for the residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps subsector as proposed. The Agency agrees with the large number of
commenters that this timeline is sufficient considering several of
these alternatives have already been SNAP-approved. EPA is also
finalizing a January 1, 2026, compliance date for residential and light
commercial air conditioning- VRF systems as proposed and agrees with
the many commenters that additional time beyond 2026 is not required
for these systems.
    In response to the comment regarding smaller capacity products, EPA
has reviewed the AHRI standards referenced and has clarified above that
for the purposes of this rule, for an air-source air conditioner to be
considered a VRF system, it must have a capacity greater than or equal
to 65,000 BTU/h (19 kW), among the other characteristics described,
whereas there is no minimum capacity for water-source VRF systems. We
find that such a clarification conforms with the referenced AHRI
Standard 1230.
    EPA is finalizing a 700 GWP limit for this subsector as proposed.
We acknowledge that many commenters requested a limit of 750 for this
subsector and other commenters requested a lower GWP limit. Consistent
with our consideration of the (i)(4) factors in the proposed rule, the
Agency identified multiple currently available substitutes with a GWP
below 700 and did not receive comments disputing EPA's assessment of
availability under subsection (i)(4)(B) or that EPA overlooked
important considerations.
    The AIM Act does not require that EPA adopt as its final
restriction the requests made in petitions granted under subsection
(i). Instead, granting a petition under subsection (i)(3)(C) means that
the Administrator must then undertake a rulemaking with respect to the
restriction that is the subject of the petition, and must do so by the
statutory timeframe established in the AIM Act (two years after the
date on which the Administrator grants the petition). The Act states
that in carrying out this rulemaking establishing any restriction, the
Agency is to factor in, to the extent practicable, the considerations
laid out in subsection (i)(4). Thus, granting a petition under
subsection (i)(3)(C) does not commit the Agency to any substantive
outcome, nor would such an interpretation be reasonable. There would be
little purpose in Congress directing the Agency to undergo a notice-
and-comment rulemaking if the Agency were bound to promulgate the
restriction as requested in the petition. We therefore do not agree
with commenters who alleged that proposing and finalizing a restriction
that is more stringent than what was requested in a petition undermines
``stability and fairness,'' nor do we agree that to do so, the Agency
must demonstrate that it is ``appropriate and necessary.'' In addition,
when approving petitions, EPA stated explicitly that a petition grant
does not mean that the Agency will propose or finalize requirements
identical to the petitions.
    As discussed in section VI.E of this preamble, EPA takes notice of
the regulations and restrictions related to HFC use and technology
transitions in its assessment of whether substitutes are available to
use in a sector or subsector. Restrictions in other jurisdictions can
be an indicator of the status of a sector or subsector's transition to
lower-GWP substitutes, and can provide affirmation of the Agency's
assessments that substitutes are available. However, nothing in the AIM
Act suggests that EPA must or even should establish its restrictions
with the goal of consistency with State or international regulations.
Our proposed 700 GWP limit for this subsector took into consideration
that there are a number of widely available substitutes for use in this
subsector with GWPs lower than 700, and we also note the programmatic
advantage of establishing restrictions at set cut-points (i.e., 150,
300, 700) to facilitate compliance and enforcement of the Technology
Transitions program (see section VI.E).
    Finally, in the Agency's assessment, there is little practical
difference between a 750 GWP or 700 GWP limit for this subsector.
Available substitutes that the Agency identified for use in this
subsector had GWPs lower than 700, and there are no substitutes for
this subsector listed under the SNAP program with a GWP between 700 and
750. A number of industry commenters also confirmed the lack of
refrigerants with GWPs between 700 and 750. For example, R-452B, HFC-
32, and R-454B have GWPs of 698, 675, and 465, respectively, and are
acceptable for use in this subsector under the SNAP program, and some
equipment within this subsector is now offered with these refrigerants.
As a commenter noted, there is one refrigerant with a GWP between 700
and 750 that may be under consideration by some industry stakeholders;
however, as noted by a separate commenter, the ozone-depleting
potential of this refrigerant (R-466A) is higher than for other
identified alternatives. In a separate action, EPA requested advance
comments on potential approaches to SNAP listing decisions for certain
very

short-lived substances (87 FR 45508, July 28, 2022).
    The Agency therefore disagrees with commenters asserting that EPA
should adopt a GWP limit of 750 for this subsector or as low as 10 or
150 for VRF systems.
    EPA is also finalizing a 700 GWP limit for VRF systems as proposed.
With consideration to the subsection (i)(4) factors, EPA does not agree
with a GWP limit of 10 or 150. Currently there are no SNAP listed
refrigerants with GWP less than 10 for VRF systems, apart from ammonia
absorption. EPA views the availability of this option to be many years
off, and therefore is setting restrictions at a higher GWP limit and a
compliance date that allows for transitions to initiate sooner.
Likewise, EPA views the two other refrigerants with GWPs below 150--R-
454C and R-457A--as not being available under the (i)(4) factors,
including technological achievability, in the timeframes considered in
this rule.
l. Residential Dehumidifiers
    Residential dehumidifiers are self-contained products primarily
used to remove water vapor from ambient air or directly from indoor air
for comfort or material preservation purposes in the context of the
home. This product circulates air from a room, passes it through a
cooling coil, and collects condensed water for disposal. While AC
equipment often combines cooling and dehumidification, residential
dehumidifiers only serve the latter purpose. This subsector therefore
does not include dehumidifiers for residential or light commercial use
that are integrated with the space air-conditioning equipment, for
instance via a separate bypass in the duct through which air is
dehumidified, a dehumidifying heat pipe across the indoor coil, or
other types of energy recovery devices that move sensible and/or latent
heat between air streams (e.g., between incoming air and air vented to
the outside). In addition, this subsector does not include non-
residential dehumidifiers, which are used for commercial and other
purposes and are typically of a higher capacity than residential
dehumidifiers. Such equipment falls within the residential and light
commercial AC or heat pump subsector. Similar to other residential and
light commercial AC equipment, the majority of residential
dehumidifiers historically used HCFC-22 and moved to R-410A.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for
residential dehumidifiers?
    EPA received only two comments on this subsector, both in support
of EPA's proposed GWP limit of 700 for dehumidifiers. Therefore, EPA is
restricting the manufacture and import of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for residential dehumidifiers as
proposed. EPA identified multiple available substitutes for use in this
subsector at proposal that have GWPs of 700 or lower. In assessing
availability, we note that many substitutes with GWPs of 700 or lower
are listed as acceptable under the SNAP program. For example, R-513A
with a GWP of 630 is listed as acceptable (82 FR 33809, July 21, 2017).
EPA has also recently listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
R-452B, HFC-32, and R-454B, with respective GWPs of approximately 698,
675, and 465 (88 FR 26382, April 28, 2023). EPA is also finalizing a
compliance date of January 1, 2025, as proposed.
m. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
    Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs) cool the passenger
compartment of light-duty (LD) vehicles, heavy-duty (HD) vehicles
(e.g., large pickup trucks, delivery trucks, and semi-trucks), nonroad
(also called off-road) vehicles, buses, and passenger rail vehicles.
MVACs used to cool passenger compartments in LD, HD, and nonroad
vehicles are typically charged during vehicle manufacture and the main
components are connected by flexible refrigerant lines. In addition,
the MVAC subsector includes heat pumps, which may cool or redirect heat
into vehicle cabins and control temperatures. Heat pumps are expected
to become more common, especially as more electric vehicles are
introduced into the market. The vehicle types subject to this action
are passenger cars and light-duty trucks,\150\ referred to jointly in
this action as LD vehicles, limited types of HD vehicles (i.e., medium-
duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs),\151\ HD pickup trucks, and complete HD
vans), and certain nonroad vehicles. These nonroad vehicles include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Agricultural tractors greater than 40 horsepower (HP)
(including two-wheel drive, mechanical front-wheel drive, four-wheel
drive, and track tractors) that are used for various agricultural
applications such as farm work, planting, landscaping, and loading;
152 153
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Self-propelled agricultural machinery (including combines,
grain and corn harvesters, sprayers, windrowers, and floaters) that are
primarily used for harvesting, fertilizer, and herbicide operations;
     Compact equipment (including mini excavators, turf mowers,
skid-steer loaders, and tractors less than 40 HP) that are primarily
used for agricultural operations and residential, commercial, and
agricultural landscaping;
     Construction, forestry, and mining equipment (including
excavators, bulldozers, wheel loaders, feller bunchers, log skidders,
road graders, articulated trucks, sub-surface machines, horizontal
directional drill, trenchers, and tracked crawlers) that are primarily
used to excavate surface and subsurface materials during construction,
landscaping, and road maintenance and building; and
     Commercial utility vehicles that are primarily used for
ranching, farming, hunting/fishing, construction, landscaping, property
maintenance, railroad maintenance, forestry, and mining.
    For further information on classifications of vehicle types, see
the proposed rule (87 FR 76789-91, December 15, 2022).
    EPA proposed to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs
that have a GWP of 150 or greater starting in MY 2025 for MVACs in
newly manufactured LD vehicles as well in MDPVs and limited types of HD
vehicles in Class 2b-3 (i.e., newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans), including vehicles manufactured
exclusively for export.\154\ EPA also proposed to restrict the use of
HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater
starting in MY 2026 for certain nonroad vehicles (i.e., agricultural
tractors greater than 40 HP; self-propelled agricultural machinery;
compact equipment; construction, forestry, and mining equipment; and
commercial utility vehicles), including

