lower-GWP substitutes are currently available in both U.S. and
international markets. Specifically, in the United States, scroll,
other positive displacement, and centrifugal chillers using HCFO-
1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-32, R-454B, R-513A, R-514A, and R-515B
are commercially available. Under the SNAP program, EPA recently
proposed to expand the list of substitutes listed as acceptable for
chillers, and EPA anticipates these substitutes could be used as
substitutes to higher-GWP HFCs and blends containing HFCs.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See proposed SNAP Rule 25. EPA has proposed listing R-454A
(GWP 237), R-454B (GWP 465), R-452B (GWP 698), and HFC-32 (GWP 675)
as acceptable for chillers--comfort cooling (87 FR 45508, July 28,
2022).

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

    What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
chillers--industrial process refrigeration?
    EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for chillers--industrial process
refrigeration beginning January 1, 2025. This proposed GWP limit would
apply to new equipment, except for new equipment where the temperature
of the chilled fluid leaving the chiller (i.e., the supply temperature
to the facility) is less than -58 [deg]F (-50 [deg]C). These lower
temperature units are excluded from this proposal.
    For its consideration of the availability of substitutes under
subsection (i)(4)(B), EPA identified substitutes that are available in
place of the substances that EPA is proposing to restrict. These
include R-717 (GWP 0), R-744 (GWP 1), R-1270 (GWP 2), R-290 (GWP 3), R-
600 (GWP 4), R-450A (GWP 601), and R-513A (GWP 630). Chillers for IPR
that use lower-GWP substitutes are currently available in both U.S. and
international markets. In the United States, chillers for IPR using R-
717, R-290, R-744, and R-513A are all available on the market.
Internationally, equipment using R-1270 is available as well.
    The proposed GWP limit of 700 for chillers for IPR would enable the
use of available substitutes to manage safety (in particular,
flammability and toxicity), efficiency, capacity, temperature glide,
and other performance factors. In evaluating safety in terms of
availability of substitutes for chillers for IPR, EPA notes there may
be situations in which the use of hydrocarbons or R-717 may be limited
due to safety concerns around flammability and toxicity risks and
therefore is proposing a GWP limit that expands the number of
refrigerant options for this subsector.
    On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
700 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in new
chillers--comfort cooling and chillers--IPR. For consideration in a
subsequent rulemaking, EPA is seeking comment on a lower GWP limit to
propose for both subsectors. EPA is also seeking comment on its
subdivision of the chiller subsector.
i. Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps
Background on Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and
Heat Pumps
    The residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps subsector includes equipment for cooling air in individual rooms,
single-family homes, and small commercial buildings. Heat pumps are
equipment types that heat, or have the option to either cool or heat,
air for such locations. This subsector differs from commercial comfort
air conditioning, which uses chillers that cool water that is then used
to cool air throughout a large commercial building, such as an office
building or hotel. The residential and light commercial air
conditioning and heat pumps subsector includes both self-contained and
split systems. Self-contained systems include some rooftop AC units
(e.g., those ducted to supply conditioned air to multiple spaces) and
many types of room ACs, including packaged terminal air conditioners
(PTACs), packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), some rooftop AC units,
window AC units, portable room AC units, and wall-mounted self-
contained ACs, designed for use in a single room. Split systems include
ducted and non-ducted mini-splits (which might also be designed for use
in a single room), multi-splits and variable refrigerant flow (VRF)
systems, and ducted unitary splits. Water-source and ground-source heat
pumps often are packaged systems similar to the self-contained
equipment described in this section above but could be applied with the
condenser separated from the other components, similar to split
systems. Examples of equipment for residential and light commercial AC
and heat pumps include the following:
     Central air conditioners, also called unitary AC or
unitary split systems. These systems include an outdoor unit with a
condenser and a compressor, refrigerant lines, an indoor unit with an
evaporator, and ducts to carry cooled air throughout a building.
Central heat pumps are similar but offer the choice to either heat or
cool the indoor space;
     Multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps. These systems
include one or more outdoor unit(s) with a condenser and a compressor
and multiple indoor units, each of which is connected to the outdoor
unit by refrigerant lines. Non-ducted multi-splits provide cooled or
heated air directly from the indoor unit rather than providing the air
through ducts;
     Mini-split air conditioners and heat pumps. These systems
include an outdoor unit with a condenser and a compressor and a single
indoor unit that is connected to the outdoor unit by refrigerant lines.
Non-ducted mini-splits provide cooled or heated air directly from the
indoor unit rather than being carried through ducts;
     Rooftop AC units. These are units that combine the
compressor, condenser, evaporator, and a fan for ventilation in a
single package and may contain additional components for filtration and
dehumidification. Most units also include dampers to control air
intake. Rooftop AC units cool or heat outside air that is then
delivered to the space directly through the ceiling or through a duct
network. Rooftop AC units are common in small commercial buildings such
as a single store in a mall with no indoor passageways between stores.
They can also be set up in an array to provide cooling or heating
throughout a larger commercial establishment such as a department store
or supermarket;
     Window air conditioners. These are self-contained units
that fit in a window with the condenser extending outside the window;
     PTACs and PTHPs. These are self-contained units that
consist of a separate, un-encased combination of heating and cooling
assemblies mounted through a wall. PTACs and PTHPs are intended for use
in a single room and do not use ducts to carry cooled air or have
external refrigerant lines. Typical applications include motel or
dormitory air conditioners;
     Portable room air conditioners. These are self-contained
units that are designed to be moved easily from room to room, usually
having wheels. They may contain an exhaust hose that can be placed
through a window or door to eject heat to the outside;
     Water-source heat pumps (WSHPs) and ground-source heat
pumps (GSHPs). These are similar to unitary split systems except that
heat is ejected (when in cooling mode) from the condenser through a
second circuit rather than directly with outside air. The second
circuit transfers the heat to the ground, groundwater, or another body
of water such as a lake using water, or a brine if temperatures would
risk freezing. Some systems can perform heating in a similar matter
with the refrigerant circuit running in reverse; regardless, the term
``heat pump'' is most often used; and
     Variable refrigerant flow/variable refrigerant volume
systems. These are engineered direct expansion (DX) multi-split systems
incorporating the following: a split system air-conditioner or heat
pump incorporating a single

refrigerant circuit that is a common piping network to two or more
indoor evaporators each capable of independent control, or compressor
units. VRF systems contain a single module outdoor unit or combined
module outdoor units with at least one variable capacity compressor
that has three or more stages, with air or water as the heat source.
    All of these types of air-conditioning equipment would be subject
to the restrictions on the use of HFCs under this proposal, if
finalized.
    Common HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in mini-splits, multi-
splits, unitary splits, and VRF are R-410A and to a lesser extent, R-
407C, with GWPs of 2,090 and 1,770, respectively. Residential split
systems are commonly shipped with a refrigerant charge that is then
``balanced'' by the technician once the equipment is installed in its
place of use. Larger commercial sized units often are not pre-charged
with refrigerant but may contain a nitrogen ``holding charge'' for
shipping.
    Other types of equipment, such as window air conditioners, PTACs,
PTHPs, rooftop AC units, portable room air conditioners, and often
GSHPs and WSHPs, are self-contained equipment with the condenser,
compressor, evaporator, and tubing all within casing in a single unit.
Such self-contained equipment is generally charged with refrigerant in
a factory and later installed in its place of use. Common HFCs and
blends containing HFCs used in such equipment include R-410A and R-
134a.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat
Pumps
    EPA granted petitions submitted by EIA, AHRI, CARB, and AHAM which
requested restrictions on the use of HFCs in the residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pump subsector. EIA's petition
refers to this category as ``residential and non-residential''; AHRI
refers to this category as ``residential and light commercial''; and
CARB, in its recently finalized regulation, refers to the ``specific
end-uses'' of ``room/wall/window air-conditioning equipment, PTACs,
PTHPs, portable air-conditioning equipment,'' and ``other air-
conditioning (new) equipment, residential and nonresidential.'' \121\
AHAM did not refer to this category in general but rather specifically
requested restrictions on the use of HFCs for room ACs with and without
electric heat and a capacity of 25,000 Btu/hr or less and for portable
ACs. For the purposes of this action, EPA is considering this equipment
under the subsector ``residential and light commercial air conditioning
and heat pumps.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ California Code of Regulations, Prohibitions on Use of
Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Stationary Refrigeration, Stationary
Air-conditioning, and Other End-uses. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hfc2020/frorevised.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EIA, CARB, and AHRI petitions requested a GWP limit of 750 for
HFCs used in this subsector with a compliance date of January 1, 2025,
for most types of equipment and January 1, 2026, for VRF systems. CARB
also requested a 750 GWP and compliance date of January 1, 2023, for
window, room and portable ACs.
    AHAM requested a GWP limit of 750 for substances used in portable
ACs and in the two types of room ACs included in their petition, with
two separate compliance deadlines--January 1, 2023, for portable ACs
and for room ACs without electric heat and a capacity of 25,000 Btu/hr
or less and January 1, 2024, for room ACs with electric heat and a
capacity of 25,000 Btu/hr or less. AHAM requested that room AC products
with a capacity over 25,000 Btu/hr be excluded from restrictions, since
these products require charge sizes that for flammable refrigerants
would exceed the limits allowed in UL Standard 60335-2-40, are
hermetically sealed, and comprise less than 2 percent of total
shipments. Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
    What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps?
    EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for new residential and light
commercial air-conditioning units and heat pumps beginning January 1,
2025. For new VRF systems, EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs
and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater beginning
January 1, 2026.
    EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of regulated substances that
have a GWP of 700 or greater, in part, because there are multiple
lower-GWP substitutes available for use or will soon be available for
use in residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pump
applications. For example, R-452B, HFC-32, and R-454B have respective
GWPs of approximately 698, 675, and 465, respectively, and are
acceptable for use under the SNAP program. Considering the lack of
refrigerants with a GWP between 700 and 750, EPA is proposing to base
its GWP cutoff at 700 rather than at 750.
    EPA is proposing to prohibit HFCs and blends containing an HFC in
new residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps by January 1,
2025, and in new VRF systems by January 1, 2026, depending on the
specific application. January 1, 2025, is roughly three and a half
years after EPA's SNAP program issued listings allowing use of five
lower-GWP refrigerants for residential and light commercial AC and heat
pumps. Further, EPA anticipates that states will adopt the 2021 revised
versions of the International Building Code and the Residential
Building Code that allows for use of several lower-GWP refrigerants
that exhibit lower flammability (2L flammability classification). EPA
understands that by 2025 building codes may be updated or updates will
be under consideration which is relevant for some but not all of the
potential lower-GWP HFC refrigerants and other non-HFC substitutes.
Several OEMs have also indicated that they intend to switch to using
A2L refrigerants (e.g., R-454B, HFC-32) once relevant codes have been
updated to allow their use.122 123
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Turpin, J., R-454B Emerges as a Replacement for R-410A,
ACHR News, August 2020. Available at: https://www.achrnews.com/articles/143548-r-454b-emerges-as-a-replacement-for-r-410a.
    \123\ Turpin, J., Manufacturers Eye R-32 to Replace R-410A, ACHR
News, August 2020. Available at: https://www.achrnews.com/articles/143422-manufacturers-eye-r-32-to-replace-r-410a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of VRF systems, the petitioner AHRI suggested a later
date of January 1, 2026. EPA agrees that more time is required for this
subsector as these AC systems are larger and more complicated--this
additional time is needed for designing, testing, and implementing the
use of substitutes in these systems. EPA notes that California has
already adopted these dates for a transition to lower-GWP refrigerants;
thus, if EPA adopts the same dates for this subsector, this would allow
for consistency nationwide.
    On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
700 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in residential
and light commercial air-conditioning units and heat pumps and
proposing a GWP limit of 700 for VRF systems. EPA is also seeking
comment on the additional year proposed for VRF systems. Further, EPA
is seeking comment on whether the Agency should provide an exception
for room AC products with a capacity over 25,000 Btu/hr, or some other
threshold, and any issues that these products may

