reconsider the compliance
dates that affect SMRE for the IPR and Chillers for IPR subsectors. The
petitioner submitted multiple supplemental letters to the Agency in the
following months clarifying requests in their administrative petition.
In one letter, they clarified that the administrative petition seeks
relief only for SMRE that have a charge size of 100 pounds or less.
They also clarified that for the relevant restrictions with compliance
dates of January 1, 2026, or January 1, 2028, they request delaying the
compliance date to January 1, 2030.\49\ Five SMRE suppliers also
submitted letters to the Agency between May 2024 and August 2024
indicating their support of the trade association's request to extend
the relevant compliance dates to January 1, 2030.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See semiconductor trade association's letter to the EPA,
dated May 3, 2024, in the docket for this action.
\50\ See letters of support from five semiconductor equipment
manufacturing suppliers in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner stated that equipment using substitute refrigerants
that fit this industry's unique circumstances will not be available by
the current compliance dates and estimated that developing and
implementing alternatives that are fit for purpose could take five
years.\51\ In particular, the petitioner noted that to manufacture
semiconductors, process refrigeration equipment must be able to
maintain precise control of narrow temperature tolerances, which can be
as small as 0.1 [deg]C 0.05 [deg]C for some applications.
The petitioner also explained that using certain substitutes such as
CO2 or lower flammability and flammable alternatives as a
refrigerant in SMRE would require changing how equipment is integrated
into semiconductor manufacturing facilities or limit the capabilities
of the process equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See semiconductor trade association's supplemental
submission to the EPA, dated June 18, 2024, in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner stated that CO2 offers a potential path,
yet some challenges would require further validation and testing.\52\
The petitioner has indicated that although R-728 \53\ may also be a
viable refrigerant, it would not be tested and validated in time to
meet the compliance dates established in the 2023 Final Rule.\54\ The
petitioner also indicated that R-32 and R-454C are not immediately
viable solutions because they both are flammable and R-32 would not
meet the limit for all SMRE use cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See semiconductor trade association's supplemental
submission to the EPA, dated June 18, 2024, in the docket for this
action.
\53\ R-728 is the ASHRAE refrigerant designation for nitrogen
gas (N2).
\54\ See February 20, 2024, meeting between semiconductor trade
association and the EPA in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner noted that SMRE are custom-engineered and that
equipment availability is limited to meet the precise temperature and
humidity control requirements, particularly in the range between -50
[deg]C and -30 [deg]C. Due to the combination of factors that present
unique circumstances for this industry, the petitioner asserted that
the development of substitutes for SMRE will take more time than for
IPR and Chillers for IPR used in other sectors.\55\ Further details are
found in the proposed rule for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See semiconductor trade association's letter to the EPA,
dated May 3, 2024, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agreed with the petitioner on the time needed to design,
test, qualify, validate, and deploy substitutes for SMRE with charge
sizes of 100 pounds or less. The EPA also agreed that a compliance
deadline of January 1, 2030, for this equipment, as suggested by the
petitioner and five semiconductor equipment manufacturing suppliers, is
reasonable for available substitutes to be developed. The EPA therefore
proposed to extend the compliance date for IPR and Chillers for IPR
equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing which have a charge size
of 100 pounds or less from January 1, 2026, and January 1, 2028, as
applicable, to January 1, 2030.
2. Final Rule
The EPA is finalizing provisions related to IPR and Chillers for
IPR used to manufacture semiconductors as
[[Page 31292]]
proposed. Specifically, the EPA is delaying the compliance dates for
certain IPR and Chillers for IPR from January 1, 2026, and January 1,
2028, as applicable, to January 1, 2030. This extension is limited to
equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing that has a charge size of
100 pounds or less.
Given the additional information the Agency received since the 2023
Final Rule, the Agency has reassessed the factors under subsection AIM
Act subsection (i)(4). The EPA finds that the semiconductor
manufacturing industry faces unique circumstances in manufacturing
semiconductors, including ensuring that available substitutes can
satisfy precise temperature control requirements. For example, the
petitioner explained that precise control is required to realize
process performance, including a uniform application of photoresist
coatings. They noted that small changes in temperature during
production can impact semiconductor device features, product
functionality, and product yields. As a further example, the petitioner
described how a 1 [deg]C change in temperature in a projection lens can
result in a few microns accuracy loss and would be ``catastrophic''
\56\ for semiconductor production. The EPA reviewed the comments and
information provided by industry, including letters submitted by five
semiconductor manufacturing equipment suppliers,\57\ that provided
additional details on the time needed to test and validate
alternatives. The EPA agrees with semiconductor manufacturers'
concerns, particularly for potential downtime and that such downtime
could have impacts on critical industries and national security. An
inability to acquire compliant technology could disrupt semiconductor
manufacturing output, which could lead to supply chain disruptions,
with global repercussions in the form of shortages and price
volatility. These supply chain disruptions could cascade across
industries dependent on advanced semiconductor chips, including defense
manufacturing, telecommunications, energy production, artificial
intelligence, and the automotive industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See 90 FR 48004 (October 3, 2025).
\57\ See letters of support from five semiconductor equipment
manufacturing suppliers in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the information provided by the petitioner on the need for
more time to test, qualify, and validate substitutes, additional
related information from five semiconductor manufacturing equipment
suppliers, and comments on the proposed rule, the EPA agrees that a
transition to available substitutes will be able to be made by January
1, 2030. The EPA also finds that semiconductor manufacturing equipment
faced technically infeasible requirements to transition and that
companies that run facilities with such equipment would have been
forced to delay operations or invest in costly pre-commercial
technologies. To the extent that productivity may have been impacted,
the costs could have been significantly larger than the costs of
refrigeration. The Agency concludes that the targeted relief provided
for this equipment is appropriate given our change in understanding of
the availability of substitutes and the overall economic costs and
environmental impacts. The Agency describes and responds to comments in
section IV.B of this preamble and the Response to Comments document in
the docket.
C. Retail Food--Supermarket Systems
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, amendments to the limits for
supermarket systems to establish a graduated schedule with an interim
limit of 1,400 starting January 1, 2027, and 150 or 300, depending on
charge size or whether it is part of the high temperature side of a
cascade system, starting January 1, 2032. The EPA is also finalizing a
provision allowing for a 15 percent increase in cooling capacity of an
existing supermarket system without triggering the requirements that
apply to new installations.
1. Background
Supermarket systems, also known as multiplex or centralized
systems, operate with racks of compressors installed in a machinery
room where different compressors turn on to match the refrigeration
load necessary to maintain temperatures in display cases in the sales
area. Direct supermarket designs circulate refrigerant 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.\58\ Indirect supermarket designs include
secondary loop systems and cascade refrigeration systems. 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
to 20 units, each using small charge sizes. As the refrigeration load
changes, so does the number of active chillers. Each compact chiller is
an independent unit with its own refrigerant charge, reducing the
potential volume of refrigerant that could be released from leaks or
catastrophic failures. Despite the term ``chiller'' used in the
description, these systems are considered supermarket systems for
purposes of 40 CFR part 84, subpart B. 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,\59\ with 5 to
10 such systems in a store.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Supermarket walk-in cold rooms are often integrated into
the system and cooled similarly, but a dedicated condensing unit can
be provided for a given storage room.
\59\ A supermarket may also use other types of refrigeration
equipment covered by separate subsectors, including stand-alone
units, remote condensing units, refrigerated beverage dispensers,
and ice machines. Such equipment is not a part of the ``supermarket
system'' subsector for purposes of 40 CFR part 84, subpart B merely
as a result of being located in a supermarket.
\60\ See 88 FR 73157-58 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supermarket systems account for a significant amount of HFC demand.
In particular, supermarket systems accounted for 24 percent of the
demand for HFCs in the refrigeration and AC/HP sector in 2025.\61\
Supermarket systems' large charge sizes and higher leak rates than many
other subsectors \62\ drive the demand for HFCs in these systems. Prior
to 2010, this subsector used R-22, which is an ozone-depleting
substance (ODS) that has been phased out, consistent with the
requirements of title VI of the CAA and its implementing regulations.
Since 2010, the majority of refrigeration systems in this subsector
have used refrigerants such as R-404A, R-407A, and R-507A. More
recently, supermarket systems have transitioned to substitutes such as
HFC/hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) blends, like R-448A, R-449A, and R-513A,
while a portion of the market has transitioned to CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See EPA's Vintaging Model of ODS Substitutes Peer Review
Factsheet, in the docket for this action.
\62\ See Annex 3.9 of the 2024 U.S. Inventory of GHG Emissions
and Sinks, pg. 113, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024-annex-3-additional-source-or-sink-categories-part-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2023 Final Rule established restrictions on the installation of
HFCs and HFC blends in new supermarket systems starting January 1,
2027. The limit finalized in the 2023 Final Rule was 150 for systems
with refrigerant charge capacities greater than or equal to 200 pounds,
and 300 for systems with refrigerant charge capacities less than
[[Page 31293]]
200 pounds or for the high temperature side of cascade systems
irrespective of the total charge capacity. The EPA distinguished
between larger and smaller supermarket systems by their refrigerant
charge capacity based on a distinction between charge sizes in the
safety standards.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The same distinction exists for systems in industrial
process refrigeration, cold storage warehouses, and retail food
remote condensing units. Elsewhere this notice refers to these
limits as ``150 or 300, as applicable'' with the meaning described
here. See 87 FR 76775-76 (December 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2023 Final Rule would have required new retail food supermarket
systems to be installed with refrigerants below a 150 or 300 limit, as
applicable, including CO2, certain HFOs, or certain HFC/HFO
blends.\64\ While some retailers had installed CO2 in new
systems at the time, certain HFOs and HFC/HFO blends were still under
development and had not yet been listed by the SNAP program as
acceptable for use in new supermarket systems. While these additional
options were listed by SNAP in June 2024,\65\ and in advance of the
January 1, 2027, compliance date, the 2023 Final Rule would have
largely required retailers to install either CO2 or newly
listed alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See 88 FR 73158-59 (October 24, 2023).
\65\ See 89 FR 50410 (June 13, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain food retailers and a trade association representing the
supermarket industry expressed concerns about the limited number and
types of substitutes that the EPA determined in the 2023 Final Rule
that would be available for use in supermarket systems by January 1,
2027. Specifically, they stated the rule restricts the food industry to
a handful of substitute refrigerants, including CO2,
ammonia,\66\ and those that are flammable,\67\ which they said are
impractical, infeasible, or create safety concerns.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The ASHRAE designation for ammonia is R-717.
\67\ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2024 Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants. This standard assigns a designation
consisting of two to three alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2L or
B1). The initial capital letter indicates the toxicity, and the
numeral and trailing letter, if any, denotes flammability. The
toxicity class is determined based on allowable exposure and is
signified with a capital letter, where ``A'' denotes lower toxicity
and ``B'' denotes refrigerants of higher toxicity. The standard also
assigns refrigerants a flammability classification of 1, 2, 2L, or 3
based upon the results of standardized testing for flame
propagation, heat of combustion, lower-flammability limit (LFL), and
burning velocity. The flammability classification ``1'' is given to
refrigerants that show no flame propagation. The flammability
classification ``2L'' is given to refrigerants that have lower
flammability. The flammability classification ``2'' is given to
refrigerants that are flammable. The flammability classification
``3'' is given to refrigerants that have higher flammability.
\68\ See trade association's letter to the EPA, dated February
11, 2025, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, they asserted that CO2 technologies are
unreasonably costly, and that, in their current state, they expend a
significant amount of energy to function at a cooling level comparable
to commonly used HFCs, that such technologies are unreliable, that
leaks are difficult to detect and repair, and that such leaks can be
catastrophic to the system's performance.\69\ These food retailers
shared that since water is used to cool CO2 in such systems,
some states' water laws, like those in Nevada, would also be
prohibitive to the effective use of CO2 systems.\70\ They
also asserted that CO2 is not suitable for very large
stores, such as those that are 50,000 square feet or larger. They also
raised safety concerns about using ammonia, a regulated, toxic, and
flammable substance, in some retail environments.\71\ These food
retailers also said that refrigerants with flammability
classifications, such as A2L and A3 refrigerants, may not be
universally available due to delays in updates to local building codes
and potential shortages in technicians trained to use them.
Furthermore, these food retailers are concerned that future regulation
of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) could require retailers
to change systems again from certain compliant fluorinated refrigerants
to others.\72\ Based on these concerns, food retailers requested
additional time to allow the technology and building codes to catch up.
They requested the EPA move the compliance deadline for supermarket
systems to the end of 2032 and suggested an interim limit of 1,400
starting January 1, 2027.\73\ In the proposal for this rulemaking, the
EPA requested comments on various topics including on costs associated
with transitioning to refrigerants in supermarkets systems below the
compliance limit of 150 or 300, as applicable, as well as costs
associated with meeting an interim compliance limit of 1,400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Id.
\70\ See Memorandum--EPA Meetings Related to the Technology
Transitions Reconsideration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, April 18,
2025, in the docket for this action.
\71\ See trade association's letter to the EPA, dated February
11, 2025, in the docket for this action.
\72\ CO2, hydrocarbons, and ammonia are not
fluorinated chemicals and are not PFAS. The EPA notes that the
Federal Government has not adopted a specific definition of PFAS and
has not included HFCs or HFOs in any PFAS-related restrictions.
\73\ See trade association's presentation dated April 18, 2025,
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposed an interim limit of 1,400 starting January 1,
2027, for new supermarket systems. Starting January 1, 2032, the EPA
proposed the limit for supermarket systems to be 150 or 300, depending
on the characteristics of the system, as described previously in this
section.
A trade association representing the supermarket industry also
requested clarifications and potential changes to the codified
regulations at 40 CFR 84.54(e)(2) and (3) to ensure that certain
routine store refreshes, remodels, or layout changes do not trigger the
requirements for new systems.\74\ The 2023 Final Rule discussed two
scenarios in which the EPA would consider modifications to an existing
system to be equal to a new installation requiring the use of compliant
refrigerants:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See email from trade association, dated April 24, 2025, in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an existing system's cooling capacity is increased as
measured in British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour, and
When replacing 75 percent or more of evaporators (by
number) and 100 percent of the compressor racks, condensers, and
connected evaporator loads of an existing system.
The trade association stated that it is normal for stores to
modestly expand the cooling capacity of existing systems when doing a
remodel to accommodate additional products and layouts. They gave a
specific example in which expanding a refrigerated case by 60 inches
could increase the overall cooling capacity of the system, meaning it
would be treated as a new system under the regulations at 40 CFR part
84 subpart B. The trade association requested that the EPA allow
supermarkets to increase the cooling capacity measured in BTU per hour
by up to 25 percent before the equipment is considered a new system.
The EPA requested comments on whether to allow supermarket systems to
expand cooling capacity by some amount without triggering the criteria
for installation of a new system, and if so, what that increase could
be (e.g., 25 percent).
The EPA requested comments on whether to allow supermarket systems
to increase cooling capacity to a certain degree without triggering a
new installation during routine store refreshes, remodels, or layout
changes. The EPA did not propose a specific increase in cooling
capacity that would be allowable without triggering a new installation
of a supermarket system.
[[Page 31294]]
2. Final Rule
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, amendments to the limits for
supermarket systems to establish a graduated schedule with an interim
limit of 1,400 starting January 1, 2027, and 150 or 300, depending on
charge size or whether it is part of the high temperature side of a
cascade system, starting January 1, 2032. The EPA is also finalizing a
provision allowing for a 15 percent increase in cooling capacity of an
existing supermarket system without triggering the requirements that
apply to new installations.
a. Graduated Schedule
The EPA is finalizing a graduated schedule for the use of HFCs in
new supermarket systems as proposed. Specifically, the EPA is relaxing
the existing limit, on an interim basis, to 1,400 starting January 1,
2027, and a limit of 150 or 300 starting January 1, 2032. The limit of
150 is for supermarket systems with refrigerant charge capacities
greater than or equal to 200 pounds, and 300 for supermarket systems
with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds or for the high
temperature side of cascade systems irrespective of the total charge
capacity. The limits of 150 or 300, as described here, are the same
limits as those promulgated with the 2023 Final Rule, just on an
extended timeline. The EPA has reassessed the four factors under AIM
Act subsection (i)(4) given the additional information received ahead
of the October 2025 Proposal and during the comment period. The Agency
understands the need for additional flexibility for supermarket systems
in the near term, and acknowledges the complexity involved with
designing and installing such systems and potential challenges with
building code adoption, particularly at the local level. The interim
limit provides additional flexibility to retailers installing new
equipment in the near term. The EPA also notes that challenges in
deploying such systems vary across certain geographical areas of the
United States which can result in lagging adoption in certain areas.
The targeted relief in this rule is appropriate given changes in our
understanding of the availability of substitutes and the overall
economic costs and environmental impacts. The Agency describes and
responds to comments, including those related to building codes, energy
efficiency, and more, in section IV.C of this preamble and the Response
to Comments document in the docket.
The EPA also recognizes that some supermarkets already use
refrigerants that would have complied with the 2023 Final Rule's
limits. This final rule does not prevent manufacturers or installers
from choosing to use refrigerants below the limits of 150 or 300 ahead
of the new compliance requirements for new systems. The EPA anticipates
the additional time for compliance will allow these systems to continue
to be improved and have additional widespread availability across the
country. Supermarket systems are not off-the-shelf systems and are
configured with many different components to meet the specific needs of
store in which it will be used. The graduated schedule considers this
as some retailers may transition to these available substitutes sooner
than January 1, 2032, while others may require additional flexibility.
b. Expansion of Existing Supermarket Systems
In this final rule, the EPA is establishing that an increase in
cooling capacity of a supermarket system measured in BTU per hour of up
to 15 percent would not be considered a new installation. The EPA is
aware that supermarkets often undergo routine store refreshes,
remodels, or layout changes which may occur once or twice over the
lifetime of the supermarket system to update the look of the retail
floor or improve overall efficiency. The proposed rule discussed the
EPA's intention, consistent with past practice from the phaseout of R-
22, where the Agency considered if there was sufficient cooling
capacity within the system to support the expansion (e.g. new display
cases), then the store is not changing the intended purpose of the
system, and may use virgin R-22 after the modification/remodel. If the
expansion includes an increase in cooling capacity, then the EPA
presumes that the system's purpose is changing and a new system is
being manufactured. In other words, changes that expanded cooling
capacity for R-22 supermarket systems beyond the initial system designs
were treated as new systems. In this rule the EPA is acknowledging that
for the purposes of subsection (i) of the AIM Act, minor changes during
store refreshes, remodels, or layout changes do not trigger treatment
as a new system and has set an upper bound as discussed in section
IV.C.2 of this preamble.
D. Retail Food--Remote Condensing Unit Systems
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the limits for retail food
remote condensing units to establish an interim limit of 1,400 upon the
effective date of this rule, and 150 or 300, depending on charge size
or whether it is part of the high temperature side of a cascade system,
starting January 1, 2032.
1. Background
Remote condensing units are a type of retail food refrigeration
equipment with refrigeration capacities typically ranging 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, normally located external to the sales area. This
equipment is connected to one or more nearby evaporator(s) used to cool
food and beverages stored in display cases and/or walk-in storage
rooms. A cascade system might be used, for example, to reach low
temperatures in a long-term storage room. A supermarket often uses
remote condensing units in food retail environments such as dairy and
deli displays. Remote condensing units are also commonly installed in
convenience stores and specialty shops, such as bakeries and butcher
shops.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See 88 FR 73157 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2023 Final Rule established restrictions on the use of HFCs in
new remote condensing unit systems installed starting January 1, 2026.
The limit was 150 for systems with refrigerant charge capacities
greater than or equal to 200 pounds, and 300 for systems with
refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds or for the high
temperature side of cascade systems irrespective of the total charge
capacity. The EPA distinguished between larger and smaller remote
condensing units by their refrigerant charge capacity based on a
distinction between charge sizes in the safety standards.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See 87 FR 76775-76 (December 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2023 Final Rule would have required new retail food remote
condensing unit systems to be installed with refrigerants below a 150
or 300 limit, as applicable, including CO2, certain HFOs, or
certain HFC/HFO blends.\77\ In general, retail food remote condensing
units have lower relative charge sizes compared to supermarket systems,
often under 200 pounds, meaning they can generally use refrigerants
complying with the 300 limit. While some retailers had installed
CO2 in new systems at the time, other alternatives including
certain HFOs and HFC/HFO blends were still under development and had
not yet been listed by the SNAP program as acceptable for use in new
remote
[[Page 31295]]
condensing units. While these additional options were listed by SNAP in
June 2024,\78\ and in advance of the January 1, 2026, compliance date,
the 2023 Final Rule would have largely made these relatively new HFC/
HFO blends as the primary options for new installations of remote
condensing units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See 88 FR 73157 (October 24, 2023).
\78\ See 89 FR 50410 (June 13, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain supermarket retailers and a trade association expressed
concerns about the limited number and types of substitutes that the EPA
determined in the 2023 Final Rule would be available for use in remote
condensing units by January 1, 2026. Specifically, they stated that the
rule restricts the food industry to a handful of substitute
refrigerants, including CO2, ammonia, and those that are
flammable,\79\ which they stated are either impractical, infeasible, or
create safety concerns.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2024 Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants.
\80\ See trade association's letter to the EPA, dated February
11, 2025, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition they asserted that CO2 technologies are
costly, and that, in their current state, they expend a significant
amount of energy to function at a cooling level comparable to commonly
used HFCs, that such technologies are unreliable, that leaks are
difficult to detect and repair, and that such leaks can be catastrophic
to the system's performance.\81\ These food retailers also said that
refrigerants with flammability characteristics, such as A2L and A3
refrigerants, may not be universally available due to delays in updates
to local building codes and potential shortages in technicians trained
to use them. Furthermore, these food retailers are concerned that
future regulation of PFAS could require retailers to change systems
again from certain compliant fluorinated refrigerants to others.\82\
Based on these concerns, food retailers requested additional time to
allow the technology and building codes to catch up. They requested
that the EPA move the compliance deadline for retail food remote
condensing units to the end of 2032 with an interim limit of 1,400
starting January 1, 2026.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Id.
\82\ CO2, hydrocarbons, and ammonia are not
considered PFAS. The EPA notes that the Federal Government has not
adopted a specific definition of PFAS and has not included HFCs or
HFOs in any PFAS-related restrictions.
\83\ See trade association's presentation dated April 18, 2025,
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA considered concerns from stakeholders in the retail food
industry to allow additional flexibility in refrigerant choice for
retail food remote condensing units, understanding there may be
challenges such as building codes to adopting newer technologies. Thus,
the EPA proposed a graduated schedule with an interim limit of 1,400
starting January 1, 2026, for new retail food remote condensing units
to allow additional flexibility for a limited period of time. Such
additional flexibility allows for the use of nonflammable options such
as R-448A and R-449A. As previously described, the EPA also proposed
limits of 150 or 300, depending on the characteristics of the system,
starting January 1, 2032, given that the Agency anticipated that the
period of the interim limit would be a sufficient amount of time for
implementation challenges to resolve.
2. Final Rule
The EPA is finalizing the graduated schedule for the use of HFCs in
new retail food remote condensing units similar to what was proposed.
Specifically, the EPA is relaxing the existing limit, on an interim
basis, to 1,400 upon the effective date of this rule, and limits of 150
or 300, depending on charge size or whether it is part of the high
temperature side of a cascade system, starting January 1, 2032. For
remote condensing units with a charge size of 200 pounds or more,
excluding the high temperature side of a cascade system, the limit is
150. For remote condensing unit systems with a charge size less than
200 pounds or remote condensing unit systems on the high temperature
side of a cascade system, the limit is 300. The limits of 150 or 300,
as described here, are the same limits as those promulgated with the
2023 Final Rule, just on an extended timeline. The EPA has reassessed
the factors under AIM Act subsection (i)(4) given the additional
information received ahead of the October 2025 Proposal and during the
comment period. The Agency concludes that the targeted relief in this
rule is appropriate given changes in our understanding of the
availability of substitutes, particularly with regard to building codes
and safety, and the overall economic costs. Similar to supermarket
systems, the interim limit temporarily allows for the use of a set of
certain refrigerants and reduces the burden on remote condensing unit
systems as they transition to new substitutes. The EPA also recognizes
that many remote condensing units are already using refrigerants that
would have complied with the 2023 Final Rule's limits. This rule does
not prevent anyone from choosing to use refrigerants below the limits
of 150 or 300 ahead of the new compliance requirements for new systems.
The Agency describes and responds to comments in section IV.D of this
preamble and the Response to Comments document in the docket.
E. Cold Storage Warehouses
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the limits for cold storage
warehouses to establish a graduated schedule with an interim limit of
700 upon the effective date of this rule, and 150 or 300, depending on
charge size or whether it is part of the high temperature side of a
cascade system, starting January 1, 2032.
1. Background
Cold storage warehouses are refrigerated facilities used for the
storage of temperature-controlled substances. Refrigeration systems
within cold storage warehouses can be divided into two categories:
packaged systems and central plant 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 compressors. 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.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See 88 FR 73162 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2023 Final Rule established restrictions on the use of HFCs in
new cold storage warehouses installed starting January 1, 2026. The
limit is 150 for systems with refrigerant charge capacities greater
than or equal to 200 pounds, and 300 for systems with refrigerant
charge capacities less than 200 pounds or for the high temperature side
of cascade systems irrespective of the total charge capacity.
The 2023 Final Rule would have required new cold storage warehouses
to be installed with refrigerants below a 150 or 300 limit, as
applicable, including ammonia, CO2, certain HFOs, or certain
HFC/HFO blends.\85\ While most cold storage warehouses had used ammonia
at the time, substitutes with lower toxicity and lower flammability
were still under development and had
[[Page 31296]]
not yet been listed by the SNAP program as acceptable for use in new
cold storage warehouses. While additional options were listed by SNAP
in June 2024,\86\ in advance of the January 1, 2026, compliance date,
the 2023 Final Rule would have largely made these newer refrigerant
blends, ammonia, or CO2 the only options for new
installations of cold storage warehouses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See 88 FR 73157 (October 24, 2023).
\86\ See 89 FR 50410 (June 13, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new trade association submitted a request to the EPA on March 6,
2025, to adjust the limits for cold storage warehouses from 150 or 300,
as applicable, to 700. The trade association highlighted that ammonia,
a higher toxicity and flammable refrigerant, can present potential
safety concerns particularly when cold storage warehouses are not
located in isolated, unpopulated areas. The trade association cited a
number of recent examples of fatalities, injuries, and facility
evacuations related to the use of ammonia as a refrigerant in cold
storage warehouses in the United States.