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

    \154\ ``Model year'' is defined at 40 CFR 85.2302 and ``means
the manufacturer's annual production period (as determined under 40
CFR 85.2304) which includes January 1 of such calendar year,
provided, that if the manufacturer has no annual production period,
the term ``model year'' shall mean the calendar year.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for MVAC?
    EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that
have a GWP of 150 or greater for MVACs in newly manufactured LD
vehicles, limited types of MD and HD vehicles in Class 2b-3, and
certain nonroad vehicles, as proposed. The use restriction for LD
vehicles starts in MY 2025, as of one year after publication of this
final rule, and includes vehicles manufactured for export as proposed.
EPA is delaying the compliance date for MDPVs and for the HD vehicles
subject to this rule to MY 2028, not MY 2025 as proposed. The final
rule also delays the compliance date for the listed nonroad vehicles to
January 1, 2028, rather than MY 2026 as proposed. As discussed in
section VI.C.2.c, EPA is allowing for a three-year sell-through of
manufactured products. Thus, the dates by which newly manufactured
vehicles containing regulated substances with a GWP of 150 or greater
(e.g., HFC-134a) may no longer be sold, distributed, or exported are
the following: upon introduction of MY 2028 for LD vehicles; upon
introduction of MY 2031 for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks,
and complete HD vans which have AC equipment that will not be modified
by upfitters; and January 1, 2031, for the listed nonroad vehicles.
    For LD vehicles, EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends
containing HFCs starting MY 2025, as of one year after publication of
the final rule. The Agency analyzed the subsection (i)(4) factors and,
in particular, the availability of substitutes under (i)(4)(B) and
identified three substitutes, R-744, HFO-1234yf, and HFC-152a, with
GWPs below the limit of 150. EPA is aware of only limited use of R-744
globally, and no commercial use of HFC-152a in any LD or HD vehicle to
date.
    In terms of commercial demands and technological achievability,
HFO-1234yf has gained significant market share in LD vehicles in the
United States since its introduction in MY 2013. According to the 2022
EPA Automotive Trends Report, approximately 95 percent of MY 2021 LD
vehicles sold used HFO-1234yf and most manufacturers have implemented
HFO-1234yf across their entire vehicle brands.\155\ HFO-1234yf is also
predominantly being used in new LD vehicles in Europe and Japan.\156\
The GWP limit of 150 for LD vehicles harmonizes with the EU's Mobile AC
Directive 2006/40/EC,\157\ which is aimed at reducing emissions of HFC-
134a from LD MVACs, and also sets a GWP limit of 150 for refrigerants
used in MVAC installed in any LD vehicle sold in the European market
after 2017, regardless of its model year. Today's final rule restricts
the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or
greater for LD vehicles, including vehicles manufactured exclusively
for export, starting in MY 2025 and becoming effective no earlier than
one year after publication of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975 (EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
    \156\ Volume 1: Progress Report, Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, UNEP, September 2021. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-2021-Progress-report.pdf.
    \157\ European Commission, 2006. Directive 2006/40/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to
emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and
amending. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006L0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans which have AC
equipment that will not be modified by upfitters, EPA is restricting
the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs starting MY 2028, because at
least three technologically achievable substitutes, R-744, HFO-1234yf,
and HFC-152a, meet the GWP limit of 150. HFO-1234yf was listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 2016 under SNAP for new
MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans and is in use or under
various stages of development for these vehicle types. After review of
the comments and further consideration of the subsection (i)(4)
factors, EPA is extending the compliance date to MY 2028 for these
vehicle types.
    After review of the comments and further consideration of the
(i)(4) factors, EPA is also extending the compliance date for MVACs for
the proposed list of nonroad vehicles (i.e., agricultural tractors
greater than 40 HP; self-propelled agricultural machinery; compact
equipment; construction, forestry, and mining equipment; and commercial
utility vehicles) to January 1, 2028. Nonroad vehicles are vocational
vehicles and are not produced by model year.
    In general, commenters supported the proposed 150 GWP limit for new
MVACs and did not suggest alternatives, and one commenter stated that
this GWP limit is critically important to continue the transition to
low-GWP refrigerants in these subsectors. EPA is retaining the 150 GWP
limit in this final rule. EPA also received comments objecting to the
compliance dates for the restrictions in the MVAC subsectors and
exports of vehicles that contain HFC-134a. We summarize those comments
and address them in this section.
    Comment: EPA received many comments on the compliance date for the
GWP of refrigerants used in MVACs. Environmental nongovernmental
organizations and State attorneys general supported the proposed
compliance dates. A State environmental agency urged EPA to take
advantage of every opportunity to phase out HFCs as soon as possible.
Representatives of manufacturers of LD vehicles objected to the
proposed MY 2025 compliance date, stating that this could give as
little as three months after finalization of this rule to redesign
vehicles and retrofit assembly plants. These commenters instead
suggested MY 2027, to allow at least two full years after finalization
of this rule. One of these commenters asserted that additional lead-
time of two years would provide a similar environmental benefit, but at
a more reasonable cost and timeframe. Another commenter representing
automotive manufacturers stated that using a calendar year basis
restricting refrigerant in an industry that ``efficiently operates
using the model years'' would add expense and complexity to track
refrigerant and system components while managing the running change of
these parts.
    Response: EPA is finalizing a MY-based compliance deadline for LD
vehicles because we agree that structuring the restriction in this way
provides clarity for the regulated industry and aligns with their
typical practices. In this final rule, the Agency is establishing a
compliance date for new LD vehicles of MY 2025, but no earlier than
October 24, 2024. This ensures that manufacturers of LD vehicles will
have at least one full year after finalization of this rule to change
their MVAC designs and facilities, while meeting the AIM Act
requirement that no rule under subsection (i) may take effect before
the date that is one year after the date of final promulgation. We do
not agree with commenters who advocated for a compliance date of MY
2027, based on their view that regulated entities might be expected to
comply with the new subsector restrictions within three months of this
action being finalized. Vehicle manufacturers choose the start of a MY
and any manufacturer that has not completed their transition could
decide to make their MY 2025 start date coincide with the effective
date of this rule, thereby avoiding any potential expense and/or
complexity of

a transition in the middle of a MY. Moreover, after reviewing the
comments and considering the (i)(4) factors, we do not agree that a
delay of two years to MY 2027 is reasonable or appropriate for MVAC in
LD vehicles. The agency has identified three available substitutes for
use in MVAC in LD vehicles and recognized that this transition is
already well underway, and commenters largely agreed with the Agency's
assessment. This confirms industry reports of the transition status for
this subsector: the 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report stated that
approximately 95 percent of MY 2021 LD vehicles sold used HFO-1234yf (a
substitute compliant with the 150 GWP limit) and most manufacturers
have implemented HFO-1234yf across their entire vehicle brands.\158\
This is a subsector that has already largely transitioned to use of
lower-GWP substitutes meeting the new restriction; therefore, providing
a compliance date of MY 2025, or at most one year after the date of
final publication, is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA not restrict exports
of vehicles with MVACs using HFC-134a in the final rule. Some
commenters said that the proposed timeline does not provide adequate
lead-time to implement the required infrastructure updates and
additional training needed at dealerships in all export countries.
Commenters stated that because there are markets that do not yet
support the lower GWP refrigerants, it is premature to be overly
restrictive with an export prohibition that could hinder U.S. domestic
manufacturing goals. One commenter stated that some countries have not
yet decided to phase down HFCs, such as those in the Gulf Cooperation
Council, and thus, there is no guarantee that these countries will have
vehicle markets prepared to support different refrigerants within EPA's
proposed timeframe. Another commenter stated that because of the
uncertainty associated with the availability of HFO-1234yf in
international markets, equipment manufacturers may need to export
machines pre-charged with HFC-134a as well as bulk shipments of HFC-
134a to properly service equipment abroad. This commenter asked EPA to
ensure that the heavy-duty, nonroad equipment industry maintain an
uninterrupted supply of HFC-134a for export purposes to ensure
continuity.
    Response: HFO-1234yf is widely used in MVACs on a global basis
including those countries with large export markets. The transition of
this sector began in the EU and the United States prior to the
agreement of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 2016.
Commenters seem to imply a direct linkage between ratifying the
Amendment and transition of an HFC use. While currently 150 countries
have ratified the Kigali Amendment, EPA does not agree with that
assessment. While the Agency agrees that this rule will support the
U.S. domestic HFC phasedown under the AIM Act, this rule is under
separate authority provided by Congress. In other countries, actions to
restrict use of HFCs were underway ahead of the Kigali Amendment and
without a domestic phasedown, notably the EU Mobile Air Conditioning
Directive. With regard to the use of HFO-1234yf, there has been an
increased use of HFO-1234yf on a global basis over the last decade as
the replacement for higher-GWP MVAC refrigerants. Therefore,
infrastructure for servicing vehicles is increasingly available
globally as well.
    EPA also notes that the final rule provides three years, rather
than the proposed one year, before compliance dates for sale,
distribution, offer for sale or distribution, and export are effective.
As a result, LD vehicles manufactured in the United States using HFC-
134a prior to the compliance date may still be exported prior to the
introduction of MY 2028. Similarly, the nonroad vehicles covered in
this rule would have a compliance date of January 1, 2028, for
manufacturing new equipment, and would be able to export that equipment
until January 1, 2031. See section VI.C.2.d for further discussion on
exports.
    Comment: Representatives of manufacturers of MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans requested a MY 2028 or MY 2029 compliance
date to allow time to design and validate AC equipment using new
refrigerants. These commenters stated that their members had not yet
converted any of their HD vehicles to HFO-1234yf, and that HD vehicles
must be designed for higher capacity engine cooling systems, requiring
changes from the design for LD vehicles. One of these commenters stated
that it was more complex and increases the cost and time to transition
to HFO-1234yf if only some HD pickups in class 2b and 3 and complete HD
vans have an earlier conversion date, while other classes of HD
vehicles in the same assembly plant continue to be manufactured with
HFC-134a. This commenter suggested that delaying the timing for
conversion until after EPA reviews HFO-1234yf for use with all
remaining HD vehicles would allow manufacturers to convert all
production in an assembly plant. This commenter also stated that some
HD pickups are sold without beds so that upfitters add on to the AC
equipment and some complete HD vans are sold with ``AC Prep'' packages
allowing upfitters to complete or modify the AC equipment. This
commenter suggested that the restriction apply only to HD pickups and
complete HD vans which have AC equipment that will not be modified by
upfitters, since the risk assessments on HFO-1234yf have not covered
such vehicles. A representative of manufacturers of HD vehicles stated
that HFO-1234yf is the logical next-generation refrigerant for MD and
HD commercial vehicles and that EPA must first approve its use in all
MD and HD on-road vehicles before the transition can happen.
    Response: EPA recognizes the constraints posed by the proposed MY
2026 compliance date for MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and HD complete vans
which have AC equipment that will not be modified by upfitters, and we
are finalizing a delay of this compliance date to MY 2028 to address
many of the concerns raised by commenters. Unlike LD vehicles, which
already widely use lower-GWP refrigerants, MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and
HD complete vans do not. Manufacturers will need to change MVAC
designs, prepare facilities for safe use of flammable or high-pressure
refrigerants such as HFO-1234yf or R-744 (e.g., explosion-proofing
refrigerant handling equipment), and train personnel in proper
technical and safety procedures. Commenters for these uses did not
advocate for a less stringent GWP limit for these uses within this
subsector, suggesting that efforts to transition are already underway.
Rather, commenters focused on needing additional time to effectuate the
transition. EPA is therefore extending the compliance date to MY 2028
for these uses, providing two to three years after the final rule
publication to accommodate factors impacting availability of
substitutes.
    The MY 2028 compliance date will also accommodate those facilities
that manufacture different products or parts within one facility, and
where EPA's restriction only covers some of the products or parts. The
Agency agrees with the likely cost-effectiveness of converting an
entire facility rather than staggering the transition. In addition, a
MY 2028 compliance date is still before the 2029 stepdown in HFC
consumption and can relieve the potential for shortages by reducing
demand for HFCs.