face in using substitutes with GWPs less than 700.
j. Residential Dehumidifiers
Background on Residential Dehumidifiers
    Residential dehumidifiers are primarily used to remove water vapor
from ambient air or directly from indoor air for comfort or material
preservation purposes in the context of the home. While AC systems
often combine cooling and dehumidification, residential dehumidifiers
only serve the latter purpose and are often used in homes for comfort
purposes. This equipment is self-contained and circulates air from a
room, passes it through a cooling coil, and collects condensed water
for disposal.
    Some dehumidifiers for residential or light commercial use are
integrated with the space air-conditioning equipment, for instance via
a separate bypass in the duct through which air is dehumidified, a
dehumidifying heat pipe across the indoor coil, or other types of
energy recovery devices that move sensible and/or latent heat between
air streams (e.g., between incoming air and air vented to the outside).
EPA includes this subsector under residential or light commercial AC
system or heat pump.
    Similar to other subsectors under residential and light commercial
AC and heat pumps, the majority of residential dehumidifiers introduced
previously used R-410A to originally replace R-22.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Residential Dehumidifiers
    EPA granted petitions submitted by CARB and AHAM which requested
restrictions on the use of HFCs for residential dehumidifiers. The CARB
petition requested a GWP limit of 750 as of January 1, 2023, for HFCs
used in this subsector. The AHAM petition also requested a GWP limit of
750 and requested a compliance date of two years after EPA approval of
HFC-32 refrigerant for dehumidifiers. EPA understands this latter
request as referring to the two years after the date that EPA finalizes
an acceptable listing for HFC-32 in residential dehumidifiers under the
SNAP program. Additional information, including the relevant petitions,
is available in the docket.
    What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for
residential dehumidifiers?
    EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 700 or greater for residential dehumidifiers
beginning January 1, 2025. This proposed GWP limit would apply to new
residential dehumidifiers.
    EPA is proposing to restrict the use of regulated substances that
have a GWP greater than 700 because there are refrigerants listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program, or refrigerants that have been
proposed to be listed as acceptable, that have GWPs of 700 or lower.
For example, R-513A with a GWP of 630 is listed as acceptable. Through
a separate rulemaking under the SNAP program, EPA has also proposed to
list as acceptable, subject to use conditions, refrigerants such as R-
452B, HFC-32, and R-454B, with respective GWPs of approximately 698,
675, and 465 (87 FR 45508, July 28, 2022).
    EPA is proposing to restrict the use of regulated substances in
residential dehumidifiers as of January 1, 2025. CARB petitioned EPA
for January 1, 2023, as the date for restrictions of HFCs for this
subsector; however, that date would not be allowable under subsection
(i)(6) of the AIM Act. AHAM's petition requested that EPA establish a
compliance date that is two years after the date that EPA would
finalize an acceptable listing for HFC-32. As noted, EPA has issued the
proposed rule and intends to finalize a rule in 2023. EPA is not tying
the proposed date for compliance with a restriction under this
subsection of the AIM Act for dehumidifiers to the timing for the
issuance of a final rule under the SNAP program. However, EPA is
proposing a date that is consistent with most other dates for
restrictions in this proposed rule; EPA is proposing restrictions on
HFCs in this subsector that would apply beginning January 1, 2025. That
said, the Agency will keep abreast of the relevant SNAP rulemakings.
    On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
700 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in residential
dehumidifiers.
k. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (MVAC)
Background on MVAC
    MVAC systems cool the passenger compartment of light-duty (LD)
vehicles, heavy-duty (HD) vehicles (e.g., large pick-ups, delivery
trucks, and semi-trucks), nonroad (also called off-road) vehicles,
buses, and passenger rail vehicles. Systems used to cool passenger
compartments in LD, HD, and nonroad vehicles are typically charged
during vehicle manufacture and the main components are connected by
flexible refrigerant lines. The vehicle types that are addressed in
this action include passenger cars (including electric and hybrid
passenger cars) and light-duty trucks,\124\ referred to jointly in this
action as LD vehicles, limited types of HD vehicles (i.e., medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPVs),\125\ HD pickup trucks, and complete HD
vans), and certain nonroad vehicles (i.e., agricultural tractors
greater than 40 HP; self-propelled agricultural machinery; compact
equipment; construction, forestry, and mining equipment; and commercial
utility vehicles (UTVs)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Defined at 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
    \125\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vehicle types covered in this proposed rule include LD, MD, and
HD hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric vehicles
(EVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).\126\ Hybrids, PHEVs and EVs are
currently a small portion of the fleet but are expected to grow
rapidly, as most manufacturers have made recent public announcements
committing to billions of dollars in research towards electrification,
and in some cases, manufacturers have announced specific targets for
entirely phasing out internal combustion
engines.127 128 129 130 For example, more than 300,000 EVs,
PHEVs, and FCVs were produced in the 2020 model year (MY).\131\ Of
those vehicles, about 78 percent were EVs, 22 percent were PHEVs, less
than 1 percent were FCVs. As more EVs are introduced into the market,
use of heat pumps will

increase to redirect heat into vehicle cabins and control temperatures.
This may lead to the development of more energy efficient, alternative
refrigerants and technologies (e.g., dual-loop systems) for EV MVAC
systems and heat pumps in electrified vehicles, similar to SAE
International's current, industry-led Cooperative Research Program
assessing alternative refrigerants for heat pumps.132 133
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Hybrid vehicles store some propulsion energy in a battery,
and often recapture braking energy, allowing for a smaller, more
efficiently operated engine. Plug-in hybrids operate similarly to
hybrids but their batteries can be charged from an external source
of electricity, and generally have a longer electric only operating
range. Electric vehicles operate only on energy stored in a battery
that is charged from an external source of electricity, and rely
exclusively on electric motors for propulsion instead of an internal
combustion engine. Fuel cell vehicles use a fuel cell stack to
create electricity from an onboard fuel source (usually hydrogen),
which then powers an electric motor or motors to propel the vehicle.
    \127\ EPA, 2021. The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013L1O.pdf.
    \128\ U.S. Department of Energy. Model Year 2022 Alternative
Fuel and Advanced Technology Vehicles. Available at: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/search/download.pdf?year=2022.
    \129\ U.S. Department of Energy. Electric Vehicle Basics.
Available at: https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/electric_vehicles.pdf.
    \130\ Preston, B., Bartlett, J. ``Automakers Are Adding Electric
Vehicles to Their Lineups. Here's What's Coming.'' Consumer Reports.
Available at: https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the-usmarket-a9006292675/.
    \131\ EPA, 2021. The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013L1O.pdf.
    \132\ Volume 1: Progress Report, Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, UNEP, September 2021. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-2021-Progress-report.pdf.
    \133\ SAE International, 2022. Thermal Management Refrigerant
Cooperative Research Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vehicle Weight Classification

                                                                             Table 5--Vehicle Weight Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Light-duty                                                          Heavy-duty vehicles
                                                      vehicles     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Class                      ------------------
                                                        1-2a            2b & MDPV             3                 4                 5                 6                 7                 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVWR (lb).......................................           <8,500      8,501-10,000     10,001-14,000     14,001-16,000     16,001-19,500     19,501-26,000     26,001-33,000           >33,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicle weight classes and categories are used by the Federal
Highway Administration, the U.S. Census Bureau, and EPA. The vehicle
weight classes are defined by the Federal Highway Administration and
are used consistently throughout the industry. These classes, 1 through
8, are based on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the maximum weight
of the vehicle, as specified by the manufacturer. GVWR includes total
vehicle weight plus fluids, passengers, and cargo. EPA defines vehicle
categories, also by GVWR, for the purposes of emissions and fuel
economy certification. As illustrated in Table 5, EPA classifies
vehicles as LD (GVWR <8,500 pounds) or HD (GVWR >8,501 pounds). MDPVs,
HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans are Class 2b and 3 vehicles with
GVWRs between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds. MDPVs are classified as HD
vehicles based on their GVWR, but due to their similarities to LD
vehicles they are subject to the GHG emissions standards established
for LD trucks.
    The HD vehicle types addressed in this action (i.e., MDPVs, HD
pickup trucks, and HD vans) are technologically similar to LD vehicles
and most are manufactured by companies with major LD markets in the
United States and in a similar manner to LD vehicles.\134\ Ford,
General Motors, and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler Automobiles)
produce approximately 100 percent of HD pickup trucks and approximately
95 percent of HD vans, with Mercedes-Benz (formerly Daimler) and Nissan
producing the remaining approximately five percent of HD vans.\135\ In
many cases, these types of HD vehicles are versions of their LD
counterparts.136 137 The primary difference between HD
pickup trucks and vans and their LD counterpart vehicles is that HD
pickups and vans are occupational or work vehicles that are designed
for much higher towing and payload capabilities than are LD pickups and
vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ This is more broadly true for HD pickup trucks than vans
because every manufacturer of HD pickup trucks also makes LD pickup
trucks, while only some HD van manufacturers also make LD vans. (80
FR 40148, July 13, 2015).
    \135\ EPA, 2016. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Rulemaking
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2. August 2016.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100P7NS.PDF?Dockey=P100P7NS.PDF.
    \136\ ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation:
Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van
Efficiency Technology in the United States. Available at: https://theicct.org/publication/regulatory-considerations-for-advancing-commercial-pickup-and-van-efficiency-technology-in-the-united-states/.
    \137\ U.S. News, 2022. What Makes a Pickup Truck Heavy Duty?
Available at: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/what-makes-trucks-heavy-duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Complete vehicles are sold by vehicle manufacturers to end-users
with no secondary manufacturer making substantial modifications prior
to registration and use. Incomplete vehicles are sold by vehicle
manufacturers to secondary manufacturers without the primary load-
carrying device or container attached. With regard to HD pickup trucks
and vans, 90 percent are sold as complete vehicles while only 10
percent are sold as incomplete (80 FR 40331, July 13, 2015). Of the 10
percent of HD pickups and vans that are sold as incomplete vehicles to
secondary manufacturers, about half are HD pickup trucks and half are
HD vans.
    Examples of modifications by secondary manufacturers to HD pickup
trucks are installing a flatbed platform or tool storage bins. EPA is
not aware of any equipment added by a secondary manufacturer to an
incomplete HD pickup truck that would result in a secondary
manufacturer modifying or adjusting the already installed MVAC system
to provide cooling capacity.
Nonroad Vehicles
    Nonroad vehicles can be grouped into several categories (e.g.,
agriculture, construction, recreation, and many other purposes).\138\
The nonroad vehicles addressed in this action are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ EPA, 2021. Basic Information about the Emission Standards
Reference Guide for On-road and Nonroad Vehicles and Engines.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/basic-information-about-emission-standards-reference-guide-road and at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100K5U2.PDF?Dockey=P100K5U2.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Agricultural tractors greater than 40 HP (including two-
wheel drive, mechanical front-wheel drive, four-wheel drive, and track
tractors) that are used for various agricultural applications such as
farm work, planting, landscaping, and loading; 139 140
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Wagner, 2021. May 24, 2021, email from John Wagner of the
Association of Equipment Manufacturers to EPA. Available in the
docket.
    \140\ AEM, 2021. Appendix A: Machine Forms as Classified by AEM
Membership. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Self-propelled agricultural machinery (including combines,
grain and corn harvesters, sprayers, windrowers, and floaters) that are
primarily used for harvesting, fertilizer, and herbicide operations;
\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Compact equipment (including mini excavators, turf mowers,
skid-steer loaders, and tractors less than 40 HP) that are primarily
used for agricultural operations and residential, commercial, and
agricultural landscaping; \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Construction, forestry, and mining equipment (including
excavators, bulldozers, wheel loaders, feller bunchers, log skidders,
road graders, articulated trucks, sub-surface machines, horizontal
directional drill, trenchers, and tracked crawlers) that are primarily
used to excavate surface and subsurface materials during construction,
landscaping, and road maintenance and building; \143\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Commercial UTVs that are primarily used for ranching,
farming, hunting/fishing, construction,