The trade association's request was to adjust the limit for cold
storage to allow for the use of additional refrigerants, and in
particular, R-513A. The trade association identified R-513A as a
refrigerant in this subsector that met their safety, commercial
availability, energy efficiency, and usability requirements. The trade
association indicated that the substitutes identified by the EPA in the
2023 Final Rule would not necessarily be available in every situation
due to flammability or toxicity concerns, commercial availability,
decreased energy efficiency, not being mechanically practical due to
excessive displacement, building codes not being updated, and/or
economic costs.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See request from trade association, dated March 6, 2025, in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also received information from another trade association
representing cold storage warehouses on June 9, 2025, in response to
the March 6, 2025, request, concerning a 2023 survey from the Global
Cold Chain Alliance (GCCA).\88\ That survey showed that over 90 percent
of cold storage warehouse refrigeration systems in the United States
used either ammonia or CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See letter from trade association, dated June 9, 2025, in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposed an interim limit of 700 starting January 1, 2026,
for new cold storage warehouses. Starting January 1, 2032, the EPA
proposed limits of 150 or 300, depending on the characteristics of the
system, as described previously. To balance near-term safety,
feasibility, and substitute availability, the EPA proposed an interim
limit of 700 for new cold storage warehouses to allow the use of
nonflammable, lower toxicity options such as R-513A, where ammonia or
alternatives with flammability designations are impractical due to
documented safety incidents, building code constraints, mechanical and
efficiency considerations, and/or supply-chain limitations. Beginning
January 1, 2032, the EPA proposed to lower the limit to 150 or 300, as
applicable in anticipation that building codes will be updated,
technologies will mature, and market availability of substitutes will
expand.
2. Final Rule
The EPA is finalizing the graduated schedule for the use of HFCs in
new cold storage warehouses similar to what was proposed. Specifically,
the EPA is amending the existing limit, on an interim basis, to 700,
upon the effective date of this rule, and limits of 150 or 300,
depending on charge size or whether it is part of the high temperature
side of a cascade system, starting January 1, 2032. For cold storage
warehouse systems with a charge size of 200 pounds or more, excluding
the high temperature side of a cascade system, the limit is 150. For
cold storage warehouse systems with a charge size less than 200 pounds,
or for the high temperature side of a cascade system, the limit is 300.
The limits of 150 or 300, as described here, are the same limits as
those promulgated with the 2023 Final Rule, just on an extended
timeline. The EPA has reassessed the factors under AIM Act subsection
(i)(4) given the additional information received ahead of the October
2025 Proposal and during the comment period. The Agency concludes that
the targeted relief in this rule is appropriate given changes in our
understanding of the availability of substitutes, and in particular a
need for additional non-flammable, lower toxicity alternatives in the
near term. The interim limit temporarily allows for the use of a set of
certain refrigerants and reduces the burden on cold storage warehouse
systems as they transition to new substitutes. The EPA also recognizes
that most cold storage warehouses are already using refrigerants that
would have complied with the 2023 Final Rule's limits, including
ammonia and CO2. This rule does not prevent anyone from
choosing to use refrigerants below the limits of 150 or 300 ahead of
the new compliance requirements for new systems.
While entities in many areas of the United States can and do use
substitute refrigerants in this subsector, the EPA acknowledged in the
proposal that factors such as the use of ammonia in a system containing
thousands of pounds of refrigerant charge could pose a safety risk in
densely populated areas if a leak were to occur, or if such a system
were to be handled improperly and could hinder compliance on a
nationwide scale, including in densely populated areas. The Agency
describes and responds to comments in section IV.E of this preamble and
the Response to Comments document in the docket.
F. Replacement Condensing Units in the Residential and Light Commercial
Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Subsector
The EPA did not propose and is not finalizing changes to the
treatment of new condensing units used as replacements in the
residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector.
1. Background
The residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector includes many
types of equipment, from self-contained products such as packaged
terminal air conditioners and window AC units to unitary split systems
such as ducted and non-ducted mini-splits, multi-splits, and ducted air
conditioners and heat pumps. This section pertains only to the
treatment of condensing units used in split AC/HP systems, including
mini-splits and multi-splits, that are field assembled and charged.
These systems consist of an outdoor unit with a condenser and a
compressor, refrigerant lines, and an indoor unit with an evaporator.
The evaporator and air handler may, or may not, be connected to ducts
to carry conditioned air throughout a building.
The unit in which the condenser and compressor are packaged
together is called a ``condensing unit.'' The condensing unit
discharges heat and is typically located outside. ASHRAE defines a
condensing unit as a ``machine designed to condense refrigerant vapor
to a liquid by compressing the vapor in a positive displacement
compressor and rejecting heat to a cooling medium. A condensing unit
usually consists of one or more positive displacement compressors and
motors, condensing coils, liquid receivers, and other devices mounted
on a common base.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See ASHRAE Terminology in the docket for this action, and
at https://terminology.ashrae.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing the 2023 Final Rule (hereinafter ``Proposed 2023
Rule'') the EPA proposed that restrictions would apply to ``products,''
which would have
[[Page 31297]]
included condensing units.\90\ Specifically, the proposal stated,
``effective January 1, 2025, no person may manufacture or import any
product . . . as listed in Sec. 84.56(a)'' (emphasis added).\91\
Likewise, ``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 . . . as listed in Sec. 84.56(a)'' (emphasis
added). The proposed definition of ``product'' in 40 CFR 84.56(a) would
have contained a non-exhaustive list that included ``equipment,
appliances, components, [and] subcomponents.'' A condensing unit is a
component of the larger unitary split AC/HP system and therefore, under
the proposed rule, would have been subject to restrictions. Under that
proposal, the condenser and compressor housed within a condensing unit
would have been considered either components or subcomponents and would
have been subject to restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See 87 FR 76738 (December 15, 2022).
\91\ 40 CFR 84.56(a)(24) lists ``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.'' The Proposed 2023 Rule did not distinguish between
``products'' and ``systems'' like the 2023 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received many comments on the Proposed 2023 Rule expressing
concern about the impact of restricting components and subcomponents
using legacy refrigerants. The comments were almost universally
opposed, with the specific concerns varying on the type of restriction
placed on the component, including: manufacture and import; sale and
distribution; and the purchase and use to maintain existing equipment.
Most comments were made in the context of refrigeration systems, such
as supermarket systems, which contain numerous components, including
multiple compressors on a rack, that are commonly replaced to keep the
expensive and complex systems operational. One comment made in the
context of AC systems expressed concern about the ability to honor
warranties for existing systems without replacement components. Based
on the concern expressed by commenters, the Agency removed components
and subcomponents from the final definition of ``product.'' Instead,
the final rule classified condensing units as one of five ``specified
components'' at 40 CFR 84.52 to make clear that they were not subject
to the restrictions on manufacture, import, sale, distribution, or
export and thus allow for the continued servicing and maintenance of
existing equipment. The EPA prohibited specified components using
legacy refrigerant to be installed as new systems after the applicable
installation compliance date.
After finalization of the 2023 Final Rule, the EPA received two
administrative petitions, one from a chemical manufacturer and the
other from a group of trade associations, requesting that the Agency
reconsider that final rule as it applies to the residential and light
commercial AC/HP subsector. The two administrative petitions requested
reconsideration of separate provisions of the regulations as means to
achieve a similar outcome, that is, reconsideration of the treatment of
condensing units used as replacements in existing systems.
The administrative petition from the chemical manufacturer
requested that the EPA remove provisions that allow the continued use
of specified components that use regulated substances above the 700
limit in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector. The
petitioner stated that the EPA did not propose a definition of
``specified component,'' nor did it propose to exempt specified
components from the HFC use prohibitions. The petitioner noted that the
EPA proposed the opposite by including components and subcomponents in
the list of products subject to the proposed restrictions. The
petitioner stated that the final rule allows for unlimited replacement
of condensers, evaporators, and compressors in this subsector, thereby
extending the life of existing systems beyond their designed lifetimes
without taking comment on the impacts of such extended use. In meetings
with the EPA regarding the petition, the petitioner clarified that its
concern was limited to the replacement of condensing units used in
split AC systems in the residential and light commercial AC/HP
subsector, not the other four specified components, nor condensing
units used in refrigeration subsectors.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See Memorandum--EPA Meetings Related to the Technology
Transitions Reconsideration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administrative petition from the group of trade associations
requested that the EPA make a determination that replacing certain
condensing units in the residential and light commercial AC/HP
subsector would be considered the installation of a new system under 40
CFR 84.54(e). The administrative petition is limited to condensing
units in this subsector that are designed for use with a single
condenser and a single evaporator. The administrative petition
requested that the EPA not restrict condensing units used in variable
refrigerant flow (VRF) systems,\93\ multi-split systems, and commercial
AC systems with more than one condenser and/or more than one
evaporator. After submitting their initial administrative petition, the
group of trade associations submitted a letter to the EPA containing
supplemental information that limited their request to condensing units
with a capacity less than 65,000 BTUs.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See 88 FR 73178 for a description of VRF systems.
\94\ See supplemental letter from trade associations, dated
April 30, 2024, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposal for this rule and in response to stakeholder
administrative petitions, the EPA proposed to retain the requirements
established by the 2023 Final Rule regarding the treatment of
condensing units used in the residential and light commercial AC/HP
subsector. The proposal provided an opportunity for the public to
comment on the treatment of condensing units in this subsector and in
doing so, the EPA noted it was addressing one petitioner's concerns
about their inability to comment on changes made between proposal and
finalization of the 2023 Final Rule regarding the treatment of
components.
2. Final Rule
In this final rule, the EPA is not making any changes to the
treatment of new condensing units in the residential and light
commercial AC/HP subsector. This includes no change to the definitions
at 40 CFR 84.52, the installation restriction at 40 CFR 84.54(c)(1),
the list of actions that the EPA considers an installation of a new
system at 40 CFR 84.54(e), the exemption for components at 40 CFR
84.56(b), or the labeling, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
applicable to specified components. Allowing a continued market (i.e.,
manufacture, import, export, sale, or distribution) for specified
components enables end-users to maintain their existing systems, even
if those systems use legacy HFC refrigerants. By making no changes to
the current regulations, a homeowner can choose to replace their failed
condensing unit rather than purchase a whole new system. The EPA's
decision to not change the treatment of condensing units aligns with
subsection (i)(7)(B) of the AIM Act and consistent with the Agency's
historical practice of allowing repair of legacy equipment throughout
its useful life. This final decision is also consistent with the
[[Page 31298]]
Presidential Memorandum titled Delivering Emergency Price Relief for
American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis, which
directs ``the heads of all executive departments and agencies to
deliver emergency price relief, consistent with applicable law, to the
American people and increase the prosperity of the American worker,''
including by ``pursuing appropriate actions to . . . eliminate
counterproductive requirements that raise the costs of home
appliance[.]'' If restrictions were to be placed on replacing the
condensing unit, the owner's only recourse would be to replace the
entire system. Installing a new system is more costly than replacing
just the condensing unit, particularly if the system is relatively new,
and in some instances, warranties or insurance will only cover the
replacement of like equipment. The Agency describes and responds to
comments in section IV.F of this preamble and the Response to Comments
document in the docket.
G. Industrial Process Refrigeration in Certain Laboratory Equipment
The EPA is finalizing provisions related to certain laboratory
equipment within the industrial process refrigeration subsector. This
final rule extends the compliance date for refrigerated centrifuges and
laboratory shakers to January 1, 2028.
1. Background
a. Refrigerated Centrifuges
A refrigerated centrifuge is a laboratory device that spins samples
at a high speed while keeping them at a low, controlled temperature.
Refrigerated centrifuges are a niche subset of equipment used in
laboratories and have narrow technical requirements which limit the
refrigerants that can be used. The EPA understands that refrigerated
centrifuges are critical for blood processing and other essential
pharmaceutical and medical industries.
The 2023 Final Rule included refrigerated laboratory equipment
within the IPR subsector.\95\ Specifically, the 2023 Final Rule stated
that refrigerated laboratory equipment covered by either the 2nd
edition of the UL 61010-2-011 standard or the 2nd edition of the UL
60335-2-89 standard are subject to the restrictions in the rule.\96\
The restrictions on the use of HFCs and HFC blends in new IPR equipment
vary based on the lowest temperature at which the equipment is designed
to operate, charge size, and the configuration of the equipment. IPR
equipment with refrigerants entering the evaporator at temperatures
between -50 [deg]C and -30 [deg]C have a compliance date of January 1,
2028, while IPR equipment with refrigerants entering the evaporator at
temperatures at or above -30 [deg]C have a compliance date of January
1, 2026. These restrictions are codified at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(12) and
84.54(c)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ The EPA is not aware of IPR centrifuge configurations used
for laboratory applications that would be covered by the IPR chiller
subsector as opposed to the IPR subsector at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(10),
(c)(5), or (c)(6).
\96\ See p. 209 of the Response to Comments document for the
2023 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2023 Final Rule excluded centrifuges with charge sizes above
the threshold consistent with UL 61010-2-011. The EPA recognized that
refrigerated centrifuges that contain less than 150 g of flammable
refrigerant charge (or 370 g of nonflammable refrigerant charge) can
meet the UL standards using refrigerants below the limits for IPR and
are subject to the HFC use restriction. Conversely, the EPA recognized
that refrigerated centrifuges that require more refrigeration capacity
than can be achieved using refrigerants that meet the HFC use
restrictions while meeting the charge size limits in UL 61010-2-011 are
not restricted. This is because the refrigerants that meet the IPR
restrictions are either flammable, have a higher toxicity, or have
higher pressure than other available refrigerants, and as such, either
require an upper limit on charge size to meet the UL standard's safety
requirements or are outside the current scope of the UL standard
altogether.
After issuance of the 2023 Final Rule, a manufacturer contacted the
EPA concerning refrigerated centrifugal equipment that follows UL
61010-2-011 or UL 61010-2-020. The manufacturer stated that
refrigerated centrifuges need to be tested to American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/UL standards 61010-2-011 or 61010-2-020
before mass production. The manufacturer described how UL 61010-2-020
requires a particular test for refrigerated centrifuges called the
Maximum Credible Accident (MCA) test which assesses the safety of
centrifugal equipment in a worst-case mechanical failure. The test
simulates an accident scenario where the rotor assembly, a high-speed
spinning part of the centrifuge, experiences catastrophic failure or
becomes detached during rotation. This test ensures that the design and
structure of the equipment are robust enough to contain debris and
prevent personnel from hazardous exposure in such an event. The
manufacturer explained that the MCA test itself is currently not
designed in a manner that allows for testing of flammable or high-
pressure refrigerants.
The EPA understands that this update to the UL safety testing
procedure impacts all centrifuge manufacturers. The manufacturer noted
that the MCA test was expected to be updated in 2025, before the
January 1, 2026, compliance date, but that additional time would be
needed for manufacturers to redesign, test, and certify centrifuges to
the revised standards. The manufacturer later stated in a meeting that
they anticipate that standards and equipment will be updated by January
1, 2028.\97\ The EPA understands that as of February 2026, the updates
to UL 61010-2-020 have not yet been finalized to accommodate testing
refrigerated centrifuges with the MCA test using flammable and high-
pressure refrigerants. While the EPA does not know when the updates
will be completed, we have no information to suggest it will not be
completed by January 1, 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See Memorandum--EPA Meetings Related to the Technology
Transitions Reconsideration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposed and is now finalizing an extension of the
compliance date for refrigerated laboratory centrifuges within the IPR
subsector from January 1, 2026, to January 1, 2028. This extension
allows additional time for the industry standard setting process to
finalize updated test procedures specific to refrigerated centrifuges
so that new refrigerants can be safely deployed for use in this niche
application.
b. Refrigerated Laboratory Shakers
Laboratory shakers are specialized pieces of equipment used in
scientific and medical laboratories to continuously agitate liquid
biological samples at controlled temperatures. These devices are
designed for applications that require temperature-sensitive
conditions, such as growing microbial cell cultures or eukaryotic
tissue cultures. The temperature range can span in some applications
from around 4 [deg]C to 80 [deg]C.
The 2023 Final Rule indicated that refrigerated laboratory
equipment that use an HFC or blend containing HFC(s) are regulated
within the IPR subsector.\98\ Refrigerated laboratory shakers are
covered by the UL 60335-2-89 standard
[[Page 31299]]
and are regulated as a part of this subsector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ The EPA is not aware of IPR shaker configurations used for
laboratory applications that would be covered by the IPR chiller
subsector as opposed to the IPR subsector at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(10),
(c)(5), or (c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the regulations at 40 CFR 84.54, IPR equipment with
refrigerants entering the evaporator at temperatures at or above -30
[deg]C have a compliance date of January 1, 2026. After issuance of the
2023 Technology Transition Rule, a manufacturer contacted the EPA
regarding refrigerated laboratory shaker equipment. The manufacturer
stated that there are currently limited alternatives for small, compact
IPR systems, such as laboratory shakers.\99\ The manufacturer noted
that while there are some non-HFC alternatives currently on the market
in some laboratory equipment applications, such as R-290 \100\ and R-
1234yf, these alternatives pose safety, efficiency, and cooling
capacity challenges in compact lab environments and in certain
laboratory applications. For example, flammability is a particular
concern from both a regulatory and safety perspective, as laboratories
often have open flames, solvents, or other electronics present that
could trigger an ignition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See materials from manufacturer at EPA-HQ-OAR-0005-0007.
\100\ Commonly known as propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since laboratory shakers are used in various cell culture
applications, the manufacturer also described how a wide temperature
operation range and precise temperature control are crucial to ensure
optimal cell growth conditions and experimental accuracy. A temperature
operation range that extends as low as 4 [deg]C and up to 80 [deg]C
allows for a range of biological laboratory research applications. The
manufacturer indicated that currently R-134a is the only refrigerant
used that can achieve such a wide temperature range. Not all shakers
have this wide temperature range, and in particular, some do not extend
as high as 80 [deg]C. Shakers that use R-600a \101\ or a Peltier
cooling method \102\ can operate at temperatures as high as 60 [deg]C.
This limits the capability of such shakers from operating at
temperatures above 60 [deg]C, in which certain niche research processes
are conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Commonly known as isobutane.
\102\ Peltier cooling uses a thermoelectric effect for cooling.
It does not contain refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a range of options are used to control temperature in
laboratory shakers, including compliant refrigerants that can meet the
requirements in some refrigerated laboratory shaker applications, there
remain some use cases in which compliant refrigerants are unable to
meet the requirements. The manufacturer noted that temperature accuracy
to within 0.1 [deg]C is required to maintain the integrity of the cell
cultures and reliability of results in certain research
applications.\103\ The manufacturer shared information that illustrated
how not all shakers have this precise temperature control capability.
Some laboratory shakers can provide an accuracy within 0.3 [deg]C, and
some of those are already using compliant refrigerants, including R-
600a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See materials from manufacturer at EPA-HQ-OAR-0005-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The manufacturer noted that one feasible alternative that could
achieve desired temperature specifications is CO2, but that
current IPR systems for this refrigerant are primarily designed for
large-scale industrial refrigeration systems and that there are limited
solutions for small-scale laboratory equipment. Systems are currently
in development but are not expected to be available until mid-2027 at
the earliest.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See materials from manufacturer at EPA-HQ-OAR-0005-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposed and is now finalizing an extension of the
compliance date for refrigerated laboratory shakers within the IPR
sector from January 1, 2026, to January 1, 2028. This extension is to
allow additional time for the safe deployment of new refrigerants and
not-in-kind substitutes (e.g., Peltier cooling) for use in this niche
refrigerated laboratory application.
2. Final Rule
The EPA is extending the compliance date to January 1, 2028, for
refrigerated laboratory centrifuges and refrigerated laboratory shakers
within the IPR subsector. This extension does not apply to other types
of equipment in the IPR subsector or to refrigerated laboratory
equipment not discussed in this action. After reviewing public comments
received during the comment period, the EPA is finalizing this
extension as proposed.
a. Refrigerated Centrifuges
Comments received on the October 2025 Proposal reiterated
information received from requests to reconsider the compliance
deadline for refrigerated laboratory centrifuges finalized in the 2023
Final Rule. This extension allows additional time for the industry
standard setting process to finalize updated test procedures specific
to refrigerated centrifuges so that new refrigerants can be safely
deployed for use in this niche application. The EPA did not receive
adverse comments opposing the proposal.
The EPA has reassessed the four factors under AIM Act subsection
(i)(4) given the additional information received ahead of the October
2025 Proposal and during the comment period. Based on comments and the
information provided by manufacturers, the Agency agrees that the MCA
test required in UL 61010-2-020 cannot be performed until modifications
are made to accommodate the safety risks associated with fire hazards,
ballistic threats, or toxicity hazards and understands that the
standards and equipment updates are expected to be completed by January
1, 2028. Therefore, the EPA concludes that the targeted relief in this
rule is appropriate given changes in our understanding of the
availability of substitutes and is extending the compliance date to
January 1, 2028, for refrigerated centrifuges within the IPR subsector.
The Agency describes and responds to comments in section IV.G of this
preamble and the Response to Comments document in the docket.
b. Refrigerated Laboratory Shakers
Comments received on the October 2025 Proposal reiterated
information received from requests to reconsider the compliance
deadline for refrigerated laboratory shakers finalized in the 2023
Final Rule. This extension is to allow additional time for the safe
deployment of new refrigerants and not-in-kind substitutes (e.g.,
Peltier cooling) for use in this niche refrigerated laboratory
application. The EPA did not receive adverse comments opposing the
proposal.
The EPA has reassessed the factors under AIM Act subsection (i)(4)
given the additional information received ahead of the October 2025
Proposal and during the comment period. Based on comments and the
information provided by manufacturers, the Agency acknowledges that
several refrigerants are currently being used in refrigerated
laboratory shakers but that they do not all have the same temperature
operation range or control capacity. The Agency is also aware that
CO2 is being developed for use in laboratory shakers to have
the necessary specifications that can meet manufacturers and
researchers' requirements in time before 2028. As such, the EPA
concludes that the targeted relief in this rule is appropriate given
changes in our understanding of the availability of substitutes and is
extending the compliance date from January 1, 2026, to January 1, 2028,
for all refrigerated laboratory shakers, to provide additional time for
compliant refrigerant options to be developed for refrigerated
laboratory shaker uses. The
[[Page 31300]]
Agency describes and responds to comments in section IV.G of this
preamble and the Response to Comments document in the docket.
H. Preventing Stranded Inventory of Residential and Light Commercial
Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the removal of the deadline for
installing residential and light commercial AC/HP systems when using
equipment that was domestically manufactured or imported into the
United States before January 1, 2025.
1. Background
The 2023 Final Rule restricted installation of new residential and
light commercial AC/HP systems using refrigerants above a limit of 700
beginning January 1, 2025. Systems in this subsector include unitary
split systems such as ducted and non-ducted mini-splits, multi-splits,
and ducted air conditioners and heat pumps.
After that rule was finalized, the EPA received information
including data concerning how the January 1, 2025, installation date
restriction would result in substantial stranded inventory for
residential new construction, including both single-family and multi-
family dwellings, where builders order heating and cooling equipment
well in advance of knowing the exact date of installation. The EPA
published an IFR on December 26, 2023, to address the unique
circumstances of this subsector to prevent equipment from being
stranded.\105\ That rule extended the installation compliance date for
such systems by one year, to January 1, 2026, so long as the equipment
was manufactured in the United States or imported into the United
States before January 1, 2025. Since publication of the IFR, other
entities requested additional time beyond January 1, 2026, to install
residential and light commercial AC/HP systems.\106\ These requesters
shared that additional time is needed because of construction delays
particularly for certain large construction projects (e.g., for
multifamily housing) that have long timelines.\107\ Without further
extension of the installation compliance date, they noted that there
could still be stranded inventory of equipment domestically
manufactured or imported before 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See 88 FR 88825 (December. 26, 2023).
\106\ See comment on the IFR (88 FR 88825 (December. 26, 2023))
from the National Multifamily Housing Council and National Apartment
Association, as well as a list of stakeholders who submitted
relevant questions and comments to the EPA, both at EPA-HQ-OAR-0005-
0007.
\107\ See comment on the IFR (88 FR 88825 (December. 26, 2023))
from the National Multifamily Housing Council and National Apartment
Association at EPA-HQ-OAR-0005-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, at the time of the 2023 Final Rule, the EPA understood
that substitutes, including R-454B and R-32, were being developed and
deployed. The rate of new installations that used these substitutes has
increased significantly, in particular in 2025.\108\ This left larger
inventories than expected of equipment using refrigerants above the 700
limit at risk of being stranded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See HARDI press release, ``A2L Equipment Reaches 90% of
Market Share as Cooling Season Ends,'' November 19, 2025, in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the EPA observed that the transition to equipment in the
residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector using compliant
refrigerants, including R-454B, saw unexpected supply issues during
deployment.\109\ While there was a sufficient supply of R-454B, there
were challenges supplying the refrigerant in service cylinders to
contractors and technicians, resulting in R-454B scarcity in some
regions. In particular, some contractors and technicians had
difficulties securing R-454B refrigerant in the field to charge these
units during installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See Memorandum--Overview of R-454B Refrigerant Shortage
and Current Status, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposed to remove the installation compliance date for the
residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector if the components were
manufactured domestically or imported into the United States before
January 1, 2025, to avoid stranded inventory. The EPA also considered
extending the installation compliance date to January 1, 2027, as an
alternative means by which to also avoid stranding inventory.
2. Final Rule
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the removal of the deadline for
installing residential and light commercial AC/HP systems that use
specified components that were domestically manufactured or imported
into the United States before January 1, 2025.
The EPA has reassessed the factors under AIM Act subsection (i)(4)
given the additional information received ahead of the October 2025
Proposal and during the comment period. The EPA proposed and is now
finalizing this provision to provide additional options to support
consumers given the specific circumstances discussed in this section
and in section IV.H of this preamble concerning the introduction of R-
454B equipment ahead of 2026 and the resulting supply chain issues
observed in 2025. Removing the installation compliance date allows for
the installation of the remaining inventory of R-410A equipment that
had been manufactured in the United States or imported into the United
States before January 1, 2025, for use in this subsector, which could
be a lower cost option for consumers. The EPA does not expect there to
be discernible impacts from those already modeled in the analysis for
the 2023 Final Rule, since the total number of systems available for
installation using legacy refrigerants would match what the Agency
modeled for that rule. The EPA concludes that the targeted relief in
this rule is appropriate given changes in our understanding of the
supply chain issues that resulted in more limited availability of
substitutes than was anticipated and overall economic costs. The Agency
describes and responds to comments in section IV.H of this preamble and
the Response to Comments document in the docket.
I. Labeling Correction
The EPA is finalizing the correction of an erroneous citation in
the regulatory text at 40 CFR 84.58(b). The regulatory text now
correctly directs the reader to paragraph (d), not to paragraph (c).
J. Effective Date of Rules Under Paragraph (i)(6)
The EPA is making this final rule effective 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register, as proposed.