    Finally, EPA is not establishing restrictions on HD vehicles that
are modified by ``upfitters'' with AC equipment after manufacture, such
as ambulances, shuttle buses, and motorhomes. We agree with commenters
that substitutes that would allow them to meet the new restriction have
not yet been identified for use in these vehicles.
    Comment: Representatives of manufacturers of nonroad vehicles and
HD trucks commented that much of the nonroad equipment industry does
not use MY designations on their products. These commenters also
asserted that it would take at least five years to design and validate
new AC systems, convert production facilities, and develop and provide
maintenance and service information for new AC systems. One such
commenter noted that most of that work (for class 4 through 8 HD
trucks) can only begin once EPA has provided certainty about applicable
use conditions in a final SNAP rulemaking for HFO-1234yf.
    Response: EPA agrees that a calendar year compliance date is more
appropriate for nonroad vehicles since using MY dates is not a common
practice in that industry. EPA also agrees that additional time is
needed to redesign and convert AC equipment and production facilities,
but that time should be limited. The Association of Equipment
Manufacturers developed a risk assessment for each of the six
categories of nonroad vehicles with a structure similar to previous SAE
Cooperative Research Programme risk assessments for the use of HFO-
1234yf in LD vehicles. The risk assessments found that HFO-1234yf can
be used safely. EPA issued regulations to allow for the safe use of
HFO-1234yf in six categories of nonroad vehicles in a final rule issued
in May 2022 (87 FR 26276, May 4, 2022). Commenters did not object to
the level of the GWP restriction, but requested additional time for
compliance, indicating that industry expects that substitutes widely
used in this subsector can be adapted for use in nonroad vehicles. EPA
understands that the necessary work to transition to a refrigerant with
a GWP below 150 is already well underway. Based on a review of the
comments and information received during the comment period,
particularly comments concerning the transition of manufacturing
facilities, it is EPA's assessment that extending the compliance date
by approximately two and one-half years is consistent with a review of
the subsection (i)(4) factors. This also would allow roughly five years
from the date of the proposed rule in December 2022, until the
compliance date of January 1, 2028, consistent with the commenter's
request. EPA is therefore finalizing a compliance date of January 1,
2028, for the six types of nonroad vehicles.
    Comment: Many commenters, including representatives of automobile
manufacturers, automobile dealers, and chemical producers requested
that HFC-134a be allowed to maintain and service vehicles and equipment
already manufactured with HFC-134a prior to the compliance date.
    Response: Vehicles with MVACs that are manufactured to use HFC-134a
before the compliance date (i.e., MY 2025 for LD vehicles; MY 2028 for
MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans which have AC systems
that will not be modified by upfitters; and January 1, 2028, for the
six types of nonroad vehicles covered in this rulemaking) may continue
to use HFC-134a after the applicable compliance date, including use for
service, maintenance, and repair.
2. Foams
    Foams are plastics (such as phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin,
polyurethane, or polystyrene) that are manufactured using blowing
agents to create bubbles or cells in the material's structure. The
range of uses for plastic foams includes building materials, appliance
insulation, cushioning, furniture, packaging materials, containers,
flotation devices, filler, sound proofing, and shoe soles. Some foams
are rigid with closed cells that still contain the foam blowing agent,
which can contribute to the foam's ability to insulate. Other foams are
open-celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at the time the foam
is blown, as for flexible foams.
    A variety of foam blowing agents have been used for these
applications. In the early 1990s CFCs and HCFCs were typically used. In
implementing CAA title VI requirements to protect the stratospheric
ozone layer, EPA issued regulations that banned the sale or
distribution of foam products blown with CFCs and HCFCs except for
HCFCs used for foam insulation products.
    Blowing agents that are a liquid at room temperature (such as CFC-
11, CFC-113, cyclopentane, HCFC-141b, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and methyl
formate) are more commonly used in polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, and
phenolic foams. Blowing agents that are gases at room temperature (such
as CFC-12, CO2, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, HFC-134a, and HFC-152a)
are more commonly used in polyolefin and polystyrene foams.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for foams?
    EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs with
a GWP of 150 or greater beginning January 1, 2025, for all foam
subsectors included in the proposed rule. These subsectors, with
examples, are:
    1. Flexible polyurethane, which includes open-cell foam in
furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles;
    2. Integral skin polyurethane, which includes open-cell foam used
in car steering wheels, dashboards, upholstery, and shoe soles;
    3. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock, which includes
insulation for roofing and walls;
    4. Polyolefin (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene), which includes
foam sheets and tubes;
    5. Polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet, which includes
closed cell insulation for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes;
    6. Polystyrene--extruded sheet, which includes closed cell foam for
packaging and buoyancy or flotation;
    7. Rigid polyurethane--appliance foam, which includes insulation
foam in household refrigerators, freezers, and hot water heaters;
    8. Rigid polyurethane--slabstock and other, which includes
insulation for panels and pipes, taxidermy foam, and other
miscellaneous uses;
    9. Rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration, which includes
insulation for vending machines, coolers, commercial refrigeration
equipment, pipes, shipping containers for perishable goods, and
refrigerated transport vehicles; \159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ As described in section VI.C.1 and in this section, EPA is
exempting certain applications as long as they have a current
qualification for application-specific allowances under subsection
(e)(4)(B) of the Act, including structural composite preformed
polyurethane foam for trailer use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Rigid polyurethane--sandwich panels, which includes insulation
panels for walls and metal doors;
    11. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock,
which includes laminated board insulation for roofing and walls;
    12. Rigid polyurethane--marine flotation foam, which includes
buoyancy or flotation foams; \160\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ As described in section VI.C.1 and in this section, EPA is
exempting certain applications as long as they have a current
qualification for application-specific allowances under subsection
(e)(4)(B) of the Act, including structural composite preformed
polyurethane foam for marine use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

construction uses, as well as foam for building breakers for pipelines.
Polyurethane spray foam is broken down further into high-pressure two-
component, low-pressure two-component, and one-component foam sealants.
These three applications vary in the types of systems used to apply
them (one-component or two-component, high-pressure or low-pressure),
who uses such systems (contractors using personal protective equipment,
or consumers), and how much is applied (large-scale applications within
walls or on roofs of a residence or filling in cracks, leaks, and gaps
in a residence). For further information on spray foam applications,
see SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86778 at 86846-86847, December 1, 2016).
    These restrictions apply to the manufacture and import of new foam
products, including fully formulated polyols and foam insulation, the
blowing of foam to manufacture new products containing foams, such as
appliances, furniture, or vehicles, and the import of such foam
products and products containing foams beginning January 1, 2025. Foam
products and products containing foam with blowing agents that are HFCs
or HFC blends with a GWP of 150 or greater (e.g., HFC-134a) may no
longer be sold, distributed, offered for sale or distribution, or
exported beginning January 1, 2028.
    The use restrictions (including labeling and reporting) finalized
in this rule do not apply to any product that qualifies for
application-specific HFC allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the
AIM Act. Specifically, this final action does not restrict the HFCs
used in the manufacture of structural composite preformed polyurethane
foam for marine use and trailer use or foams used in mission-critical
military end uses as they have a current qualification for application-
specific allowances.
    This rule also excludes spray and pour foams used in space
vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR 84.3 from the use restrictions. Such
equipment faces unparalleled and highly demanding operating conditions
and requires long lead-times for its operation to be certified. This
approach is consistent with EPA's CAA regulations where space vehicles
were either exempted or given additional time to transition to
substitute foam blowing agents. EPA proposed to exclude spray foams
used in this application but has learned that pour foams requiring the
use of HFCs are also used in space vehicles. EPA is exempting the use
of both foam types in space vehicles from the restrictions in this
final rule.
    HFCs have been widely used as blowing agents in rigid polyurethane
insulation foam (e.g., appliance, commercial refrigeration, sandwich
panels, and spray foams) and polystyrene--extruded boardstock and
billet in the United States since the phaseout of ODS blowing agents
such as HCFC-141b and HCFC-142b, particularly where insulation value
and flammability have been important considerations. Available
substitutes have increased in the last decade and the uses for
substitute blowing agents have also expanded.
    There is interest in using newer foam blowing agents with lower
GWP, often to improve energy efficiency of the foam products. SNAP has
listed HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 4), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP 1), HFO-1336mzz(E)
(GWP 26), and HFO-1336mzz(Z) (GWP 2) as acceptable for some uses. These
newer substitutes, which are either nonflammable or lower flammability,
may prove appropriate for subsectors where higher-flammability blowing
agents raise safety concerns. In addition, some nonfluorinated lower-
GWP blowing agents are now being used more broadly, such as carbon
dioxide (GWP 1), light saturated hydrocarbons with three to six carbons
(GWPs from 1 to 4), and methyl formate (GWP 13). The process and timing
for retooling facilities to use new blowing agents or that incorporate
the foam product into another product will vary depending on the
substitute selected. Manufacturing facilities such as household
refrigerator manufacturers have already been transitioning to lower-GWP
substitutes for foam-blowing. Production volumes for some of these
newer substitutes are expanding rapidly to keep pace with growing
commercial demands.
    For some types of foam that have historically used gaseous blowing
agents, HFC-152a or blends containing HFC-152a may be an available
alternative. The GWP of HFC-152a is 124, compared to 794 for HFC-
365mfc, 1,030 for HFC-245fa, 1,430 for HFC-134a, and 4,470 for HFC-
143a. Some manufacturers of polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet
transitioning from HFC-134a have recently starting using blends of HFC-
152a and non-HFCs such as CO2, HFO-1234ze(E), and/or HFO-
1336mzz(Z).
    Hydrocarbons are lower-GWP and cost-effective substitutes that have
been available for years for large parts of the foam sector,
particularly in polystyrene--extruded sheet, rigid polyurethane--
slabstock, rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, phenolic insulation board and bunstock, and polyolefin.
Hydrocarbons are used in most of the other foam subsectors, but less
extensively. In EPA's consideration of the safety of available
substitutes, flammability of foam blowing agents, including
hydrocarbons, can be a concern, particularly for rigid polyurethane--
two-component spray foam applications. Water is used broadly as a
blowing agent in flexible polyurethane foam. Other non-fluorinated
compounds such as methyl formate and methylal are also used as blowing
agents, alone or in combination with other compounds, particularly in
polyurethane foams.
    There is little or no use of HFCs in the flexible polyurethane;
integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin; polystyrene--extruded sheet;
and rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock
subsectors. Water and hydrocarbons are commonly used available
substitutes used as blowing agents for flexible polyurethane,
polyolefin, polystyrene--extruded sheet, and rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. CO2, and more
recently, HFOs, are available substitutes used as blowing agents for
integral skin polyurethane. Based upon comments and information
received during the public comment period, EPA now understands that
there is limited use of HFCs--in particular, HFC-152a--as foam-blowing
agents in polystyrene--extruded sheet used as sheathing to insulate
buildings.
    Comment: Several commenters from the foam blowing industry raised
concerns about the proposed GWP limit of zero for flexible
polyurethane; integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin; polystyrene--
extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock. These comments requested that EPA clarify whether the GWP
applies only to HFCs in a blend of blowing agents, or if it applies to
the entire blowing agent. Some of the commenters suggested that if the
GWP applies to the entire blowing agent that the GWP should be higher
than zero for these five foam subsectors. One commenter suggested a GWP
limit of less than 20 instead of zero, because non-HFC blowing agents
such as hydrocarbons or HFOs have non-zero GWPs. Other commenters
suggested GWPs of 50 or for blowing agent blends, either for all foam
subsectors or at least for the subsectors for the commenters' products,
to maintain a ``level playing field'' with other types of insulation.
Two manufacturers of polystyrene--extruded sheet used as sheathing to
provide insulation in buildings requested a GWP limit of 150 for all
foam subsectors, or at least for