landscaping, property maintenance, railroad maintenance, forestry, and
mining.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These nonroad vehicles are almost exclusively used and operated by
professionals (e.g., agricultural owners or skilled employees/
operators) and vary by size, weight, use, and/or horsepower.\145\ For
example, commercial UTVs typically weigh between 1,200 and 2,400
pounds, while agricultural tractors >40 HP typically weigh between
39,000 and 50,000 pounds.146 147 MVAC systems in these
nonroad vehicles can have charge sizes ranging from 650 grams (23
ounces) to 3,400 grams (120 ounces) depending on the manufacturer and
cab size, compared to a range of 390 grams (14 ounces) to 1,600 grams
(56 ounces) for MVAC systems in light and medium duty passenger
vehicles, HD pickups, and complete HD vans.\148\ Additionally, unlike
onroad passenger vehicles, for example, nonroad vehicles are limited to
non-highway terrain (e.g., fields, construction sites, forests, and
mines), have more robust components, are operated at low working
speeds, and there are typically a limited number of vehicles in the
same location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ EPA, 2021. Basic Information about the Emission Standards
Reference Guide for On-road and Nonroad Vehicles and Engines.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/basic-information-about-emission-standards-reference-guide-road and in the docket.
    \146\ Heavy-duty vehicles are often subdivided by vehicle weight
classifications, as defined by the vehicle's gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR), which is a measure of the combined curb (empty)
weight and cargo carrying capacity of the truck. Heavy-duty vehicles
have GVWRs above 8,500. See https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/vehicle-weight-classifications-emission-standards-reference-guide.
    \147\ Wagner, 2021. May 24, 2021, email from John Wagner of the
Association of Equipment Manufacturers to EPA. Available in the
docket.
    \148\ ICF, 2016. Technical Support Document for Acceptability
Listing of HFO-1234yf for Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning in Limited
Heavy-Duty Applications. Available in the public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for MVAC
    EPA granted two petitions which requested restrictions on the use
of HFCs for applications related to MVAC. The first was submitted by
NRDC, the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, and the
Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development and requested that
EPA restrict the use of HFC-134a in LD vehicles beginning January 1,
2023. The second petition was submitted by CARB requesting that EPA
restrict the use of HFC-134a in new LD vehicles in MY2021. Additional
information, including the relevant petitions, is available in the
docket.
    What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for MVAC?
    EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater for MVAC systems in newly
manufactured LD vehicles starting in MY 2025, as of one year after
publication of a final rule, including vehicles manufactured
exclusively for export. EPA is also proposing to restrict the use of
HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater for
MVAC systems in limited types of HD vehicles in Class 2b-3 (i.e., newly
manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans), and
certain nonroad vehicles (i.e., agricultural tractors greater than 40
HP; self-propelled agricultural machinery; compact equipment;
construction, forestry, and mining equipment; and commercial UTVs)
starting in MY 2026, including vehicles manufactured exclusively for
export.
    For LD vehicles, EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and
blends containing HFCs starting in MY 2025, as of one year after
publication of a final rule, because three technologically achievable
substitutes, R-744, HFO-1234yf, and HFC-152a, meet the proposed GWP
limit of 150. HFO-1234yf is a chemical substance identified as 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1) and has a GWP of
<1.149 150 HFC-152a and R-744 have GWPs of 124 and 1,
respectively. Under SNAP, HFO-1234yf is listed as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, for new LD vehicles, MDPV, HD pick-up trucks,
complete HD vans, and certain types on nonroad vehicles.\151\ R-744 and
HFC-152a are listed under SNAP as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in new LD and HD vehicles in the United States;
152 153 however, EPA is not aware of the use or development
of HFC-152a or R-744, in any LD or HD vehicle in the United States. Use
conditions for these refrigerants under the SNAP program require
labeling and the use of unique fittings. The use conditions also
mitigate flammability and toxicity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Nielsen et al., 2007. Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CF=CH2:
Kinetics and mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH
radicals, and O3. Chemical Physics Letters 439, 18-22. Available at:
www.lexissecuritiesmosaic.com/gateway/FedReg/network_OJN_174_CF3CF=CH2.pdf.
    \150\ Papadimitriou et al., 2007. CF3CF=CH2 and (Z)-CF3CF=CHF:
temperature dependent OH rate coefficients and global warming
potentials. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2007, Vol. 9, p. 1-13.
Available at: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2008/CP/b714382f.
    \151\ HFO-1234yf is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new LD passenger cars and trucks (76 FR 17488, March
29, 2011), new MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans (81 FR
86778, December 1, 2016), and new nonroad vehicles (86 FR 26276, May
4, 2022) at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
    \152\ CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G;
final rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33315).
    \153\ HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G;
final rule published June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33304).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HFO-1234yf has gained significant market share in LD vehicles in
the United States since its introduction in MY 2013.\154\ According to
the 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report, approximately 85 percent of MY
2020 LD vehicles sold used HFO-1234yf and some manufacturers have
implemented HFO-1234yf across their entire vehicle brands.\155\ EPA
considers MY 2025 the date by which automobile manufacturers would be
able to redesign the MVAC system of the remaining 15 percent of LD
vehicle models for use with a lower-GWP refrigerant, consistent with
the use conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ ``Model year'' is defined at 40 CFR 85.2302 and ``means
the manufacturer's annual production period (as determined under 40
CFR 85.2304) which includes January 1 of such calendar year,
provided, that if the manufacturer has no annual production period,
the term ``model year'' shall mean the calendar year.''
    \155\ EPA, 2021. The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013L1O.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, lower-GWP refrigerants, such as HFO-1234yf, are
predominantly being used in new LD vehicles in Europe and Japan.\156\
For example, the proposed GWP limit of 150 for LD vehicles harmonizes
with the EU's Mobile AC Directive 2006/40/EC,\157\ which is aimed at
reducing emissions of HFC-134a from LD MVAC systems. The directive sets
a GWP limit of 150 for refrigerants used in MVAC systems installed in
any LD vehicle sold in the European market after 2017, regardless of
its model year. This proposed rule would harmonize with the Directive
and allow adequate lead time for manufacturers to transition to lower
GWP refrigerants. Similar to the Directive, EPA is proposing to limit
the GWP of refrigerants used in LD MVACs rather than specifying the use
of a particular refrigerant or system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ Volume 1: Progress Report, Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, UNEP, September 2021. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-2021-Progress-report.pdf.
    \157\ European Commission, 2006. Directive 2006/40/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to
emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and
amending. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006L0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA previously considered the MY by which manufacturers of LD
vehicles would be able to transition from use of

HFC-134a for LD vehicles in support of the July 2015 SNAP final rule
(80 FR 42870, July 20, 2015) and greenhouse gas and fuel economy
standards for MY 2017-2025 LD vehicles issued jointly by EPA and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on August 28, 2012.\158\
For this action, EPA is proposing that restrictions on the use of HFCs
and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP of 150 or greater for LD
vehicles, including vehicles manufactured exclusively for export, start
in MY 2025 and become effective one year after publication of a final
rule. This is because a manufacturer's annual production period or
model year could be as early as January 1 of the previous calendar
year. Therefore, MY 2025 vehicles could be manufactured as early as
January 1, 2024, which may be earlier than the effective date of a
final rule. EPA is seeking comment on whether the Agency should propose
restrictions for LD vehicles with a calendar year compliance date
(e.g., January 1, 2025) rather than a model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ 77 FR 62624, 62807-810 (October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR
25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue for MY
2012-2016 light-duty vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, complete HD vans, and certain nonroad
vehicles addressed in this action, EPA is proposing to restrict the use
of HFCs and blends containing HFCs starting MY 2026, because at least
three technologically achievable substitutes, R-744, HFO-1234yf, and
HFC-152a, meet the proposed GWP limit of 150. EPA is also seeking
comment on whether the Agency should propose restrictions for MDPVs, HD
trucks, complete HD vans, and certain nonroad vehicles with a calendar
year compliance date (e.g., January 1, 2026) rather than a model year.
    HFO-1234yf was listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in
2016 under SNAP for new MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, complete HD vans and
is in use or under various stages of development for these vehicle
types. Because of the similarities in the MVAC systems used for these
vehicles and LD vehicles, EPA considers January 1, 2026, the date by
which it will be feasible for manufacturers to safely, but
expeditiously, transition MVAC systems for these vehicle types.
    EPA is proposing that the GWP limit of 150 or greater for MVAC
systems apply to vehicles covered in this proposed rule that are
manufactured exclusively for export. In the July 2015 SNAP final rule
(80 FR 42870, July 20, 2015), based on comments received on the
proposed rule (79 FR 46126, August 6, 2014), EPA established a narrowed
use limit for MVAC systems in LD vehicles exported to countries that
did not have infrastructure to service vehicles containing the
alternatives found to pose less overall risk. The narrowed use limit
allows for the use of HFC-134 in MVACs until MY 2026. EPA understands
that certain countries to which vehicles are exported do not, and may
not for some period of time, have in place the infrastructure for
servicing MVAC systems with lower-GWP, flammable refrigerants (e.g.,
HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a). EPA seeks comment regarding the technical
feasibility of servicing MY 2027 and later model vehicles manufactured
for export with lower-GWP refrigerants (e.g., HFO-1234yf).
    On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in MVAC systems
in newly manufactured LD vehicles starting in MY 2025, as of one year
after publication of a final rule, including vehicles manufactured
exclusively for export. EPA is also requesting comment on the proposal
to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing HFCs that have a GWP
of 150 or greater for MVAC systems in limited types of HD vehicles in
Class 2b-3 and certain nonroad vehicles starting in MY 2026, including
vehicles manufactured exclusively for export. Additionally, EPA is
requesting comment on the proposal to establish GWP limit restrictions
for MVAC based on calendar year rather than model year.
4. Foam Blowing
Background
    Foams are plastics (such as phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin,
polyurethane, or polystyrene) that are manufactured using blowing
agents to create bubbles or cells in the material's structure. The foam
plastics manufacturing industries, the markets they serve, and the
blowing agents used are extremely varied. The range of uses includes
building materials, appliance insulation, cushioning, furniture,
packaging materials, containers, flotation devices, filler, sound
proofing, and shoe soles. Some foams are rigid with closed cells that
still contain the foam blowing agent, which can contribute to the
foam's ability to insulate. Other foams are open-celled, with the foam
blowing agent escaping at the time the foam is blown, as for flexible
foams.
    Historically, a variety of foam blowing agents have been used for
these applications. CFCs and HCFCs were typically used. In the early
1990s, ahead of the CAA and Montreal Protocol CFC phaseout, regulations
implementing section 610 of the CAA included bans on the sale or
distribution of foam products blown with CFCs and HCFCs, with an
exception only for HCFCs used for foam insulation products as defined
at 40 CFR 82.62. Blowing agents which remain in a liquid state at room
temperature have been used more commonly in polyisocyanurate,
polyurethane and phenolic foams, such as CFC-11, CFC-113, HCFC-141b,
HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc. Blowing agents that are gases at room
temperature have more commonly been used in polyolefin and polystyrene
foams, such as CFC-12, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, HFC-134a, and HFC-152a.
    The foam blowing subsectors addressed in this action include:
     Flexible polyurethane includes open-cell foam in
furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles;
     Integral skin polyurethane includes open-cell foam used in
car steering wheels, dashboards, upholstery, and shoe soles;
     Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation
for roofing and walls;
     Polyolefin (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene) includes
foam sheets and tubes;
     Polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet includes
closed cell insulation for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes;
     Polystyrene--extruded sheet includes closed cell foam for
packaging and buoyancy or flotation;
     Rigid polyurethane--appliance foam includes insulation
foam in domestic refrigerators and freezers and hot water heaters;
     Rigid polyurethane--slabstock and other includes
insulation for panels and pipes, taxidermy foam, and miscellaneous uses
of rigid polyurethane foam;
     Rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration includes
insulation for vending machines, coolers, commercial refrigeration
equipment, pipes, shipping containers for perishable goods, and
refrigerated transport vehicles; \159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ As described in greater detail in section VII.C of this
preamble above, EPA is proposing an exemption for certain
applications as long as they are receiving application-specific
allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the Act, including
structural composite preformed polyurethane foam for trailer use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rigid polyurethane--sandwich panels include insulation
panels for walls and metal doors;
     Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock

includes laminated board insulation for roofing and walls;
     Rigid polyurethane--marine flotation foam includes
buoyancy or flotation foams; \160\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ As described in greater detail in section VII.C above, EPA
is proposing an exemption for certain applications as long as they
are receiving application-specific allowances under subsection
(e)(4)(B) of the Act, including structural composite preformed
polyurethane foam for marine use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Spray foam is applied in situ and includes insulation for
building envelopes, roofing, walls, doors, and other construction uses,
as well as foam for building breakers for pipelines. Spray foam is
broken down further into rigid polyurethane high-pressure two-
component, rigid polyurethane low-pressure two-component, and rigid
polyurethane one-component foam sealants. These three applications vary
in the types of systems used to apply them (one component or two-
component, high pressure or low pressure), who uses such systems
(contractors using personal protective equipment, or consumers), and
how much is applied (large-scale applications within walls or on roofs
of a residence or filling in cracks, leaks and gaps in a residence).
For further information on those three applications, see the preamble
to SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86778 at 86846-86847, December 1, 2016).
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Foam Blowing
    EPA granted five petitions which requested restrictions on the use
of HFCs for foam blowing. Petitions were submitted separately by NRDC
and by CARB, both requesting that EPA restrict certain HFCs in:
     Rigid Polyurethane (PU) and Polyisocyanurate Laminated
Boardstock. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends
thereof;
     Rigid Polyurethane--Slabstock and Other. Specifically,
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6;
     Rigid Polyurethane--Appliance Foam. Specifically, HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6;
     Rigid Polyurethane--Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich
Panels. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6;
     Rigid Polyurethane--Marine Flotation Foam. Specifically,
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6;
     Rigid PU--high-pressure two-component spray foam.
Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc;
and Formacel TI.
     Rigid PU--one-component foam sealants. Specifically, HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at least
four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to
13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel TI;
     Flexible Polyurethane. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,
HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof;
     Integral Skin Polyurethane. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-
245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6;
     Polystyrene--Extruded Sheet. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-
245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6;
     Polystyrene--Extruded Boardstock and Billet. Specifically,
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI,
Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6;
     Polyolefin. Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc,
and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel Z-6;
     Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock. Specifically, HFC-
143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; and
     Rigid PU--low-pressure two-component spray foam.
Specifically, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc;
and Formacel TI.
    NRDC requested a January 1, 2023, compliance date for most foam
blowing subsectors listed, except for ``military or space- and
aeronautics-related applications'' in rigid PU--high-pressure two-
component spray foam and rigid PU--low-pressure two-component spray
foam. For military or space- and aeronautics-related applications in
these two subsectors, NRDC requested a January 1, 2025, compliance
date. For all foam blowing subsectors, CARB requested that EPA ``not
select later compliance dates than those provided in [SNAP] Rules 20
and 21.''
    DuPont Performance Building Solutions submitted two petitions, one
requesting that EPA restrict the use of HFC-134a in polystyrene--
extruded boardstock and billet by January 1, 2023, and the second
requesting that EPA restrict the use of HFCs \161\ in rigid
polyurethane--low-pressure two-component spray foam by January 1, 2022.
The final petition for foams was submitted by the American Chemistry
Council's Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI), requesting that
EPA restrict HFC use for the polyurethane industry.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ DuPont's second petition requests EPA to ``. . . reinstate
SNAP Rule 21 with regard to Rigid Polyurethane Low-pressure Two-
component Spray Foam (2K-LP SPF) end-use. . .''.
    \162\ CPI requested that to reinstate the restrictions on the
use of HFC foam blowing agents in the polyurethanes industry that
were originally promulgated in EPA's Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Rules 20 and 21 effective January 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
    What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for foam
blowing?
    EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs with a GWP of 150 or greater for new phenolic insulation board and
bunstock; polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet; rigid
polyurethane--appliance foam; rigid polyurethane--slabstock and other;
rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration; rigid polyurethane--
sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane--marine flotation foam; and spray
foam (rigid polyurethane high-pressure two-component, rigid
polyurethane low-pressure two component, rigid polyurethane one-
component foam sealants) beginning January 1, 2025. For new flexible
polyurethane; integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin; polystyrene--
extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, EPA is proposing to fully restrict the use of HFCs and
blends containing HFCs beginning January 1, 2025. This proposal would
in effect prohibit the use of regulated substances for these foam
subsectors.
    HFCs have been widely used as blowing agents in rigid polyurethane
insulation foam (e.g., appliance, commercial refrigeration, sandwich
panels, and spray) and polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet in
the United States since the phaseout of ODS blowing agents such as
HCFC-141b and HCFC-142b, particularly where insulation value and
flammability have been of greater concern. Over the past ten years, the
number of available substitutes, both fluorinated and non-fluorinated,
has increased, and the variety of uses for acceptable blowing agents
has also expanded. These include carbon dioxide (GWP 0), light
saturated

hydrocarbons with three to six carbons (GWP <1), methyl formate (GWP
11), HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 3.7), and HFO-1336mzz(Z) (GWP 2).
    The opportunity to use HCs, CO2, and water in the 1990s
for a range of foam blowing applications in the United States has
allowed many foam blowing subsectors and applications to transition
directly from ODS to available substitutes, thus reducing the
subsectors that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have been a lower-GWP and
cost-effective substitute available for large parts of the foam sector,
particularly in polystyrene--extruded sheet, rigid polyurethane--
slabstock, rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, phenolic insulation board and bunstock, and polyolefin. HCs
also are used in most of the other subsectors, but less extensively
than in these five subsectors. In EPA's consideration of safety of
available substitutes, flammability of foam blowing agents, including
HCs, can be a concern, particularly for rigid polyurethane--two-
component spray foam applications. Water is used broadly as a blowing
agent in flexible polyurethane foam. In addition, other non-fluorinated
compounds such as methyl formate and methylal are being used as blowing
agents, alone or in combination with other compounds, particularly for
use as a blowing agent in polyurethane foams.
    EPA is proposing to exclude space vehicles, as defined in 40 CFR
84.3, from the proposed use restriction for spray foams. Such equipment
faces unparalleled and highly demanding operating conditions and
requires long lead times for their operation to be certified. This
approach is consistent with EPA's CAA regulations where space vehicles
were either exempted or given additional time to transition to
substitute foam blowing agents.
    A number of new fluorinated chemicals with lower GWPs have been
introduced as foam blowing agents during the past several years. Many
end users have indicated interest in these newer foam blowing agents,
often to improve energy efficiency of the foam products manufactured
with the foam blowing agent. For example, EPA's SNAP program has listed
HCFO-1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(E), and HFO-1336mzz(Z) as
acceptable. These newer substitutes, which do not raise the
flammability concerns of HCs, may prove appropriate for subsectors
where highly flammable blowing agents raise safety concerns. The
process and timing for retooling facilities that use the blowing agents
or that incorporate the foam product into another product will vary
depending on the substitute selected. Manufacturing facilities such as
household refrigerator manufacturers have already been transitioning to
lower-GWP substitutes for foam blowing. Production volumes for some of
these newer substitutes are expanding rapidly to keep pace with growing
commercial demands.
    For some types of foam that have historically used gaseous blowing
agents, HFC-152a or blends containing HFC-152a may be useful foam
blowing agents with lower GWP than other HFCs. For example, the GWP of
HFC-152a is 124, compared to 794 for HFC-365mfc, 1,030 for HFC-245fa,
1,430 for HFC-134a, and 4,470 for HFC-143a. Some manufacturers of
polystyrene--extruded boardstock and billet have recently starting
using blowing agents that are blends of HFC-152a and non-HFCs such as
CO2, HFO-1234ze(E), and/or HFO-1336mzz(Z), in order to
transition away from using HFC-134a.
    For the flexible polyurethane; integral skin polyurethane;
polyolefin; polystyrene--extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock subsectors, EPA understands that
there is little or no use of HFCs. As noted, water and HCs are commonly
used available substitutes used as blowing agents for flexible
polyurethane, polyolefin, polystyrene--extruded sheet, and rigid
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
    On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 or greater for HFCs and blends containing HFCs for new phenolic
insulation board and bunstock; polystyrene--extruded boardstock and
billet; rigid polyurethane--appliance foam; rigid polyurethane--
slabstock and other; rigid polyurethane--commercial refrigeration;
rigid polyurethane--sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane--marine
flotation foam; and spray foam (rigid polyurethane high-pressure two-
component, rigid polyurethane low-pressure two component, rigid
polyurethane one-component foam sealants). EPA is also requesting
comment on proposing to fully restrict HFCs and blends containing HFCs
for new flexible polyurethane; integral skin polyurethane; polyolefin;
polystyrene--extruded sheet; and rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
5. Aerosols
Background on Aerosols
    Aerosols use liquefied or compressed gas to propel active
ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder form in precise spray patterns
with controlled droplet sizes and amounts and many also contain a
solvent. The propellant, typically a gas at atmospheric pressure but a
pressurized liquid in the product canister, is emitted during use. In
addition to propellants, some aerosols also contain a solvent. In some
cleaning applications, the propellant disperses the solvent; in other
applications, the solvent product and propellant solution are evenly
mixed to improve shelf-life and product performance, such as by
preventing dripping and ensuring uniform film thickness for spray
paints. Consumer aerosols include products for personal and household
use, such as hairspray, household cleaning products, and keyboard
dusters. Technical aerosols are specialized products used solely in
commercial and industrial applications, such as industrial spray paints
and document preservation sprays.
    In this proposed rule and as discussed previously in section VII.C
of this preamble, EPA is proposing an exemption for certain
applications as long as they are receiving application-specific
allowances under subsection (e)(4)(B) of the Act, including for certain
aerosol applications. Subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv) of the AIM Act lists six
applications which are to ``receive the full quantity of allowances
necessary, based on projected, current, and historical trends'' for the
five-year period after enactment of the AIM Act. Under the implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 84.13, the following applications which typically
use aerosols are currently eligible to receive application-specific
allowances for calendar years through 2025: (1) for a propellant in
metered-dose inhalers, (2) in the manufacture of defense sprays, and
(3) for mission-critical military end uses. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to apply the requirements under this rulemaking to these uses
of HFCs in these applications at this time, since they are currently
receiving application-specific allowances under 40 CFR 84.13.
Information Contained in the Granted Petitions Concerning the Use of
HFCs for Aerosols
    EPA granted three petitions, submitted by NRDC, CARB, and HCPA with
the National Aerosol Association (HCPA/NAA), which requested
restrictions on the use of HFCs for applications related to aerosol