Subsection (i)(6) of the AIM Act states that ``no 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.'' \110\ The best reading of this statutory text is
that the one-year clock begins upon promulgation of the ``applicable
rule'' that established the restrictions at issue--here, the 2023 Final
Rule, which invoked the EPA's discretionary authority under subsection
(i) for the first time to establish the restrictions at issue in this
reconsideration action. In other words, the one-year effective date
delay requirement does not apply to subsequent rules that are
unambiguously less stringent than the existing restrictions, including
the relaxation or removal of existing restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2023 Final Rule described the EPA's interpretation of
subsection (i)(6) of the AIM Act as applying to the
[[Page 31301]]
establishment of restrictions on the use of HFCs under subsection
(i)(1) of the AIM Act. Based on that interpretation, the Agency
established compliance dates for the restrictions on the domestic
manufacture and import of products and installation of systems that
were at least one year from the date of promulgation. At the same time,
we did not delay compliance or effective dates for provisions
pertaining to program administration and petitions processing and
elected to make those provisions effective 60 days after publication in
the Federal Register.\111\ Thus, in the 2023 Final Rule, the Agency
recognized that subsection (i)(6) does not require a one year delayed
effective date for all regulatory actions under subsection (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See 88 FR 73104 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This interpretation flows from the statutory text of subsection
(i)(6): ``No 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.'' \112\ Congress's inclusion
of the word ``applicable'' makes it clear that the ``rule under this
subsection'' referred to at the beginning of the sentence may be
different in at least some cases than the ``applicable rule under this
subsection'' referenced at the end. The canon against surplusage argues
that every word and phrase in a statute should be assumed to have an
effect. If this section was drafted with the intent that the two rules
referenced are always one and the same--i.e., that the effective date
requirement applies to any rule--the word ``applicable'' could be
simply struck from the text and the meaning would remain the same: ``No
rule under this subsection may take effect before the date that is 1
year after the date on which the Administrator promulgates the [ ] rule
under this subsection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that the word ``applicable'' means something, the best
interpretation of the statutory text in this provision is that the
``applicable'' rule is a rule that creates new restrictions for a
particular sector or subsector, which is when a one-year delay
accomplishes Congress's objectives. Providing a full year delay between
promulgation and application of a compliance deadline is important when
a new sector or subsector is being regulated, as with the 2023 Final
Rule, to provide regulated parties sufficient notice to plan for and
adjust to new restrictions. However, when the EPA is revising an
existing restriction by, for example, providing additional time for
compliance or changing a temperature threshold to make the previously
existing restriction less stringent, the need for adequate notice to
parties subject to the restriction is less compelling. In that case,
the ``applicable rule'' is the rule that created the original
restrictions, not a subsequent rule making the restrictions less
stringent. That interpretation is consistent with the purpose of
subsection (i)--authorizing the EPA to manage the transition toward
non-HFC substitutes while ensuring that implementation is not unduly
disruptive--and with general principles of administrative law.\113\
This interpretation also aligns best with the text and structure of
subsection (i), which contemplates the remaining provisions of
subsection (i) applying to rules creating restrictions: ``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.'' \114\ The Agency therefore
finds the best reading of the effective date provision in subsection
(i)(6) as not restarting the one-year delay in effective date upon
promulgation of the adjustments in this rulemaking that provide relief
from existing restrictions originally promulgated in the 2023 Final
Rule. The provision would still require a one-year delay in effective
date for the creation of any new restrictions, whether in the sectors
or subsectors covered by the 2023 Final Rule or otherwise, as that
would be an ``applicable rule'' under subsection (i)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Congress has long recognized in the Administrative
Procedure Act, for example, the distinction between ``a substantive
rule'' that ``relieves a restriction'' and one that does not for
effective-date purposes. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). See Indep. U.S. Tanker
Owners Comm. v. Skinner, 884 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (effective
date requirement did not apply even when a waiting period would have
benefited third parties).
\114\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(1) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since finalizing the 2023 Final Rule, the EPA has issued two rules
under subsection (i) of the AIM Act that adjusted existing restrictions
based on new information. In those rules, we made changes to the
requirements under subsection (i), including extending compliance
dates, at least one year before the restriction taking effect.\115\ To
the extent those previous rules took a position to the contrary, the
Agency has reconsidered its position and finds that the best reading of
subsection (i)(6) is that the one-year clock begins upon promulgation
of the ``applicable rule'' at issue, and does not begin again upon
promulgation of a rule modifying existing restrictions that were
originally promulgated under subsection (i) if those modifications
provide relief from a restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See 88 FR 88826 (December 26, 2023); 89 FR 100381
(December 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Comments and Responses
This section of the preamble presents a summary of, and the EPA's
responses to, the significant comments received on the October 2025
Proposal for the topics addressed in each subsection. The EPA's full
response to comments on the October 2025 Proposal, including any
comments not discussed in this preamble, is available in the EPA's
Response to Comments (RTC) document for this final rule.
A. Refrigerated Transport--Intermodal Containers
Comment: Commenters that addressed this provision were generally
supportive of the EPA's proposal to raise the temperature threshold.
Many commenters noted that this was a targeted change based on new data
that properly differentiates low-temperature transport refrigeration
equipment that has unique technical challenges from other equipment.
One commenter indicated this adjustment is tailored, technically
justified, and administratively sound. Another commenter described this
change as a ``technical tweak'' that relaxes an overly stringent use
condition and does not introduce any new restrictions.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that supported the
proposal for reasons that include it is tailored, technically
justified, administratively sound, and a technical adjustment.
Comment: A few commenters disagreed with the Agency's proposal. One
commenter suggested that the threshold be -40 [deg]C since intermodal
containers that use compliant refrigerants at that temperature have
been commercially available on the global market for more than a
decade. This commenter also did not believe that there is a significant
distinction between the temperature needs of deep frozen versus fresh
and frozen cargo in the -35 [deg]C to -40 [deg]C range, and that most
critical life sciences products such as blood plasma and
pharmaceuticals require temperatures below -50 [deg]C. A few commenters
who were generally opposed to any relaxing of the requirements of the
2023 Final Rule were opposed to changing the temperature threshold due
to environmental impacts. One commenter suggested that relief could be
time-limited. This commenter noted that if the relief is provided for
the purpose of shipping critical materials, then the
[[Page 31302]]
reliable supply of refrigerant is also critical.
Response: The EPA disagrees with commenters who opposed changing
the temperature threshold for refrigerated transport intermodal
containers. These commenters did not provide technical information to
counter the information cited in the proposed rule that demonstrated
the need for a change given a lack of available refrigerants that would
be effective at this low temperature range.
The EPA disagrees with the suggestion of a temporary change to this
restriction as the Agency does not have information at this time
indicating when an alternative will be available that would meet the
limit established in the 2023 Final Rule which could meet the needs of
intermodal refrigerated transport equipment in this temperature range.
Given the transportation conditions necessary for shipping blood
plasma, pharmaceuticals, temperature-sensitive enzymes, dangerous
goods, and other materials at temperatures below -35 [deg]C, the EPA
agrees to provide targeted relief. However, to the extent that
alternatives are developed in the future, the Agency may consider a
rulemaking to restrict the use of legacy refrigerants. The EPA also
disagrees with one commenter's request to change the temperature
threshold to -40 [deg]C. While this commenter indicated that there is
not a significant distinction between the temperature needs of cargo in
the -35 [deg]C to -40 [deg]C range, the commenter did not provide
technical information to support the change, such as which
refrigerant(s) or any supporting documentation. The lack of a
distinction between -35 [deg]C and -40 [deg]C supports the Agency's
decision.
The EPA also clarifies that the lowest temperature at which
equipment is designed to operate determines whether it is subject to
use restrictions. This means that if a refrigerated transport--
intermodal container is designed to achieve a box temperature below -35
[deg]C, it would not be subject to restrictions even if at times the
container is operated at temperatures at or above -35 [deg]C.
Comment: Several commenters who addressed this provision in their
comments confirmed that utilizing box temperature is the standard
industry practice for designing, marketing, and selling refrigeration
equipment used in intermodal refrigerated transport, and no commenter
opposed the Agency's proposal to change the temperature measurement
location.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the box temperature as the point of
temperature measurement to better align with common industry practice.
B. Industrial Process Refrigeration and Chillers for Industrial Process
Refrigeration in Semiconductor Manufacturing
Comment: Commenters that addressed this provision in their comments
were generally supportive of the Agency's proposal. Commenters in the
semiconductor manufacturing industry agreed with the charge size
threshold of 100 pounds or less for SMRE and stated that the proposal
correctly recognizes the additional time needed to design, test,
qualify, validate, and deploy the type of specialty equipment used in
semiconductor manufacturing. Two commenters noted that the proposal
appropriately accounts for long qualification cycles and complex supply
chain integration that is unique to the industry.
Response: The EPA acknowledges commenters' support for the
rationale behind the proposed revisions and is finalizing as proposed.
Comment: One commenter described the impacts if additional time to
transition is not provided. This commenter stated there could be supply
chain disruptions that could cascade across industries dependent on
advanced chips, including automotive, telecommunications, energy
production, and defense manufacturing. This commenter further noted
that semiconductor manufacturing is uniquely capital-intensive, and
even temporary interruptions can reverberate globally and cause
shortages and price volatility.
Response: The EPA agrees with the semiconductor manufacturers'
concerns, particularly for potential downtime and that such downtime
could have impacts on critical industries and national security. Given
the information provided on more time to test, qualify, and validate
substitutes, the EPA is providing until January 1, 2030, as described
above.
Comment: One commenter stated the contribution of SMRE to overall
HFC emissions is minimal, estimated at less than one-tenth of one
percent of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Several commenters who
were generally opposed to relaxing the requirements of the 2023 Final
Rule due to impacts on the environment were opposed to this proposal.
Response: The EPA agrees that any potential impacts on HFC
emissions would be minimal. The EPA also notes that the statute directs
the Agency to factor in to the extent practicable the factors listed in
subsection (i)(4) which includes the availability of substitutes, among
other things. Based on the totality of the record for this rulemaking,
and in particular the information on alternatives, the Agency has
determined that more time is needed for substitutes to be designed,
tested, qualified, validated, and deployed.
Comment: Three commenters said that an extension to January 1,
2030, may still be insufficient. Two of these commenters suggested that
it may be insufficient for applications between -50 [deg]C and -30
[deg]C. The other commenter recommended an extension until December 31,
2030, to provide regulatory predictability and flexibility noting that
the proposed timeline to transition may be too short. This commenter
also supported an exemption for this equipment, noting that transition
challenges will likely continue to persist past 2030. One commenter
noted that even where substitutes may eventually become viable,
equipment redesign, testing and qualification processes typically take
at least five years from concept to deployment.
Response: The EPA acknowledges that qualification cycles for
process refrigeration equipment in the semiconductor manufacturing
industry can take a long time. The EPA notes that the submitter of the
administrative petition indicated January 1, 2030, as a realistic
compliance deadline, and that five semiconductor equipment
manufacturers submitted letters in support of the petition. At this
time, the EPA does not have any technical information or data that
justifies a date other than what the Agency proposed. To the extent
additional information is provided that January 1, 2030, may not be
sufficient, the EPA will consider revising the compliance date.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA should provide a
mechanism to re-evaluate the compliance date in 2028 for very low
temperature applications.
Response: The EPA appreciates this comment, but the Agency did not
propose and is not finalizing a mechanism to re-evaluate the 2030
compliance date. The Agency will continue to monitor the transition and
encourages regulated entities to continue to share information on the
development and deployment of alternative refrigerants, including those
for low temperature applications. Based on the information and data the
EPA currently has, the Agency anticipates this sector will be able to
meet the January 1, 2030, compliance date as it will continue its
progress on equipment
[[Page 31303]]
redesign, testing, and qualification processes.
Comment: One commenter suggested the EPA establish a formal supply
chain readiness review in advance of the 2030 deadline.
Response: The EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a formal
mechanism to evaluate supply chain readiness in advance of 2030. The
Agency will continue to monitor supply chain readiness. Based on the
information the EPA currently has, the Agency does not foresee any
supply challenges with meeting a 2030 deadline. However, if that
changes, the EPA will reevaluate whether the 2030 deadline is
achievable.
Comment: Commenters requested that the EPA narrow or expand the
scope of equipment subject to this provision. One commenter encouraged
the EPA to be clear that this flexibility applies to a narrow subset of
equipment that requires extreme-precision projection lenses (e.g.,
lithography), and not to other chillers and refrigeration systems used
in fabrication plants. One commenter suggested that the EPA consider
extending the proposal to all industrial process chillers with charge
sizes up to 100 pounds, not just those used in SMRE. They stated that a
uniform compliance date for these equipment types would be easier for
manufacturers and users to administer, given the practical difficulty
of identifying end-use applications.
Response: The EPA reaffirms that it is finalizing an extension only
for a narrow subset of process refrigeration equipment that requires
extreme precision used in the manufacture of semiconductors. Based on
the information provided to the EPA, these process chillers and IPR
equipment are highly specialized and require time to be qualified,
validated, and deployed for use in semiconductor manufacturing. The EPA
does not have sufficient technical information and does not consider it
necessary to further narrow this provision to a specific subset(s) of
semiconductor manufacturing equipment, such as projection lenses. The
EPA finds that a delineation of SMRE with a charge size of 100 pounds
or less is appropriate given the shared challenges of this equipment to
be qualified, validated, and deployed for use.
The EPA did not propose and is not finalizing an exemption for all
IPR and Chillers for IPR equipment with a charge size of 100 pounds or
less except where such equipment is used for semiconductor
manufacturing. The EPA acknowledges that IPR and Chillers for IPR are
used in a range of applications. The EPA understands from the
petitioner and from supporting information that semiconductor
manufacturing use of IPR and Chillers for IPR equipment have unique
challenges.
As described in this section IV.B, section III.B of this preamble,
and in the October 2025 Proposal, the Agency received and considered
new information after the issuance of the 2023 Final Rule specifically
about semiconductor manufacturing. The Agency did not receive
information concerning the limit or compliance for IPR and Chillers for
IPR equipment containing 100 pounds or less more generally. Further,
the EPA does not have information that would support the conclusion
that it would be impossible to differentiate semiconductor
manufacturers from other users of IPR or Chillers for IPR equipment.
Comment: Two commenters supported the EPA's clarification in the
proposal that ``the lowest temperature at which equipment is designed
to operate determines whether it is subject to use restrictions.''
Response: The EPA acknowledges these commenters' support. The EPA
reiterates that IPR and Chillers for IPR used in the semiconductor
manufacturing industry may operate at one temperature while being
designed to reach lower temperatures. As stated in section III.A of
this preamble, the lowest temperature at which equipment is designed to
operate determines whether it is subject to use restrictions.
C. Retail Food--Supermarkets
1. Graduated Schedule
Comment: Some commenters supported the proposed graduated schedule
to provide time for manufacturers and contractors to adapt, train
technicians, develop safety protocols, and update building codes. One
commenter also claimed that the original transition dates would
disproportionately affect independent grocers, who would bear
additional costs and pass them on to consumers. Another commenter
stated that the phased approach benefits small and/or rural
supermarkets with reasonable capital planning, coordinated vendor
engagement, and long-term equipment investment, all of which provide
critical flexibility for independent grocers.
Another commenter supported the limit of 1,400 for retail food
applications to allow industry to organically transition to A2L
refrigerants. According to one commenter, industry experts estimate
that a minimum of 2-3 years is required after code updates before safe
implementation can begin. Another commenter stated that the extended
compliance date to 2032 allows code officials to put the appropriate
Life Safety codes in place before introducing lower flammability
refrigerants. One commenter agreed that supermarket systems required a
later start date compared to remote condensing units in the phase-in
approach, given they are more complex. The commenter also stated that
the revisions to the compliance schedule provide immediate relief for
stores needing to install new systems while providing a workable
pathway to the 2023 Technology Transition Rule's targets.
Response: The EPA acknowledges commenters' support for the proposed
graduated schedule of limits for supermarket systems. The Agency
understands the need for additional flexibility for supermarket systems
in the near term, and acknowledges the complexity involved with
designing and installing such systems and potential challenges with
building code adoption, particularly at the local level. The EPA
understands that many factors may be considered by store owners and
operators when selecting a supermarket system, including choice of
refrigerant. The EPA assessed the additional flexibility of providing
the interim limit of 1,400 beginning on January 1, 2027, as adding for
an additional set of refrigerants to be available for such
consideration and aligns with the comments the EPA received. Commenters
pointed to the need for more flexibility when selecting a refrigerant
for their supermarket systems as well as allowing additional time for
wider adoption of building codes to allow even more options, including
A2L refrigerants.
Delaying the compliance date to 2032 for the limit of 150 or 300,
as applicable, provides an additional five years for retailers to
continue to install systems using HFC refrigerants below the 1,400
limit, which provides sufficient time for any current concerns
identified by commenters to be resolved. The EPA is aware that there
are already available options in use for supermarket systems that meet
the requirements in the 2023 Final Rule; however, based on the
information received ahead of the proposed changes and during the
comment period, the EPA concludes that there are challenges related to
deploying such systems in certain geographical areas of the United
States that result in lag which is addressed by this rule. The Agency
describes and responds to these comments and concerns, including
building codes,
[[Page 31304]]
energy efficiency, and more, in later responses in this section and in
the Response to Comments found in the docket for this rule.
Comment: Some commenters opposed the sector-wide delay and interim
limit for supermarket systems and stated that the requirements
established in the 2023 Final Rule should be maintained. One commenter
stated that weakening the rules for retail food systems will confuse
the market, penalize early adopters, reward laggards, and lock in more
environmentally harmful refrigerants for decades to come. Another
commenter stated that California state regulations adopted a 150 limit
for commercial and industrial refrigeration that have been enforced
since 2022. They noted that through extensive stakeholder outreach, the
retail food industry expressed desire to have future-proof solutions
rather than interim solutions that would be more costly.
One commenter stated that EPA proposed these delays and increases
in limits without having necessary information available, as evidenced
by the Agency seeking multiple types of information in the proposed
rule, and thus the proposed timelines and limits are not supported by
technical information. One commenter stated that maintaining the
previous compliance schedule preserves the United States as an early
mover promoting American innovation and technology.
Delays in the compliance schedule would re-open the domestic market
to outdated technologies and give foreign manufacturers a competitive
advantage. Another commenter stated that delaying implementation until
2032 would negate potential reductions in emissions of refrigerants,
and the delay goes against the AIM Act's requirement for a rapid
transition to alternatives.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' opposition to the
proposal and generally disagrees with these comments related to
retaining the limits and compliance dates for supermarket systems. The
EPA is finalizing a graduated schedule approach which retains as a
first step the January 1, 2027, compliance date, consistent with the
compliance date in the 2023 Final Rule for supermarket systems. The
Agency reiterates that it is aware that some retailers are able to use
refrigerants below the limits set in the 2023 Final Rule already;
however, the Agency concludes for reasons stated elsewhere in this
section, there are supermarkets that will benefit from the flexibility
the EPA is creating by moving to the graduated schedule. While the
interim limit is in effect from January 1, 2027, until January 1, 2032,
store owner and operators would have options for refrigerants that are
above the 150 and 300 limits and below the 1,400 limit, including but
not limited to R-448A, R-449A, and R-513A.116 117 R-448A, R-
449A, and R-513A are classified under ASHRAE as A1 refrigerants,
meaning they are non-flammable and do not have the same installation
challenges as refrigerants with A2, A2L, and A3 flammability
characteristics.\118\ Thus, this offers retailers the opportunity to
use a refrigerant with similar flammability and pressure ratings to
what the industry may have historically used. However, the EPA notes
that there will be other reasons for retailers to move to refrigerants
with 150 or 300 limits ahead of 2032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ R-448A is a blend of three HFCs and two HFOs. R-449A is a
blend of three HFCs and one HFO. R-513A is a blend of one HFC and
one HFO.
\117\ See trade association's letter to the EPA, dated February
11, 2025, in the docket for this action, and GreenChill
``Partnership Accomplishments'' at https://www.epa.gov/greenchill/partnership-accomplishments.
\118\ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2024 Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the HFC phasedown and particularly the 2029 HFC
reduction step could impact price and availability of R-448A, R-449A,
R-513A, and other HFC or HFC refrigerant blends. There will also be
time for the supermarket industry to become more familiar with
CO2 systems. Therefore, some retailers may choose to use a
substitute that is below 150 or 300, as applicable, prior to the
compliance date of January 1, 2032. The EPA disagrees that finalizing
the graduated schedule would go against the goals of the AIM Act for a
rapid transition to alternatives. While subsection (e) of the AIM Act
establishes the HFC phasedown schedule, the AIM Act does not prescribe
a defined schedule for the transition to alternatives for any specific
sectors and subsectors.
The EPA understands that a delay in the compliance date for the
limits of 150 or 300, as applicable, could result in additional use of
HFCs in this subsector; however, the EPA does not agree that this would
have a significant impact on the continued use of legacy HFC systems.
The interim limit of 1,400 beginning on January 1, 2027, means that
legacy HFC refrigerant blends, such as R-404A, R-407A, and R-507A,
would not be installed in new supermarket systems starting January 1,
2027, and instead only those that meet the interim limit could be used.
The EPA considers the 2027 interim limit to be significant, and it is
important that it occurs ahead of the 2029 phasedown step. Further, the
EPA disagrees that the graduated schedule approach finalized in this
rulemaking would discourage American innovation and reward foreign
entities.
By providing the interim limit for five years, the EPA is providing
additional time for U.S. companies to further develop, design, and
distribute technologies for supermarket systems that use refrigerants
below the 2032 limits that meet the needs of particular stores.
Retailers also still have the option to adopt technologies that use
refrigerants below the 150 or 300 limit sooner than the 2032 compliance
date in this rule.
Comment: Some commenters suggested alternate compliance dates or
limits compared to the proposal for supermarket systems. Commenters
requested the limit align with the next stepdown date of the allocation
phasedown schedule and should be adjusted to 2029 for supermarket
systems. One commenter stated that instituting the interim limit of
1,400 followed by a limit of 150 or 300, as applicable, beginning in
2029 would still allow flexibility in the near term and would
accelerate retrofits or replacements to available substitutes. Another
commenter stated that a shorter extension to 2029 would avoid possible
long-term cost increases for regulated refrigerants.
Some commenters opposed the proposed delays and interim limits but
said if the EPA were to finalize a delayed compliance date for the
limits of 150 or 300, as applicable, it should be no later than January
1, 2029. One commenter stated that a two-year extension would be needed
for supermarket systems due to constraints on the use of A2L
refrigerants that meet the limits of 150 or 300, as applicable.
Response: The EPA disagrees with these commenters' assertion that
EPA must or should align the 150 or 300 limit, as applicable, with the
2029 phasedown step. As a general matter, the EPA does not agree that
compliance dates established under the Technology Transitions
subsection of the AIM Act need to align with the dates Congress
established for the phasedown schedule under AIM Act subsection (e).
These are two distinct subsections, each with their own direction and
authority. The EPA concludes that only providing an additional two
years would provide limited flexibility to retailers and would not be
sufficient. As described elsewhere in comment responses in this
section, the interim limit and delay in the final limit for the
subsector, as finalized, provide sufficient flexibility in refrigerant
choice and time for industry nationwide to fully prepare
[[Page 31305]]
with the 150 or 300 limits, as applicable. For example, the additional
five years will allow OEMs more time to develop equipment meeting the
needs of all their customers and to establish supply chains to
distribute such equipment throughout the United States.
Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed delay in compliance
dates for supermarket systems would conflict with the AIM Act's
requirement for phasing down production of HFCs, and there will be a
much greater demand for HFCs by 2032 than allowed production can
support. One commenter stated that delays in the compliance dates and
limits would continue to elevate demand for new systems as the
phasedown gets tighter, which would draw down HFC inventories and push
demand above supply by 2030. One commenter stated that the delays to
the requirements would increase near-term HFC demand and misalign the
AIM Act's intended ability to guide an orderly transition. Another
commenter expressed concern that extending use of legacy refrigerants
in the retail food sectors will significantly add to demand, draw down
existing stocks of HFCs, and shift the allowance pool away from HFCs
that meet lower limits towards unnecessary legacy refrigerants.
Another commenter stated that raising the limit for refrigerants in
commercial refrigeration systems would increase HFC consumption, given
high average leak rates in this sector, and would contradict the
overall phasedown of HFCs under the AIM Act. One commenter stated that
an extension to 2029 for supermarket systems would not materially
impact a potential shortage of HFCs in 2029, while delaying to 2032
could have such adverse effects and since supermarkets would have a
longer period of time to use legacy HFC systems.
Some commenters noted that the delays and increased demand will
cause prices to increase for HFCs in the retail food sector. One
commenter expressed warning that the delays may come with broader
negative impacts to the entire consumer base in the near term,
including refrigerant shortages as soon as 2028. Another commenter
stated the increased costs for maintenance and refrigerants in the
retail food sector would be passed on to American consumers. Another
commenter stated that any shortfall between available supply and
required servicing demand is likely to cause higher prices for all end
users.
One commenter anticipates that a refrigerant shortage may occur
starting in 2027 if compliance dates and limits are relaxed. They
commented that such delays and relaxed limits will further cause
shortages beyond the commercial refrigeration sector and would affect
other sectors such as residential and commercial air conditioning,
leading to increased servicing costs for consumers.
Response: The EPA disagrees with commenters that assert that
delaying the 2023 Final Rule limits of 150 or 300, as applicable, for
supermarket systems by an additional five years would adversely affect
the overall phasedown of HFCs under the AIM Act. As noted previously,
the phasedown schedule Congress established in subsection (e) of the
AIM Act is wholly separate from the Technology Transitions provisions
in subsection (i). The EPA acknowledges that continued installation of
new HFC supermarket systems inherently results in future demand for
HFCs to service such systems.
The EPA disagrees that it is necessary or appropriate to choose
compliance dates under subsection (i) based on the phasedown schedule
that align the limits for supermarket systems with the next phasedown
step are a hook upon which to establish a date. Congress' direction
under subsection (i) is to the extent practicable, factor in ``the
remaining phase-down period for regulated substances,'' among other
factors. In addition, the phasedown itself is a separate and key market
driver for all refrigerant users. The EPA has considered the remaining
phasedown period as well as the other factors listed in subsection
(i)(4) and factored them in to the extent practicable, consistent with
Congressional direction.
Comment: One commenter suggested adjusting the interim limits to
750 rather than 1,400 and reduce to 150 or 300 in 2032. The commenter
stated this aligns more closely with currently available technology.
Response: The EPA disagrees that an interim limit of 750 would be
appropriate for the supermarket systems subsector. The EPA acknowledges
that to a large extent, in the 2023 Final Rule, the Agency used a few
numerical limits, such as 150 or 700. However, the EPA did not use 750
in any sector or subsector and, moreover, it made its decisions based
on information relevant specifically to each sector or subsector. As
described in other comment responses in this section, two HFC
refrigerant blends (i.e., R-448A and R-449A) are currently being used
in new supermarket system installations and are below the 1,400 limit;
however, these substitutes are above a limit of 750. While R-513A was
also mentioned as a refrigerant option for this subsector and could
meet a 750 limit, such a limit would not allow R-448A or R-449A and
would limit the flexibility in refrigerant choice for supermarket
systems during the interim period.
Comment: Commenters stated that there are substitutes and
technologies available for supermarket systems. One commenter noted
that the record does not support claims that substitutes are not
available, or the building codes require sector-wide delays. One
commenter stated that many distributors report that complete
supermarket refrigeration solutions that meet the 150 or 300 limit are
on the market and used in the installation of supermarket systems in
various regions across the country, including the southern United
States. Other commenters stated that there are multiple Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) listings for available substitutes for
supermarket systems with safety standards incorporating Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) 60335-2-89 and ASHRAE 15-2022.