polystyrene--extruded sheet to allow for continued use of HFC-152a
because of its contributions to insulation value, its technical
achievability compared to other alternatives, and its reductions in
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). One trade group commented that HFCs
should be prohibited for all foam-blowing subsectors.
    Response: EPA is establishing a GWP limit of 150 in all foam
subsectors. Based on additional information received from commenters,
EPA's earlier understanding contained in the proposed rule that little
or no HFCs are being used as foam blowing agents in polystyrene--
extruded sheet was incorrect. This foam subsector also includes
insulation for buildings, similar to polystyrene--boardstock and
billet, rigid polyurethane: spray foam, and rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. EPA agrees it is reasonable to
use the same GWP limit for all foam subsectors used as insulation. Foam
insulation blown with HFC-152a is more energy efficient, and thus,
improves affordability for residential and small business consumers
compared to foams blown with smaller molecules such as water,
hydrocarbons, or CO2. HFC-152a is in sufficient supply, is
technologically achievable as a blowing agent on its own or blended
with other blowing agents, and is currently being used in particular in
polystyrene foams. HFC-152a, with its GWP of 124, is lower GWP than
other HFCs that had been used in foam blowing. Further, to provide
greater consistency and a ``level playing field'' between and within
foams subsectors, to avoid confusion over use of a GWP limit of zero,
and to set a GWP limit at one of the regular intervals being used
across all the sectors and subsectors (see section VI.E.5 of the
preamble), EPA is establishing a GWP limit of 150 for blowing agents in
all foams subsectors that were included in the proposed rule.
    Comment: Concerning the compliance date for the different foam
subsectors, most commenters either supported January 1, 2025, as
proposed or did not comment on it. Two companies that manufacture foam
used in military and aerospace applications requested that EPA allow
until 2030 for such applications because of the unique and highly
demanding operating conditions that require extensive technical
resources and time to evaluate.
    Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed compliance date of January
1, 2025, for most subsectors that use HFCs and HFC blends as foam
blowing agents. EPA is finalizing January 1, 2026, for military and
aerospace foam blowing applications in recognition of the additional
time that may be required to evaluate substitutes. EPA agrees with
commenters that the operating conditions for military and aerospace
applications are highly demanding. EPA also recognizes that the process
of qualifying new materials to specification in military and aerospace
applications is time consuming. Some uses raised by commenters are not
subject to EPA's final restrictions. Mission-critical military uses
identified by the Department of Defense, consistent with the
requirements for receipt of application-specific allowances under
subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv), are exempt. EPA is also exempting spray and
pour foam used in space vehicles. Given these exemptions, but
recognizing that applications may require more time for qualifying new
materials to specification, EPA is finalizing a later compliance date
of January 1, 2026, for foam-blowing uses in space and military
applications that are not already exempted.
3. Aerosols
    Aerosols use liquefied or compressed gas to propel active
ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder form in precise spray patterns
with controlled droplet sizes and amounts. In some cases, the
propellant is also itself the active ingredient. The propellant,
typically a gas at atmospheric pressure but a pressurized liquid in the
product canister, is emitted during use. Some aerosols also contain a
solvent in addition to the propellant. In some cleaning applications,
the propellant disperses the solvent; in other applications, the
solvent product and propellant solution are evenly mixed to improve
shelf-life and product performance, such as by preventing dripping and
ensuring uniform film thickness for spray paints. Consumer aerosols
include products for personal and household use, such as hairspray,
household cleaning products, and keyboard dusters. Technical aerosols
are specialized products used solely in commercial and industrial
applications, such as cleaning products for removal of grease from
electrical equipment and sprays containing corrosion preventive
compounds.
    Available aerosol propellants with GWPs lower than the final
restriction include HFC-152a (GWP 124), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP 1), dimethyl
ether (GWP 1), saturated light hydrocarbons (GWP 1 to 4), and
CO2 (GWP 1). Available aerosol solvents with GWPs lower than
the final restriction include HCFO-1233yd(Z) (GWP 1), HFO-1336mzz(Z)
(GWP 2), methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) (GWP 2.5), HCFO-
1233zd(E) (GWP 4), and petroleum hydrocarbons.
    EPA is exempting certain uses with a current qualification for
application-specific allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the AIM
Act, including certain aerosol applications. Subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv)
lists six applications, three of which typically use aerosols: (1)
Propellant in metered-dose inhalers, (2) defense sprays, and (3)
mission-critical military end uses. The requirements of this rule do
not apply to these uses of HFCs in these applications, since they have
a current qualification for application-specific allowances under 40
CFR 84.13.
What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA establishing for aerosols?
    EPA is restricting the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs in
aerosols that have a GWP of 150 or greater beginning January 1, 2025,
as proposed. In response to comments seeking additional time to
transition, EPA is extending the compliance date to January 1, 2028,
for the following technical aerosol uses: cleaning products for removal
of grease, flux, and other soils from electrical equipment or
electronics; refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity testing of
smoke detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment
or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; sprays containing
corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft,
electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment; pesticides
for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in total release
insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which
EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold
release agents and mold cleaners; lubricants and cleaners for
spinnerets for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for
removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips,
specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical
equipment; adhesives and sealants in large canisters; document
preservation sprays; wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain
relief; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
    EPA is also extending the compliance date for use of the aerosol
solvents HFC-43-10mee and HFC-245fa to January 1, 2028.
    Commenters indicated some applications may still need the use of
HFC-134a as a propellant and the use of the solvents HFC-43-10mee and
HFC-245fa because of technical

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

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

    For the purpose of this rule, the GWP of an aerosol that contains
HFCs as both a propellant and a solvent is calculated based solely on
the weighted average of the HFCs and does not include other components
of the aerosol product. This methodology is different from the SNAP
program, where the propellant and solvent are considered as separate
entities rather than as a mixture in aerosol products. The decision to
use this GWP calculation of the aerosol product under subsection (i) of
the AIM Act does not impact other regulations, in particular SNAP
listing decisions.
    Comment: In general, commenters stated that a GWP limit of 150 is
appropriate for most aerosols but was too low for applications where
flammability is a concern. HFC-134a (GWP 1,430) is currently used as a
propellant in certain applications due to its non-flammable
characteristic. Two commenters believed a GWP of 700, similar to what
has been proposed for some refrigeration subsectors, was
technologically achievable for niche applications while still
maintaining non-flammability.
    Response: EPA is finalizing a GWP limit of 150 for aerosols as
proposed. EPA recognizes the commenters' concerns regarding
flammability of some substitutes, and the impact of flammability on
safety and thus availability of that substitute under AIM Act
subsection (i)(4)(B). EPA disagrees with commenters that we should
raise the GWP limit to 700. EPA is aware of possible substitutes with
lower GWPs that are non-flammable. To allow for manufacturers to
transition and address flammability risks and other technical
challenges, rather than increase the GWP limit across the board, the
final rule provides additional compliance time for specific uses of
HFC-134a identified by the commenters and excepted under SNAP Rule 20,
and for solvents identified by commenters where safety is of concern.
    Comment: EPA received a number of comments on the proposed
compliance date of January 1, 2025, for certain uses of HFC-134a
excepted in Rule 20 and for the aerosol solvents HFC-43-10mee and HFC-
245fa. Many commenters requested additional time to address
flammability concerns, to complete reformulation and testing, and if
necessary, obtain governmental approval from other agencies such as the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Many commenters requested a compliance date of January 1, 2030,
noting that HFO-1234ze(E) could be an alternative propellant but
expressed concern about its availability due to the uncertainty of
potential future regulations concerning per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS). One manufacturer requested a compliance date of
January 1, 2029, for one specific use and stated that an alternative
product is currently in development with their goal for final sale of
the current HFC-134a product January 1, 2028. Other commenters cited 3-
7 years and 5 years needed for transition for medical products. Many
other commenters requested exceptions for certain uses of HFCs in
aerosols, noting that would allow for more time to formulate an HFC
alternative, but did not specify how much more time would be needed.
    Response: EPA agrees that it may be difficult for manufacturers to
transition all aerosol products using HFCs to alternatives by January
1, 2025. This is particularly true in applications where flammability
is a concern or where a specific vapor pressure is needed to achieve
the desired result. In this final rule, we are extending the compliance
date to January 1, 2028, for products using aerosol solvents HFC-43-
10mee and HFC-245fa and also for listed technical aerosols that
currently use HFC-134a as a propellant, taking into consideration
availability under subsection (i)(4)(B). We are adding an additional
three years beyond what was proposed, allowing at least four years
after finalization of this rule, for reformulation and specific U.S.
Federal government reviews or other third-party approval if needed,
including EPA pesticide registration, testing to U.S. military or space
agency specifications, and FDA approval.
    EPA acknowledges the concerns commenters expressed regarding the
potential for future regulation of PFAS and how that may impact the
availability of some substitutes. There is currently no single commonly
agreed definition of PFAS, and whether HFCs or HFOs are classified as
PFAS depends on the definition being used. EPA's PFAS roadmap sets
timelines for specific actions and outlines EPA's commitments to new
policies to safeguard public health, protect the environment, and hold
polluters accountable.\163\ EPA elected in this final rule to issue
restrictions, including for this subsector, using a GWP limit approach.
Under that approach, regulated entities are not required to use any
particular substitute, and the approach inherently permits the use of
any substitutes consistent with the restrictions. We have identified a
number of available substitutes in this rule and we also anticipate
that as the phasedown of HFCs progresses there will be continued
innovation of HFC substitutes, and it is reasonable to expect that
producers of these substitutes will be cognizant of developing PFAS
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Comment: In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether and
why we should include a list of exceptions for propellants in this
rulemaking that matches some or all of those included in SNAP Rule 20.
All the commenters requested that EPA continue to provide some or all
of the HFC-134a propellant exceptions listed in SNAP Rule 20. Some also
requested EPA provide exceptions for the aerosol solvents HFC-43-10mee
and HFC-245fa.
    Response: The structure of the SNAP program and this regulation
under subsection (i) of the AIM Act are markedly different in many
ways. Therefore, EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a regulation
that mirrors the approaches used in SNAP Rule 20. EPA's assessment is
that by extending the date of compliance to January 1, 2028, for both
propellants and solvents, the formulators will have sufficient time to
develop new formulations for the exceptions that were requested by the
commenters.
    Comment: One commenter raised concerns about the cost of
development for a lower-GWP alternative and the recurring cost of
goods. In particular, the commenter noted that the current cost of
lower-GWP substitutes is much higher than the current costs of HFC-134a
and HFC-245fa. The commenter indicated that the economic investment
required by this rule to develop and test substitutes will result in
longer timeframes to recoup costs and achieve a return on investment.
    Response: EPA understands that investments are necessary for
reformulating products and that these costs can vary based on the
specific circumstances. As the HFC phasedown continues, increased
scarcity of HFCs will affect their price. In this action, EPA has
included this commenter's use as one which may continue to use HFC-

134a through January 1, 2028. We anticipate that the longer compliance
timeframe will allow for development and testing associated with
transitioning to substitutes for the commenter's use, and that in the
same timeframe, the relative cost difference of HFC-134a to substitutes
may diminish, relative to current costs.