propellants. NRDC submitted a petition under subsection (i) of the AIM
Act that requested EPA to replicate the provisions contained in SNAP
Rules 20 and 21. Petitioners requested a start date for the
restrictions of January 1, 2023.
    HCPA/NAA submitted a petition that requested EPA prohibit the use
of specific HFCs as aerosol propellants starting January 1, 2023;
however, the petitioners also requested that EPA except the use of HFCs
in certain types of aerosols (e.g., cleaning products for removal of
grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment).
    CARB submitted a petition that requested EPA regulations should not
limit States' ability to further limit or phase out the use of HFCs in
their jurisdictions.
    Additional information, including the relevant petitions, is
available in the docket.
    What restrictions on the use of HFCs is EPA proposing for aerosols?
    EPA is proposing to restrict the use of HFCs and blends containing
HFCs in new aerosols that have a GWP of 150 or greater beginning
January 1, 2025. Available aerosol propellants that meet this proposed
GWP limit include HFC-152a (GWP 124), HFO-1234ze(E) (GWP <1), dimethyl
ether (GWP 1), saturated light hydrocarbons (GWP 3-10), and
CO2 (GWP 1). Manufacturers have transitioned to HFC-152a,
saturated light hydrocarbons, HFOs, compressed gases, and oxygenated
organic compounds (e.g., dimethyl ether).\163\ Available aerosol
solvents that meet this GWP include HCFO-1233yd(Z) (GWP<1), HFO-
1336mzz(Z) (GWP 2), methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) (GWP
2.5), HCFO-1233zd(E) (GWP 3.7), HFE-569sf2 (GWP 59), and petroleum
hydrocarbons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Transitioning to Low-GWP Alternatives in Aerosols, EPA,
December 2016. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/transitioning_to_low-gwp_alternatives_in_aerosols.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA is requesting comment on proposing to establish a GWP limit of
150 for HFCs and blends containing HFCs used in aerosol products.
    In SNAP Rule 20, EPA allowed the use of HFC-134a for certain
aerosol propellant applications because of technical limitations, such
as a requirement for non-flammability and/or a specific vapor pressure.
EPA has received information that indicates some of these applications
may still require use of HFC-134a as a propellant; however, from our
own research, we are aware of possible substitutes with lower
GWPs.\164\ \165\ Nevertheless, in this proposal, EPA is not explicitly
proposing exceptions. We are taking comment on whether and why we
should include a list of exceptions for propellants in this rulemaking
that matches some or all of those included in SNAP Rule 20, namely:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ See email from HCPA to EPA, dated August 8, 2022.
    \165\ See Evaluation of Continued Need for HFC-134a in Specific
Aerosol Propellant Applications memo in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other
soils from electrical equipment or electronics;
     Refrigerant flushes;
     Products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;
     Lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or
electronics;
     Sprays for aircraft maintenance;
     Sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in
the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or
military equipment;
     Pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft,
in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use
pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-
GWP propellants;
     Mold release agents and mold cleaners;
     Lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic
fabrics;
     Duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from
photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron
microscopes, and energized electrical equipment;
     Adhesives and sealants in large canisters;
     Document preservation sprays;
     Wound care sprays;
     Topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and
     Products for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
    We also are interested in comments related to whether these uses
that were excepted under SNAP Rule 20 have transitioned or can
transition to a lower GWP propellant. If a commenter suggests including
an exception for use of HFC-134a in an aerosol application, we would
also be interested in any supporting data and information to explain
why the exception is needed.
    EPA is aware that HFC-43-10mee (GWP 1,640) and HFC-245fa (GWP
1,030) may still be in use as aerosol solvents, particularly in niche
applications. We are taking comment on whether this or other HFCs are
currently being used as aerosol solvents. If so, we ask that commenters
include specific information on the application and what would be
needed to transition to a lower GWP solvent.

G. For what additional sectors or subsectors is EPA requesting advance
information on the use of HFCs?

Heat Pump Water Heaters
    Heat pump water heaters (HPWH) are an energy-efficient alternative
to electric-resistance and combustion water heaters. Instead of heating
water by running electrical current through heating elements, or via
fossil fuel combustion, HPWHs use a vapor-compression refrigerant cycle
(the same basic mechanism used by standard heat pumps, air
conditioners, and refrigerators) to transfer heat from the surrounding
air to heat water.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Heat Pump Water Heaters, U.S. Department of Energy.
Information available at: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-water-heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HPWHs are sold in the residential and commercial markets. The
integral design comprises a condenser combined with the storage tank in
one unit, where the heating components are installed at the top of the
storage tank. A split-system design differs from the integral design in
that it has a separate heat pump and storage tank, which can be
connected via refrigerant lines or water lines. Most HPWHs historically
and today contain the refrigerant HFC-134a. Some larger, commercial
models use R-410A for the low temperature cycle and HFC-134a at the
high temperature cycle.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ Kleefkens, Onno M.Sc., Heat Pump Centre, Refrigerants for
Heat Pump Water Heaters, December 2019. Available at: https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/annex46/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2020/10/hpt-an46-04-task-1-refrigerants-for-heat-pump-water-heaters-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is seeking information on current uses of HFCs in HPWHs
to inform potential future regulatory decisions. EPA is not proposing
any regulatory requirements with respect to HPWHs in this rulemaking.
EPA is specifically requesting information in response to the following
questions:
    1. What are the main reasons for the continued use of HFCs in HPWHs
and for which applications?
    2. What work is underway to identify suitable lower-GWP
alternatives?
    3. What would be the timeline for use of alternatives?

VIII. What are the proposed enforcement and compliance provisions?

    EPA seeks to deter, identify, and penalize the import, manufacture,
sale, purchase, or distribution of products and other activities that
would be prohibited under the proposed

restrictions on the use of HFCs. Consistent with EPA's explanation in
the Allocation Framework Rule, based on prior experience with the ODS
phaseout in the United States, and global experiences transitioning
from ODS and HFCs, EPA anticipates there will be attempts to introduce
prohibited products in the United States.
    Proposed tools for encouraging compliance and aiding enforcement
include requirements to label regulated products, to report the import
or manufacture of products using HFCs, a prohibition on import or
manufacture of regulated products above the allowable GWP level or
using a proposed restricted substance, and recordkeeping in support of
the reporting requirement. EPA seeks to ensure a level playing field
for the regulated community and discourage the illegal manufacture,
import, distribution, purchase, or sale of prohibited products.

A. What is EPA proposing for labeling requirements?

    EPA is proposing to require information on labels for regulated
products in the sectors and subsectors covered by this proposed rule.
Knowing what HFC or blend containing an HFC is used in a product is a
necessary step to ensuring that the use of HFCs complies with the
restrictions to be established through this rulemaking for the
respective sectors and subsectors.
    EPA is proposing on-product labeling for all regulated products in
the covered sectors and subsectors of this proposed rule. For products
that use HFCs or blends containing an HFC, EPA is proposing that the
label include (1) the HFC or blend containing an HFC used in the
product; (2) the GWP of that HFC or blend containing an HFC, labeled as
``global warming potential''; and (3) the date of manufacture, or at a
minimum, the four-digit year.
    For products that are intended for use with HFCs or blends
containing an HFC, EPA is proposing that the unfilled products be
labeled to indicate (1) the HFC(s) or blend(s) containing an HFC
intended for use in the product; and (2) the GWP of the HFC(s) or
blend(s) containing an HFC, labeled as ``global warming potential.''
EPA further proposes that at the time of first charge the label must be
marked or a new label must be added to indicate: (1) the HFC or blend
containing an HFC used in the product, (2) the GWP of that HFC or blend
containing an HFC, labeled as ``global warming potential;'' and (3) the
date of first charge, or at a minimum, the four-digit year. The new
label would only need to include (1) and (2) if they are different from
what is listed on the first label or if the first label indicates that
the product is intended for use with multiple HFCs or blends containing
HFCs. If a new label is added, it must be affixed near but not covering
the original label. EPA proposes this structure as it would allow
purchasers to determine whether the product is compliant and discourage
the manufacture, import, distribution, purchase, or sale of products
that are intended for use with prohibited HFCs and would allow the
Agency to assess compliance of the products both before and after they
are charged. EPA requests comment on whether field-charged products
should be required to be labeled prior to being filled with an HFC or
if the label should only be required once the product contains an HFC
or blend containing an HFC. EPA also requests comment on how to best
structure labeling requirements for products that are intended for use
with multiple regulated substances and if requiring that each regulated
substance that could be used be included on the label is useful.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing that labels for products in the
following subsectors indicate whether the full charge is greater than,
equal to, or less than 200 pounds: (1) IPR, (2) retail food
refrigeration--supermarket systems, (3) retail food refrigeration--
remote condensing units, and (4) cold storage warehouses. The GWP limit
varies based on that charge size threshold in these subsectors, thus
EPA is proposing a statement about the charge size be included in the
label for the purposes of ensuring compliance.
    EPA notes that other markets including the EU and United Kingdom
require labels with similar information requirements for many products
containing HFCs.\168\ \169\ These labeling requirements that are
already in place in other markets indicate that the requirements are
feasible for the regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ European Union Law. 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on
fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/
2006 Text with EEA relevance. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2<IP_ADDRESS>5.01.ENG.
    \169\ Labelling F-gas equipment you produce, import or install,
UK Environment Agency, August 2019. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/labelling-f-gas-equipment-you-produce-import-or-install.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing that the permanent label must be formatted as
follows: (1) in English; (2) durable and printed or otherwise labeled
on, or affixed to, the external surface of the product; (3) readily
visible and legible; (4) able to withstand open weather exposure
without a substantial reduction in visibility or legibility; and (5)
displayed on a background of contrasting color. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to require that labels or a description of the required
information be clearly included in product information, either in the
text description or photo of the product, for products being sold
electronically through eCommerce platforms. Regulated products would
need to have the required information clearly visible in either the
photos of the product or the description of the item. If a regulated
product is contained within a box or other overpack that reaches the
ultimate consumer, EPA is proposing that the exterior packaging must
also contain a label consistent with the formatting requirements
described previously. For imported products, labels must be visible and
readily available for inspection.
    EPA requests comment regarding whether on-product labels may not be
practicable for certain products. If such products are identified,
commenters should provide information on alternative labeling methods
that EPA should consider in those instances. One such alternative could
be including the required information on packaging materials with the
product (e.g., tag, pamphlet, or box containing the product). This
associated packaging would need to be present with the product at the
point of sale and import to fulfill the labeling requirement.
    Another alternative could be to allow the information to be
accessed by an on-product QR code instead of a traditional label. In
order to fulfill the labeling requirement, the QR code would need to
direct the consumer to a website that readily shows the required
information and meets the requirements of the on-product label. EPA
believes that products using a QR code also include adjacent text to
indicate the purpose of the QR code, stating that the QR code contains
HFC information. A QR code may be useful for products where there is
limited space for on-product labels or the accompanying packaging. A
nonfunctional or unreadable QR code would not fulfill the labeling
requirement and would be treated as a missing QR code. For products
being sold through eCommerce, the QR code would not be sufficient on
its own and the product description on the eCommerce site would also
have to contain the required information. The QR codes would not be
issued by EPA and are separate from the QR codes required under the
Allocation Framework Rule at Sec.  84.23. EPA requests comment on if QR
codes should be allowed to fulfill the labeling