Response: As stated previously, the EPA understands that there are
challenges with transitioning to substitutes and technologies in
certain cases even if there are substitutes available for supermarket
systems that may be able to comply with the 2023 Final Rule compliance
timelines and limits. The EPA indicated in the 2023 Final Rule that
several substitutes, including CO2 and some A1 and A2L HFC
blends, were available or would soon be available in time for the
supermarket systems subsector compliance date of 2027.\119\ The EPA
finalized SNAP Rule 26 and listed seven A2L substitutes as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, for use in new supermarket systems.\120\ Two
are non-HFC refrigerants (HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E)) and thus are
not subject to subsection (i) rules. Five are HFC/HFO blends (R-457A,
R-516A, R-454C, R-455A, and R-454A), which, except for R-454A, satisfy
the 150 limit for installation in new supermarket systems that have a
charge size of 200 pounds or more. All of these refrigerants may also
be installed in such systems that have a charge size less than 200
pounds, or as part of the high temperature side of a cascade system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ See 88 FR 73098 (October 24, 2023).
\120\ See 89 FR 50410 (June 13, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While increasing the number of refrigerants listed as acceptable
under the SNAP program can provide more options, more time is needed
for chemical suppliers to provide them in sufficient quantities, for
equipment manufacturers to develop equipment for these substitutes, and
for this equipment
[[Page 31306]]
to be incorporated into new supermarket system designs and be deployed.
The EPA is seeking to avoid supply chain issues similar to those that
arose with the deployment of the new refrigerant blend, R-454B, in the
residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector. In that situation,
while the refrigerant was being manufactured in sufficient quantities,
it was not available in field for equipment installation and
servicing.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ See Memorandum--Overview of R-454B Refrigerant Shortage
and Current Status, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extending the compliance date for this subsector to 2032 for the
limits of 150 or 300, as applicable, preserves optionality and
flexibility in the interim period and allows market pressure and the
advantages of the new refrigerants to drive the continued transition to
identified substitutes as the commercial availability of newer
substitutes matures. The EPA thus expects that refrigerant options
below the 150 or 300 limits, as applicable, including those identified
as available substitutes for supermarket systems in the 2023 Final Rule
and those listed in SNAP Rule 26 for this subsector, will become more
widely available for this subsector by January 1, 2032.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA contradicted itself in
asserting that there are too few refrigerants available that meet the
150 or 300 limit since the EPA already stated there are available
substitutes in the 2023 Final Rule. The commenter further stated that
any one of the available substitutes identified by the EPA would be
enough to support the existing rule (i.e., the 2023 Final Rule).
Another commenter further stated that the EPA's request for more
information on alternatives was unnecessary because availability of
substitutes was already demonstrated in the 2023 Final Rule, and the
use of alternatives continues to grow. One commenter stated that the
statutory test for availability of alternatives is when one is
available, and there is no requirement for an arbitrary number of
multiple substitutes to be available.
Response: As described in the prior comment response, the EPA
agrees that there are substitutes available for the supermarket systems
subsector. However, the EPA disagrees with the comment that there is a
statutory test indicating that the availability of a single substitute,
or a number of multiple substitutes, demands a particular outcome. The
availability of substitutes is one factor the EPA considers when
promulgating rulemaking under subsection (i) of the AIM Act. Subsection
(i) directs the EPA to factor in, to the extent practicable, more than
a half dozen considerations, some or all of which may be applicable for
a particular subsector or substitute. Furthermore, the breadth of end
uses in a subsector may require multiple substitutes, which the EPA may
consider to determine that substitutes are available in that subsector.
Comment: Commenters provided examples of substitutes, primarily
CO2, in use today in supermarket systems. One commenter
provided evidence that large and small retail food facilities
throughout California have been effectively using CO2 and
other refrigerants that meet the 150 or 300 limit. Another commenter
provided multiple examples of large and small grocery stores and chains
that have made progress and commitments to transition to CO2
and refrigerants that meet the 150 or 300 limit in their stores. One
commenter stated that in their research, 2,800 retail food stores in
the United States have transitioned to equipment using CO2
as of the end of 2023. Some commenters stated that approximately 4,100
stores were using transcritical CO2 systems as of December
2024. One commenter provided data on the numbers of stores by certain
companies that are already using CO2 in supermarket systems,
including in larger and smaller format stores. Other commenters stated
that the use of CO2 in supermarket systems increased by over
40-50 percent from 2023 to 2024. Another commenter stated that
CO2 adoption in supermarket systems is projected to grow
from 5.8 percent of retail food stores today to 22 percent by 2028.
Another commenter stated that CO2 systems are proven and
widely used by many retailers and that components such as compressors,
valves, controls, etc. are available from a diversified supply chain.
The commenter noted that there are technician training programs in
place nationwide to support adoption. One commenter stated that
CO2 is already being used in supermarket systems, even in
warmer climates, and year-to-date manufacturing of equipment that meets
the 150 or 300 limit has increased dramatically. The commenter further
stated that they use multiple available substitutes for commercial
refrigeration categories in the proposal in their standard product
offerings, including R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, and CO2. They
commented that they provide a product line that is currently
manufactured and sold that meets the 150 or 300 limits, including
refrigerant rack systems.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the examples provided by commenters
of equipment that is currently available that meets the 150 or 300
limit, as applicable, for supermarket systems, and which aligns with
the EPA's understanding of available equipment described in the prior
comment response in this section. As stated previously, nothing in this
rule would prevent retailers from transitioning to a supermarket system
that would comply with the 150 or 300 limits. As commenters stated,
there are many such examples, and the EPA expects that there will be
retailers who might opt for such refrigerants prior to January 1, 2032,
if they are installing a new supermarket system. The EPA anticipates
that at least 20% of the market will transition to a supermarket system
below the limits of 150 or 300, as applicable, well before the
compliance date on January 1, 2032.\122\ The EPA is aware of several
major supermarket chains that have made announcements indicating such
transitions and thus the EPA assumes those companies will not take
advantage of the additional flexibility afforded by this final rule.
The EPA anticipates the additional time for compliance will allow these
systems to continue to be improved and have additional widespread
availability across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See Economic and Environmental Impacts Memo in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in prior responses, while there are supermarket systems
available with substitutes below the limit of 150 or 300, as
applicable, the graduated schedule in this rule is still necessary to
provide flexibility for choice of refrigerant until these limits are
effective in 2032. The availability of substitutes is just one factor
among many that the EPA considers for establishing the limits in the
supermarket systems subsector. Supermarket systems are not off-the-
shelf systems and are configured with many different components to meet
the specific needs of the store in which it will be used. The graduated
schedule considers this as some retailers may transition to these
available substitutes sooner than January 1, 2032, while others may
require additional flexibility.
Comment: Some commenters provided information on the potential
energy efficiency benefits of certain refrigerants in supermarket
systems. One commenter disagreed with the EPA's claims that installing
CO2 in warmer climates may be less energy efficient; the
commenter provided an example of a grocer who announced
[[Page 31307]]
they would transition to CO2 for all stores, including those
in warmer climates. One commenter also stated that CO2
systems can provide energy efficiency benefits, even in warmer
climates. One commenter stated that properly configured CO2
and A2L systems use similar or less energy compared to older HFC
technologies. Another commenter stated that A2L blends like R-454C
match capacity within 3-5 percent and improve energy efficiency as
compared to R-404A for supermarket systems.
Response: The EPA acknowledges that some store owners and operators
have experienced energy-efficiency benefits when installing supermarket
systems with newer refrigerants. Retailers may select supermarket
systems with a particular refrigerant for a number of reasons,
including the overall energy efficiency of the system. However,
retailers may also factor in other considerations such as capital and
operating costs, required maintenance of a system, availability of
technicians trained to use substitutes, and geographic location of the
store. New supermarket systems using CO2 have been installed
at an increasing rate in recent years, and it is expected this trend
will continue. As the EPA understands, many installations of
CO2 systems have been in colder climates, where existing
technology can provide energy efficiency benefits and overall lower
cost of ownership throughout the life of the system. There have been
installations in warmer climates as well; however, the EPA does not
have sufficient information that would allow the Agency to tie a
certain energy cost or savings to a certain climate. Further, retailers
who choose to install a supermarket system with CO2 or an
A2L blend must also consider other factors such as available
technicians to install and service the system. It is likely that more
technicians are available in areas of the country where CO2
supermarket systems have already been deployed, potentially limiting
the availability of technicians on a regional basis at this time.
Delaying the compliance date for limits of 150 or 300 for
supermarket systems will allow sufficient time for CO2
technologies to be improved and made more efficient nationwide, as well
as provide time for more technicians to be trained and familiar with
these types of systems.
Comment: Commenters provided information and comments on the
challenges of availability and using substitutes for supermarket
systems. One commenter stated that many refrigerants below the 150 or
300 limit are either unavailable or withdrawn from the market and that
equipment manufacturers have not yet scaled to demand. One commenter
noted that they have experienced issues deploying A2L refrigeration
systems, as manufacturers currently only offer a handful of A2L systems
and most are small remote condensing units that are not suitable for
large grocery stores. Another commenter stated that A2L refrigerants
(e.g., R-454A, R-454C) remain prohibited under local building codes
that are more prohibitive than the state codes; and propane has a
charge size limit per circuit that requires dozens of self-contained
systems per supermarket, which is inefficient and space-intensive. One
commenter stated that even where A2L equipment is installed, many
installation companies are having issues with sourcing A2L refrigerants
in a reliable or timely manner. Conversely, another commenter stated
that HFOs, which are components in certain A2L refrigerant blends, are
ready to supply A2L refrigerants for use in supermarket systems;
however, supermarket systems (i.e., rack systems) using these
refrigerants may require more time for development and building codes
may need more time for these systems to use A2L refrigerants.
Other commenters stated that CO2 systems pose numerous
challenges in warmer climates, and such systems are only efficient in
colder climates where they can be adequately cooled by ambient air. One
commenter stated that CO2 systems are unreliable and only a
limited number of systems exist which require additional controls to
mitigate energy inefficiency. The commenter also pointed out that there
are additional safety and practical concerns with using alternatives,
including potential generation of hydrogen fluoride gas if an A2L
ignites, energy demand for CO2 systems compared to HFC
systems, and a lack of trained technicians. One commenter stated that
there are only a handful of substitutes available for supermarket
systems, and each has certain challenges. They state that
CO2 systems consume 20 percent more energy in southeastern
states, have higher capital costs, and there are a limited number of
qualified technicians available.
Response: The EPA acknowledges that there are currently available
substitutes for supermarket systems; however, the EPA has previously
indicated that challenges remain that could prevent transition in
accordance with the 2023 Final Rule. As stated previously in a comment
response in this section, the EPA also indicated in the 2023 Final Rule
that several substitutes, including CO2 and some A1 and A2L
HFC blends were available or would be available in time for the
compliance date in that rule. Further, the EPA received comments
providing examples of stores currently using and planning to use
substitute refrigerants meeting the 150 or 300 limits, as applicable,
in their supermarket systems. While these substitutes are available,
the challenges with some substitutes that often are specific to regions
of the United States, may be related to availability of equipment,
installation and operation of equipment on a regional basis, design of
complex systems, availability of properly trained technicians, and
needed building code updates.
Providing an interim limit of 1,400 for five years will provide
additional flexibility and options of refrigerant choice when
installing a new supermarket system. The EPA understands that some
retailers may need this flexibility where the challenges may be too
cumbersome to use an available substitute that meets the 150 or 300
limit in 2027. As stated above in this section, the interim limit of
1,400 allows for certain common HFC blend refrigerants (e.g., R-448A,
R-449A, R-513A) in supermarket systems to be used in new installations
until the limits of 150 or 300, as applicable, take effect on January
1, 2032. Retailers have been using R-448A, R-449A, and R-513A in recent
years and technicians are familiar with and trained to work on
equipment using these refrigerants.
Delaying the compliance date for the 150 or 300 limits, as
applicable, for supermarket systems to January 1, 2032, provides
sufficient time for industry to prepare for these limits for new
installations of supermarket systems. The additional five years will
provide additional time for more technicians to be trained on
supermarket systems using compliant refrigerants. For example,
supermarket systems that use CO2 as a refrigerant operate at
high pressures, and technicians will need to be trained to properly and
safely maintain these systems. As noted, many technicians across the
country may be qualified to service systems using refrigerants meeting
the 150 or 300 limits; however, they may be more regionally
concentrated in areas of the country where such supermarket systems
have had higher adoption rates over recent years. The EPA expects that
as more supermarket systems are installed across the country in all
regions that are compliant with the 150 or 300 limits, technicians will
likewise adapt and become qualified and trained to maintain these
systems.
[[Page 31308]]
The EPA also acknowledges that there may be certain challenges for
supermarket systems that use CO2 based on where the store is
located regionally. Particularly, commenters noted that CO2
supermarket systems are less efficient in warmer climates where they
cannot take advantage of cooling from ambient conditions. The EPA
understands that current technologies may present such challenges;
however, as noted in a prior response, there have been installations of
CO2 in warmer climates. Other comments submitted on the
proposed rule provided examples where CO2 supermarket
systems have been installed across the country in various regions and
have proven to be at least as efficient as legacy HFC systems. Further,
other commenters noted commitments from retailers to continue with new
installations of CO2 systems in new stores across the
country. Nonetheless, the EPA acknowledges that challenges and
opportunities may vary in independent cases, as supermarket systems are
large and complex. As such, delaying the compliance date for limits of
150 or 300 in supermarket systems will provide sufficient time for
innovation in supermarket systems using CO2. The EPA
anticipates that technologies will continue to improve and provide
equipment and designs that will operate efficiently in any region of
the country.
In addition to CO2 as a choice of refrigerant in
supermarket systems, the EPA recognizes that there are additional
substitutes available that are classified as A2L. Commenters described
challenges with potential safety concerns and building code updates
preventing wide-scale adoption of supermarket systems with A2L
refrigerants. Regarding the toxicity of breakdown products such as
hydrogen fluoride, the EPA's SNAP program considers potential impacts
of breakdown products, including hydrogen fluoride upon combustion. The
EPA also notes that HFCs mixed with compressor oil also can be
flammable at high enough temperatures, and thus, generation of hydrogen
fluoride is not unique to A2L refrigerants. The EPA discusses comments
related to building codes and provides a more detailed response later
in this section. Building code updates are rapidly occurring and
underway in nearly all states with processes in place to use A2Ls where
codes have not been fully updated. While this is the case, there may be
challenges or time-consuming approval processes for installations of
supermarket systems with large charge sizes in some jurisdictions.
Thus, delaying the compliance dates for limits of 150 or 300 in
supermarket systems would allow additional time for more uniform
adoption of updated building codes across the country, including in
local jurisdictions.
Comment: One commenter stated that the initial start-up costs of
CO2 systems have dropped considerably in the last five
years. Another commenter also stated that CO2 technologies
have advanced significantly in recent years, resulting in lower
sustained costs as initial costs decrease with increased adoption. The
commenter also stated that A2L systems have already been developed for
the 2026 and 2027 compliance dates, and they are expected to be
comparable in cost to HFC systems. Another commenter stated that ultra-
low GWP refrigerants provide cost savings, including reduced operating
costs through greater energy efficiency.
Response: The EPA appreciates comments provided on the costs of
supermarket systems installed with substitute refrigerants. The EPA
agrees that with increased adoption of such systems, initial costs
would be expected to decrease, although the rate and amount of the
decrease in costs is uncertain and the EPA has not assumed declining
capital or operating costs over time for purposes of the Economic and
Environmental Impacts Memo. The EPA also acknowledges that in some
cases, there may be energy efficiency benefits with supermarkets
systems using certain refrigerants. The EPA further discusses these
considerations in other responses in this section.
Comment: Some commenters stated that CO2 systems carry
higher operating costs than HFC refrigerants due to complexity,
inefficiency, and higher leak rates. Another commenter stated that the
current compliance schedules would result in exorbitant compliance
costs as a result of the barriers for HFC alternative refrigerants and
technologies, including higher capital costs and increased costs to
consumers. The commenter stated that grocery stores have very slim
profit margins (about an average of 1.7% annually), and this low margin
makes it challenging to absorb higher capital costs. Another commenter
stated that most CO2 installations for supermarkets occur
when a new store is being built or a major renovation is being
conducted. They further commented that beyond costs and energy use,
other issues reported with CO2 systems include lack of
consistent supply of refrigerant-grade CO2, a need for
specially trained technicians, and loss of charge resulting in food
safety challenges. One commenter stated that, particularly for small-
town stores, replacement of refrigeration systems under the limit
established in the 2023 Final Rule would cost double normal replacement
costs and would result in store closings that would displace employees
and create food deserts. Another commenter stated that CO2
gas prices have increased significantly in recent years and that
CO2 systems are more costly at a 30.5 percent premium. They
further commented that one analysis found CO2 systems
consume 20 percent more energy than synthetic refrigerant systems and
the total cost of ownership for an average-sized store would be $1.1
million more than an HFC system.
Response: The EPA appreciates the challenges supermarkets face when
installing and operating supermarket systems with refrigerants that
meet the 150 or 300 limits on the timelines in the 2023 Final Rule.
This is particularly relevant when installing new systems, when there
are a variety of factors to assess. For example, supermarkets and
grocery stores--and the retailers that run them--range in size and are
located in differing geographic regions and weather climates. In
addition, the EPA appreciates that the low profit margins that
supermarkets experience cause certain technologies to be cost
prohibitive on the timelines in the 2023 Final Rule. Supermarket and
grocery store retailers may choose one option over another due to
capital costs, energy efficiency, technician availability, or other
considerations.
The graduated schedule of limits established in this rule will
mitigate these concerns by allowing for supermarket systems to be
installed with an interim limit of 1,400 before the 150 or 300 limits
are effective on January 1, 2032. The EPA anticipates that there will
be some store owners or operators that will move faster than the
compliance timelines and install supermarket systems that meet the 150
or 300 limits earlier than 2032. The EPA anticipates that this will
lead to further innovation of such systems and cause prices to decrease
as adoption of these systems increases and become more widespread
across the country.
Comment: Commenters state that building code updates have occurred
rapidly across the country to allow the use of A2L refrigerants. They
note that 49 states have recognized A2L use either through code
updates, legislation, or interpretive letter; only Florida and
Louisiana are still completing their process, but they remain on
timelines to allow compliance with timelines established in the 2023
Final Rule. One commenter stated that home rule
[[Page 31309]]
structures do not alter the assessment of building code readiness, as
statewide adoption of the 2024 model codes or equivalent statutory
authorization does not default to a prohibition on A2L use.
Some commenters stated that EPA has not identified any local
jurisdiction that has made its building codes stricter than its state's
building code by banning A2L refrigerants and they are not aware of any
such cases. One commenter specifically noted that they are not aware of
any instances of local building codes in California preventing or
delaying installation of systems with A2L or A3 refrigerants. Another
commenter stated that a majority of states have legislation that
prevent local building codes from restricting A2L and A3 refrigerants
approved by the SNAP program. One commenter stated that all model codes
in the United States, including the International Building Code (IBC),
International Mechanical Code (IMC), International Existing Building
Code (IEBC), and Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC), contain provisions that
authorize authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) to approve alternate
materials, design, methods, and equipment when an applicant
demonstrates the proposed system meets the intent of the code and
provides equivalent safety. The provisions were created to ensure code
adoption lag does not become a barrier to new technology. The commenter
further noted that where an official denies a request, the
international codes require that a local board of appeals be available
to review the decision. One commenter stated that local authorities can
and routinely do issue interim approval letters allowing the
installation of equipment that complies with UL 60335-2-40, UL 60335-2-
89, and ASHRAE 15. The commenter also noted that CO2 systems
are not subject to A2L or flammability code restrictions and have long
been permitted under all model building codes; thus, the claimed
building code barriers do not apply to CO2 systems and do
not justify a deferral of the Technology Transitions compliance
schedule. Another commenter stated that updates to UL 60335-2-24 allow
for expanded charge sizes of A3 refrigerants in commercial and
industrial applications, while incorporating safety protocols to
mitigate flammability risks. They note that 3.8 million self-contained
units that use propane have been installed in the United States. One
commenter noted that industry has extensive resources to support small
and large owners and operators of A2L technology and other resources to
alternate methods of adoption where building codes are not yet fully
updated.
Other commenters stated that the revised compliance schedule would
allow local jurisdictions the time necessary to adopt local building
and fire safety codes to allow the deployment of refrigerants that meet
the 150 or 300 limit for supermarket systems. One commenter noted that
in multiple states, local codes prohibit the use of A2Ls because of
safety concerns. Another commenter stated that in Texas, each AHJ
adopts local amendments to fire codes that are established at the
national level by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and
the International Fire Code (IFC) and that manufacturers may be
confusing the IMC standards for A2Ls with Fire and Life Safety codes
under NFPA and IFC. The commenter noted that IFC and IMC have standards
at this time while NFPA has no codes for installing equipment with
A2Ls, and model standards may not be available until the 2030 code
cycle. Another commenter stated that thirty states allow local
jurisdictions to adopt their own building codes, which may prevent
introduction of A2Ls. The commenter also noted that other state laws
may prevent certain systems and provided Nevada as an example where
there are restrictions on water usage that would essentially prohibit
water-dependent cooling systems. One commenter stated that while
legislation may be in place to use A2Ls, contractors still need to
obtain permits to install A2L equipment. They also commented that while
AHJs have the authority to allow more updated building codes where they
are not yet adopted, the process takes time and costs for contractors
and equipment owners to educate an AHJ. One commenter noted that the
delays in compliance dates would allow for the continued updating of
safety standards based on feedback submitted by manufacturers.
Response: The EPA appreciates the comments and information provided
on the status of updated building codes across the country and
acknowledges that rapid adoption has taken place. The EPA understands
that not all local jurisdictions have adopted updated building codes to
allow complete deployment of A2L refrigerants in supermarket systems
nationwide. The EPA agrees that there are substitutes available that
have been approved by the SNAP program, and where building codes have
not yet been updated, there may be legislation in place to allow A2Ls
or processes to approve equipment using A2Ls. While local building
codes may not fully prevent adoption of A2L refrigerants due to these
processes and legislation, the processes in place to allow A2L
technologies may be time-consuming and challenging for those installing
supermarket systems. Where the most up-to-date building codes have yet
to be adopted, local jurisdictions or AHJs may have concerns or lack
the in-depth knowledge to fully review a permit application for
installing a complex supermarket system that uses an A2L refrigerant.
The EPA agrees that CO2 used in supermarket systems
would not face the same challenges with building codes since it is an
A1 refrigerant. As discussed in other responses in this section, there
may be other challenges or potential opportunities related to using
CO2 in supermarket systems. For example, the EPA understands
that there are challenges with installing CO2 supermarket
systems in certain regions of the country. Further, supermarket systems
using CO2 operate at high pressures and require technicians
that are trained to service and maintain these systems.
While adoption of building code updates continues rapidly across
the country, the EPA acknowledges the challenges that are present for
A2L refrigerants in supermarket systems. Several commenters have noted
that building code updates would be in place in time for the compliance
schedule prescribed in the 2023 Final Rule. However, as described
above, building code updates have not been solidified across all local
jurisdictions. This could create confusion or challenges for store
owners and operators who would select an A2L refrigerant for their
supermarket system and the local jurisdiction is not prepared to review
such a permit application. Thus, the Agency finds that additional time
is required for local jurisdictions to continue to adopt updated
building codes. In the case that typical code cycles may take longer
than the compliance dates finalized in this rule, local jurisdictions
will have additional time to review updated codes to allow approval
processes to be more efficient.
The EPA anticipates that by January 1, 2032, any remaining building
code issues would be fully resolved, given that the UL safety standard
updates addressing these refrigerants will have been published for a
sufficient amount of time prior.\123\ Information provided
[[Page 31310]]
by food retailers indicates that updating model codes at a local level
could take up to eight years.\124\ Thus, the graduated schedule
finalized in this rule provides sufficient additional time for building
code updates across the country and addresses concerns raised in
comments. It provides flexibility in the interim period to use certain
refrigerants such as R-448A, R-449A, and R-513A which are A1
refrigerants and do not face building code challenges for
installations. The five-year period of the interim limit will provide
time to continue to use these A1 HFC/HFO blends while allowing building
code updates to continue to progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See UL 60335-2-89 standard, ``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 of Motor-Compressor.''
Edition 2, dated October 27, 2021.
\124\ See presentation from trade association dated April 18,
2025, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Expansion of Existing Supermarket Systems
Comment: One commenter was opposed to allowing an increase in
cooling capacity during a supermarket remodel, as this would lead to an
increased charge size of legacy refrigerants or installation of older
refrigerants. This commenter stated that allowing an increase in
cooling capacity measured in BTU per hour at 25 percent could result in
as many as 36 additional display cases, which would surpass a normal
remodel. On the other hand, another commenter stated no objection to an
allowable increase in cooling capacity during a store refresh and
further commented that normal and usual remodels and redesigns should
not be considered the manufacture or installation of a new system.
Other commenters supported modest increases in cooling capacity
during routine remodels or layout changes. One commenter stated that it
is normal and routine for supermarkets to undergo remodeling activities
and modestly expand cooling capacity to accommodate additional products
and layouts. The commenter asserted that an increase in BTU per hour
should not constitute an installation and suggested that a workable
threshold would be to allow increases up to 25 percent in BTU per hour
for cooling capacity to provide a clear cut-off while accommodating
routine activities. Another commenter supported the clarifications and
codifying an explicit tolerance for modest cooling capacity increases
during supermarket refreshes or layout adjustments, while retaining the
existing triggers in the regulations. The commenter suggested that a
percentage below 25 percent, notably 15 percent, is generally more
aligned to the EPA's stated purpose to distinguish routine servicing
from new installations in major remodels.
One commenter supported the adoption of a remodel tolerance
permitting cooling capacity increases of up to 15 percent without
treating it as a new installation, which is appropriate to cover
typical reconfigurations and modest department expansions. They further
commented that standard industry design practice for supermarket
equipment must have a minimum of 10 percent excess capacity for future
expansion, and allowing an increase of 15 percent could utilize this
design practice. The commenter also stated that a 25 percent increase
in cooling capacity would more typically reflect a major expansion that
goes beyond routine activity and is more appropriately treated as a new
installation.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the comments and information related
to increases in cooling capacity for a supermarket system during
routine remodeling. The Agency understands based on comments that such
routine store refreshes, remodels, or layout changes may expand cooling
capacity modestly. The EPA disagrees with commenters that suggested it
would be inappropriate to allow modest expansions in cooling capacity
related to routine remodels or layout changes. As noted above, even in
the context of the CAA R-22 phaseout, the considered if there was
sufficient cooling capacity within the system to support the expansion
(e.g. new display cases), to be changes that would not trigger
treatment as a new system. This is consistent with the EPA
understanding that supermarket systems are typically designed for both
the intended and a modest increase in capacity.
The EPA acknowledges comments that stated that standard industry
practice includes designing supermarket systems to include
approximately a 10 percent capacity margin above the current load.