VII. What are the labeling requirements?

    EPA seeks to deter, identify, and penalize the manufacture, import,
sale, distribution, offer for sale or distribution, export, or
installation of products and equipment from using certain HFCs that are
prohibited. Consistent with EPA's explanation in the Allocation
Framework Rule, based on experience with the ODS phaseout and HFC
phasedown thus far in the United States, and global experiences
transitioning from ODS and HFCs, EPA anticipates there will be attempts
to introduce prohibited equipment into the United States.
    Labeling is important for ensuring compliance, discouraging
noncompliance, and facilitating enforcement. Labeling allows purchasers
to determine what they are buying and whether the product is compliant.
Labels provide information to distributors and retailers who are
subject to restrictions on the sale or distribution of noncompliant
products and certain components. It also provides information to
technicians and system owners and operators that allows them to
determine whether the specified component is prohibited for use in the
installation of a new system or is limited to servicing and repair.
Labels also allow the Agency to take action to remove noncompliant
products from the market and assess compliance of installed systems.
    For the labeling requirements, EPA is requiring information on
labels for products, specified components, and systems that use
regulated substances, regardless of GWP, in the sectors and subsectors
covered by this rule. Knowing what HFC, or blend containing an HFC, is
used is a necessary step to ensuring that the use of HFCs complies with
the restrictions established through this rulemaking. For products,
specified components, and systems that use an HFC, or a blend
containing an HFC, EPA is requiring that the label include the HFC(s)
or blend and the date of manufacture, or at a minimum, the four-digit
year. For products in the MVAC subsectors, either the model year or the
date of manufacture, at minimum the four-digit year may be used.
    For specified components that are intended for use with an HFC, or
blend containing an HFC, EPA is requiring that the unfilled equipment
be labeled to indicate the HFC(s) or blend(s) containing an HFC
intended for use in the specified component. At the time of first
charge the system must be labeled to indicate the HFC or blend
containing an HFC used in the system and the date of first charge, or
at a minimum, the four-digit year. The new label would only need to
include the HFC(s) or blend(s) used if it is different from what is
listed on the first label or if the first label indicates that the
equipment is intended for use with multiple HFCs or blends containing
HFCs. New labels must be affixed near but not covering the original
label.
    Additionally, EPA is requiring that labels for systems in the
following subsectors indicate the refrigerant charge capacity: (1)
Industrial process refrigeration (without chillers), (2) cold storage
warehouses, (3) retail food refrigeration--supermarket systems, (4)
retail food refrigeration--remote condensing units, and (5) retail food
refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment
(remote). The GWP limit varies based on the charge size in these
subsectors, thus that information is needed for the purposes of
ensuring compliance. The charge size must be added to a label on the
system no later than the date of first charge. The label may either be
the specific charge size of the system or the charge size as it relates
to the threshold of the related subsector. For example, the charge size
for a supermarket could be labeled as ``Charge 150 lb'' or ``Charge <
200 lb.'' EPA is not specifying the wording so as to allow the use of
existing labels that already convey the necessary information.
    EPA is requiring that labels for self-contained automatic
commercial ice machines indicate the harvest rate, either as the
specific harvest rate of the equipment, or the harvest rate as it
relates to the threshold for the relevant subsector, such as an
indication that harvest rate is either greater than 1,000 pounds of ice
per day or less than or equal to 1,000 pounds of ice per day for batch-
type ACIMs or an indication that the harvest rate is either greater
than 1,200 pounds of ice per day or less than or equal to 1,200 pounds
of ice per day for continuous-type ACIMs. Labels for industrial process
refrigeration chillers and industrial process refrigeration systems
without chillers must include an indication of the designed exiting
fluid temperature. For all these subsectors EPA is not specifying the
specific wording so as to allow the use of existing labels that already
convey the necessary information.
    For specified components that contain or are dry shipped and
intended for use with HFC(s) or blends containing HFC(s) that exceed
the applicable GWP limit or HFC restriction, the label must state ``For
servicing existing equipment only'' in addition to the other required
labeling elements.
    For the aerosols and foams sectors, where standard blends of HFCs
are uncommon, the label must identify all the HFCs used in the product.
If they are used as part of an identified blend, the blend may be
labeled. If multiple HFCs are used, or an HFC with a GWP greater than
the limit is used, such as HFC-134a, either the weights of the HFC(s)
relative to the other blowing agents, propellants, solvents, or to the
other HFCs must be on the label, or the label must include ``GWP
<150.'' For example, the label of a board of extruded polystyrene
boardstock could be labeled ``GWP<150'' or ``contains blend of up to 90
percent HFC-152a and the remainder HFO-1234ze(E).''
    EPA is requiring that the permanent label be formatted as follows:
(1) In English; (2) durable and printed or otherwise labeled on, or
affixed to, the external surface of the product; (3) readily visible
and legible; (4) able to withstand open weather exposure without a
substantial reduction in visibility or legibility; and (5) displayed on
a background of contrasting color. Additionally, for equipment being
sold electronically through eCommerce platforms, EPA is requiring that
labels or a description of the required information be clearly included
in information available prior to purchase, either in the text
description or photo of the equipment. Websites for products and
specified components using a regulated substance would need to have the
required information clearly visible in either the photos or the
description of the item. If a product or specified component is
contained within a box or other overpack that reaches the consumer, the
exterior packaging must also contain a label consistent with the
formatting requirements described previously. For imported products or
specified components, labels must be visible and readily available for
inspection.
    The labeling requirement takes effect for each subsector at the
same time as the manufacture and import prohibition for products or the
installation prohibition for systems. In the case of components that
could be used in multiple subsectors, the earliest compliance date
among the possible subsectors is the applicable date. This

timing reflects the primary purpose of the labels, which is for
assessing compliance of products and systems in sectors and subsectors
with active HFC restrictions. For example, consumer aerosols would need
to be manufactured or imported with labels starting January 1, 2025,
while technical aerosols would be subject to the labeling requirements
starting January 1, 2028. Consumer aerosols manufactured or imported
prior to January 1, 2025, would be able to be sold until January 1,
2028, without a label that meets the requirements of this rule.
    EPA is requiring that as of the applicable manufacture/import
compliance date, no person may manufacture or import a product that
contains or is intended for use with HFCs that lacks a label consistent
with the requirements of this section. Likewise, for systems, EPA is
requiring that as of the applicable installation compliance date, no
person may install a system in the sectors and subsectors of this rule
that contains or is intended for use with HFCs that lacks a label
consistent with the requirements of this section. For specified
components of systems, EPA is requiring that as of the applicable
installation compliance date, no person may manufacture or import a
component for a system in the sectors and subsectors of this rule that
contains or is intended for use with HFCs that lacks a label consistent
with the requirements of this section.
    Products, specified components, and systems that are manufactured,
imported, or installed after the compliance date in the sectors and
subsectors covered by this rule that use HFCs or are intended for use
with HFCs and lack the appropriate label are presumed to be using a
regulated substance exceeding the GWP limit for that sector or
subsector.
    Comment: Many commenters supported certain aspects of the labeling
proposal. Several supportive commenters agreed with the Agency that
labeling products will be valuable for assessing compliance and
allowing for enforcement. Another commenter supported a requirement for
each regulated substance that could be used to be listed on the label
for dry-shipped components that are intended for use with HFCs. Another
commenter supported on-product labeling for all products covered by
this rule and it being a violation to not label products regulated by
this rule. Another commenter was opposed to any labeling requirements
in this rule as they considered them to be `unnecessary and
duplicative.'
    Response: EPA acknowledges the support for the labeling provisions
provided in the comments and the perspectives raised by the commenters.
EPA disagrees with the comments that the labeling requirements of this
rule are `unnecessary and duplicative.' The labels required in the
final rule generally align with other existing labeling requirements.
EPA has made clear that existing labels that contain the required
information can satisfy the labeling requirements. Therefore, many
products and equipment already meet the labeling requirements,
particularly in the RACHP sector. However, existing labels for foams
and aerosols vary and thus uniform labeling for purposes of the HFC
transition are necessary. Furthermore, labels allow retailers and
distributors to assess whether their products and equipment are subject
to the sales restriction. Without labels to identify the regulated
substance used and other compliance related information, the Agency,
consumers, and entities throughout the sale and distribution chain will
not be readily able to assess compliance.
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that EPA should not require GWP
on labels since GWPs can be easily researched if the HFC or HFC blend
is provided. The commenters noted that the GWP values for HFCs are
periodically modified by the IPCC, and the value required to be used
(AR4, AR5, etc.) can vary based on regulations. The commenters stated
that this could result in inconsistent labeling across jurisdictions
and confusion. One commenter requested that the Agency not require GWP
on the label as the information is not readily accessible or useful to
customers and does not provide value to technicians in the RACHP
sector. An additional commenter noted that in the foam sector, labeling
products with the GWP value could reveal proprietary information, as
the precise mixture of blowing agents varies by company and is not
public knowledge. Additionally, this commenter shared that labeling
products with the precise GWP value would be difficult since the
mixtures can vary slightly between batches which could result in small
differences in GWP values between products. This commenter recommended
that EPA not require the specific GWP on the label and could instead
require a statement that the product complies with the GWP limits.
Several commenters requested that if the global warming potential is
retained on the label, that EPA accept labeling it as `GWP' given space
constraints on labels and the commenters' assessment that the term GWP
is widely known. The commenter noted that `GWP' could also be defined
in a product manual to ensure the information is in the relevant
language where sold.
    Other commenters supported the proposal to label all products with
the GWP. These commenters highlighted the particular importance of
including the GWP on the label as `global warming potential,' as they
noted that GWP information on a label would be helpful for consumers
who may not be familiar with the acronym `GWP.' One commenter stated
that given the considerable quantity of different HFCs and blends that
will be on the market, it is essential to include the GWP limit for the
product on the label to strengthen enforcement and compliance as the
GWP limit is easier to enforce compared to referencing an extensive
blend list.
    Another commenter requested that EPA use the term `Exchange Value'
as opposed to `GWP' or `global warming potential.' This commenter noted
that in their opinion, using `Exchange Value' would be more precise as
the GWP limits under the AIM Act are not the most up-to-date and also
there are other recognized GWPs that could lead to confusion.
    Response: EPA is not finalizing a requirement for labels to specify
the GWP. EPA finds the concerns raised about the inconsistent GWP
values resulting from updates from the IPCC and different requirements
by jurisdiction to be particularly compelling. The varying GWPs could
cause confusion and result in unintentional noncompliance. The Agency
maintains that listing the GWP could provide some benefit, such as
informing consumers about the environmental impact of the products they
are purchasing, as well as allowing for easier assessment of
compliance. However, the information needed to assess compliance is
still required on the label. Additionally, for the next several years,
EPA plans to maintain a public website that lists HFCs, commonly used
blends containing HFCs, and their respective GWPs that will provide a
quick look-up tool for assessing compliance or comparing the
environmental impact of products.
    Comment: Numerous commenters requested that EPA eliminate the
labeling requirement if the required information is required by other
authorities and current labels contain the same information. They noted
that this would provide the necessary information while reducing burden
for manufacturers. One commenter noted

that many products in the RACHP sector already label what HFC is used.
Other commenters specifically requested that the Agency allow
information already included in the Vehicle Manufacturing Label, SAE J-
639 label, or on a safety data sheet to satisfy the labeling
requirement for this rule. Another commenter expressed support for the
creation of a standardized label or symbol under this rule to show
compliance with the restrictions, create uniformity among the regulated
community, and facilitate consumer recognition.
    Response: EPA is clarifying that existing labels that meet the
requirements of this rule and include the required information are
sufficient. EPA agrees it is not necessary to have additional labels
that provide the same information. EPA recognizes that most, if not
all, of the information required by this rule is already provided on
equipment through existing labels, such as UL labels or nameplates. It
is not the intention of the Agency for the labeling requirement to
result in duplicative information on labels. EPA instead is seeking to
ensure that the information necessary to determine compliance with this
rule is visible and readily available for the products, specified
components, and systems covered by this rule. EPA is not finalizing as
part of this rule the creation of a standardized logo, signal word,
text, or label format to be in compliance with the labeling
requirements finalized through this action. In addition, the Agency
takes note of the idea raised by the commenter and may revisit this
concept in a future rule.
    Comment: EPA also received a significant number of comments related
to the proposed requirement to include the date of manufacture on the
label. One commenter noted that having the date of manufacture (at
minimum the manufacture year) on the product would be helpful for
assessing compliance with this rule, as well as other regulations.
Others commented that EPA should allow for an already existing date
code on the labels to satisfy the date of manufacture requirement,
while other commenters requested that EPA allow for the serial number
or a traceable batch code to fulfill the requirement. Other commenters
requested that EPA allow the date listed on the nameplate to satisfy
the requirement, at least for stand-alone refrigeration equipment.
    Response: EPA understands that some companies have methods in place
to indicate the date of manufacture of their product. For the purposes
of this rulemaking, the Agency seeks to minimize duplication of the
information required on the labels wherever possible. However, given
the complex distribution chains for some of the equipment for which
labels are required, it is also important for other entities throughout
the distribution chain to be able to assess compliance of equipment
they intend to purchase, sell, or otherwise distribute. If the product
does not clearly indicate the date of manufacture, it may not be
possible for entities beyond the OEM to assess its compliance. For this
reason, EPA is retaining the requirement that each product have the
date of manufacture (at minimum the four-digit year) on a label on the
item, included in the associated packaging material, or available via a
QR code.
    Comment: EPA received several comments related to requiring the
charge size on the label. One commenter stated that the label should
not have to indicate whether the charge size is above or below a
threshold as they believe that to be unnecessary. Another commenter
noted that the indication of the charge size threshold specific to this
rule (such as the 200 lb cutoff for supermarkets) may be useful for
enforcement of this rule, but a universal indication of charge size
would be useful for general enforcement for this regulation as well as
others that may exist for instance at the State level. This commenter
noted that knowing the exact charge size could be useful for estimating
the total extent of a violation. The commenter shared that certain U.S.
States already regulate some of these products based on a different
size threshold, therefore requiring an indication of intended charge
size would make these labels useful for States as well.
    Response: EPA is finalizing the option for regulated entities to
label their equipment with the charge size either as the specific
charge size of the system or the charge size related to the threshold
of the related subsector. For example, the charge size for a
supermarket could be labeled as `Charge 150 lb' or `Charge < 200 lb'
For certain aspects of this rule, the GWP limit varies based on that
charge size threshold in that subsector, thus information about the
charge size is needed for the purposes of ensuring compliance.
Retaining both options will provide flexibility in meeting this
requirement while retaining the information necessary for the Agency
and others throughout the distribution chain to assess compliance.
    Comment: Several commenters responded to EPA's request for comment
on alternative methods for satisfying the labeling requirements. Some
asked that EPA retain QR codes as an option as this would allow the
greatest flexibility for manufacturers and could be useful as it would
allow for changes to the label to comply with future regulations.
Others requested that EPA not mandate the use of QR codes as they are
costly to maintain and not widely used in the foam sector. Other
commenters stated that a QR code alone would not be sufficient for
providing information to the consumer and that accompanying text
explaining the purpose of the QR code would be required. Finally, one
commenter supported there being multiple ways to satisfy the labeling
requirement, such as QR codes, package labeling, and eCommerce
descriptions. That commenter also requested that EPA mandate that QR
code labels be accompanied by printed product information that can be
produced at any time if requested.
    Response: EPA is finalizing the ability for manufacturers to meet
the labeling requirement by including the required information in
packaging materials (e.g., tag, pamphlet, or box containing the product
or specified component) or through an on-product QR code instead of a
traditional label. This associated packaging must be present with the
product or specified component at the point of sale and import to
fulfill the labeling requirement. To satisfy the labeling requirement,
the QR code must direct to the required information and meet all the
requirements of the on-product label. The label with the QR code must
include adjacent text to indicate the purpose of the QR code, such as
`contains HFC information' or `scan for HFC info.' A QR code may be
useful for products where there is limited space for on-product labels
or the accompanying packaging and allows for additional flexibility in
meeting the labeling requirements while still retaining the necessary
information for assessing compliance. A nonfunctional or unreadable QR
code does not fulfill the labeling requirement and would be treated as
a missing label. For products and specified components being sold
through eCommerce, the QR code would not be sufficient on its own and
the description on the eCommerce site would also have to contain the
required information.
    Comment: EPA received several comments related to the idea for an
administrative process to address products that have been found to be
mislabeled or lacking a proper label. One commenter supported the
website highlighting noncompliance that was considered at proposal.
They noted that such a system would increase