requirement for all products, only products where traditional labels
are not practicable, or not at all and what benefits or challenges
allowing QR codes may pose. EPA also requests comment on alternative
methods that may be used to mark or otherwise label the product itself
that would be sufficient to convey the required information (for
example, color coding to identify the use of a regulated substance or
date codes to identify date of manufacture).
    EPA is proposing that as of the applicable compliance date, no
person may sell or distribute, offer for sale or distribution, make
available to sell or distribute, or import in the sectors and
subsectors of the proposed rule a regulated product that contains, was
manufactured with, or is intended for use with HFCs that lacks a label
consistent with the requirements of this section. EPA proposes that
regulated products lacking a label are presumed to use a regulated
substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global
warming potential equal to or greater than the limit proposed in this
rule.
    EPA is requesting comment on whether there should be a standardized
process to correct missing or inaccurate labels on products, and if so,
what that should be. A potential option EPA is considering would be to
allow any entity within the distribution chain to label or re-label a
product within their possession if they find it to be missing a label
or mislabeled. EPA is also seeking comment on whether entities seeking
to correct a labeling error should be required to report the initial
labeling violation to the Agency. A corrected label would need to
comply with all relevant labeling requirements. Further, EPA would
anticipate that the entity doing the relabeling would conduct due
diligence to ensure that the new label is accurate and meets the
proposed labeling requirements in this rule. Allowing relabeling could
reduce the number of products that may be discarded due to missing or
incorrect labels, as they would not need to be returned to the importer
or manufacturer. However, it may not be a cost that a distributor of a
product is willing to bear, given the responsibility to correctly label
products is with the manufacturer or importer.
    The proposed labeling provisions are intended to support compliance
with the prohibitions on the use of high-GWP HFCs in certain sectors
and subsectors. Requiring a manufacturer or importer to affirmatively
and publicly state through the label that the HFC being used and its
GWP reinforces their compliance with the limits to be established
through this rulemaking. Accurate labeling information would also
support compliance with the limits by allowing distributers, as well as
competitors and the general public, to assess whether a product uses a
compliant HFC. The proposed labeling and packaging requirements may
also ease inspection by EPA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) as appropriate, and facilitate efforts to prevent the import or
manufacture of noncompliant products. Clearly and visibly identifying
the HFC or blend containing an HFC used in the product would provide
one mechanism for inspectors to quickly identify noncompliant products
and/or identify products for further inspection.
    As a secondary consideration, the information on the labels and
packaging materials could provide consumers with information about
whether a product uses an HFC or blend containing an HFC and its GWP.
This information may alter consumer purchasing choices and could
increase market pressure for the transition away from products that use
HFCs.
    EPA recognizes that in this rulemaking the proposed definition of
``products'' includes components. EPA is considering how to best
address components that are intended for use with HFCs but do not
contain a regulated substance when shipped--i.e., is not a regulated
product when shipped--and whether instead of requiring each individual
component be labeled, the Agency should allow labeling of a subset of
the components of a single system to fulfill the requirement once the
full and proper amount of HFC or blend containing an HFC is added. For
example, for a supermarket refrigeration system, EPA requests comment
on whether each individual case within the same subsector and using the
same regulated substance in that system should be labeled or if
labeling a subset of the cases and/or other components of the system in
accordance with the proposed requirements would be sufficient. EPA
seeks comment on the benefits and challenges of allowing labeling a
subset of components to fulfill the requirement, along with specific
sectors or subsectors where this option should be considered. EPA also
seeks comment on how it can provide clarity on which components are
covered and which are not.
    EPA seeks to design this proposal in a way that would minimize
compliance burden on the regulated community while maintaining the
necessary components for identifying and deterring noncompliance.
First, EPA recognizes that there may be products for which on-product
labels are not practicable and is requesting comment on alternative
labeling methods EPA should consider that would provide similar
enforceability. For products that are identified with a valid rationale
for why on-products labels cannot be used, EPA is considering whether
to allow the required information to be included in packaging materials
or available through an on-product QR code.
    Second, existing labels that meet the proposed requirements and
include the required information would be sufficient. EPA recognizes
that certain information is already provided on products through
existing UL labels, nameplates, or other labels on the product or
packaging with the product at the time of import and sale. For
instance, a nameplate or certification sticker on a pre-charged air
conditioner might already contain the date of manufacture, the
refrigerant, and the charge size, and could be modified by including
the GWP of the refrigerant. Likewise, the label on a household
refrigerator-freezer could be modified to include the additional
information needed for the refrigerant and also the information
regarding the foam insulation. EPA requests comment on the proposal to
allow existing labels that contain required information to satisfy the
labeling requirements or if EPA should instead consider requiring a
separate standardized label containing all the required information.
    EPA recognizes that products exist within the sectors and
subsectors covered by this proposed rule that do not contain or use any
regulated substance. EPA is considering developing a standardized
voluntary label for these products that would clearly state that the
product does not use HFCs. This voluntary label could assist compliance
with the proposed prohibitions by indicating that the product does not
use an HFC or blend containing an HFC. This would eliminate the
ambiguity associated with an unlabeled product in a controlled sector
or subsector (i.e., the product does not use an HFC and does not need
to be labeled; or the product uses an HFC and is mislabeled). This
voluntary label would also provide consumers with additional
information regarding HFCs and allow them to more easily differentiate
between products based on whether they use HFCs. Similar voluntary
labeling continues to be included on aerosol products to indicate they
do not use CFCs despite a prohibition on such use since 1994. (See
82.64(c)). EPA requests comment on the value of a voluntary label that

affirmatively states that the product does not use HFCs and any
benefits or challenges that such a label may pose.
    EPA is considering whether to establish an administrative process
to address products that have been found to be mislabeled or lacking a
proper label. In the Allocation Framework Rule, EPA included a system
of administrative consequences as one method to deter illegal
production or import of HFCs. Under that program, EPA may adjust an
entity's production or consumption allowances by retiring, revoking, or
withholding them depending on the circumstances. EPA provides notice to
a company of an impending administrative consequence, and then the
company has an opportunity to respond prior to the Agency taking any
final action. The administrative consequences do not supplant or
replace any enforcement action that may be available for violations of
EPA's regulations or the AIM Act. Instead, such consequences are in
addition to any applicable enforcement action.
    EPA's intent in the proposed rule for establishing labeling
provisions is to support the enforcement of prohibitions on the use of
certain HFCs and blends containing HFCs that exceed the proposed GWP
limits or are otherwise prohibited. Not providing a label or
mislabeling a product hampers EPA's ability to enforce those
prohibitions. The administrative process considered here would have the
purpose of quickly correcting mislabeled or unlabeled products. EPA is
considering the option of creating a website that would provide a list
of entities that manufacture, import, export, sell, distribute, or
offer for sale or distribution products that have been found to be
mislabeled or lacking a proper label. Transparency is a significant
means of ensuring compliance, as discussed in detail in the Allocation
Framework Rule (see 86 FR 55191, October 5, 2021). In this scenario,
EPA would employ similar processes for notification and response
finalized in 40 CFR subpart A. This would include notifying the entity
of the Agency's finding that a regulated product or products is
mislabeled or lacking a label, and of our intent to list them as not
meeting the subsection (i) labeling provisions. The Agency would
provide thirty days from the initial notification for the entity to
respond, after which the entity would be publicly listed on the EPA's
website. The entity could be listed on the EPA website for a minimum
set time frame, such as a year. To be removed from the website, EPA is
considering whether the entity would be required to submit a
demonstration that the labeling issue has been resolved along with
measures that the entity has put in place to reduce the likelihood of
future labeling problems.
    EPA requests comment on whether an administrative process as
described above would support compliance with these provisions. Also,
the Agency is interested in whether there are additional or alternative
actions that the Agency could consider to aid compliance with the
subsection (i) labeling provisions, including whether entities that are
listed on EPA's website as lacking proper labels could be fully
restricted from using (e.g., manufacture, import, sale, export, offer
for sale or distribution) any regulated substance for a set period of
time. Additionally, if the listed entity receives production or
consumption allowances, the Agency requests comment on whether EPA
could use its authority under subsection (e) to revoke or reduce the
entity's next allocation as a consequence for mislabeling products
under subsection (i).