Knowing that supermarket systems are designed with a 10 percent
capacity margin above the typical load could help explain why there was
uncertainty among stakeholders. For example, stakeholders questioned
the discrepancy between the load of a system as currently operated
versus the capacity of a system as designed. The text at 40 CFR
84.54(e)(2) does not recognize that distinction. Based on the general
support from industry commenters, a modest percent increase in cooling
capacity is appropriate. The EPA, however, recognizes that supermarket
systems are custom-built systems, designed specifically to function for
a particular store. As such, there may be situations in which a modest
increase in capacity is required for a store refresh, remodel, or
layout change that is beyond the design capacity. Thus, the EPA is
finalizing in this rulemaking to allow increases to capacity of up to
15 percent (measured in BTU per hour) to provide flexibility and
accommodate a wide range of circumstances for routine activities at
stores. The EPA further clarifies that an increase in capacity beyond
15 percent for supermarket systems would trigger the criteria for the
installation of a new system. The EPA is addressing this issue of
increasing cooling capacity only in the context of supermarket systems
for which such routine refreshes typically happen and is not applying
the 15 percent increase to other sectors or subsectors.
The EPA clarifies that the 15 percent increase in cooling capacity
finalized in this rulemaking is intended to provide an upper bound on a
supermarket system's cooling capacity before a new system installation
is triggered. Specifically, the EPA is clarifying in this final rule
that modifications to an existing supermarket system that increase the
cooling capacity by equal to or less than 15 percent do not trigger the
requirements at 40 CFR 84.54(e)(2). As an illustrative example,
consider a supermarket system that is installed with a design capacity
of 100,000 BTU per hour. The allowable increase in cooling capacity
during a routine store refresh, remodel, or layout change would be
15,000 BTU per hour in this scenario. This cap applies throughout the
life of the supermarket system, and any number of routine remodels may
be performed, so long as the 15 percent cap is not exceeded relative to
the cooling capacity provided at installation.
The EPA acknowledges that the associated increase of capacity with
a routine store refresh, remodel, or layout change may vary depending
on the specific characteristics of the supermarket system and the store
itself. However, based on information provided in comments, a 15
percent increase in capacity is sufficient for such routine activities.
The EPA disagrees that a 25 percent increase in capacity for a
supermarket system would constitute routine activities. The EPA
acknowledges and agrees that an allowable increase of 25 percent in
cooling capacity would result in expansions that are beyond what
constitutes as routine. The EPA recognizes the needs of retailers to
perform routine store refreshes, remodels, or layout changes to meet
the needs of their customers. Supermarkets and grocery stores may find
that
[[Page 31311]]
remodels or layout changes provide other efficiency benefits even if a
modest expansion of the cooling capacity is necessary. A cap of a 15
percent increase in cooling capacity allows room for such routine
activities. As stated previously, the EPA is aware that supermarkets
and grocery stores may perform routine remodels once or twice during
the lifetime of the supermarket system. An allowable 15 percent
increase could provide for more than one remodel, such that the total
increase in cooling capacity from all remodels combined does not exceed
15 percent of the cooling capacity provided at installation of the
supermarket system.
Comment: One commenter requested the EPA clarify the difference
between increasing the capacity of a refrigeration system versus
increasing the load on a system. The commenter explained that
increasing the capacity is the addition of compressor power (e.g., BTU
per hour) to the system and, according to the EPA's rules and public
documents, adding system capacity has been a longstanding trigger for
changing the intended use of a system going back to regulations for
ozone-depleting substances. The commenter further explained that
increasing the load on a system does not change the intended use of a
system as long as there is sufficient capacity, and that in such a
scenario, there would be no need to classify the system as newly
installed related to the limits. Another commenter requested clarity on
``system cooling capacity,'' as they understand the term to mean the
available cooling provided by the compressors. They commented that a
store should be able to add display cases on the current system's
existing cooling capacity and that the refrigerated load is not the
same as the cooling capacity of the system.
Response: The EPA appreciates the comments provided for additional
clarification on the allowable increase in cooling capacity for
supermarket systems for routine store refreshes, remodeling, or layout
changes. The EPA agrees with the understanding that the load is not the
same as the cooling capacity of a supermarket system, where the load is
the actual cooling drawn from the supermarket system's total capacity.
The EPA agrees that expanding the load, such as through adding cases,
as long as there is existing cooling capacity would not change the
intended purpose of the supermarket system, which is consistent with
the past practice from the phaseout of R-22 described earlier in this
section. As described in the previous comment and response, the EPA is
finalizing a provision to allow up to a 15 percent increase in cooling
capacity for supermarket systems to allow modest increases in cooling
capacity during routine store refreshes, remodels, or layout. As the
EPA noted in the proposed rule, there may be the case where
improvements--such as installing doors--during a routine store remodel
or refresh may decrease the BTU per hour output (i.e., cooling load)
required from the supermarket system.\125\ In such cases, the 15
percent allowable increase in capacity would still relate to the
cooling capacity at the installation of the supermarket system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See 90 FR 48008 (October 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA remove the component
replacement threshold for installation at 40 CFR 84.54(e)(3) or provide
clarity for ambiguous language that may trigger an installation if the
100 percent replacement applies collectively or individually to the
compressor racks, condensers, and connected evaporator loads. The
commenter stated that the more natural reading would be 100 percent
replacement of all three components, but that the text could be
interpreted as applying to 100 percent of one of the three components.
Response: The EPA did not propose any changes to, nor request
comment on, 40 CFR 84.54(e)(3) and does not address that provision in
this final rule. However, the EPA is providing additional clarity. The
commenter provided two interpretations of the text. The EPA is
clarifying that the more natural reading as described by the commenter
is consistent with the EPA's interpretation. The intent of the language
is that an installation is considered new when replacing 75 percent or
more of the evaporators (by number) and 100 percent of all of the
compressor racks, condensers, and connected evaporator loads of an
existing system. It is not the EPA's intention for existing systems
that require routine maintenance or replacements of only certain
components to constitute an installation and be fully replaced.
Comment: Some commenters supported the EPA's interpretation of the
term ``retrofit'' and requested that the Agency restate it in the final
rule. Some commenters also supported the proposed rule because the
costs of retrofitting existing stores to compliant refrigerants.
Response: The EPA reiterates that a ``retrofit'' is distinct from a
store ``refresh,'' ``remodel,'' or ``layout change.'' The AIM Act
states that for purposes of regulations issued under subsection (i),
the term ``retrofit'' ``means to upgrade existing equipment where the
regulated substance is changed, which (1) includes the conversion of
equipment to achieve system compatibility; and (2) may include changes
in lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings, or equipment
components for that purpose''.\126\ Thus, a retrofit, for purposes of
the restrictions at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B, requires a change in the
type of refrigerant used in a system (e.g., switching from R-404A to R-
448A). The EPA adopted that definition in the regulations at 40 CFR
84.52 and stated that the requirements of the 2023 Final Rule do not
apply to retrofits.\127\ Neither the limits nor the provisions at 40
CFR 84.54(e), which specify when a system is sufficiently modified to
be characterized as new and subject to the restrictions, currently
apply to a retrofit. Therefore, concerns about the cost of retrofitting
existing stores to compliant refrigerants are not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(7)(A).
\127\ The EPA stated that ``[w]hile we recognize the Agency's
authority to issue restrictions on retrofit applications in
subsection (i)(7)(B)(ii), we do not view, and commenters did not
suggest, that the EPA has an obligation to issue such restrictions
at this time.'' For further discussion, see 88 FR 73127. See also:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/frequent-questions-phasedown-hydrofluorocarbons#supermarket-systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Retail Food--Remote Condensing Units
Comment: Many commenters, largely food retailers, supported the
delay in compliance dates as proposed for remote condensing units to
provide time for manufacturers and contractors to train technicians,
develop safety protocols, and update building codes. Commenters
generally made the same statements to support such delays in compliance
dates and changes in limits for this subsector as those made in support
of the proposed changes for supermarket systems. The commenters stated
that the proposed changes for remote condensing units would provide
more flexibility in refrigerant choices. One commenter was supportive
of the interim limit of 1,400 beginning one year earlier for remote
condensing units as compared to supermarket systems, given that
supermarket systems are more complex.
Response: The EPA acknowledges comments in support of the graduated
schedule for remote condensing units. The EPA agrees that the graduated
schedule is beneficial for this subsector. Based on comments received
and after additional evaluation of remote condensing unit options
currently available on the market, finalizing these
[[Page 31312]]
changes will address the concerns raised with the original timelines
established in the 2023 Final Rule.
The EPA acknowledges commenters' request for additional time to
become familiar with newer technologies that meet their needs. The
graduated schedule will allow retailers to select remote condensing
units with a refrigerant above the 150 or 300 limits until January 1,
2032, that may have characteristics similar to refrigerants
historically used in this subsector. However, given many U.S.
manufacturers transitioned their manufacturing lines to meet the
previous January 1, 2026, compliance date, the EPA expects that many
retailers will choose a remote condensing unit compliant with the 2032
limit prior to January 1, 2032.
Comment: Some commenters stated that there are notable differences
between remote condensing unit systems and supermarket systems, and
that these subsectors should not be treated the same. They also stated
that the 2023 Final Rule requirements for remote condensing units
should be left in place. One commenter stated that extensions may be
appropriate for supermarket systems but specifically stated to retain
the compliance dates and limits for remote condensing units. They
commented that the EPA has traditionally considered these subsectors
separately under the SNAP program and that these subsectors differ in
design, purpose, and construction. They commented that the subsectors
should not be treated equivalently for the purpose of considering
limits. Another commenter suggested extending the stepdown compliance
date and limit to January 1, 2029, for supermarket systems, but leaving
in place the January 1, 2026, compliance date and limit for remote
condensing units.
Commenters stated that remote condensing units have lower
refrigeration capacities than supermarket systems, so these systems do
not face similar safety challenges, and it is easier to comply with
charge size restrictions of A2Ls. One commenter stated that many
equipment manufacturers have announced launches for A2L remote
condensing units recently. Another commenter stated that remote
condensing units are usually installed outdoors and are less complex
than supermarket systems, so they face fewer challenges regarding
approval by local building code officials.
Response: The EPA agrees that the consideration of the limits and
compliance dates for each sector and subsector should be assessed
independently. The EPA provided separate discussions of each of its
assessments in the proposed rule.
The EPA acknowledges that a variety of products and systems are
used in retail food establishments including remote condensing units
and supermarket systems. For each subsector addressed in this rule as
well as the 2023 Final Rule, the Agency made separate assessments.
Where relevant, the Agency established requirements that use a charge
size cut-off for the limits (i.e., 150 or 300). The EPA did not propose
and is not changing this approach in this rulemaking. The charge sizes
relate to the allowable charge sizes for flammable refrigerants based
on alignment with applicable safety standards. The EPA agrees that
remote condensing units are, in a majority of cases, under this size
threshold; and thus, these types of equipment using flammable
refrigerants, including those classified as A2L, do not face as many
challenges with building codes. However, the EPA notes that some remote
condensing units may still face safety challenges related to building
codes. Therefore, based on the totality of the record, the EPA
concluded the graduated schedule would be appropriate.
Comment: Many commenters suggested alternate compliance dates or
limits compared to the proposal. Commenters provided similar
suggestions for compliance dates as with the supermarket systems
subsector, including establishing an interim limit until July 1, 2026,
January 1, 2028, or January 1, 2029, at which point the limits would
return to 150 or 300, as applicable. Commenters in support of the
January 1, 2029, compliance date stated that this would be appropriate
as it aligns with the next HFC phasedown step while still allowing
flexibility in the near term. One commenter stated that if an extension
were provided for remote condensing units, it should be no more than
one year.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the compliance dates provided by
commenters ranging between July 1, 2026, and January 1, 2029, for the
limits of 150 or 300, as applicable. While there are available remote
condensing units that are compliant with the 150 or 300 limits, the EPA
received many comments describing retailers and code officials needing
additional time to adopt these technologies, particularly for those
using A2L refrigerants. Building codes is among the factors that the
EPA factors in, to the extent possible, consistent with subsection
(i)(4) of the AIM Act; however, it is not the sole factor.
The EPA also understands that there are many available remote
condensing unit equipment options currently offered by manufacturers,
which use regulated substances that would be compliant with a limit of
150 or 300, as appliable. The availability of substitutes is among the
criteria that the EPA factors in to the extent possible, consistent
with subsection (i)(4); however, it is not the sole factor. The EPA
understands that amending the compliance date to January 1, 2032, means
it is after the 70 percent reduction step of the HFC phasedown schedule
in 2029, which in and of itself will constrain HFC production and
import and could result in an overall price increase for HFCs. However,
as stated in response to similar comments on the amended compliance
date for supermarket systems, the HFC phasedown schedule established by
subsection (e) of the AIM Act and the technology transitions
requirements at subsection (i)(4) are wholly separate.
While subsection (i)(4) requires the EPA to factor in the remaining
phasedown period to the extent practicable, that is one factor, like
availability of substitutes, that the EPA considers. Both availability
of substitutes and the remaining phasedown schedule for HFCs could
result in many retailers deciding to choose a remote condensing unit
that is compliant with the limits of 150 or 300, as applicable, prior
to January 1, 2032. Using a graduated schedule with limits of 150 or
300, as applicable, beginning on January 1, 2032, is based on factoring
in, to the extent practicable, all of the subsection (i)(4) factors,
including, but not limited to, commercial demands, affordability for
residential and small business consumers, safety, consumer costs, and
the factors previously mentioned in this response.
Comment: One commenter suggested adjusting the interim limit to 750
rather than 1,400, and lowering the limit to 150 or 300, as applicable,
in 2032. The commenter stated this aligns more closely with currently
available technology. Another commenter requested the interim limit for
remote condensing units be set at 1,430, rather than 1,400, to allow
for continued use of R-134a, as they stated that there are no
production-ready compressors for wine cooling remote condensing units
with refrigerants meeting the 150 limit. They stated that by setting
the limit to allow for the use of R-134a, manufacturers would not need
to redesign products for the interim period between 2026 and 2032.
[[Page 31313]]
Response: The EPA disagrees that an interim limit of 750 would be
appropriate for the remote condensing units subsector. The EPA
acknowledges that to a large extent, in the 2023 Final Rule, the Agency
set limits of 150, 300, or 700 for sectors or subsectors.
However, the EPA did not set a limit of 750 in any sector or
subsector. Moreover, the Agency made its decisions based on information
specific to each relevant sector or subsector. As described elsewhere
in this section, two HFC refrigerant blends (i.e., R-448A and R-449A)
are currently being used in new remote condensing unit installations
and are below the 1,400 limit. Based on information from retailers and
in comments on the proposed rulemaking, allowing use of these
refrigerant blends would provide sufficient flexibility in the interim
timeframe. An interim limit of 750 would not allow these substitutes
and would significantly limit the flexibility in refrigerant choice for
remote condensing units during the interim period.
The EPA also disagrees with setting the interim limit at 1,430 for
remote condensing units. While this limit would allow for the use of R-
134a in the interim period, the interim limit of 1,400 provides
additional available A1 refrigerant options for wine cellar cooling
remote condensing units, including R-448A and R-449A.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the proposed delay in
compliance dates for remote condensing units conflicts with the AIM
Act's requirement for phasing down consumption of HFCs, and there will
be a much greater demand for HFCs by 2032 than allowed consumption can
support. Commenters stated that delays would elevate HFC demand, cause
allowance shortages, and shift allowances away from newer technologies
to legacy refrigerants. Commenters also pointed to the impacts of
heightened demand and decreased supply on the costs of refrigerants.
They stated that the impacts caused by higher demand would cause higher
prices for all HFC refrigerants and affect other sectors outside of
commercial refrigeration, and that these costs would get passed on to
American consumers.
Response: The EPA acknowledges these comments. The EPA understands
that amending the compliance date to January 1, 2032, means it is after
the 70 percent reduction step of the HFC phasedown in 2029, which will
constrain HFC production and import and could result in an overall
price increase for HFCs. However, as stated in response to similar
comments on the amended compliance date for supermarket systems, the
HFC phasedown schedule established by subsection (e) of the AIM Act and
the factors in subsection (i)(4) are wholly separate. While subsection
(i)(4) requires the EPA to factor in, to the extent practicable, the
remaining phasedown period, that is one factor, like availability of
substitutes, that the Agency considers. In addition, the phasedown
itself is expected to be a market driver for the transition of remote
condensing units that use refrigerants that are below the 2032 limits.
As noted, overall prices could increase for HFCs as the statutory HFC
phasedown continues. Since the phasedown is based on the exchange
values listed in AIM Act subsection (c), it disincentivizes the use of
regulated substances that are close to, or above, the interim limit,
while incentivizing those that are below the 150 or 300 limit, as
applicable, including new options provided by U.S. chemical companies.
Comment: Many commenters stated that there are substitutes and
technologies available for remote condensing units. One commenter
stated that many distributors are currently selling remote condensing
unit systems using refrigerants below the limit of 150 or 300, as
applicable, and that such systems using A2L refrigerants like R-454A
and R-454C are already being sold to customers. Other commenters
similarly stated that there are multiple SNAP listings of available
substitutes for remote condensing units with safety standards
incorporating UL 60335-2-89 and ASHRAE 15-2022. Commenters stated that
the EPA already demonstrated that there are substitutes available for
the remote condensing units subsector, and that the Agency has already
met the statutory test for demonstrating that there are available
substitutes. One commenter further stated that they use multiple
available substitutes for commercial refrigeration categories addressed
in this rulemaking in their standard product offerings, including R-
454A, R-454C, R-455A, and CO2. They commented that they
provide a product line that is currently manufactured and sold that
meets the 150 or 300 limits, as applicable, including remote condensing
units and unit coolers, remote condensers, and refrigerant rack
systems. Another commenter stated that refrigerant suppliers have been
supplying the remote condensing unit market with A2Ls and that several
national convenience stores have confirmed that they are in the process
of converting to such systems with A2L refrigerants. One commenter
stated that they have moved forward with A2L refrigerants
(specifically, R-454A) with their vendors and will continue that path
forward. They commented that all of their vendors are aligned and have
moved forward with equipment using R-454A.
Response: The EPA appreciates the information provided by
commenters on the available remote condensing units that use
refrigerants that are compliant with the limits of 150 or 300. The EPA
agrees that there are substitutes available for remote condensing units
that comply with the 2023 Final Rule compliance timelines and indicated
in the 2023 Final Rule that several substitutes, including
CO2 and some A1 and A2L HFC blends, were available or would
soon be available in time for the remote condensing units subsector
compliance date of 2026.\128\ This was based partly on the
understanding that SNAP Rule 26 would list several of these identified
substitutes as acceptable for the subsectors, subject to use
conditions, soon after finalization of the 2023 Final Rule. The EPA
finalized SNAP Rule 26 and listed seven A2L substitutes as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, for use in new remote condensing units.\129\
Two are non-HFC refrigerants (HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E)) and thus
are not subject to subsection (i) rules. Five are HFC/HFO blends (R-
457A, R-516A, R-454C, R-455A, and R-454A), which, except for R-454A,
satisfy the 150 limit for installation in new remote condensing units
that have a charge size of 200 pounds or more. All of these
refrigerants may also be installed in such systems that have a charge
size less than 200 pounds, or as part of the high temperature side of a
cascade system. While increasing the number of refrigerants listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program can provide more options in the long
term, more time is needed for chemical suppliers to produce them in
sufficient quantities. The EPA is seeking to avoid supply chain issues
similar to those that arose with the deployment of the new refrigerant
blend, R-454B, in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector.
In that situation, while the refrigerant was being manufactured in
sufficient quantities, it was not available
[[Page 31314]]
in the field for equipment installation and servicing.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See 88 FR 73098 (October 24, 2023).
\129\ See 89 FR 50410 (June 13, 2024).
\130\ See Memorandum--Overview of R-454B Refrigerant Shortage
and Current Status, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as noted elsewhere in this section, the EPA is factoring
in the availability of substitutes, to the extent practicable, and
reaffirms it is not the sole factor the Agency considers. The EPA finds
that a graduated schedule is more appropriate for remote condensing
units for reasons other than availability of alternatives. The record
reflects that additional alternatives and system configurations,
including those using A1 or A2L refrigerants, are becoming more widely
deployable as equipment listings and product safety standards are
implemented, supply chains mature, and field experience expands. This
approach also recognizes that other factors, such as building codes,
are not a universal constraint in this subsector; however, there may be
situations where they remain a near-term barrier.
Comment: Some commenters provided similar information and comments
for remote condensing units as they did on supermarket systems on the
challenges of availability and using substitutes. One commenter stated
that many refrigerants that meet the 150 or 300 limit, as applicable,
are either unavailable or withdrawn from the market, and that equipment
manufacturers have not yet scaled to demand. One commenter noted that
they have experienced issues deploying A2L refrigeration systems. They
stated that manufacturers currently only offer a handful of A2L systems
and most are small remote condensing units that are not suitable for
large grocery stores. One commenter stated that even where A2L
equipment is installed, many installation companies are having issues
with sourcing A2L refrigerants in a reliable or timely manner.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the comments that there may be some
challenges with the adoption of A2L technologies in some cases,
including related to availability of equipment on the market. The EPA
agrees that additional time is necessary for remote condensing units to
transition. The EPA agrees that existing challenges for adoption of A2L
refrigerants warrant amending the schedule and providing an interim
limit. Retailers may need additional time to become familiar with these
technologies. Further, technicians may need additional training to
safely handle equipment using flammable refrigerants. The amended
provisions will also provide sufficient time for newer refrigerants and
the equipment using them to become more widely available and have
proper supply chains established.
Comment: One commenter stated that A2L systems have already been
developed for the 2026 compliance date, and they are expected to be
comparable in cost to HFC systems. Another commenter compared price
quotes from a distributor for a walk-in cooler, one with R-449A and one
with R-454A. The commenter stated the price difference was largely
based on the indoor evaporator component with installed refrigerant
detection and solenoid shut-offs; however, the refrigerant saved by
detecting and stopping leaks early offset the cost difference between
systems over the lifetime of the system. Another commenter stated that
certain refrigerants below the limit of 150 or 300 provide cost
savings, including reduced operating costs through greater energy
efficiency.
Response: The EPA acknowledges comments provided on the costs of
remote condensing units that use A2L refrigerants, particularly how
they compare to systems using legacy refrigerants. Comments suggest
refrigerant costs will be similar, there will be higher capital costs
and lower operating costs, and note equipment design features that are
outside the scope of this rulemaking. The EPA also understands that
consistent with certain updated safety standards that equipment is
certified as meeting, A2L remote condensing units may have design
requirements, such as refrigerant leak detection devices, which may add
to the capital costs.
The EPA acknowledges that in some instances, equipment using
refrigerants below the 150 or 300 limit can provide energy efficiency
benefits and reduced operating costs. The Agency notes that there are
many factors that retailers may consider based on the individual needs
for a particular application at their store. As noted by commenters in
section IV.C of this preamble, retailers on average have slim profit
margins, which may cause challenges in absorbing the higher capital
costs of equipment using newer refrigerants. Further, commenters have
noted that there may be challenges related to installing equipment with
refrigerants with flammability characteristics. Thus, the EPA is
establishing the graduated schedule for the retail food remote
condensing units subsector with consideration of these and other
factors.
As described in other comments in this section, many retailers have
made announcements and commitments to transition and build new stores
using available substitutes such as CO2 or A2L refrigerants.
Thus, the EPA expects a portion of the market will transition prior to
2032 to available substitutes that meet the limit of 150 or 300, as
applicable. Further, as described elsewhere in this section, the EPA
expects market forces and the HFC phasedown to cause other retailers
also to transition ahead of 2032.
Comment: Commenters stated that building code updates have occurred
rapidly across the country to allow the use of A2L refrigerants. They
note that 49 states have recognized A2L use either through code
updates, legislation, or interpretive letter and that the remaining
codes are being updated on timelines to allow compliance with the
compliance dates finalized in the 2023 Final Rule. One commenter stated
that home rule structures do not alter the assessment of building code
readiness, as statewide adoption of the 2024 model codes or equivalent
statutory authorization does not default to a prohibition on A2L use.
Other commenters stated that the revised compliance schedule would
allow local jurisdictions the time necessary to adopt local building
and fire safety codes to allow the deployment of A2L refrigerants. Some
commenters argued that local building code processes and approvals
would present hurdles to the adoption of equipment using A2L
refrigerants. They state that local jurisdictions may prohibit the use
of A2L refrigerants due to safety concerns.
Some commenters provided more specific information in their
comments on building codes as they relate to remote condensing units.
One commenter stated that due to the relatively lower refrigeration
capacities of remote condensing units compared to supermarkets systems,
it is relatively easier to comply with the charge size restrictions for
A2L refrigerants. They note that, considering the lower charge size,
many manufacturers have launched remote condensing unit equipment using
A2L refrigerants. Another commenter similarly stated that remote
condensing units do not face the same building code challenges for
adopting A2Ls as supermarket systems. They note that remote condensing
units are less complex and are often installed outdoors, which would
present fewer challenges regarding approval by local building code
officials.
Response: The EPA appreciates the comments and information provided
on the status of updated building codes across the country and
acknowledges that rapid adoption has taken place. The EPA also
recognizes that building codes updates have not been completed
uniformly throughout all states and
[[Page 31315]]
local jurisdictions throughout the country. As noted in response to
other comments, the majority of remote condensing units are under
typical charge size thresholds that would otherwise present challenges
related to using refrigerants with lower flammability characteristics
(i.e., A2Ls) in the equipment. The EPA recognized this when
establishing limits in the 2023 Final Rule where a distinction was made
at a charge size of 200 pounds for the limits of 150 or 300 for remote
condensing units. This cut-off was established with consideration of
building codes to allow a wider range of refrigerant choices for
smaller remote condensing units to manage safety and other factors. In
other cases, as commenters noted, remote condensing units may be
installed outside, further limiting challenges for installation based
on building codes.
As the EPA acknowledged, not all jurisdictions have fully completed
adoption of updated building codes. The EPA is amending the compliance
date for the limits of 150 or 300, as applicable, for remote condensing
units, to allow retailers and building code officials more time to
become more familiar with remote condensing units that use refrigerants
with flammability characteristics (e.g., A2Ls). Even though building
codes may pose less of a barrier to adopting remote condensing units
that use A2Ls than for other equipment, including supermarkets systems,
the Agency still finds it appropriate to provide an interim limit and
extend the deadline for the lower limit of 150 or 300, as applicable.
Comment: Some commenters stated that the EPA should provide
specific relief where a discrete sub-category demonstrates a near-term
constraint. Commenters provided examples of certain wine cellar coolers
or milk coolers and niche laboratory cooling applications and noted
that the relief should be minimal in volume, time-limited, and sunset
no later than January 1, 2029. One commenter stated that a sector-wide
raised limit is not the least disruptive option and would be arbitrary
where narrower tools suffice (i.e., targeted relief). They commented
further that potential barriers in certain sub-categories could include
recertification testing timing at labs for specific capacity classes
and cabinet or coil configurations and component availability issues in
low-temperature applications for retail food remote condensing units.