compliance through transparency and inform the public of entities that
may be introducing illegal products into the marketplace. This
commenter recommends these entities be restricted from using regulated
substances as defined in the proposed rule for a set period of time,
with increasing lengths for repeated offenses, under the assumption
that repeated noncompliance is an attempt to avoid regulations and
should result in permanent use restrictions for the entity. Another
commenter suggested an option which would be a list of compliant
products. This list would aide purchasers and users in self-compliance
efforts and positively promote enforcement actions.
    Response: EPA values approaches that inform the public. Therefore,
the Agency is finalizing use of an administrative process to address
equipment that has been found to be mislabeled or lacking a proper
label and that such a process will include an electronic means of
sharing information regarding noncompliance with the public. As EPA
noted in the proposed rule, this administrative process does not
supplant or replace any enforcement action that may be available for
violations of EPA's regulations or the AIM Act. Instead, such
consequences are in addition to any applicable enforcement action.
EPA's intent in establishing labeling provisions is to support the
enforcement of prohibitions on the use of certain HFCs and blends
containing HFCs that exceed the GWP limits or are otherwise prohibited.
Not providing a label or mislabeling equipment hampers EPA's ability to
enforce those prohibitions. As an administrative process for quickly
correcting mislabeled or unlabeled equipment, EPA is finalizing the
option of creating an electronic list that would provide a list of
entities that manufacture, import, sell, distribute, or offer for sale
or distribution, or export products or specified components that have
been found to be mislabeled or lacking a proper label.
    Transparency is a significant means of ensuring compliance, as
discussed in detail in the Allocation Framework Rule (see 86 FR 55191,
October 5, 2021). EPA intends to employ similar processes for
notification and response finalized in 40 CFR part 84, subpart A. This
includes notifying the entity of the Agency's finding that a product or
specified component is mislabeled or lacking a label, and of our intent
to list them as not meeting the subsection (i) labeling provisions. The
Agency will provide 30 days from the initial notification for the
entity to respond, after which the entity would be publicly listed on
EPA's website. To be eligible for removal from the website, the entity
must submit a demonstration that the labeling issue has been resolved
along with a description of measures that the entity has put in place
to reduce the likelihood of future labeling problems. Publicizing
noncompliance could be an effective method to deter violations and
provide valuable information to consumers.
    EPA requested comment on whether there should be a standardized
process to correct missing or inaccurate labels on products, and if so,
what that process should be.
    Comment: EPA received several related comments, one commenter did
not support a standardized process for fixing labels, as they believed
that this could discourage necessary adjustments to labels from taking
place. Another commenter requested that EPA set up a standard process
for requesting new labels and certifying that they are accurate.
    Response: The Agency is not finalizing a standardized process for
correcting missing, inaccurate, or otherwise noncompliant labels in
this rule. EPA may revisit this decision in the future but at this time
does not believe that a standardized process for correcting labels is
necessary to assess compliance and allow for enforcement actions under
this rule.
    The labeling provisions are intended to support compliance with the
prohibitions on the use of high-GWP HFCs in certain sectors and
subsectors. Requiring a manufacturer or importer to affirmatively and
publicly specify the HFC being used through a label reinforces their
compliance with the limits established through this rulemaking.
Accurate labeling information also supports compliance with the limits
by allowing distributers, as well as competitors and the general
public, to assess whether a product uses a compliant HFC. The labeling
and packaging requirements may also ease inspection by EPA and CBP and
facilitate efforts to prevent the import or manufacture of noncompliant
products. Clearly and visibly identifying the HFC, or blend containing
an HFC, used provides one mechanism for inspectors to quickly identify
noncompliant products and/or identify products for further inspection.
    As a secondary consideration, the information on the labels and
packaging materials can provide consumers with information about
whether a product uses an HFC or blend containing an HFC. This
information may alter consumer purchasing choices and could increase
market pressure for the transition away from products that use HFCs.

VIII. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?

    EPA is establishing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
any entity that domestically manufactures or imports products or
specified components that use or are intended to use regulated
substances or blends containing a regulated substance in the sectors
and subsectors covered in this rulemaking. As with labeling, this
requirement applies regardless of the GWP of the HFC or HFC blend used
or intended to be used.
    EPA is not finalizing the proposed reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the installation of field-charged systems in this
rulemaking. The Agency may seek to establish reporting and/or
recordkeeping for installed systems in a future rulemaking under the
AIM Act. The proposed rule included both reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for importers and domestic manufacturers of products,
which as defined in the proposal was inclusive of field-charged
systems. The proposed rule also included an exemption for field
technicians or installers of systems from such requirements.
    A subset of the entities subject to these reporting requirements
currently report under subpart QQ of the GHGRP.\164\ The GHGRP covers
the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and supplies from
certain facilities and suppliers. To meet the needs of this final rule
without unnecessarily increasing the administrative burden to those
entities that would be subject to both subpart QQ of 40 CFR part 98 and
this rulemaking, to the extent possible, EPA is aligning with the data
elements and reporting schedule collected by the GHGRP subpart QQ.
However, both subparts apply, and the reporter is expected to meet the
requirements codified under both subparts.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    While many of the reporting elements overlap with those of the
GHGRP, the scope of the reporting universes is different in a few
important ways. First, this rule applies to both domestic manufacturers
and importers, whereas the GHGRP applies to importers and exporters.
Second, this rule requires reporting from all manufacturers and

importers of products and specified components regardless of the volume
of HFCs within those products. In contrast, the GHGRP excludes entities
that import and export less than 25,000 MTCO2e per year
\166\ (and are not otherwise required to report under 40 CFR part 98).
Third, this rule requires reporting from manufacturers and importers of
aerosol and aerosol solvent products containing HFCs which do not
report under the GHGRP. Requiring all entities to report is important
for understanding how HFCs are being used or are intended for use in
products and specified components and provides important information
for verifying compliance and allowing for better oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is requiring covered entities to register and report
electronically.\167\ EPA intends to limit to the extent practicable
duplicative burden between the AIM Act and the GHGRP and plans to use a
mechanism to synchronize these systems similar to the Agency's efforts
under the HFC Allocation program. Entities already subject to reporting
under 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ may need to comply with the reporting
requirements of this rule but should not need to duplicate their
efforts. Where there is overlap in requested data, EPA intends to
internally direct data to the appropriate Agency data systems to reduce
duplicative burden as much as possible for reporters that fall under
this rule and under GHGRP subpart QQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ E-GGRT is EPA's electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
for certain sources and suppliers of GHGs in the United States to
report GHG emissions (https://ghgreporting.epa.gov/ghg/login.do).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Agency received several comments with concerns about
the proposed approach to require manufacturers and importers to report
for field-charged systems. Some commenters indicated that these
requirements would result in duplicative reporting, with EPA receiving
reports for both components of systems and the completed system.
Additionally, some commenters indicated that data would be inaccurate,
as the manufacturers and importers would often have no way of knowing
the total volume of refrigerant charged in the field. Instead, one
commenter indicated that the reporting would be more accurate if it
occurred after the system is installed and charged as opposed to having
manufacturers or importers estimate an expected charge of a system,
which could be changed by numerous factors during installation.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that it is impractical for
manufacturers and importers to report on intended uses that they may
not know about. Reports for systems are most useful and effective for
ensuring compliance, allowing for enforcement, and understanding HFC
use when they are fully accurate and reflect how HFCs are being used.
As a result, in this rule, the Agency is focusing the reporting on the
information that can be known by the domestic manufacturer and importer
of products and specified components and is not finalizing a
requirement for reporting for systems prior to or upon their
installation.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for electronic
reporting and for the Technology Transitions program utilizing the
existing e-GGRT platform, which is used by reporters subject to the
GHGRP requirements codified under part 98, as regulated entities have
familiarity, access, and confidence in the system.
    Response: EPA determined it could meet its goals under subsection
(i) of the AIM Act while using an existing platform that was already
familiar to many of the reporters. The Agency maintains that if in the
future, it cannot meet the needs of subsection (i) with existing
reporting mechanisms, EPA may require use of a different data system.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA not create any new
recordkeeping and reporting requirements outside of what is already
covered in subpart QQ of the GHGRP, and by other EPA requirements, such
as the requirements overseen by the Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
    Response: EPA is mindful of the various reporting requirements
across the Agency and has taken an approach to minimize duplicative
reporting where possible, but notes that the scope and purpose of this
rulemaking is separate from those regulations promulgated under
different statutory authorities for different programmatic goals. The
reporting and recordkeeping provisions specific to this rule are
necessary to implement and enforce subsection (i) of the AIM Act, which
directs EPA to restrict the use of HFCs in the sector or subsector in
which they are used. The broader scope of reporting in this rule allows
EPA to assess the threshold question of identifying which sectors or
subsectors use HFCs, which HFCs, and in what quantities, in order to
inform its decision-making under subsection (i) to act on petitions and
promulgate rules to facilitate the transition of sectors and subsectors
away from those HFCs.