B. What potential auditing and third-party testing programs is EPA
seeking advance information on?

    EPA is asking for advance information on a variety of options for
third-party testing and auditing that it is considering pursuing in a
future rulemaking to strengthen compliance with requirements that may
be established in this rulemaking and potential future rulemakings
under subsection (i). Such auditing and third-party testing programs
would facilitate the verification that products and equipment imported,
manufactured, sold, or distributed within the United States contain
allowable HFCs. Audits would also serve the important function of
testing to ensure that products and equipment use allowable HFCs and
that labels identifying the HFCs are accurate. Audits would assist with
finding illegal products and removing them from the United States
market and help deter noncompliance, incentivize future compliance, and
ensure that companies that are complying with statutory and regulatory
obligations are not put at a competitive disadvantage. EPA is
considering a multifaceted approach for auditing and is soliciting
advance information on the aspects of auditing programs discussed in
the following sections, including the merits of the options discussed.
    Numerous economic studies have found that third-party auditing
improves company and individual compliance with the
law.170 171 172  EPA has used third-party auditing to
improve regulatory compliance in rules, including the Renewable Fuel
Standard program.\173\ As noted in a Renewable Fuel Standard
rulemaking, there is expert consensus that well-implemented third-party
auditing is a good use of limited enforcement and oversight
resources.\174\ Independent and objective audits are a valuable tool to
improve compliance among all companies, not just those with covert
malicious intent to be inaccurate or unfair in their auditing or
reporting. EPA is seeking advance information on the advantages and
disadvantages of developing an auditing program to ensure compliance
and input on how to structure such a program. EPA does not intend to
finalize an auditing program as part of this proposed rule but seeks to
gather information that the Agency believes will be useful to inform a
potential future proposal. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to respond
to any advance information received on the options discussed in this
section in any final rulemaking for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Esther Duflo, Michael Greenstone, Rohini Pande, and
Nicholas Ryan, ``Truth-Telling by Third-Party Auditors and the
Response of Polluting Firms: Experimental Evidence from India,''
Journal of Economics (2013), 1499-1545. doi:10.1093/qje/qjt024.
    \171\ Henrik Kleven, Martin Knudsen, Claus Kreiner, S[oslash]ren
Pedersen, and Emmanuel Saez, ``Unwilling or Unable to Cheat?
Evidence From a Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark.'' Econometrica, 79:
651-692. (2011) https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA9113.
    \172\ Marcelo B[eacute]rgolo, Rodrigo Ceni, Guillermo Cruces,
Matias Giaccobasso, and Ricardo Perez-Truglia, ``Tax Audits as
Scarecrows: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment,'' NBER
Working Paper No. 23631 July 2017, Revised January 2020 JEL No. C93,
H26, K42.
    \173\ More information on the Renewable Fuel Standard program
available at: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program.
    \174\ 79 FR 42080, July 18, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Who should be subject to the independent third-party testing and
audits?
    EPA is seeking advance information on the framework for a third-
party testing program and is considering several different options for
this framework. The first option would be to require manufacturers of
regulated products to receive a third-party certification that the
products are compliant with this proposed rule. Under this option, any
manufacturer or importer of regulated products would be required to
show that the product is certified compliant with subsection (i) use
restrictions before that product could be imported, offered for sale,
sold, or otherwise distributed. It would be prohibited to import into
the United

States or domestically manufacture any uncertified regulated product.
The certification process would include registering the manufacturer or
importer into a third-party certification system that would have the
authority to test and verify products and report their findings
directly to EPA. Accordingly, EPA anticipates that this option could
involve use of foreign third-party certifiers.
    An alternative to product certification for regulated products
would be to require a representative sample of all domestically
manufactured and imported regulated products to be tested for
compliance by a third-party at the point of manufacture (in the case of
domestically manufactured products), or on import (i.e., at the ports
in the case of importers). For imported products, EPA could consider
options that would allow for samples to be provided prior to arrival in
the U.S. or be tested following release. Another option EPA is
considering would require that all retailers that sell, offer for sale,
distribute, or make available for sale or distribution regulated
products to register and participate in a third-party auditing program.
Under this structure, third-party auditors would select a certain
number of products to test for compliance per year and report the
results to EPA.
    EPA is seeking specific comment on the relative strengths and
weaknesses of these approaches to testing and auditing, and whether
they are optimally used singly or in combination. To facilitate such
comment, EPA notes that it believes a strength of the manufacturer and
importer-focused third-party certification for all products that may
contain HFCs is that it would reduce the likelihood that noncompliant
products will be manufactured or imported because it would signal the
need for compliance with subsection (i) restrictions early in the
market chain. We have particular concern about noncompliant imports
into the United States by retailers and through online eCommerce and
establishing auditing that would occur at the point of import may
minimize noncompliance. It would also reduce the burden on retailers to
identify whether they sell products that may contain HFCs and thus need
to register with the third-party certification program. This would be
especially beneficial for small businesses that may be less familiar
with environmental regulations and less familiar with what types of
products may contain HFCs.
    Potential weaknesses of the third-party certification system
include difficulty in identifying which products would need to be
certified in order to be sold or distributed in the United States and
the degree to which EPA or an accreditation board would be able to
provide adequate oversight to foreign third-party certifiers.
Additionally, given that all products would need to be certified
compliant prior to import, EPA is concerned that accrediting enough
certifiers to conduct the required testing would be challenging. A
related challenge may concern how auditing results are shared with the
Agency including the format in which they are presented. EPA is seeking
input on ways to mitigate these potential challenges.
    Alternatively, a potential strength of a retailer-focused third-
party auditing program is that products will consistently be tested for
compliance by various third-party auditors. This could provide a
continuous stream of data to understand how many tested products are
compliant and assist EPA in knowing which products to focus on for
enforcement. A potential weakness is that more noncompliant products
may be made available in the U.S. market, especially from foreign
distributors through eCommerce. Furthermore, it may be challenging to
assess compliance of products sold by foreign businesses through online
eCommerce as these entities would not be participants of the auditing
program. In order to reduce potential rates of noncompliance, EPA is
seeking input on the frequency with which third-party audits should be
conducted and methods of addressing potential noncompliance by foreign
eCommerce businesses.
    In addition to either of these proposed structures, EPA is also
considering an auditing program for non-residential equipment that is
field charged with regulated substances. Two options EPA is considering
include either a periodic audit of the owners of the existing equipment
to review whether this field-charged equipment is being charged with a
compliant substance or to audit the field chargers when equipment is
charged to determine that it is being charged with a compliant
substance. EPA is seeking comment on the relative strengths or
weaknesses of either approach and whether the field chargers or
equipment owners should maintain sufficient documentation to support
such an audit. EPA believes a potential strength of auditing the owners
of the non-residential field-charged equipment is that it will narrow
the universe of audited parties to only those owners of the equipment
that is being periodically field-charged with regulated substances and
could encourage this industry to provide its own oversight of field
charging entities to ensure that its equipment is compliant.
    In addition to seeking input on the relative strengths and
weaknesses of these two possible structures for a third-party testing
and auditing program, EPA is also seeking advance information on any
other structures that could be effective in ensuring noncompliant
products are unavailable in the U.S. market. As discussed in the Lesley
K. McAllister law review article, Third Party Programs to Assess
Regulatory Compliance,\175\ one of the metrics of success for such a
program is the rate of compliance that the program enhances.\176\
Common drivers of the rate of compliance includes the frequency with
which testing is carried out and the regularity that testing will be
conducted on a given regulated entity.\177\ For example, even if
testing will only be conducted on a regulated entity once every few
years, if the entity knows to anticipate testing with regularity, the
entity is more likely to change its processes to be compliant. EPA is
especially interested in any comments that address how the third-party
program can be structured to enhance rates of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 53 B.C. L. Rev. 1 (Jan. 2012).
    \176\ Id. at 44-45.
    \177\ Id. at 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What elements and criteria should be included in the third-party
auditors and/or accreditation body requirements?
    EPA is seeking advance information on how the accreditation process
should be structured for third-party auditors or certifiers and what
criteria should be included in the accreditation process. First, EPA is
seeking input on how accreditation of third-party auditors or
certifiers should be structured. The above-cited McAllister law review
article notes that different agencies have structured third-party
programs in a variety of ways. That article notes that the most common
structure is for the government agency to recognize a third-party
accreditation body that in turn accredits conformity assessment bodies,
i.e., third-party auditors or certifiers.\178\ However, the article
recognizes that this structure varies under different regulatory
programs, noting that in some instances the regulatory agency may
accredit the third-party auditors or certifiers directly, and that
other programs accredit a combination of third-party auditors and
testing bodies (e.g., laboratories).\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ Id. at 7.
    \179\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is seeking feedback on how the accreditation system could be
structured

for third-party auditors or certifiers, and whether that accreditation
system should be headed by accreditation bodies recognized by EPA. EPA
is seeking input on the relative strengths and weaknesses of
recognizing accreditation bodies to conduct the accreditation process
of third-party auditors or certifiers and the strengths and weaknesses
of EPA directly accrediting third-party auditors or certifiers.
    If a comment recommends that EPA recognize accreditation bodies to
accredit third-party auditors or certifiers, EPA is also interested in
input on what criteria should be used to assess EPA's recognition of
these bodies. Such criteria could include, for example: how the
accreditation body must demonstrate legal authority (e.g., governmental
or contractual) to perform assessment of third-party auditors necessary
to assess the applicant's capability to conduct audits; criteria for
competency and capacity to adequately assess applicants' capabilities
as an auditor; criteria to reduce conflicts of interest and promote
independence in the assessment body; and what recordkeeping
requirements should exist to qualify for accreditation.
    EPA is also seeking input on what criteria should be used, either
by EPA or by the accreditation body, to accredit third-party auditors.
Such criteria could include, for example: laboratory testing
capabilities the applicant must have, and requirements to ensure the
capabilities are adequate for testing for compliant HFCs; expertise the
applicant must have in order to adequately assess compliance beyond
testing capabilities; recordkeeping requirements that should be
required; criteria to reduce conflicts of interest and promote
independence in the third-party auditor; frequency that the applicant
should be re-assessed for accreditation; and how the reports should be
provided to EPA and/or the accreditation body.
    Of particular interest to EPA is advance information on how the
third-party auditing program should be paid for. EPA is considering
implementing a fee-based system paid by all registered entities that
distribute products that may contain HFCs in the U.S. market. If using
a fee-based structure, EPA is seeking input on whether to provide a
fee-structure that is proportionate to the size of business in order to
mitigate impacts on small businesses. Although EPA is considering a
fee-based approach, EPA also welcomes comments on alternative payment
structures that could foster the greatest level of independence between
registered regulated entities and the third-party accreditation body
and/or third-party auditors.
    The above-cited McAllister law review article notes that one of the
metrics of success for third-party auditing programs is the extent to
which the program produces reliable results. Primarily this metric is
driven by the extent to which the program requirements foster third-
party auditors' competency and independence.\180\ In order to foster
competency, EPA believes the testing capabilities to determine that any
HFCs in a product are compliant will be paramount. EPA is especially
interested in any comments regarding recommended requirements to ensure
that third-party auditors are capable of this type of testing and any
additional requirements that should be added to enhance the likelihood
that third-party auditors will be competent to assess products'
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, EPA is interested in advance information on enhancing the
independence of third-party auditors. EPA believes a fee-based system
will foster independence in auditors as they would not be paid directly
by the entity being audited. However, EPA is interested in comments on
additional criteria that would foster independence. Such criteria could
include a required amount of time that the auditor would not work for
the audited entity both before and after the audit. EPA believes such
criteria could help reduce commercial and financial pressures on the
auditor that could potentially compromise the audit.
    Another metric of success discussed in the McAllister article is
the agency's capacity to administer the third-party program.\181\
Depending on how the third-party program is designed, implementing the
program may require a large investment of agency time and resources. In
particular, if EPA is directly accrediting third-party auditors rather
than delegating that to accreditation bodies, EPA will need enough
resources to adequately assess each of the third-party auditor
applicants. It would also require EPA personnel to develop the
necessary expertise to consistently evaluate capabilities of
applicants. EPA directly accrediting third-party auditors could present
additional challenges when assessing potential foreign third-party
auditor applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Id. at 45-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. What are the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