Some commenters also suggested that an alternative could be to
authorize the use of certified reclaimed refrigerant for first fill in
lieu of compliance with limits. One commenter stated that any needed
relief after 2029 should only be available through a formal variance
mechanism with public notice, annual review, hardship criteria, and
cumulative impact evaluation against the allowance balance. The
commenter also stated that such a targeted relied process would be a
logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.
Response: The EPA appreciates comments seeking targeted relief for
certain remote condensing units. While the EPA is concerned about
impacts to certain wine cellar coolers or milk coolers and niche
laboratory cooling applications, the Agency did not propose and thus is
not establishing provisions for remote condensing units that would be
applicable to a subset of equipment in this rulemaking. These
considerations are outside the scope of this rule and would require
additional analysis by the Agency as well as additional notice.
Nonetheless, the EPA is finalizing an interim limit of 1,400 and
extending the compliance date for the lower limit of 150 or 300, as
applicable, until January 1, 2032, thus providing relief for all remote
condensing units, including these applications.
E. Cold Storage Warehouses
Comment: Multiple commenters supported the proposed limit of 700
for cold storage warehouses noting they are comparable to other
subsectors like data centers and IPR. They asserted that categories of
subsectors are defined by certain limits, and that the cold storage
warehouse subsector was placed in the incorrect category with the
limits of 150 or 300 as applied in the 2023 Final Rule.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the support for raising the limit to
700 for regulated substances used in cold storage warehouses. The
concerns provided in comments are similar to those that were brought to
the EPA's attention in advance of the proposal. The EPA established the
requirements in the 2023 Final Rule based on the information available
at the time for this subsector. The Agency received additional
information after finalization of that rule and during the comment
period for this rule. The graduated schedule established in this rule
is based on consideration of information now available to the Agency.
The EPA anticipates that the graduated schedule for cold storage
warehouses will provide sufficient time for many of the concerns
identified by commenters to be addressed, including broader building
code adoption that may enable additional lower flammability refrigerant
options and more uniform deployment of complex systems.
The EPA disagrees with the assertion that categories of subsectors
are defined by certain limits, and that the cold storage warehouse
subsector was placed in the incorrect category. In the 2023 Final Rule,
the EPA established certain limits for each subsector based on the
evaluation of the AIM Act (i)(4) factors independently for each
subsector at the time of that rulemaking. The EPA has considered these
factors and the new information provided in establishing the
appropriate graduated schedule for the cold storage warehouses
subsector. For additional discussion, refer to the Response to Comments
document found in the docket for this rule.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the EPA has already listed
multiple substitutes below the 150 or 300 limit, as applicable, with
safety standards incorporating UL 60335-2-89 and ASHRAE 15-2022.
However, one commenter stated there is no indication that acceptable A1
refrigerants below the 150 limit are available or have received SNAP
approval. They also note that SNAP approval of a substitute does not
equate to commercially available, citing R-410B as an example. Some
commenters noted that the U.S. cold storage industry has long used low-
charge ammonia systems and is rapidly expanding its use of
CO2, with 380 industrial sites having installed
CO2. Other commenters cited the 2023 GCCA Productivity and
Benchmarking Survey report that showed 91 percent of responding cold
storage warehouses currently use ammonia as their refrigerant, 10
percent use synthetic F-gas refrigerant, and five percent use carbon
dioxide as their refrigerant.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ This comment highlighted that the numbers do not add up to
100% due to the fact that some cold storage facilities use multiple
refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA agrees that substitutes previously identified as
available to meet the upcoming January 1, 2026, restriction for this
subsector may need additional time to become commercially available. In
particular, the revisions to the compliance dates in this rulemaking
address concerns about safety considerations in densely populated areas
and availability of sufficient compliant refrigerant options across the
subsector in the near term. The EPA reiterates that nothing in this
final rule will prevent use of refrigerants below the limits of 150 or
300 prior to 2032. The Agency anticipates that many cold storage
warehouses will continue to use ammonia and other substitutes where
appropriate.
As stated previously, SNAP Rule 26 listed seven non-toxic, lower
flammability (i.e., A2L) substitutes as
[[Page 31316]]
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new cold storage
warehouses.\132\ These are HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-457A, R-516A,
R-454C, R-455A, and R-454A. All except one (e.g., R-454A) are below the
limit of 150 for the installation in new cold storage warehouses that
have a charge size of 200 pounds or more. All of these refrigerants
could also be installed in new systems that have a charge size less
than 200 pounds, or as part of the high temperature side of a cascade
system. While increasing the number of refrigerants listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program can provide more options in the long
term, more time is needed for chemical suppliers to produce them in
sufficient quantities. The EPA is seeking to avoid supply chain issues
similar to those that arose with the deployment of the new refrigerant
blend, R-454B, in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector.
In that situation, while the refrigerant was being manufactured in
sufficient quantities, it was not available in the field for equipment
installation and servicing.\133\ Some of these substitutes are
currently commercially available, including HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E),
R-454C, and R-454A; however, others will take time to become
commercially available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See 89 FR 50410 (June 13, 2024).
\133\ See Memorandum--Overview of R-454B Refrigerant Shortage
and Current Status, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter stated that the refrigerant highlighted in
the March 6, 2025, request from the Coalition for the Use of Safe and
Efficient Refrigerants (CUSER) to the EPA, R-513A, is not suitable for
low-temperature applications needed for frozen foods due to its normal
boiling point of -20.5 [deg]F. They stated the same is true for R-450A.
They also stated that a refrigerant such as R-448A is much more
compatible for low-temperature cold storage applications with its
normal boiling point of approximately -45 [deg]F.
Response: The EPA appreciates the technical information this
commenter shared. The EPA notes that one reason for raising the limit
for cold storage warehouses is to provide additional options, like R-
513A, to be used in densely populated areas in the interim period while
other options, including several A2L substitutes that were listed in
SNAP Rule 26, can be commercially developed. This will allow warehouse
developers and operators to use other refrigerants that would comply
with the limit of 150 or 300, as applicable, beginning in 2032. The EPA
notes that R-448A would not be allowable as a refrigerant for cold
storage warehouses under the graduated schedule in this rulemaking, as
it is above the limit of 700. As described in this section, there are
other options for cold storage warehouses that meet the needs of low-
temperature cold storage applications.
Comment: Many commenters opposed the proposal for adjusting the
limits and schedule for cold storage warehouses. One commenter noted
that the EPA has never previously proposed or referred to a limit of
700 for these systems, and it is inappropriate since the EPA already
justified the lower limits in the 2023 Final Rule. Multiple commenters
stated that sector-wide deferrals for cold storage warehouses are not
warranted--particularly after January 1, 2029, when the AIM Act reduces
supply of HFCs to 30 percent of the baseline period. Multiple
commenters stated that delaying the implementation until 2032 will
negate emission reductions and go against the AIM Act's requirement for
a rapid transition to safer alternatives. Multiple commenters stated
that there are enough alternatives in use to justify the original
deadlines established in 2023. One commenter stated that allowing a
limit of 700 would not reduce costs, and it could disrupt the market.
One commenter stated that the EPA must maintain pre-existing timelines
and limits for commercial refrigeration equipment for reasons that
include avoiding duplicative costs for manufacturers and stranded
assets, minimizing costs to consumers, preserving American jobs and
leadership, and preventing refrigerant shortages and price spikes.
Response: The EPA disagrees with commenters that there are enough
alternatives to justify the original deadlines established in 2023 for
the reasons discussed within this section. The EPA also acknowledges
these commenters' opposition to altering the limits and compliance date
for cold storage warehouses and preference for retaining the
requirements in the 2023 Final Rule; however, the EPA is finalizing a
graduated schedule based on the totality of the record for this
subsector.
The EPA understands that any delay in the compliance dates as
compared to the 2023 Final Rule for cold storage warehouses could allow
the continued use of and demand for certain refrigerants. However, as
stated above, cold storage warehouses have historically and widely used
ammonia, a refrigerant that is not impacted by the HFC phasedown. There
is nothing in this final rule that precludes the continued use of
ammonia, or other refrigerants below the 150 or 300 limits, as
applicable. In addition, based on information provided prior to the
proposal and in comments, the EPA understands that over 90 percent of
cold storage warehouse refrigeration systems in the United States used
either ammonia or CO2.\134\ The EPA anticipates that this
trend will generally continue for new installations of cold storage
warehouses, while the graduated schedule in this rulemaking allows
flexibility for continued use of HFC refrigerants below the 700 limit
in the interim period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ See letter provided by IIAR, dated June 9, 2025, in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to commenters' assertions of duplicative costs for
manufacturers and stranded assets, the Agency reiterates that nothing
in this rule prevents manufacturers from continuing to manufacture and
sell equipment before the effective date of the 150 or 300 limits, as
applicable. The EPA does not anticipate a significant shift away from
the current use of refrigerants that are below those limits. The EPA
agrees that prices and demand for HFC refrigerants will likely increase
in the interim period. The Agency discusses this in more detail in
another response in this section. In general, the EPA expects that
these price increases will be market drivers to shift industry towards
refrigerants below the 150 or 300 limits for cold storage warehouses.
Commenters noted the potential for the final rule to impact costs to
consumers as well as jobs; however, for this subsector, the Agency did
not receive information to sufficiently support these claims.
Comment: Multiple commenters requested keeping the limit at 700
permanently instead of lowering it in 2032 to 150 or 300. They asserted
that it is inappropriate to assume that additional compliant
substitutes would be available after seven years. Another commenter
recommended that the limit could be removed entirely for cold storage
warehouses.
Response: The EPA disagrees with commenters' assertions that it is
inappropriate to adopt a 150 or 300 limit permanently. The EPA also
disagrees that the limits for cold storage warehouses should be removed
entirely. The 2023 Final Rule responded to petitions to restrict fully,
partially, or with a graduated schedule the use of HFCs in cold storage
warehouses. This rule reconsiders the limits and timing based on the
totality of the record which includes identified viable substitutes.
The SNAP program listed several additional lower toxicity alternative
[[Page 31317]]
refrigerants for cold storage warehouses that would meet the 150 or 300
limit requirements, as applicable, in June 2024. The graduated schedule
provides additional time to adopt these more recently listed compliant
refrigerants. The EPA intends to continue to monitor the transition. If
at a later date, the EPA becomes aware of information that suggests six
additional years was insufficient, at that time, the Agency can decide
to revisit the 2032 compliance date. It is unlikely such an assessment
could be made for several years.
Comment: Multiple commenters requested aligning the limits for
retail food subsectors with cold storage warehouses, and to apply a
limit of 1,400 to allow for the use of R-448A and R-449A. Some
indicated that this would allow an organic transition to A2L
refrigerants as they become more widely available. One commenter
mentioned there are still many warehouses that require a non-toxic
refrigerant. Another commenter agreed with aligning the limit of retail
food subsectors with cold storage warehouses, however disagreed with
the proposed increased limit and delayed date.
Response: The EPA appreciates the comments to adjust the limits to
align across retail food subsectors and cold storage warehouses, or
remove them entirely. However, the Agency's limits are based on
assessment of the specific subsector. In the 2023 Final Rule, the
Agency often used the same numerical limits (e.g., 150 and 700) since
often the same refrigerants where being considered for multiple
applications. Based on the information provided ahead of the proposed
rule and during the comment period, the Agency concludes that a 700
limit as part of a graduated schedule is appropriate for cold storage
warehouses. Refrigerants, including but not limited to R-513A, were
identified as interim solutions and these refrigerants are below the
700 limit. The EPA recognizes that in some cases, a non-toxic
refrigerant is required for a cold storage warehouse application. In
this case, the EPA again notes that there are available substitutes,
such as R-513A, that are below the interim limit of 700 and have lower
toxicity characteristics (i.e., ASHRAE safety classification ``A'').
Comment: Multiple commenters noted that the proposed delays to 2032
and interim limits would elevate near-term HFC demand while supply
tightens, misaligning the AIM Act's intended ability to guide an
orderly transition and the phasedown schedule. One commenter stated
that if compliance dates are delayed and limits are relaxed, they
anticipate refrigerant shortages from 2027 onward. Based on the EPA's
own modeling, this will create a future shortage of the supply of
refrigerants with higher limits, including refrigerants originally
intended for use in servicing legacy equipment. Multiple other
commenters recommended adjusting the compliance date to January 1,
2029, to synchronize with the allocation phasedown schedule.
Response: As a general matter, the EPA does not agree that limits
set under the Technology Transitions subsection of the AIM Act need to
align with the dates Congress established for the phasedown schedule
under subsection (e). These are two distinct subsections, each with
their own clear direction. While the additional time until 2029 would
provide limited flexibility for cold storage warehouses, the EPA
concludes that it is not enough time to address concerns for this
subsector. Congress' direction under subsection (i) are to the extent
practicable, factor in ``the remaining phase-down period for regulated
substances,'' among other factors. In addition, the phasedown itself is
a separate and key market driver for all refrigerant users. The EPA has
considered the remaining phasedown period as well as the other factors
listed in subsection (i)(4) of the AIM Act and factored them in to the
extent practicable, consistent with Congressional direction.
The EPA acknowledges concerns with increased costs of HFC
refrigerants if there is an increase in demand resulting from delayed
compliance dates. The prices of HFCs will likely increase as the
phasedown continues notably around the seventy percent stepdown in
2029, irrespective of whether the EPA amends the compliance date or
limit for the cold storage warehouse subsector. The EPA expects that if
there are price increases, companies may choose to transition to
refrigerants that are below the limits of 150 or 300, as applicable,
prior to January 1, 2032. Thus, the phasedown itself is expected to be
a market driver for the transition of cold storage warehouses to
substitutes that are below the 2032 limits, consistent with the
statutory HFC phasedown under the AIM Act.
Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the record does not
support claims that substitutes are unavailable or that building codes
require sector-wide deferrals. Another commenter noted that since 2021,
nearly every U.S. jurisdiction has acted to authorize the use of A2L
refrigerants through adoption of the 2024 model codes or interim
measures consistent with those provisions. They also noted that 49
states have formally recognized A2L use either through adoption of
updated model codes, enactment of state legislation, or issuance of
letters of approval by the state fire marshal or building authority. 29
states have passed legislation explicitly allowing alternative
refrigerants, and several others, including Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan,
Nevada, and the District of Columbia, have issued interpretive letters
confirming that A2L products listed and labeled to UL standards and
installed in accordance with ASHRAE 15 are permissible under existing
codes. Another commenter noted that the International Code Council
(ICC) has confirmed commercial and residential use of A2L refrigerants
is allowed following code changes in the 2024 IBC, 2024 International
Residential Code (IRC), IFC, and IMC. One commenter states that cold
storage warehouses do not face the same challenges with local building
codes as described above for supermarkets because they are not
consumer-facing facilities.
Response: The EPA acknowledges commenters who stated that the
record does not support claims that substitutes are unavailable or that
building codes require sector-wide deferrals. The Agency also
acknowledges information provided by commenters indicating that nearly
all U.S. jurisdictions have taken action to authorize the use of A2L
refrigerants through adoption of the 2024 model codes or equivalent
interim measures, that most states have formally recognized A2L use
through code adoption, legislation, or letters of approval, and that
the ICC has confirmed A2L use in commercial and residential
applications following changes in the 2024 IBC, IRC, IFC, and IMC. In
light of these developments, the EPA agrees that building code adoption
is not a sector-wide barrier for cold storage warehouses.
At the same time, the EPA finds that a graduated schedule is more
appropriate for cold storage warehouses for reasons other than
availability of alternatives. The record reflects that additional
alternatives and system configurations, including those using A1 or A2L
refrigerants, are becoming more widely deployable as equipment listings
and product safety standards are implemented, supply chains mature, and
field experience expands. This approach also recognizes that codes are
not a universal constraint in this subsector; however, there may be
situations where codes remain a near term barrier. It also addresses
the complexity of deploying systems designed for new refrigerants and
the
[[Page 31318]]
need to align with capital planning and workforce training.
Given that the vast percentage of this subsector does not currently
use and are not expected to suddenly begin using HFCs, the EPA expects
that the impact of this change to a gradated schedule will likely have
a minimal impact on the products manufacturers offer. The EPA expects a
strong portion of the market to choose a refrigerant below the limits
of 150 or 300, as applicable, for new cold storage warehouse
installations prior to 2032. Similarly, the EPA notes the limited use
of HFCs will likely result in a limited change in demand.
F. Replacement Condensing Units in the Residential and Light Commercial
Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Subsector
Comment: Most commenters were opposed to continuing to allow the
manufacture and import of R-410A condensing units and allowing their
sale or use as a replacement in an existing system. Commenters
reiterated the points made in the manufacturer's administrative
petition, including that they considered the current approach to be a
loophole that allows for the infinite replacement of condensing units
and allows for the complete replacement of existing systems over time.
One commenter commented that allowing the manufacture, import, sale,
distribution, and utilization of ``specified components'' (particularly
condensing units) would maintain reliance on old technology systems and
refrigerants that exceed the limit for this subsector for many years,
and certainly through the upcoming 2029 stepdown.
Response: What commenters describe as a loophole instead is the
intended effect of the 2023 Technology Transition Rule. Allowing a
continued market (i.e., manufacture, import, export, sale, or
distribution) for specified components enables end-users to maintain
their existing systems, even if those systems use legacy HFC
refrigerants. The EPA did not intend for the Proposed 2023 Rule to
prohibit the market for all ``components and subcomponents'' using
legacy HFC refrigerants, thereby preventing the repair of existing HFC
refrigeration and AC/HP equipment.\135\ Based on comments on the
Proposed 2023 Rule, the EPA made changes intended to address this
concern for the entire refrigeration and AC/HP sector. Petitioners
subsequently stated their preference in their administrative petitions
for reconsideration and reiterated in comments to this rule that
residential and light commercial AC/HP systems are not repaired by
replacing a failed condensing unit. In reconsidering this issue more
narrowly in this rulemaking for only condensing units (not other
components or subcomponents) and only in the residential and light
commercial AC/HP subsector (not chillers or commercial refrigeration
systems), the EPA now affirms that by making no changes to the current
regulations, a homeowner can choose to replace their failed condensing
unit rather than purchase a whole new system. This policy is consistent
with that taken during the phaseout of R-22, where the Agency allowed
for the replacement of condensing units. Such repairs provide a lower-
cost option for homeowners who might not be able to afford or would
rather not purchase a whole new system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ This would have also perversely favored the repair of
older systems using R-22 and other ozone-depleting refrigerants
because components of such systems are not subject to restrictions
under the AIM Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA disagrees with commenters that the EPA is allowing for
either the ``infinite'' or ``complete'' replacement of the whole system
over time. The EPA has consistently stated that replacing all
components over time constitutes the installation of a new system.\136\
While replacing the condensing unit without replacing the indoor coil
would not be considered the installation of a new system under this
approach, the subsequent replacement of the indoor coil would be
considered the installation of a new system which cannot use a
refrigerant that exceeds the limit system. Alternatively, if the indoor
evaporator coil is replaced, the subsequent replacement of the
condensing unit would also be considered the installation of a new
system which cannot use a refrigerant that exceeds the limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ See 88 FR 73121 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters were concerned that allowing condensing
unit replacement will increase consumer costs. Commenters stated that
one way in which costs may increase is by replacing only the condensing
unit without replacing the inside coil, which results in an unmatched
system. The new condensing unit will not have been designed to be used
with the existing indoor coil, resulting in lower energy efficiency,
and may require more repairs over its lifetime. Another way that
commenters stated costs could increase is through continued use of R-
410A. Commenters noted that R-410A needed to recharge legacy systems
will increase in price and cost more relative to refrigerants below the
limit for the subsector, and R-410A may become unavailable as the
phasedown continues.
Response: The EPA recognizes that extending the life of existing
residential AC/HP systems could mean continued demand for the
refrigerant used in those systems. The EPA acknowledges that the 2029
phasedown step will decrease production and import of HFCs. However,
the EPA disagrees that continued repair of residential and light
commercial AC/HP systems will increase demand beyond what can be met
with virgin and reclaimed HFCs going forward. The EPA also recognizes
that the price of refrigerant using legacy HFCs may rise as the
phasedown continues, and the EPA expects that demand for these
refrigerants, such as R-410A, will respond to these price signals.
However, the cost of refrigerant is only one factor a homeowner
considers when deciding to repair their existing system or move to a
new system. This approach allows a consumer to weigh their options and
make an informed decision. The EPA also recognizes that in systems
where a condensing unit or indoor coil was replaced, the unmatched
components may work though they were not specifically designed to
operate with one another. In such cases, the energy efficiency of the
system may not be as high as if the components were designed to operate
with one another, but energy efficiency would still be better than the
older coil and condensing unit's Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio.
Comment: One commenter provided data about uncharged condensing
units designed to use R-22 after the 2010 restriction on manufacture
and import of charged units. The commenter said the industry took
advantage of a loophole allowing ``dry-shipped'' units that allowed
contractors to continue installing outdoor condensing units rather than
replacing old systems at the end of their useful life. The commenter
noted its Market Intelligence Report began in 2013 and showed
significant sales of R-22 outdoor condensing units until 2016 (R-22
unit sales decreased from over 22,000 units in 2017 to just a few
thousand per year in 2022 when the commenter stopped tracking those
units). The commenter stated that this extended demand for R-22 for
several years and estimated that over 15 percent of the current
installed base of AC/HP are R-22 units. The commenter argued that had
new systems been installed rather than having the service life extended
by replacing outdoor condensing units, the installed base would be near
zero after 15 years. One state commented that stakeholders to
[[Page 31319]]
their rulemakings described this as a critical weakness of the EPA's
prior phasedown of ozone-depleting substances that greatly prolonged
their use.
Response: The R-22 phaseout informed the 2023 Final Rule including
the policy of allowing for the replacement of condensing units. Two
rules issued December 15, 2009 \137\ restricted the sale, distribution,
and installation of AC and refrigeration products charged with R-22 as
follows. Sale and distribution of appliances pre-charged with R-22 was
not allowed for self-contained, factory-charged appliances such as pre-
charged window units, packaged terminal air conditioners, and some
commercial refrigeration units, if manufactured on or after January 1,
2010. Sale and distribution of appliance components pre-charged with R-
22 was allowed if the components (e.g., condensing units, line sets,
and coils that are charged with refrigerant) were manufactured before
January 1, 2010. Pre-charged components manufactured before January 1,
2010, may be used to service appliances manufactured before January 1,
2010,\138\ but may not be assembled to create new appliances.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ ``Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the
Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production, Import, and
Export,'' 74 FR 66412 (December. 15, 2009); ``Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Ban on the Sale or Distribution of Pre-Charged
Appliances,'' 74 FR 66450 (December. 15, 2009).
\138\ Under 40 CFR 82.3, ``manufactured, for an appliance, means
the date upon which the appliance's refrigerant circuit is complete,
the appliance can function, the appliance holds a full refrigerant
charge, and the appliance is ready for use for its intended
purposes.'' This definition applied to appliances both manufactured
in a factory or in the field. This is the basis for the comparable
definition of ``install'' at 40 CFR 84.52 which means ``to complete
a field-assembled system's circuit, including charging with a full
charge, such that the system can function and is ready for use for
its intended purpose.''
\139\ See 74 FR 66419 (December 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data provided by the commenter support the EPA's policy of
providing flexibility to the homeowner, even if the commenter prefers a
different policy outcome. The data demonstrate to the Agency that
consumers may choose to replace a failed condensing unit when faced
with the choice of purchasing a new system that uses a different
refrigerant. The data also show that the market gradually transitioned
from R-22 to the point that the commenter stopped tracking R-22 unit
sales in 2022. The ability to repair R-22 systems did not prevent the
transition from R-22 to R-410A and the EPA anticipates the current
transition from R-410A will continue without the need for the Agency to
restrict the repair of R-410A systems. The estimate that over 15
percent of the current installed base of residential AC use R-22
indicates a healthy hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) reclamation market
as production and import of virgin R-22 ended in 2020. The EPA
anticipates that R-410A equipment will follow a similar pattern and it
may be many years until the installed base is zero. The Agency notes
that the AIM Act's HFC phasedown under subsection (e) allows for
production and import of HFCs starting in 2036 at the level of 15
percent of baseline and continues indefinitely. The Agency has
previously stated that HFCs will continue to be available including to
service existing equipment.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See 89 FR 82771 (October 11, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Many commenters argued that allowing continued imports of
R-410A units will undermine the investments made by domestic
manufacturers of refrigerants and equipment that use new refrigerants.
Response: The Agency acknowledges commenters' concerns about prior
investments. The EPA notes that there is nothing in this final rule
that prevents companies from marketing their new systems using new
refrigerants. The EPA finds it is important to allow homeowners to
weigh their options regarding whether to replace an AC/HP system or to
repair it with a replacement component. As noted in response to the
previous comment, the transition from R-22 systems provides a
historical example of how a similar approach has worked successfully in
previous transitions.
Comment: One commenter noted that the quick rollout to R-454B and
prohibition on R-410A left manufacturers, technicians, and contractors
with little time to adequately prepare. Some organizations commented
that the 2023 Final Rule benefits ``rent seeking'' special interests
(refrigerant producers and equipment manufacturers) while raising costs
for consumers. They commented in support of the proposal for this
rulemaking as it reduces the incentive to engage in rent seeking and
thus increases aggregate national wealth. Faced with a ``cost of living
crisis,'' the commenters urged the EPA to minimize the burden to
homeowners of its discretionary regulatory requirements. These
commenters recommended that all restrictions on residential AC be
removed and allow for the continued installation of new R-410A
residential AC. Many commenters commented that the EPA should remove
all restrictions on R-410A, raise the limit to allow the use of R-410A,
or extend the deadline for installation.
Response: These commenters did not address the question of whether
the EPA should prohibit the manufacture and import of R-410A components
for repair and replacement. Commenters' requests to fully remove all
restrictions on R-410A, raise the limit to allow use of R-410A, and/or
extend the installation deadline for residential AC systems are outside
the scope of this rulemaking. With regards to the comments on the
rollout of R-454B, the Agency directs readers to section IV.H of this
preamble where we discuss the continued installation of residential and
light commercial AC/HP components that were domestically manufactured
or imported before January 1, 2025.
Comment: One chemical manufacturer commented that the EPA is
wrongly allowing pre-charged components to be imported into the United
States without the expenditure of domestic production or consumption
allowances for the refrigerant they contain. They argue that this
undermines the consumption limits in the AIM Act and subjects U.S.
manufacturers to constraints on HFC supply that foreign manufacturers
do not face. The commenter argued that allowing the importation of pre-
charged components without expending allowances is contrary to the text
and legislative intent of the AIM Act. The commenter stated that
``consumption'' is defined to mean the difference between ``a quantity
equal to the sum of . . . the quantity of that regulated substance
produced in the United States; and . . . the quantity of the regulated
substance imported into the United States'' and argued that since these
statutory provisions are in no way qualified, they clearly express that
the EPA is to address all consumption of HFCs, based on the full
quantity of HFCs imported into the United States. The commenter also
stated that the EPA's sole justification in the HFC Framework Rule to
exempt imported products that contain HFCs from requiring consumption
allowances because there was ``insufficient data.''