A. What reporting is EPA requiring?

    Covered entities in the refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat
pump sector must provide annual reports to EPA that include: (1) The
subsector of the product or specified component based on the
categorization in this rulemaking; (2) for each type of equipment with
a unique combination of charge size and regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance, the identity of the HFC or HFC blend
used, charge size (including holding charge or no charge, if
applicable), and number of each product type domestically manufactured,
imported, or exported; and (3) for each item in (2) in this list, the
total mass in metric tons of each HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used
in the product type, and the mass of the regulated substance, or blend
containing a regulated substance, per unit of equipment type.
Additionally, for products within the refrigeration, air-conditioning,
and heat pump sector that include closed-cell foams that contain HFCs,
the reporter must also provide; (1) the identity of the HFC or HFC
blend contained in the foam, (2) the mass of the HFC or HFC blend
contained in the foam in each product, and (3) the number of products
manufactured, imported, or exported with each unique combination of
mass and identity of HFC or HFC blend within the closed-cell foams.
    Covered entities in the aerosols sector must provide annual reports
to EPA that include: (1) The subsector of the product based on the
categorization in this rulemaking; (2) for each type of product with a
unique regulated substance or combination of regulated substances, the
identity of the HFC(s) used, and if multiple HFCs are used, their
percentages, and number of each product type domestically manufactured,
imported, or exported; and (3) for each item in (2) in this list, the
total mass in metric tons of each HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used
in the product type, and the mass of the regulated substance, or blend
containing a regulated substance, per unit of product type.
    Covered entities in the foam sector must provide annual reports to
EPA that include: (1) The subsector of the product based on the
categorization in this rulemaking; (2) for each type of product with a
unique regulated substance, or blend containing a regulated substance,
the identity of the HFC or HFC blend used, and the total volume of each
manufactured foam product type; and the number of foam products (e.g.,
polyols) type domestically manufactured, imported,

or exported; and (3) for each item in (2) in this list, the total mass
in metric tons of each HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used in the
product type, and the mass of the regulated substance, or blend
containing a regulated substance, per unit of product type.
    For the requirement to report the total mass in metric tons of each
HFC, or blend containing an HFC, used in the relevant products and
specified components in the RACHP and aerosols sectors, but excluding
those in the foam blowing sector, reporters shall use the following
equation:

I = [Sigma3]t St x Nt x 0.001

where:

I = Total mass of the regulated substance or blend containing a
regulated substance (metric tons) in all products the reporter
imports and/or domestically manufacturers annually.
t = Equipment/product type using a regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance.
St = Mass of the regulated substance or blend containing
a regulated substance per unit of equipment type t (charge per piece
of equipment, kg).
Nt = Number of units of equipment type t imported or
domestically manufactured annually (pieces of equipment).
0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons.

    For the RACHP sector, and for those foams that are an integrated
part of a product (e.g., the foam in a household refrigerator or
freezer), St shall be the mass of the regulated substance,
or blend containing a regulated substance, in the foam used as part of
the product, and all other factors in the equation above shall remain
the same.
    For containers or foam blowing products (e.g., polyols) which
contain foam blowing agent, and are intended for use to blow foam,
St shall be the mass of the regulated substance, or blend
containing a regulated substance, in the container or foam blowing
product, and all other factors in the equation above shall remain the
same.
    For those foams that are considered the product itself (e.g.,
extruded polystyrene boardstock), St shall be the density of
the regulated substance, or blend containing a regulated substance, in
foam (amount per cubic foot of foam, kg of regulated substance per
cubic foot), Nt shall be the total volume of foam imported
or domestically manufactured annually (cubic feet of foam), and all
other factors in the equation above shall remain the same.
    This equation is used in 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ for imports and
exports of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams that contain a
fluorinated GHG, as defined under 40 CFR part 98, and is already in use
and familiar to those currently subject to reporting under subpart QQ.
    EPA is also requiring that all entities subject to the reporting
requirements in this rule provide necessary identifying information to
EPA that includes: (1) The name of the importer or manufacturer, and
the physical street address including city, State, and zip code; (2)
the year covered under the report; (3) the date of submittal; (4) a
signed and dated certification statement provided by the designated
representative of the owner or operator; and (5) NAICS code(s) that
apply.
    As proposed, EPA is requiring that reports be signed and attested.
Entities subject to the proposed reporting requirements must provide a
statement of certification that the data they provide are accurate.
Reporters must also certify that their products use only allowed HFCs,
do not exceed any applicable GWP limit, and are properly labeled.
    For equipment that is shipped without an HFC but is intended to use
an HFC (e.g., dry-shipped specified components of a field-charged
system), EPA is requiring that the manufacturer or importer report on
(1) the sector and subsector of the equipment based on the
categorization in this rulemaking, if known; (2) the number of units,
by unique combination of intended charge size and HFC; (3) the HFC or
HFC blend intended to be used in the sector and subsector; and (4) the
expected quantity of HFC or HFC blend that the equipment would contain
when fully charged.
    Requiring reporting from entities that are manufacturing or
importing equipment that is intended for but does not contain HFCs or
HFC blends will provide EPA with the full universe of relevant uses of
HFCs or HFC blends in the covered sectors and subsectors including the
quantity and type of HFCs used. It will allow the Agency to identify
the entities that manufacture and import this equipment and support
EPA's efforts to assess compliance. EPA seeks to ensure a level playing
field for the regulated community and views reporting as a central
mechanism for ensuring compliant companies are not placed at a
competitive disadvantage. Importers and manufacturers who fail to
report required information or provide inaccurate information would be
considered in violation.
    In addition to the required reporting elements being finalized, EPA
had proposed that reporters provide (1) the GWP of the HFC or HFC blend
used or intended for use in the products and (2) the date of
manufacture or import. EPA is not finalizing requirements for either of
these proposed reporting elements. First, EPA has the ability to
calculate GWPs for provided HFCs and HFC blends. Removing this
requirement will prevent unintentional reporting errors due to
inaccurate GWP calculations, particularly as the AIM Act directs EPA to
use values that are equivalent to AR4 values, whereas other entities
may calculate GWPs differently. Second, EPA is removing the requirement
to report the exact date of manufacture or import as a necessary data
element.
    Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about the Agency's
proposal to include date of manufacture or import in the reports. The
commenters described this requirement as being unjustifiably burdensome
and indicated that it would provide little to no value for assessing
compliance.
    Response: EPA is mindful of the time and resources that reporters
dedicate to fulfilling reporting requirements. Based on a review of the
comments, EPA reconsidered and determined that the specific dates of
import or manufacture will not be necessary. For other regulatory
programs, knowing the specific day of import has utility in assessing
compliance (e.g., for imports of bulk HFCs in accordance with the HFC
Allocation program), but knowing the specific day that a product was
manufactured or imported would not provide significant additional value
to the Agency's understanding of the market transition from using high-
GWP HFCs. EPA is therefore removing these two data elements, GWP and
date of import or manufacture from finalized reporting requirements.
Because EPA is finalizing annual reporting, these reports would
necessarily capture imports and production from a specific calendar
year.
    Comment: Numerous commenters requested that the Agency limit
reporting to aggregated use of HFCs in equipment. These commenters
raised concern about the detail requested in the reports and indicated
that reporting more detailed information than a summary of the
aggregated use of each chemical by subsector would be highly burdensome
and costly for the reporters. EPA interprets ``bulk use of HFCs'' to
mean reporting aggregated data, not the reporters' purchases of bulk
HFCs as defined in subpart A of this part.\168\

Reporting ``bulk use of HFCs'' would not be sufficient for ensuring
compliance and allowing for enforcement of subsection (i). The Agency
must have enough information in the reports to assess if the products
and equipment are being reported in the correct subsector and that they
meet all the specifications related to the restrictions. For instance,
for certain products the GWP limit changes based on factors such as
charge size. If reporters do not provide information related to the
charge size of the products, it will not be possible for the Agency to
assess market demand and other relevant aspects for the Technology
Transitions program. Additionally, the specific level of data requested
is in alignment with data already submitted under GHGRP and has been
required for over a decade. As a result, the Agency disagrees with the
commenters' assertion that the level of detail requested will be highly
burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Under 40 CFR 84.3, EPA has defined bulk as it relates to
HFCs as ``a regulated substance of any amount that is in a container
for the transportation or storage of that substance such as
cylinders, drums, ISO tanks, and small cans. A regulated substance
that must first be transferred from a container to another
container, vessel, or piece of equipment in order to realize its
intended use is a bulk substance. A regulated substance contained in
a manufactured product such as an appliance, an aerosol can, or a
foam is not a bulk substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters noted that the public release of
certain data elements, such as information related to production and
sales volumes and GWPs of proprietary blends for foams, could result in
financial damage to companies. Commenters requested that EPA use a
confidential platform, such as e-GGRT, for reporting and ensure that
the data collected are properly secured and Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is treated as such.
    Additional commenters noted that aggregated data could be released
publicly by the Agency. One commenter noted that Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act provides that `emission data' shall be publicly available
and cannot be withheld from the public as confidential information. The
commenter also noted that EPA has long-standing regulations that define
`emission data' expansively to include `a description of the device,
installation, or operation constituting the source' of those emissions.
    Response: The Agency understands the need to properly manage and
secure CBI and is mindful of the concerns around specific data elements
being released and will ensure that appropriate protections are in
place for such data collected under this rulemaking. The Agency also
agrees that there is substantial value in sharing reported data with
the public. EPA plans to publicly share aggregated data collected under
this rule through reports, or other public-facing material. EPA intends
to protect CBI by aggregating data in public reports as well as
implementing data reporting and management platforms appropriate for
handling CBI.
1. What is the frequency and timing of reporting?
    EPA is requiring annual reporting from domestic manufacturers and
importers subject to the reporting requirements. EPA had proposed
quarterly reporting to allow the Agency to review data throughout the
year to identify trends and noncompliance on an ongoing basis.
Quarterly reporting is also consistent with other reporting under the
Allocation Framework Rule. EPA is requiring that reports be submitted
to the Agency within 90 days of the end of the reporting period, rather
than 45 days as proposed.
    Comment: EPA received significant comment in opposition to the
proposed reporting frequency. Most commenters requested that the Agency
instead finalize annual reporting. These commenters indicated that
quarterly reporting would be overly burdensome and costly for reporters
and requested annual reporting as a more feasible frequency. The
commenters stated that quarterly reporting would be cumbersome for the
Agency, and they did not believe it would provide greater clarity on
the total impact of the HFC phasedown than annual reports and would not
be necessary to ensure compliance with this rule. Commenters also noted
that annual reporting is sufficient under other reporting programs
across the Agency, such as the GHGRP. Additionally, some commenters
raised concerns about the costs associated with quarterly reporting
disproportionately harming small businesses. Some commenters were
supportive of quarterly reporting as they believed it would allow EPA
to spot trends faster than annual reporting and noted that it is
consistent with other reporting requirements under the AIM Act.
    Response: After taking into consideration the information submitted
in the comments on the proposed reporting frequency, EPA has decided
that annual reporting will be sufficient for the Agency's purposes and
will be less burdensome to regulated entities. While EPA agrees that
quarterly reporting could allow for more detailed trends analyses and
is consistent with other AIM Act reporting such as for imports of bulk
HFCs, EPA agrees with commenters that annual reports will provide the
information necessary for the Agency to meet the goals of the
Technology Transitions program and should assist with compliance of
this rule. The Agency will be able to react to reports in a meaningful
way with information collected on an annual basis. If as implementation
on subsection (i) continues, the Agency determines that more frequent
reporting is necessary, EPA would propose a change in reporting
frequency. At this time, the Agency views annual reporting to be a
reasonable timeframe that would meet the Agency's information need and
would be less burdensome than quarterly reporting. Therefore, the
Agency is finalizing annual reporting.
    Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about their ability to
submit reports within 45 days. These commenters stated that 45 days was
not sufficient time to compile and report the necessary data. The
commenters also noted that this is significantly shorter than the 90-
day requirement in subpart QQ of the GHGRP and requested that EPA allow
reporters 90 days to submit their reports. Commenters mentioned that
the longer timeline has been proven to be sufficient in the GHGRP and
that aligning these timelines would be beneficial for those that report
under both programs. One commenter explicitly supported the 45-day
reporting requirement.
    Response: EPA is mindful of the need for reporters to have
sufficient time to compile and submit accurate and timely data. The
Agency is also seeking to reduce burden by aligning with other existing
requirements. EPA proposed 45 days to match the timing of reports for
the production and import of bulk HFCs under the Allocation Framework
Rules. However, EPA finds it more appropriate to align with the
reporting schedule of the GHGRP given the greater overlap of reporters
between this rule and that program.
    EPA requested comment on whether to require reporters to provide
notification to the Agency prior to an import. EPA is not finalizing
such a requirement.
    Comment: Some commenters indicted that pre-notification for
imported products could result in delayed shipments, could strain
supply chains, and negatively impact price stability and product
availability. These commenters believe that a pre-notification system
would not increase compliance or enhance enforcement efforts.
    Response: While EPA considers pre-notification to be an important
tool that EPA uses in a range of situations, the Agency agrees that for
the purposes of implementing the Technology Transitions program under
subsection (i) it is not necessary for EPA to require pre-notification
at this time. EPA understands the concerns raised with regard to the
timely import of compliant products; however, EPA has effectively used
pre-notification processes with