Response: The EPA disagrees that consumption allowances are needed
to import equipment containing regulated substances. The EPA addressed
treatment of HFCs in products in the HFC Framework Rule.\141\ Further,
while this comment is made only with the aim of restricting the
importation of residential and light commercial AC/HP condensing units
containing R-410A, there is no clear way to limit their
[[Page 31320]]
statutory argument to only a specific type of product containing that
specific HFC blend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See 86 FR 55116 (October 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that allowing continued
manufacture and import of R-410A condensing units could become an
avenue for illegal activity in the long term. Commenters stated that
this will make it more difficult to enforce the restriction on the
installation of new systems, that enforcement will rely on proper
labeling of components as being for replacement only, and that it
shifts responsibility for ensuring compliance down the supply chain to
technicians and consumers.
Response: The EPA notes these concerns and states, as discussed in
the 2023 Final Rule, that the current restrictions are sufficient for
the Agency and the relevant stakeholders to ensure compliance with
these restrictions. As finalized previously, a technician needs only to
confirm the age of the condensing unit before installing a new system,
which can be done by viewing the label. After January 1, 2025, all
specified components that are designed to use a regulated substance
above the limit must have a label that states ``For servicing existing
equipment only.'' Taken together, this provides the technician with
sufficient information to determine whether or not a new R-410A
condensing unit may be installed.
The 2023 Final Rule describes the EPA's choice to regulate the
installation of new refrigeration and AC/HP systems.\142\ The EPA chose
not to regulate the ``use'' of an HFC as the utilization of equipment
or the repair of that equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ See 88 FR 73098 (October 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's decision to not change the treatment of condensing units
aligns with subsection (i)(7)(B) of the AIM Act and consistent with the
Agency's historical practice of allowing repair of legacy equipment
throughout its useful life. This final decision is also consistent with
the Presidential Memorandum titled Delivering Emergency Price Relief
for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis, which
directs ``the heads of all executive departments and agencies to
deliver emergency price relief, consistent with applicable law, to the
American people and increase the prosperity of the American worker,''
including by ``pursuing appropriate actions to . . . eliminate
counterproductive requirements that raise the costs of home
appliances[.]''\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ See Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American
Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis, January 20, 2025,
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Industrial Process Refrigeration in Certain Laboratory Equipment
Comment: Commenters requested that the final rule include
additional laboratory equipment beyond the two applications in the
proposal. One commenter requested that the EPA include laboratory
sample preparation equipment that does not shake because that equipment
faces identical technical and safety challenges as shakers. The
commenter stated that both systems use refrigerated modules to maintain
temperature sensitive (0 [deg]C to 25 [deg]C) reagents and samples
during benchtop automated sample preparation. Another commenter
supported including other niche laboratory cooling applications
distinct from those already addressed that demonstrate a near-term
constraint. Other commenters recommended that the EPA expand the
extension to exclude any laboratory and pharmaceutical processing
equipment listed to standards UL 61010-2-011, UL 61010-2-020, or UL
60335-2-89 from transition requirements until January 1, 2028, or a
year after refrigerants using these standards have been listed by the
SNAP program. These commenters shared that they appreciate the proposed
extension for refrigerated centrifuges and laboratory shakers but have
identified other niche laboratory and pharmaceutical processing
equipment that also require relief to ensure continued market access
during transition because the safety standards have yet to be updated
to accommodate the use of flammable refrigerants. The two commenters
stated that this modification would ensure consistent treatment across
equipment that serves comparable functions and avoid unnecessary market
disruptions. One other commenter representing a company that
domestically manufactures temperature-controlled plant growth chambers
stated that they have transitioned to R-454C and do not support an
extension for all refrigerated laboratory equipment.
Response: Comments suggesting other laboratory equipment receive
similar extended compliance dates are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. The EPA is not broadening this final rule to other
laboratory equipment than what was proposed. The extensions provided in
this final rule are based on technical information that demonstrates
the infeasibility for specific equipment to transition from the current
refrigerant to ones that would meet the requirements of the 2023 Final
Rule. The EPA has confirmed that the challenges faced by the
manufacturers of refrigerated centrifuges and shakers are barriers to
all manufacturers making such equipment. The EPA does not have
sufficient information from commenters' general requests to include
other laboratory equipment in the final rule. There was only one
commenter who stated that non-shaking systems face identical challenges
to shaking systems and they provided no information to support that
claim. Additionally, without a separate proposal and opportunity for
comment, the EPA would have difficulty identifying all of the
laboratory equipment listed to standards UL 61010-2-011, UL 61010-2-
020, and UL 60335-2-89 given the breadth of equipment potentially
subject to those standards. UL 60335-2-89 applies to a wide variety of
commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment, including retail
food, commercial ice machines, IPR, cold storage warehouses, and ice
rinks. The EPA also acknowledges that we received one comment
requesting the Agency not include equipment outside the scope of the
proposal as they have already transitioned their growth chambers. Other
companies could be adversely affected by broadening the final rule or
would have comments concerning the types of equipment to include or not
include, further warranting the Agency's conclusion to not expand the
scope of this final rule. The Agency will continue to monitor
transition and if appropriate, could consider additional changes in a
separate rulemaking.
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for extending the
compliance date for refrigerated centrifuges and refrigerated
laboratory shakers to January 1, 2028. Some of these commenters
expressed general support for limited, targeted relief given to
applications such as laboratory equipment, where additional time is
necessary to address implementation challenges. They reasoned that
extending the compliance date to January 1, 2028, acknowledges
reasonable lead times for engineering and safety certification for this
equipment, is appropriate for these discrete applications that
demonstrate a near-term constraint, and is supported by data provided
that were not available during the drafting of the original 2023 Final
Rule. Another commenter, a laboratory equipment manufacturer, shared
that extension of the compliance date to January 1, 2028, would provide
sufficient time to continue a robust development process, maintain
capacity and headcount to fulfill backorders, and continue preparation
for manufacturing of laboratory shaker designs with new refrigerant.
This commenter also shared
[[Page 31321]]
that the extension to January 1, 2028, would enable additional
development timelines to complete their portfolio of refrigerated
centrifuges with new refrigerant currently under development.
Many laboratory equipment manufacturers requested that the EPA
extend the compliance date by another year--to January 1, 2029--so that
it aligns with the transition date of a similar HFC restriction in the
European Union (EU). Commenters noted that the alignment would provide
global regulatory certainty and consistency and stated that a single
date would be easier to administer product re-design, testing, and
certification to international safety standards. Two such commenters
stated that aligning with the EU's compliance date would minimize
disruption to the availability of refrigerated laboratory centrifuges
and reduce the potential for supply chain disruptions and patient
impacts. Commenters also noted that an additional year would provide
more time to develop non-flammable technologies.
Many commenters generally reiterated that UL/IEC/EN 61010-2-020 is
not yet updated to address the risk of flammable refrigerants in
refrigerated centrifuges. Two of these commenters noted that after this
standard is updated, it will take time to redesign, test, and recertify
using the alternative refrigerants. Another commenter stated that
forcing a premature transition before the relevant safety standards and
engineering solutions are in place could increase costs while reducing
the availability of essential medical and scientific tools.
Response: The EPA is finalizing a compliance date of January 1,
2028, as proposed. While a few commenters requested extending the
compliance date to January 1, 2029, none stated that they could not
meet the January 1, 2028, date. Their rationale appears to be based on
aligning with another government's compliance schedule. The EPA's
decisions are based on the criteria identified in subsection (i)(4) of
the AIM Act, and while another government's schedule could be
considered under ``other relevant factors,'' the Agency does not agree
with basing its decision on aligning with another government that had
their own reasoning for selecting January 1, 2029. Moreover, unlike the
United States, the EPA understands that the EU limits the use of some
HFO and HFC/HFO refrigerant blends in this application, and there could
be other differences between the U.S. and EU markets. Further, none of
these commenters provided data to support their claims that a
compliance date of January 1, 2029, is needed to meet the HFC
restrictions for IPR by that date. One of the manufacturers who
supported a compliance date of January 1, 2029, explicitly stated that
a compliance date of January 1, 2028, would still enable updating
standards and redesigning, testing, and certifying refrigerated
centrifuges with alternative refrigerants. The EPA finds that there
will be sufficient substitute refrigerants before that time, and this
was reinforced by multiple commenters that were or represented OEMs.
Comment: One commenter suggested that certain laboratory equipment
should not be categorized as IPR and that the EPA modify the 2023 Final
Rule subsector framework to simplify subsectors with broader limits.
This commenter stated that bundling laboratory equipment used for
research and development with large industrial processes systems
creates a competitive disadvantage for smaller segments of the industry
that do not fit well into the category.
Response: The EPA is finalizing laboratory equipment under the IPR
subsector. The EPA did not propose a recategorization for certain
laboratory equipment and considers such a change to be outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
H. Preventing Stranded Inventory of Residential and Light Commercial
Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment
Comment: Numerous technicians and contractors commented in favor of
removing the installation deadline for legacy components. Distributors
and contractors commented that they still have a significant amount of
manufactured R-410A equipment in their inventories, which was confirmed
by a trade association that surveyed its members. The trade association
commented that remaining R-410A inventory was not due to distributors'
poor planning but rather factors outside of distributors' control.
Commenters noted that 2025 sales were lower than forecast when they
made purchasing decisions about how many R-410A units to order. They
also commented that the transition to R-454B happened quicker than
anticipated. They stated this left R-410A units unsold and resulted in
shortages of R-454B needed to install those systems. One commenter
succinctly summarized the difficulty faced at every stage of the
distribution chain making complicated inventory management decisions
based on predictions of future production and sales of R-410A and R-
454B equipment. Many commenters found the switch to A2L refrigerant was
faster than expected, which led to lots of problems, and ultimately
resulted in higher costs.
Commenters affirmed the negative impact the installation deadline
would have on their businesses. They commented that purchased stock
would become unsellable and effectively worthless, creating widespread
economic hardship throughout the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) industry, especially on small and mid-sized
businesses. Other commenters stated that extending installation
eligibility for existing R-410A equipment can help stabilize pricing
and give consumers an additional choice and lower costs to homeowners.
Commenters said that it also would reduce costs to builders by enabling
the completion of ongoing projects for which R-410A equipment has
already been procured. Many commenters agreed with the EPA that
allowing the installation of equipment that had already been
manufactured and imported would not have an environmental impact.
Commenters agreed that there would be no additional demand for HFCs
beyond what the EPA had already estimated for the 2023 Final Rule.
Other commenters said that there are environmental costs to scrapping
inventory to consider, including the release of HFCs already charged in
those units.
Response: The Agency agrees with commenters that amending this
provision should avoid the costs associated with stranding inventory in
this subsector.
Comment: Some commenters asked that the EPA delay or remove the 700
limit for residential and light commercial AC/HP and allow for the
continued use of R-410A. These commenters stated that R-410A provides a
more affordable, nonflammable, and reliable option for consumers. One
commenter pointed out that allowing R-410A is more in line with
statements made by the EPA Administrator about increasing refrigerant
choice and lowering costs to consumers.
Response: The EPA did not propose to reconsider the limit for
installing new residential and light commercial AC/HP systems using
equipment domestically manufactured or imported after January 1, 2025,
and as such these comments are out of scope for the rulemaking. The EPA
is also aware that the U.S. manufacturers of equipment in this
subsector already are providing equipment using R-32 or R-454B, both of
which are below the 700 limit. Installing new R-410A systems using
equipment domestically manufactured
[[Page 31322]]
or imported after January 1, 2025, remains prohibited. This rule
provides flexibility to allow the installation of equipment in U.S.
inventories before January 1, 2025.
Comment: A couple of commenters doubted that much inventory of pre-
2025 R-410A equipment still exists. One commenter referenced a
statement made by the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association
that, based on conversations with supply houses, there is not a large
amount of inventory at risk of being stranded. Similarly, the commenter
noted that Air Conditioning Contractors of America has advised
contractors to clear their R-410A inventory by year-end 2025. Another
commenter noted that any inventory could still be used as warranty
replacement.
Response: The Agency acknowledges a lack of concrete data on the
number of R-410A units that remain in inventory. The EPA has heard from
numerous contractors and HVAC companies that they still have inventory
of R-410A units. One commenter commented in favor of the proposal and
did not indicate that inventories were small, which contrasts with a
description of a discussion provided by another commenter. The Agency
notes that the provision is intended to provide flexibility to avoid
stranding equipment and does not allow for additional manufacture or
import of units using refrigerant above the 700 limit, thus inherently
resulting in a finite and decreasing inventory of equipment. If the
inventory is smaller than perhaps assumed, the Agency views that as
aligning with the goal of avoiding stranded inventory for this
subsector. The EPA did not receive comments that technicians were
caught unawares by the restriction; instead, they described the
challenge of managing this inventory in light of factors outside their
control.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that completely removing
the installation deadline for components that were manufactured in the
United States or imported into the United States before January 1,
2025, could be used as cover by unscrupulous companies to continue
installing R-410A components manufactured or imported after January 1,
2025, that may only be used for repair and replacement. This commenter
preferred a five-year extension so that it is not open-ended. Another
commenter noted that removing the compliance date is likely to
complicate enforcement and may incentivize the smuggling of R-410A
equipment. A few technicians also stated that an extension to install
equipment through the end of 2026 would be sufficient.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the potential challenges this poses
to enforcing the restrictions against a few bad actors. The Agency
limited amending the regulations in acknowledgement of specific
challenges that this subsector was facing. Given the manufacture and
import compliance date for components that may be used to install new
systems went into effect on January 1, 2025, the Agency acknowledges
the affected stock of equipment is finite and decreasing. While the EPA
notes the potential for bad actors, the totality of the record supports
the Agency's decision.
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA confirm that legacy
equipment manufactured before January 1, 2025, may be installed if it
enters U.S. commerce consistent with AIM Act and import rules,
including inventory transferred from Canada or Mexico, so long as the
unit's manufacture or import date proves compliance.
Response: Legacy equipment must have been manufactured in the
United States or imported into the United States before January 1,
2025. Equipment manufactured in Mexico or Canada before January 1,
2025, and imported into the United States after that date may not be
installed as components of a new system. Note that as described in
section IV.F of this preamble, the replacement of a condensing unit on
an existing system is allowed and is not considered the installation of
a new system.
Comment: Many commenters requested that the EPA remove the
installation date for VRF systems that use components manufactured
domestically or imported into the United States before January 1, 2026.
In addition to the benefits described above, commenters also stated
that treating the installation like the rest of the residential and
light commercial AC/HP subsector would simplify logistics for
commercial projects. Commenters noted that the same distributors and
installers serve household and light commercial end users. Other
commenters noted that VRF installations are highly capital intensive.
Response: The EPA did not propose and is not extending the
installation date for VRF equipment manufactured domestically or
imported into the United States before January 1, 2026. The Agency
views these comments as out of scope for this rulemaking. The EPA has
previously responded to concerns by delaying the installation date for
all VRF systems by one year, until January 1, 2027, and by two years,
until January 1, 2028, for certain projects that received an approved
building permit before October 5, 2023.\144\ The number of VRF units is
much smaller than the number of non-variable condensing units being
granted flexibility in this rule and thus the amount of equipment
needing to be sold and/or currently held in inventory is similarly
less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See 89 FR 100381 (December 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Many commenters questioned the value of an installation
deadline and recommended that the EPA instead restrict the manufacture
and import of the components. One commenter stated that compliance
dates tied to installation require manufacturers, distributors, and end
users to plan orders and projects with unreasonable precision, creating
significant operational and economic burdens by requiring unreasonable
planning for inventory, orders, and projects. In contrast, compliance
dates based on the date of manufacture provide regulatory certainty,
allow for efficient inventory management, and avoid equipment
obsolescence. Other commenters requested that the EPA remove
installation deadlines for installing ``pre-compliance date''
components in retail food refrigeration or all refrigeration
subsectors, not just in the residential and light commercial AC/HP
subsector.
Response: Comments about manufacturing and installation compliance
dates are addressed in section IV.F of this preamble. Regarding
exempting all pre-compliance date components regardless of subsector,
the EPA responds that such equipment can continue to be sold and used
to service existing refrigeration equipment. Thus, the concern about
stranded inventory of residential and light commercial AC/HP equipment
and the specific supply chain challenges that occurred in 2025, are not
applicable to other subsectors.
I. Labeling Correction
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to correct the
labeling citation at 40 CFR 84.58(b). This commenter supported this
provision because it is narrowly tailored, technically justified, and
administratively sound. This commenter also said this correction
provides regulatory clarity with no new obligations.
Response: The EPA acknowledges this commenter's support for this
provision and is finalizing as proposed.
[[Page 31323]]
J. Effective Date of Rules Under Paragraph (i)(6)
There were a variety of comments that supported and opposed the
EPA's proposed interpretation of subsection (i)(6), which the Agency is
finalizing as proposed.
Comment: One commenter stated that due process of law has generally
been understood as requiring that regulated parties be given time to
comply with new legal requirements. The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) sets a general requirement of 30 days before which published
final rules can take effect, but also contains an exception for ``a
substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction.'' \145\ The commenter argued that subsection (i)(6) should
be understood within that context; the one-year delay provides
regulated industries with enhanced due process rights--compared to 30
days provided under the APA--but the one-year delay should not be used
to deny stakeholders the rights to regulatory relief that the APA would
otherwise provide them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA agrees that due process principles further
support its interpretation that the best reading of the statute is that
the one-year delay begins upon the promulgation of the ``applicable''
rule, which is the rule that created the relevant restrictions.
Comment: One commenter argued that an action that repeals or
relaxes an existing restriction is not a rule issued under subsection
(i)(1) authority and instead falls under the EPA's general rulemaking
authorities in the APA and subsection (k)(1)(A) of the AIM Act. As
such, the one-year delay under subsection (i)(6) does not apply. In
contrast, the commenter stated that a rule creating or tightening an
HFC use restriction would be issued under subsection (i) and thus is
subject to the statutory factors in subsection (i)(4) and the one-year
delay under subsection (i)(6). This commenter also noted that even if a
rule is issued under the authority of the APA or subsection (k)(1)(A)
of the AIM Act, it must still meet at least one criterion of subsection
(i)(4) to avoid being arbitrary and capricious.
Several commenters supported in part and opposed in part the EPA's
proposed interpretation. They commented that only a rule that removes a
requirement can be effective within 30 days. A rule that modifies,
relaxes, or adjusts an existing restriction must observe the one-year
delay, similar to any rule establishing a new restriction. These
commenters interpreted the AIM Act such that the removal of a
requirement does not restrict ``fully, partially, or on a graduated
schedule'' and no longer imposes a ``rule under this subsection.'' On
the other hand, any rule that modifies, relaxes, or adjusts an existing
restriction still remains a rule ``restricting use'' under subsection
(i)(1) and therefore must observe the one-year delay.
Response: The authority to promulgate this rule arises out of the
Agency's subsection (i) authority and is not solely derived from
general rulemaking authority under subsection (k)(1)(A). However, as is
discussed above, the one-year effective date delay clock begins when a
rule is promulgated containing new restrictions. A rule, like this
action, that modifies, relaxes, removes, or adjusts existing
restrictions so they are unambiguously less stringent than the current
restrictions is not subject to the one-year delay.\146\ The EPA does
not agree with the distinctions that commenters draw between rules they
argue are covered under subsection (i) (i.e. rules that ``modif[y],
relax[ ], or adjust[ ]'' existing restrictions) and rules they state
are promulgated under subsection (k)(1)(A). This rule, which modifies,
relaxes, adjusts, and removes certain requirements originally
promulgated under the 2023 Final Rule, is less stringent than the
previous restrictions and is not subject to the one-year delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Examples of adjustments that are unambiguously less
stringent include but are not limited to extending a compliance
deadline or modifying a limit so that it is more permissive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters commented that a 30-day effective date for
any action is contrary to the plain language of the AIM Act, which
states that ``[n]o rule'' may take effect without the one-year delay.
These commenters argued that the EPA is not free to replace the plain
meaning of a statute with its own policy preferences. Specifically,
there is no text distinguishing between a rule that imposes a
restriction from one that relaxes a restriction. One of these
commenters interpreted the EPA's proposal as meaning that a
deregulatory action is not a rule. The commenter disagreed, saying that
the proposed rule falls within the APA's definition of a rule and that
courts applying that statute do not distinguish between regulatory
restrictions and regulatory relief.
Response: As discussed in response to the previous comment, this
action meets the definition of a rule under the APA and is considered a
rule for the purposes of AIM Act subsection (i)(6). However, the
``applicable'' rule that began the clock for the one-year effective
date delay was the 2023 Final Rule, which was promulgated significantly
more than one year ago, so subsection (i)(6) does not prevent this rule
from becoming effective in a shorter period of time. The effective date
of this rule is 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Comment: One commenter also pointed to the structure and
legislative history of the AIM Act. This commenter argued that the
structure of subsection (i) promotes regulatory stability and points to
the provisions related to negotiated rulemaking as an example. The
commenter also looked at how versions of the draft AIM Act changed over
time to include the current one-year effective-date delay as support
for its importance.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the legislative history of the AIM
Act indicates Congress's intent in subsection (i)(6). The mere fact
that the original version of the bill that would become the AIM Act did
not include a one-year effective date delay has no bearing on the
actual meaning of the statutory text. Commenters did not include, nor
is the EPA aware of, any legislative history opining on the word
``applicable'' or on how Congress meant for the one-year delay to be
understood. As such, relying on the text of the provision itself and
the relevant canons of construction are a more reliable indicator of
Congress's intent, and help elucidate the best reading of the
provision.
The EPA also disagrees that the negotiated rulemaking provisions of
the AIM Act have any utility in discerning the meaning of subsection
(i)(6). Even if they were relevant, a one-year effective date delay
that applies to rules that loosen restrictions would not promote
regulatory stability. Our read is that it could create even more
regulatory uncertainty. For example, if subsection (i)(6) of the AIM
Act were written such that providing relief from a January 1, 2027,
compliance deadline, required the EPA to delay such relief by a year,
the standard would become much more stringent and then decrease back to
its original level again over the course of several months, creating
regulatory confusion and difficulties in product planning. Congress
cannot have intended that consequence.
Comment: Some commenters argue that the EPA's past practice in
issuing rules to extend the compliance dates for residential and light
commercial AC/HP and VRF demonstrate the Agency had correctly
understood subsection (i)(6)
[[Page 31324]]
and has provided no rationale for the change in interpretation.
Response: EPA disagrees that the previous rules provided a
particular interpretation of subsection (i)(6). However, as is
discussed in more detail above, to the extent those previous rules took
a position to the contrary, the Agency has reconsidered its position
and finds that the best reading of subsection (i)(6) is that the one-
year clock begins upon promulgation of the ``applicable rule'' at
issue, and does not begin again upon promulgation of a rule modifying
existing restrictions that were originally promulgated under subsection
(i) if those modifications provide relief from a restriction.
Comment: A couple of commenters also noted that the policy
preference of providing relief is factually flawed given that it
actually imposes substantial harms on many other parties that relied on
the existing restriction.
Companies stated that a new graduated schedule would require time
to be implemented, just like any other new rule. Companies stated that
they benefit from the stability provided by this provision and are
harmed by the immediate relaxation or removal of existing restrictions.
Preserving the one-year delay for all rules that continue to regulate
use ensures an orderly transition, giving manufacturers, distributors,
and contractors adequate time to adjust production, certification, and
inventory management.
Response: As an initial matter, and as discussed in other
responses, the Agency's interpretation in this rule is the best reading
of subsection (i)(6) based on the text and structure of the AIM Act;
the EPA and stakeholder policy preferences are not a basis for the
interpretation. Nonetheless, the EPA acknowledges the comments that
expressed concern about an effective date shorter than one year. The
EPA acknowledges that companies can benefit from the stability provided
when regulations take up to a year to take effect and that they could
be harmed by quick changes in the restrictions. The EPA notes that this
rulemaking provides relief from regulatory requirements and that, as
noted in a different response to a comment in this section, delaying
such relief by a year could cause additional confusion and uncertainty
as requirements may change within a year based on previously finalized
requirements before this rule takes effect. The EPA also acknowledges
the commenters who indicated they are relying on the restrictions from
the 2023 Final Rule. The EPA notes throughout this preamble that this
rule does not prevent the continued manufacture, import, sale, or
distribution of equipment that would have met the prior requirements.
To the extent this comment addresses reliance interests, please see
section IV.K.2 f of this preamble or more extensive responses.
K. Other Comments and Responses
1. Assessment of Economic and Environmental Impacts
Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA revisit the
methodology and broader regulatory framework for restricting HFCs in
the context of rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding. Without a
finding that HFCs endanger public health and welfare through their
effect on the climate, the commenter argues that the EPA has no legal
or scientific basis for this rule. Another commenter stated that the
central purpose of the AIM Act is enhancing American innovation and
manufacturing, not ulterior policies like climate policy that are never
mentioned in the legislation.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters drawing conclusions
about the relationship of this rule to the 2009 endangerment finding.
The repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding does not affect the HFC
Allocation Program, Emissions Reduction & Reclamation, or Technology
Transitions rulemakings regarding HFCs. These regulations are
promulgated under the AIM Act which provides explicit authority for the
EPA to regulate HFCs. AIM Act subsection (i) grants the EPA authority
to restrict the use of HFCs, fully, partially, or on a graduated
schedule. To the extent this comment is seeking further changes to the
overall approach that the EPA uses in executing its responsibilities
under the AIM Act, it is out of scope for this rulemaking. The EPA
evaluated the environmental impacts of this rule, specifically the
increase in HFC demand and emissions, as is described in the Economic
and Environmental Impacts Memo.
Comment: Commenters stated that extending compliance deadlines past
2030 will cause prices of HFCs to increase due to an imbalance of
supply and demand given the phasedown. Some commenters stated that
given their own models and analyses, demand is likely to exceed the
total available allowances with the next HFC stepdown in 2029,
resulting in increased prices across the industry and for consumers.
Others claim that demand will not be able to be met beginning in 2030.
Two commenters relied partly on the EPA's data to model this change and
argued that HFC prices will increase dramatically around 2030. They
explain that annual demand would have to be cut by 15-20 percent given
the tightening cap.
Response: The EPA agrees with commenters that a greater demand for
HFCs in the affected subsectors likely will have indirect effects on
HFC prices; however, it is unclear to what extent this rule would
impact prices relative to price impacts from the AIM Act's required
phasedown overall. The EPA also agrees that demand will need to be
reduced due to the AIM Act phasedown, which governs the production and
import of bulk HFCs. In the EPA's analysis, both the current rule
(baseline) and policy scenarios project total virgin HFC demand to
exceed cap levels around the 2029 statutory stepdown. The EPA notes
that the scenarios are based on these restrictions without accounting
for additional measures that may be needed in order to keep consumption
and production of virgin HFCs below the statutory caps or that may
result from HFC price increases. Such measures could include
transitions in subsectors not covered, use of lower EVe alternatives,
reliance on stockpiled HFCs produced before 2029, additional recovery
and re-use, improved leak detection and repair practices, and/or
forgoing or delaying the repair and recharging of existing HFC systems.
For further discussion on expected indirect market impacts, including
increased HFC demand and prices, see section 4 of the Economic and
Environmental Impacts Memo.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern about climate damages as a
result of this rule and argued that the EPA failed to meet procedural
requirements by not monetizing climate impacts using the social cost of
greenhouse gases (SC-GHG). One commenter stated that the flexibility of
extending compliance deadlines will significantly reduce near-term
climate benefits. Another commenter stated that the increase in HFC
consumption relative to the 2023 Final Rule means increased emissions
and therefore increased climate impacts. Other commenters stated that
this rule overlooks climate damages that would come from weakening
earlier requirements and destroy any climate benefits from the AIM Act.
Other commenters expressed concern that the EPA did not monetize
climate damages with a SC-GHG calculation as had been done in the RIA
Addendum for the 2023 rule and cited to a 9th Circuit case remanding a
rule to another agency due to a lack of greenhouse gas (GHG)
monetization. One commenter stated that the reasons given by the EPA on
why no SC-GHG estimates were
[[Page 31325]]
provided is not consistent with underlying economic estimates of the
SC-GHG, which already accounts for uncertainties that the EPA
identifies. Commenters argued that by not including monetized climate
impacts, the EPA failed to weigh overall economic costs and
environmental impacts and failed to use best available data. Commenters
argued that uncertainty points towards higher, not lower, SC-GHG
values. Commenters asserted that under the requirements of the APA, the
EPA must provide additional information, including projected increase
in climate harms in terms of the social cost of carbon, and must
provide the public with an opportunity to comment.
Response: The EPA disagrees with commenters asserting that the EPA
must utilize the SC-GHG as the EPA is finalizing this action based on
its authority under AIM Act subsection (i). The issues raised by
commenters are not applicable to the arguments in this final action.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154,
``Unleashing American Energy,'' which, along with other actions,
withdrew earlier guidance on calculating the social cost of carbon
(i.e., the monetized impacts of emissions of GHGs), and directed the
EPA to issue guidance on assessing the impacts of GHG emission in
regulatory analysis.\147\ In response to that direction, OMB issued
Memorandum M-25-27, providing current guidance on the consideration of
GHGs in regulatory decision-making.\148\ That Memorandum directed
agencies not to quantify or monetize the impacts of GHG emissions,
except to the extent required by law, ``because the uncertainties in
performing monetized impacts quantifications are too great.'' The EPA
uses the latest recommendations for analyses in rulemaking packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ 90 FR 8353 (January 29, 2025).
\148\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-27-Guidance-Implementing-Section-6-of-Executive-Order-14154-Entitled-Unleashing-American-Energy.pdf, and posted in the docket
for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AIM Act does not require the quantification or monetization of
GHG impacts. Accordingly, the EPA will not monetize such impacts while
Memorandum M-25-27 remains in effect.
Additionally, the EPA disagrees with commenters who state that this
rule will necessarily result in increased GHG emissions. The limits and
compliance dates amended by this final rule concern the use of HFCs in
certain subsectors; they do not change overall HFC production or
consumption, and thus emissions. AIM Act subsection (e) establishes the
statutory phasedown of HFC production and consumption with caps that
cannot be exceeded. Therefore, the upper bound of new HFC production
and consumption remains unchanged. Finally, the purpose of AIM Act
subsection (i) was to ensure that the statutory HFC requirements are
met and not to decrease HFCs overall more or faster than the statutory
phasedown requirements in AIM Act subsection (e).
In response to comments citing to Center for Biological Diversity
v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008), the court in that case faulted
the relevant agency for refusing to quantify carbon emissions. In that
case, the court found that the agency inappropriately set the value of
carbon emissions reduction at zero. Here, while the EPA is not
assigning a monetary value to GHG emissions, the Agency has factored in
emissions impacts, to the extent practicable in the Economic and
Environmental Impacts Memo sections ES.6 and Appendix A.).
Comment: Commenters argued that the EPA's analysis of the economic
and emissions impacts of the proposed rule is underexplained and
incomplete such that it prevents interested parties from meaningfully
understanding and commenting on the rule in the comment period
provided. Commenters argued that the EPA must provide additional
information and an additional comment period to fulfill procedural
requirements under the APA. Commenters argued that the EPA did not
adequately analyze the overall economic costs and environmental impacts
of the proposed rule. One stated that the EPA failed to adequately
consider costs and broader impacts of the proposed rule on other
industries subject to the HFC phasedown.
Response: The EPA notes that these comments and the Agency's
response below relate to the specific claims that insufficient
information and analysis was provided with the proposed rule. Regarding
the separate claims (in some cases made by the same commenters) that
the EPA failed to adequately consider factors for determination
specific in AIM Act subsection (i)(4), see comment and response summary
below.
The EPA disagrees with the assertion that its analysis for the
proposed rule did not provide sufficient information for stakeholders
to react to or provide comment. At proposal, the EPA provided
information available at the time in its analysis of economic and
environmental impacts. As explained in the preamble to the proposed
rule and in the economic and environmental impacts analysis of the
proposed rule, the EPA lacked sufficient information regarding a
variety of factors to estimate cost savings and other impacts
associated with the proposed changes. The EPA requested that
stakeholders provide additional information for the analysis. In
response, the EPA received additional information in comments, much of
which has in turn been relied upon to improve previous estimates.
However, this information was not ``critical'' to the Agency's
decision-making and merely expanded on and confirmed data, information,
and reasoning made available for public comment in the docket for this
rulemaking.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. United States Dep't of
Transportation, 863 F.3d 911, 920 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (an agency may
include for the first time in a final rule ``new supplementary
information that expands on and confirms data in the rulemaking
record'') (citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Economic and Environmental Impacts Memo associated with
this final rule, the EPA incorporated additional information provided
by stakeholders wherever possible and appropriate. Based on this, as
well as additional review of publicly available data and information
from stakeholders, the EPA made updates to its analytic approach in
order to evaluate economic and environmental impacts. For more details
on specific information received from commenters, updates made and
results, see the Economic and Environmental Impacts Memo. The EPA
further notes that for cases where it was unable to quantify particular
impacts, they have been identified and discussed qualitatively,
consistent with OMB guidance.\150\ OMB guidance also recommends that if
an agency has uncertainty about an action's effects due to a lack of
data, then it should outline additional data collection that would be
needed to fill in these gaps; the EPA did so in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CircularA-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters argued that the EPA has not satisfactorily
considered factors for determination specified in AIM Act subsection
(i)(4), specifically ``(A) the best available data'' and ``(C) overall
economic costs and environmental impact . . . .'' Commenters state that
the EPA has not placed sufficient weight on environmental impacts in
its rationale for this rule, and did not use its own or anyone else's
estimates of SC-GHGs. Commenters note that by contrast the EPA seems to
have placed more weight on evaluating and monetizing engineering costs
to regulated industry actors, whereas the Agency has not gone
[[Page 31326]]
to the trouble of similarly monetizing and considering environmental
benefits in its decision making. Commenters stated that the analysis in
the proposed rule contradicts the EPA's prior evaluation of the
environment impacts of the Technology Transitions provisions (which did
include monetized environmental benefits), therefore understating the
proposed rule's effect on the environment.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
agency did not place appropriate weight on any statutory factor. Even
when the EPA does not monetize impacts, the agency considers all
impacts as required under the statute. The EPA factored in all relevant
factors in AIM Act subsection (i)(4) to any changes made within this
rulemaking. The EPA further notes that the 2023 Final Rule provided
certain information, including information on SC-GHGs, only for
informational purposes, and that the individual decisions on sectors
and subsectors were made based on the criteria listed in subsection
(i)(4). The EPA notes that it is not required to monetize benefits
under subsection (i)(4) or any other place in the AIM Act; given the
uncertainties, the Agency qualitatively weighed environmental benefits
as opposed to quantifying them.
The EPA further notes that while the scenarios analyzed in the
Economic and Environmental Impacts Memo projected increases in
emissions based on the revised restrictions, these scenarios are
focused on the engineering cost and emissions changes that result in
affected subsectors and do not account for additional measures that may
be needed to keep production and consumption of virgin HFCs below the
statutory phasedown caps. Given a finite supply of virgin HFCs under
the binding statutory caps, increases in HFC demand and resulting
emissions for certain end uses over time may be met with decreases in
demand and resulting emissions through additional offsetting measures.
The EPA has not endeavored to quantify such measures in its analysis,
but notes that the binding HFC phasedown caps are expected to limit the
overall environmental impacts of this rule. For further details and
discussion of these impacts, see section 4 of the Economic and
Environmental Impacts Memo.
2. Reliance Interests
Comment: Commenters stated that significant investments have
already been made to comply with the requirements in the 2023 Final
Rule. One commenter stated that any reversal or delay of compliance
dates would disrupt ongoing investments planning, certification cycles,
and long-term manufacturing contracts made in reliance of the existing
Federal framework. The commenter said that when an agency changes
course, it must offer a more detailed explanation of where the new
policy would upset significant reliance interests or impose new burdens
on regulated parties that acted in conformity with the prior rule. One
commenter stated that maintaining the original limits and timelines
ensures certainty, stability, and consistency across all sectors,
including those that have already started to transition. They commented
that they have committed tens of millions of dollars in engineering,
project development, and capital investment to transition refrigeration
market sectors to technologies below the 150 or 300 limit, as
applicable. Another commenter stated that they already invested,
developed, and commercialized full product lines for supermarket
systems, which are being manufactured and sold today with refrigerants
meeting the limits of 150 or 300. They commented that they have
millions of dollars of raw materials on hand and on order to support
the 2023 Final Rule limits for supermarket systems that will be
stranded excess inventory if there are delays in compliance dates and
interim limits.
Response: The EPA recognizes commenters' reliance interests and
concerns that investments have been made for developing and designing
supermarket systems that would meet the requirements under the 2023
Final Rule. The Agency has considered these prior investments and
reliance interests in finalizing this rule. As described in other
comments in this section, many retailers have made announcements and
commitments to transition and build new stores using available
substitutes such as CO2 or A2L refrigerants. Equipment
manufacturers also made announcements and investments. Thus, the EPA
expects that not an insignificant portion of the market will transition
prior to 2032 to available substitutes that meet the limit of 150 or
300, as applicable. Further, as described in a response in this
section, the EPA expects other market forces including but not limited
to the HFC phasedown, and in particular, the seventy percent reduction
step in 2029 will cause other retailers to transition before 2032
thereby potentially limiting the extent of reliance interests in this
subsector. Prior investments made by equipment manufacturers support
early adopters of these technologies and establishing an effective
supply chain for distributing equipment leading up to 2032. The Agency
further notes that supermarket systems by design are tailored to the
supermarket footprint. While there are standard pieces, these are not
off-the-shelf systems. Therefore, the customization of refrigeration
systems in supermarkets suggests a certain amount of work with the
retailers ahead of orders being placed.
Comment: Commenters, including trade groups, equipment
manufacturers, states, and environmental associations, opposed the
sector-wide delays for retail food remote condensing units and stated
that the requirements established in the 2023 Final Rule should be
maintained. Commenters generally made similar points in opposing delays
for the remote condensing unit subsector as they did for the
supermarket systems subsector. Such points include preserving the
United States as an innovator and first mover on new technologies,
avoiding continued use of outdated technologies, creating uncertainty
in the market, impacting reliance interests, and allowing continued use
of more environmentally harmful refrigerants.
Response: The EPA acknowledges comments opposing the delay in the
compliance date and changes to the limits for remote condensing units.
However, as discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, the EPA is
finalizing a graduated schedule for remote condensing units with new
compliance dates based on the totality of the record for this rule. The
EPA understands that many U.S. equipment manufacturers have made
significant commitments and investments to prepare retailers to have
available remote condensing units that would comply with the 150 or 300
limits by the compliance timelines in the 2023 Final Rule. The EPA
recognizes that there are many equipment options available for
retailers today that meet the 150 or 300 limits. However, the EPA is
finalizing the graduated schedule for remote condensing units to allow
retailers more time to fully evaluate the available options that work
best in their scenarios. The EPA reiterates that nothing in this final
rule would prevent a retailer from selecting a new remote condensing
unit that complies with the 150 or 300 limit before the compliance date
of January 1, 2032. In fact, retailers may consider the available
remote condensing units and choose an option that complies with the
2032 limits. In addition and as discussed in other responses in this
section, the EPA expects the phasedown itself to be a driver for the
transition to refrigerants that comply with the 2032 limits, thus
[[Page 31327]]
potentially limiting the impact of reliance interests in this
subsector. Additional comments related to reliance interests are
discussed in more detail in responses in this section.
Comment: Many commenters stated that investments have already been
made to comply with the requirements in the 2023 Final Rule for remote
condensing units. One commenter stated that any reversal or delay of
compliance dates would disrupt ongoing investments planning,
certification cycles, and long-term manufacturing contracts made in
reliance of the existing Federal framework. The commenter said that
when an agency changes course, it must offer a more detailed
explanation of where the new policy would upset significant reliance
interests or impose new burdens on regulated parties that acted in
conformity with the prior rule. One commenter stated that maintaining
the original limits and timelines ensures certainty, stability, and
consistency across all sectors, including those that have already
started to transition. They commented that they have already committed
tens of millions of dollars in engineering, project development, and
capital investment to transition refrigeration market sectors to
technologies using refrigerants below the 150 or 300 limit, as
applicable.
Another commenter also stated that they already made significant
investments (tens of millions of dollars) to develop compliant
products, retool factories, convert supply chains, and prepare their
customer base. They noted that they already experienced a significant
drop in demand based on the proposal, leaving them with millions of
dollars in purchased materials on hand and more on order that cannot be
repurposed. They also ceased hiring of production workers and were
planning to shut down production temporarily due to customer
indecision. Further, they stated that a change in direction in the
requirements would cost additional multimillion-dollars in investments
by equipment manufacturers and supply chains, including costs for
maintaining duplicative manufacturing lines and supplying legacy HFC
equipment. One commenter noted specifically for remote condensing units
that the industry has been relying on the 2023 Final Rule requirements
for three years, and that substantial resources for planning,
development, and investments in production and manufacturing would be
stranded if there are changes to the compliance date and limit.
Response: The EPA acknowledges commenters' reliance interests and
concerns that investments have been made to design and manufacture
remote condensing units that would meet the requirements and timeline
of the 2023 Final Rule. The Agency has considered these prior
investments and reliance interests in finalizing this rule. The EPA
recognizes equipment manufacturers and others who have provided
comments that detail the types of equipment that are available on the
market today and their views on how amending the limits and compliance
dates impacts their profitability and manufacturing jobs. However, the
EPA's decision to amend the requirements is based on the totality of
the record for this rulemaking, and these changes do not prevent
companies from selling these newly designed remote condensing units or
force companies to offer units using refrigerants that exceed the 150
or 300 limits, as applicable. As noted throughout this section and in
section IV.D of this preamble, the EPA factored in, to the extent
practicable, information on technician training, building codes, and
other relevant factors, including reliance interests. Further, based on
comments on the proposed rulemaking, many companies have already made
announcements or commitments to using remote condensing units that use
a refrigerant that complies with the 2032 limits. The EPA anticipates
that these companies will continue to pursue refrigerant options that
are below the 2032 limits.
Comment: Commenters stated they have millions of dollars of raw
materials on hand and on order to support the current compliance date.
Delaying compliance dates will open the door to laggards and foreign
competitors who did not invest resources to manufacture and
commercialize the new technology. The commenter stated they already
have a complete product line launched in the marketplace, being
actively manufactured and sold, with refrigerants that meet the 150 or
300 limits per current regulations.
Response: The EPA acknowledges commenters' reliance interests,
including significant investments in tooling, production lines, and raw
materials to support the current compliance date, as well as the launch
of complete product lines that meet the 150 or 300 limits. The EPA also
acknowledges concerns that a lengthy delay could disadvantage
manufacturers that invested early and could enable laggards or
competitors that did not make similar investments to gain market share,
potentially stranding inventory and disrupting production planning.
Prior investments made by equipment manufacturers support adopters of
technologies using substitutes below the limit of 150 or 300 and
establishing an effective supply chain for distributing equipment
leading up to 2032. The EPA's decision to amend the requirements is
based on the totality of the record for this rulemaking, and these
changes do not prevent companies from selling cold storage warehouses
with refrigerants below the limits of 150 or 300 or conversely force
companies to offer units using refrigerants that exceed the 150 or 300
limits. For additional information on reliance interests, please see
other responses in this section.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA did not adequately consider
the reliance interests that manufacturers and producers reasonably
placed in the 2023 Final Rule, including investments in redesign,
certification, training, and retooling, within the analysis of economic
and environmental impacts. They claimed the proposed rule would have
stranded assets, duplicate production lines, and increase compliance
uncertainty. For example, one commenter, a manufacturer of supermarket
systems, remote condensing units, and cold storage warehouse systems,
commented that proposing to change restrictions has already led to
market confusion. They ceased hiring production workers in a factory,
attritted approximately 10% of their hourly workforce, and shut down
operations for the last two weeks of 2025. They noted they have tens of
millions of dollars invested in raw materials on hand and millions more
on order to support the compliance date established in 2023. Another
commenter also noted they have committed tens of millions of dollars in
engineering, project development, and capital investment to transition
refrigeration market sectors. Commenters indicated that they made
capital investments and shifted supply chain logistics in reliance on
the restrictions in the 2023 Final Rule and the HFC phasedown schedules
stipulated in AIM Act subsection (e). Some commenters asserted that, in
addition to industry, State and local governments enacted policies that
relied on the 2023 restrictions.
Response: The EPA disagrees with comments that the Agency did not
appropriately consider reliance interests in this rulemaking. The EPA
recognizes that recouping investments may be difficult for American
manufacturers that have already prepared for these transitions and
agrees that this potential impact should be considered in the economic
analysis. The EPA does not have the data to fully quantify such costs;
however, we provide a qualitative summary above and discuss this
accordingly in section 3 of the
[[Page 31328]]
Economic and Environmental Impacts Memo.
The EPA addresses reliance issues in section II.A of this preamble.
V. How do These Final Amendments Impact the Implementation of the
Technology Transitions Provisions?
The EPA's final amendments discussed in section III of this
preamble will not significantly impact the overall implementation of
the Technology Transitions provisions of the AIM Act. Based on the
EPA's reconsideration, we are finalizing amendments that revise
specific aspects of the regulations at 40 CFR part 84 subpart B. This
includes amending the intermodal refrigerated transport provision, as
described in section III.A of this preamble; amending the compliance
date for certain chillers used for IPR and IPR equipment used to
manufacture semiconductors, as described in section III.B of this
preamble; amending the provisions for retail food--supermarket systems,
as described in section III.C of this preamble; amending the provisions
for retail food--remote condensing units, as described in section III.D
of this preamble; amending the provisions for cold storage warehouses,
as described in section III.E of this preamble; amending the provisions
for refrigerated laboratory centrifuges and laboratory shakers, as
described in section III.G of this preamble; and amending the
provisions for certain residential and light commercial air
conditioning and heat pump equipment, as described in section III.H of
this preamble.
These final amendments also make one minor adjustment to the
labeling requirements to correct an erroneous citation, as described in
section III.I of this preamble, and otherwise do not alter the labeling
requirements. In addition, these final amendments do not alter in any
way the definitions, exemptions, reporting or recordkeeping
requirements or petitions requirements at 40 CFR part 84 subpart B.
The full response to comments on the October 2025 Proposal is in
the RTC document in the docket for this rule.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
action.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ See Economic and Environmental Impacts Memo in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 of this preamble below provides a summary of both monetized
and non-monetized impacts. Monetized impacts include estimated
engineering cost savings for equipment owners in affected subsectors.
These cost savings arise from cases where additional flexibility
provided by the rule allows for the use of refrigerant-containing
equipment with lower capital and/or operating costs than equipment that
would otherwise likely be chosen without additional flexibility. As
part of fulfilling analytical guidance with respect to Executive Order
12866, the EPA presents estimates of the present value (PV) of the
benefits and costs over the full time series included in this analysis
(2026-2050). To calculate the PV of the cost savings of the rule,
annual savings are discounted to 2025 at three percent and seven
percent discount rates as directed by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-4. The EPA also presents the equivalent annualized
value (EAV), which represents a flow of constant annual values that,
had they occurred in each year in the time series, would yield a sum
equivalent to the PV, discounted at three percent and seven percent.
Table 2--Summary of Monetized and Non-Monetized Economic Impacts, 2026-2050
[Millions of 2024 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Cost Savings in Affected Subsectors. 3 Percent Discount Rate
7 Percent Discount Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
PV EAV PV EAV
---------------------------------------------------------------
$976 $56 $653 $56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Monetized Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits and Cost Savings:
Avoided loss of ability to produce semiconductor wafers within the United States...................
National security benefits.........................................................................
Costs and Forgone Benefits:
Indirect costs via HFC market impacts..............................................................
Costs to equipment manufacturers and suppliers related to incremental investments required.........
Forgone benefits from potential increased emissions of HFCs........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory
action. For regulatory accounting purposes, the estimated present value
and annualized value of the cost savings of this rule are $576 million
and $40 million, respectively (seven percent discount rate, 2024$, 2024
present value year, perpetuity time horizon). Details on the estimated
cost savings of this final rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of
the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because it does not contain any information collection
activities.
[[Page 31329]]
D. 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. In
making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern
for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small
entities and that the Agency is certifying that this rule would not
have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small
entities subject to the rule. The EPA is making this determination
because this rule is deregulatory in nature and results in cost savings
for stakeholders as detailed in the Economic and Environmental Impacts
Memo. Additionally, the small business screening analysis that was done
for the 2023 Final Rule found that there was no significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). The changes contained
in this rulemaking are deregulatory in nature and therefore would not
result in additional costs such that the previous determination would
be altered. We therefore expect that this action would relieve
regulatory burden for directly regulated small entities affected by
this rule. We further note that the previous small business screening
analysis identified approximately 50,000 small business entities (the
majority of which are in the retail food subsector) that are affected
by this rulemaking. It is expected that these entities will experience
a share of the cost savings resulting from this rule, although the EPA
has not explicitly quantified small business savings.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is narrowly tailored
to prevent the stranding of certain AC/HP equipment using variable
refrigerant flow technology while not affecting the demand for HFCs.
Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since
this action does not concern human health, the EPA's Policy on
Children's Health also does not apply.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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
subsectors that use regulated substances, none of which are used to
supply or distribute energy.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rule does not involve technical standards.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action meets the criteria for a ``major rule''
set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 84
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Imports.
Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 84 as follows:
PART 84--PHASEDOWN OF HYDROFLUOROCARBONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 84 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Public Law 116-260, Division S, Sec. 103.
Subpart B--Restrictions on the Use of Hydrofluorocarbons
0
2. Amend Sec. 84.54 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
0
b. Adding the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (a)(10)(iv);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(10)(v) and (a)(12)(iv) and (v);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (5) through (7), and (9);
0
e. Adding the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(10)(iv);
0
f. Adding paragraph (c)(10)(v); and
0
g. Revising paragraphs (c)(11) and (12) and (e)(2).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 84.54 Restrictions on the use of hydrofluorocarbons.
(a) * * *
(6) Effective July 27, 2026, refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers with a box temperature of -35 [deg]C (-31 [deg]F) or higher
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater.
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(v) Chillers subject to paragraph (a)(10)(iii) or (iv) of this
section with a refrigerant charge capacity of 100 pounds or less that
are used in the manufacture of semiconductors must comply with the
restrictions of paragraph (a)(10)(iii) or (iv) of this section by
January 1, 2030.
* * * * *
(12) * * *
(iv) Products subject to paragraph (a)(12)(ii) or (iii) of this
section with a refrigerant charge capacity of 100 pounds or less that
are used in the manufacture of semiconductors must comply with the
restrictions of paragraph (a)(12)(ii) or (iii) of this section by
January 1, 2030; and
(v) Refrigerated centrifuges and laboratory shaker tables subject
to paragraph (a)(12)(i) or (ii) of this section
[[Page 31330]]
must comply with the restrictions of paragraphs (a)(12)(i) and (ii) of
this section by January 1, 2028.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Effective January 1, 2025, residential or light commercial air-
conditioning or heat pump systems using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential
of 700 or greater, except for variable refrigerant flow air-
conditioning and heat pump systems. New residential and light
commercial air-conditioning and heat pump systems using a regulated
substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global
warming potential of 700 or greater may continue to be installed where
all specified components of that system are manufactured or imported
prior to January 1, 2025.
* * * * *
(5)(i) Effective January 1, 2026, chillers for industrial process
refrigeration where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is
greater than -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential
of 700 or greater; and
(ii) Chillers subject to paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section with a
refrigerant charge capacity of 100 pounds or less that are used in the
manufacture of semiconductors must comply with the restriction of
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section by January 1, 2030.
(6)(i) Effective January 1, 2028, chillers for industrial process
refrigeration where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is
greater than or equal to -50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F) and less than or equal
to -30 [deg]C (-22 [deg]F) using a regulated substance, or a blend
containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of
700 or greater; and
(ii) Chillers subject to paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section with a
refrigerant charge capacity of 100 pounds or less that are used in the
manufacture of semiconductors must comply with the restriction of
paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section by January 1, 2030.
(7) Effective July 27, 2026, refrigerated transport--intermodal
containers with a box temperature of -35 [deg]C (-31 [deg]F) or higher
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater.
* * * * *
(9)(i) Effective July 27, 2026, cold storage warehouse systems
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater; and
(ii) Effective January 1, 2032, cold storage warehouse systems
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, as follows:
(A) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or
greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system,
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(B) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater; and
(C) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of
the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater.
(10) * * *
(v) Systems used in the manufacture of semiconductors with a charge
size of 100 pounds or less must comply with the restrictions of
paragraphs (c)(10)(ii) through (iv) of this section, as applicable, by
January 1, 2030.
(11)(i) Effective July 27, 2026, remote condensing units in retail
food refrigeration systems using a regulated substance, or a blend
containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of
1,400 or greater; and
(ii) Effective January 1, 2032, remote condensing units in retail
food refrigeration systems using a regulated substance, or a blend
containing a regulated substance, as follows:
(A) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or
greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system,
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(B) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater; and
(C) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of
the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater.
(12)(i) Effective January 1, 2027, supermarket systems using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with
a global warming potential of 1,400 or greater; and
(ii) Effective January 1, 2032, supermarket systems using a
regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, as
follows:
(A) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or
greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system,
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(B) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds
using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated
substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater; and
(C) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a
blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of
the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Increasing the cooling capacity, in BTU per hour, of an
existing supermarket system by more than 15 percent or increasing the
cooling capacity, in BTU per hour, of any other type of existing
system; or
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 84.58 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 84.58 Labeling.
* * * * *
(b) Effective upon the date listed for each subsector in Sec.
84.54(c), or the earliest date should the specified component be used
in multiple subsectors, any specified component manufactured or
imported and intended for use in those subsectors that uses or is
intended to use any regulated substance, or blend containing any
regulated substance, regardless of global warming potential, must have
a permanent label compliant with paragraph (d) of this section
containing the information in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For
specified components that are intended for use with a regulated
substance or blends containing a regulated substance that exceed the
applicable GWP limit or HFC restriction, the label must state ``For
servicing existing equipment only'' in addition to the other required
labeling elements.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-10387 Filed 5-22-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P