other programs and does not consider pre-notification to create
barriers to timely imports. Pre-notification can be useful for ensuring
compliance at the point of import.
2. When do reporters need to begin reporting?
    The Agency received a request for clarity regarding the compliance
date for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. A commenter
asked when EPA would consider the start date for reporting to be. The
proposed rule did not clearly specify when the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements would begin to apply.
    EPA is requiring that the reporting period for all sectors and
subsectors start on January 1, 2025. This means that the first reports
must be submitted to the Agency by March 31, 2026. Starting the
reporting period on the same day for all sectors and subsectors will
allow the Agency to monitor the full scope of the transition resulting
from this rule. For subsectors with initial restrictions starting on
January 1, 2025, the start date to the reporting period is needed to
ensure compliance with the active restrictions. Reporting data provided
from subsectors with restrictions starting after January 1, 2025, will
provide valuable data to help EPA assess the use of HFCs in subsectors
prior to the compliance restrictions. This information will be helpful
to the Agency in its efforts to better understand the landscape of HFC
use across the country, and it will also allow for proactive efforts by
the Agency to ensure that subsectors are adequately preparing for the
transition to lower GWP HFCs.

B. What recordkeeping is EPA requiring?

    EPA is requiring that entities that import or domestically
manufacture products or specified components that use or are intended
to use a regulated substance in the sectors and subsectors covered by
this rule maintain records that form the basis of the reporting
requirements. These entities must retain records for a minimum of three
years and make them available to EPA upon request. The importer or
domestic manufacturer must also retain records of the company or
retailer to whom the product or specified component was sold,
distributed, or in any way conveyed to. Information regarding where
products and specified components have been distributed, sold, or
conveyed to after import or manufacture may be necessary for tracking
noncompliant equipment when it is identified and removing it from the
market.
    In addition, EPA is requiring that importers retain the following
records substantiating each of their imports: (1) A copy of the bill of
lading for the import, (2) the invoice for the import, (3) the CBP
entry documentation if applicable, (4) ports of arrival and entry
through which the products passed, and (5) country of origin and if
different the country of shipment to the United States. These
provisions are consistent with the recordkeeping required for the
subset of importers subject to subpart QQ of the GHGRP and will allow
EPA to enforce the restrictions by tracking the movement and sources of
noncompliant products when they are identified.
    Comment: Numerous commenters supported the proposed recordkeeping
requirements. These commenters indicated that retaining records for a
period of three years is manageable for industry and requested that no
additional data other than the items proposed be required for the
purposes of recordkeeping. One commenter supported a recordkeeping
period of five years instead of three years, as five years would align
with the retention period of the HFC Framework rule.
    Response: The Agency agrees that there may be benefits to aligning
with the five-year retention period under the HFC Framework. However,
EPA notes that a requirement to retain records for three years is
common practice across other programs at EPA and we consider it will be
sufficient for ensuring compliance and allowing for enforcement actions
under this rule. Covered entities may choose to retain records longer
and may have other reasons why doing so is beneficial. However, EPA is
only requiring records be retained for three years.
    Comment: Several commenters requested the Agency clarify the
requirement that the importer or domestic manufacturer must retain
records of the company or retailer to whom the product was sold,
distributed, or in any way conveyed to. These commenters noted that
manufacturers and importers often do not know the end purchaser of a
product and requested that EPA clarify that manufacturers and importers
are not required to keep records of all sales throughout the
distribution chain.
    Response: EPA is clarifying that this requirement only applies to
the initial sale, distribution, or conveyance from the domestic
manufacturer or importer to another entity. The Agency understands the
complexity of distribution channels and does not intend for the
manufacturer or importer to be required to retain records beyond the
first conveyance.

IX. What are the costs and benefits of this action?

    EPA estimated the costs and benefits of restricting HFCs consistent
with this final rule. This analysis, presented in the RIA addendum
contained in the docket, is intended to provide the public with
information on the relevant costs and benefits of this action and to
comply with executive orders. To the extent that EPA has relied upon
costs and benefits estimates for purposes of analyzing factors under
subsection (i)(4), as discussed in sections VI.E and VI.F of this
preamble, EPA has summarized those estimates in the Costs and
Environmental Impacts TSD.
    The RIA addendum also includes estimates of the social cost of HFCs
in order to quantify climate benefits, chiefly for the purpose of
providing useful information to the public and to comply with Executive
Order 12866. Although EPA estimated the social costs of HFCs for
purposes of that assessment, this action does not rely on these costs
as a record basis for the Agency action, and EPA would reach the
conclusions of this final rule in the absence of the social costs of
HFCs.

A. Assessment of costs and additional benefits utilizing transition
options

    The RIA addendum follows a methodology that is consistent with the
costs and benefits analysis of the Allocation Framework RIA, released
in 2021, and the Addendum to that RIA accompanying the 2024 Allocation
Rule. In the Allocation Framework RIA and that Addendum, EPA calculates
costs and benefits using a marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve to
evaluate the availability and cost of abatement required to meet the
AIM Act phasedown caps for production and consumption. Similarly, for
this rulemaking, EPA quantified the costs associated with the
transitions necessary for compliance, but based on the sector- and
subsector-specific restrictions finalized in this rule as opposed to an
overall production and consumption cap. Both approaches, as discussed
in the RIA and this RIA addendum, respectively, also quantify the
monetized climate benefits associated with the reduction in emissions
over time as a result of decreased consumption of regulated
substances.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Because the phasedown in HFC consumption and production has already
been codified under the Allocation Framework Rule, with further changes
under the 2024 Allocation Rule, the full extent of consumption and
emissions reductions as well as associated costs (or cost savings)
estimated for this rule are not considered additional. Therefore, in
calculating the impacts from this rule, we calculate the
``incremental'' costs and environmental impacts (either increased or
decreased) relative to those previously estimated for the Allocation
Framework Rule as updated by the 2024 Allocation Rule RIA Addendum.
    EPA estimates that this rule will have incremental benefits
relative to those assessed for the Allocation Rules, although--as
discussed in the RIA addendum and the Costs and Environmental Impacts
TSD--the extent of these benefits varies depending on the mix and
timing of industry transitions made in order to achieve compliance in
the affected sectors and subsectors. In its analysis of the Allocation
Rules, EPA estimated that regulated entities would adopt specific
technology transition options to achieve compliance with the statutory
allowance cap step-downs. Industry is already making many of these
transitions, and we expect that achieving the allowance cap step-downs
will require many of the same subsector-specific technology transitions
that are required by this rule. However, this rule may in some cases
require regulated entities to further accelerate transitions in
specific subsectors, relative to what EPA previously assumed in its
analysis of the Allocation Rules. Conversely, entities in a discrete
set of subsectors not covered by this rule could conceivably forgo or
delay adopting abatement options that were assumed to be undertaken to
comply with the Allocation Rules.
    Given this uncertainty, EPA analyzed two scenarios to represent the
range of potential incremental impacts resulting from this rule: a
``base case'' and ``high additionality case.'' Based on this approach,
EPA estimates average annual incremental HFC emissions and consumption
reductions from 2025-2050 of approximately 3 to 34 MMTCO2e
and 28 to 43 MMTCO2e, respectively. The annual incremental
consumption and emissions avoided are shown in Table 5 for select years
as well as on a cumulative basis.

  Table 5-Incremental Consumption and Emission Reductions, Relative to Allocation Rule Reference Case 2025-2050
                                                    [MMTCO2e]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Consumption reductions            Emission reductions
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                                             High                            High
                                                     Base case     additionality     Base case     additionality
                                                                       case                            case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................              -5              30             -54               7
2030............................................              23              50             -15              33
2035............................................              38              49               3              44
2040............................................              22              30              25              38
2045............................................              37              45              28              37
2050............................................              39              47              32              40
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Cumulative total............................             720           1,113              83             876
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the climate benefits associated with consumption
abatement, the consumption changes are expressed in terms of emission
reductions. Emissions avoided in each year can be less than the
consumption avoided in the same year because of the delay between when
an HFC is produced or imported and when it is emitted to the
atmosphere.
    As noted above, the base case scenario of incremental benefits
shows overall emission reductions over the full-time horizon for
implementation. However, the incremental emission reductions under the
transition pathway evaluated for this rule are in some cases assumed to
be more gradual than those EPA previously estimated to occur with
implementation of the Allocation Rules. This is primarily because (1)
the base case does not include certain actions to reduce consumption
(and, consequently, reduce emissions) previously assumed in the
Allocation Framework Rule reference case, including increased leak
reduction and enhanced recovery of HFCs, and (2) the assumed timing of
emission reductions achieved or forgone differs depending on assumed
equipment lifetime and the subsector and technology being modeled.
Overall, the abatement options analyzed for compliance with this rule
result in more consumption reductions on a cumulative basis; however,
some of the emission reductions come at a later time than the emission
reductions from the Allocation Framework Rule reference case. As a
result, when compared to the analysis of the Allocation Rules, the base
case scenario results in slightly higher emissions in earlier model
years while yielding greater emission reductions in later years and
overall.
    Although the base case scenario is a reasonable projection of the
potential impacts of this rule, there is reason to believe that it is a
conservative one, and that the incremental emission reduction benefits
associated with this rule could be substantially greater than reflected
in the base case scenario. Previous regulatory programs to reduce
chemical use in the affected industries show that regulated entities do
not limit their response to the required compliance level; rather,
regulated entities may take additional actions that transform industry
practices for various reasons, including the anticipation of future
restrictions, strengthening their competitive position, and supporting
overall environmental goals. The industries affected by this rule have
historically reached compliance with chemical phaseouts ahead of
schedule. For instance, with a 1996 phaseout of CFCs, nearly all home
refrigerators and motor vehicle air conditioners had transitioned from
CFC-12 to HFC-134a by 1994. Likewise, with a 2010 phaseout of HCFC-22
for new equipment, air conditioners using R-410A were available more
than 10 years earlier than required. For this reason, in the high
additionality case we assumed certain abatement options not covered by
this rule--but which were assumed in the prior accounting of benefits
for the

Allocation Rules--are also included to illustrate the potential for