    EPA is proposing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for any
entity that domestically manufactures or imports products that use or
are intended to use regulated substances or blends containing a
regulated substance and is subject to the restrictions in this proposed
rulemaking.
    A subset of the entities that would be subject to these proposed
reporting requirements is currently subject to reporting requirements
under subpart QQ of the GHGRP.\182\ The GHGRP, 40 CFR part 98, covers
the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and supplies from
certain facilities and suppliers. To decrease the administrative
burden, particularly to those entities that would be subject to both
subpart QQ of 40 CFR part 98 and this proposed rulemaking, EPA is
proposing reporting requirements similar to the data elements required
by the GHGRP. The data elements in subpart QQ of the GHGRP form the
starting point for the proposed recordkeeping and reporting
requirements further outlined in this section.\183\ EPA is taking this
proposed approach because many of the data elements in subpart QQ
provide information necessary for EPA to assess compliance with this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ, ``Importers and Exporters of
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or
Closed-Cell Foams.''
    \183\ EPA is not proposing any changes to 40 CFR part 98 in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some of the proposed requirements overlap with those of the
GHGRP, this proposal would require all manufacturers and importers of
products that use or are intended to use regulated substances or blends
containing a regulated substance subject to these proposed restrictions
to electronically report certain information to EPA. This is in
contrast to the GHGRP where reporting is not required for entities that
import and export less than the equivalent of 25,000 MTCO2e
per year and are not otherwise required to report under 40 CFR part 98.
Under subpart QQ, entities that import or export an annual quantity of
fluorinated greenhouse gases (as defined in 40 CFR part 98) contained
in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that is equivalent to
25,000 metric tons CO2e \184\ or more are required to
provide annual reports detailing certain

information regarding their imports or exports of such products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Calculated as specified in 40 CFR 98.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, for this rule EPA is proposing to apply the provisions to
all entities that domestically manufacture or import products that use
or are intended to use regulated substances or blends containing a
regulated substance subject to this proposed rulemaking regardless of
the amount of regulated substances in those products. EPA believes
requiring these entities to report will be important for understanding
how HFCs are being used or are intended for use in products and would
provide important information for verifying compliance and allowing for
oversight.
    EPA is proposing that reports be submitted electronically using
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) \185\ through EPA's electronic
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT).\186\ EPA intends to avoid
duplicative burden between the AIM Act and the GHGRP and reporting
through e-GGRT will aid in the synchronization of these systems.
Entities already subject to reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart QQ
may need to augment their reporting in order to comply with reporting
requirements under this proposal but would not need to duplicate their
efforts. Where there is overlap in requested data, EPA intends to
provide the ability to populate a draft annual GHGRP report with data
submitted under the AIM Act, which the GHGRP reporter could then revise
or augment as necessary, certify, and submit as required under 40 CFR
part 98. EPA seeks comment on additional ways the Agency can utilize
existing data collection to ensure compliance with the proposed
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Central Data Exchange is EPA's electronic reporting site
(https://cdx.epa.gov/).
    \186\ E-GGRT is EPA's electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
for certain sources and suppliers of GHGs in the United States to
report GHG emissions (https://ghgreporting.epa.gov/ghg/login.do).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What reporting is EPA proposing to require?

    EPA is proposing that covered entities provide reports to EPA that
include: (1) the sector and subsector of the product based on the
categorization in this rulemaking; (2) for each type of pre-charged
equipment with a unique combination of charge size and regulated
substance or blend containing a regulated substance, the identity of
the HFC or HFC blend used and its GWP, charge size (including holding
charge, if applicable), and number of each product type domestically
manufactured or imported; (3) for each element in (2) in this list, the
total mass in metric tons of each HFC or blend containing an HFC used
in the product type, and the mass of the regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance per unit of equipment type; and (4)
the dates on which the products were imported or domestically
manufactured.
    For the proposed requirement to report the total mass in metric
tons of each HFC or blend containing an HFC used in the regulated
products, including those in the RACHP and aerosols sectors, but
excluding those in the foam blowing sector, reporters shall use the
following equation:

I = [Sigma]t St * Nt * 0.001

where:

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

    For the foam blowing sector, for those foams that are an integrated
part of a product (e.g., the foam in a household refrigerator or
freezer), St shall be the mass of the regulated substance or
blend containing a regulated substance in the foam used as part of the
product), and all other factors in the equation above shall remain the
same.
    For the foam blowing sector, for those foams that are considered
the product itself (e.g., extruded polystyrene boardstock),
St shall be the density of the regulated substance or blend
containing a regulated substance in foam (charge per cubic foot of
foam, kg of regulated substance per cubic foot), Nt shall be
the total volume of foam imported or domestically manufactured
quarterly (cubic feet of foam), and all other factors in the equation
above shall remain the same.
    This equation is used in 40 CFR part 98 subpart QQ for imports and
exports of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams that contain a
fluorinated GHG, as defined under 40 CFR part 98, and is already in use
and familiar to those currently subject to reporting under subpart QQ.
    EPA is requesting comment on the proposed reporting requirements
and whether specific data should additionally be required for other
sectors or subsectors such as: a list of each specific product model
using regulated substances that falls within each type and unique
combination of charge size and regulated substance or blend containing
a regulated substance as reported per above; a differentiation by model
number of the products as reported per above; an estimation of future
imports over some period of time such as the next quarter or next year;
information on the source of the HFC or HFC blend such as company name
and address; or other information that would prove useful for the
purposes of this proposed regulation.
    For equipment that is shipped without an HFC but is intended to use
an HFC (e.g., field-charged equipment), EPA is proposing that the
manufacturer or importer of the dry shipped equipment report on the
number of products, the HFC or HFC blend the products are intended for
use with, and the expected quantity of HFC or HFC blend that the
product would contain when fully charged. EPA requests comment on
requiring additional data elements such as whether the product is also
intended for use with substances other than HFCs or HFC blends, the
sector(s) and subsector(s) the product is used in, and whether the
product is a component or subassembly. The Agency also requests comment
on other data points that may be useful in determining the number of
HFC products that are manufactured or imported without a charge.
Alternatively, EPA could require entities who manufacture or import
products that are designed for but do not contain an HFC or HFC blend
to affirm they are a covered entity on an annual basis and list the
types of products they manufacture or import, the quantity they
manufactured or imported last year, and the regulated substances their
equipment is designed to work with.
    EPA notes that the definition of manufacture for this proposed rule
includes the entity responsible for charging a field charged product.
EPA proposes for the reporting and recordkeeping section, technicians
are not included as manufacturers and would therefore not be subject to
the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Requiring reporting from entities that are manufacturing products
that are intended for but do not contain HFCs and HFC blends would
ensure EPA knows the full universe of relevant products that likely
will contain HFCs or HFC blends in the covered sectors and subsectors
and know the full universe of entities that manufacture and import
these products. These proposed data requirements would provide
information regarding the quantity and type of HFCs used in the

three sectors (i.e., RACHP, foam blowing, and aerosols) covered in this
proposed rulemaking. This information will support EPA's efforts to
assess the compliance of the regulated industries and will assist with
efforts to enforce requirements established in this rulemaking. EPA is
proposing that importers and manufacturers of products using regulated
substances or blends containing a regulated substance who fail to
report required information or provide inaccurate information would be
considered a violation. EPA does not believe that reporting the
information listed in this section above will be overly burdensome for
the regulated community. Much of the information is already required
for a portion of those impacted by this proposed rulemaking. The
required data is limited to the information needed to ensure compliance
and monitor the import and manufacture of the use of HFCs in products.
    EPA seeks to ensure a level playing field for the regulated
community and views regular reporting as a central mechanism for
ensuring compliant companies are not placed at a competitive
disadvantage. EPA requests comment on the proposed reporting
requirements, including comments related to whether additional data
should be collected or if complying with the proposed requirements will
be overly burdensome.
    EPA is proposing that reports described in this section be
submitted to EPA within 45 days of the end of the applicable reporting
period, unless otherwise specified. The report would need to be signed
and attested by a responsible officer. EPA is proposing that importers
and domestic manufacturers of products subject to the proposed
reporting requirements provide a statement of certification that the
data they provide is accurate. EPA is also proposing that reporters be
required to certify that their products use only allowed HFCs, do not
exceed any applicable GWP limit, and are properly labeled. EPA requests
comment on the proposed certification requirements.
    What is the proposed frequency of reporting?
    EPA is proposing to require quarterly reporting from domestic
manufacturers and importers subject to the proposed reporting
requirement. The proposed frequency would allow for the Agency to
review data throughout the year, identify trends, and identify
noncompliance with the GWP limits and inaccurate reporting on an
ongoing basis. Quarterly reporting is consistent with other reporting
under the Allocation Framework Rule. Quarterly reporting may allow the
Agency to more quickly identify trends and enforce against any
production or import of a regulated product that uses or is intended to
use a regulated substance or blend containing a regulated substance
that is above the GWP limit or otherwise restricted as proposed in this
rule. Doing so may limit the amount of such noncompliant product that
enters commerce compared to an annual report. This frequency of
reporting may likewise provide manufacturers and importers the ability
to more quickly stop production or import of such noncompliant product
and return to compliance with the provisions of this proposed rule.
Quarterly reporting may also allow EPA to identify and correct
inaccurate reporting more quickly so that the errors can be corrected.
Quarterly reporting would also provide more information for
understanding where HFCs and blends containing HFCs continue to be used
in the sectors and subsectors covered by this rule, which would allow
the Agency to understand market dynamics and the transitions that are
occurring in those sectors and subsectors more quickly than semi-annual
or annual reporting. The reports could also inform potential future
rulemakings under subsection (i) of the AIM Act or potentially under
other subsections of the Act. In light of these considerations, EPA is
proposing the collection of quarterly reporting as the most appropriate
frequency. EPA is taking comment on whether semi-annual, annual
reporting, or another reporting frequency would adequately provide the
same level of information and enforcement potential.
    EPA is also taking comment on whether it would be appropriate to
require notification to EPA prior to importing products that use or are
intended to use HFCs. This would be analogous to the requirements at 40
CFR 84.31(c)(7) that require importers of bulk HFCs to report to EPA
what they are importing early enough that EPA and CBP can determine if
there are sufficient allowances for the imported HFCs or blends
containing HFCs. In this case the notice would certify to EPA that the
products using HFCs are in compliance with these standards and would
provide the data required in the quarterly reporting program described
in this section above for the products in the shipment. This
information could be used to assist CBP as well as EPA personnel that
may need to assess if a given product is consistent with requirements
established in this rulemaking. While EPA notes that providing
information regarding regulated products prior to their import may have
compliance related advantages, such as enabling noncompliant products
to be stopped before entering the market, such a system would require
significant EPA resources to administer. EPA seeks comments on
potential advantages or disadvantages of importers reporting prior to
import in addition to quarterly, semi-annual, or annual reporting,
including whether reporting prior to import would be useful for
assessing compliance.

B. What recordkeeping is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing that entities that import or domestically
manufacture regulated products in the sectors and subsectors covered by
this rule maintain records that form the basis of the reports outlined
in section IX.A of this preamble above for a minimum of three years and
make them available to EPA upon request. EPA also proposes that the
importer or domestic manufacturer retain records of the company or
retailer to whom the regulated product was sold, distributed, or in any
way conveyed to. Information regarding where products have been
distributed, sold, or conveyed to after import or manufacture may be
necessary for tracking noncompliant products when they are identified
and removing them from the market.
    In addition, EPA is proposing that importers retain the following
records substantiating each of the imports that they report: (1) a copy
of the bill of lading for the import, (2) the invoice for the import,
(3) the CBP entry documentation if applicable, (4) ports of arrival and
entry though which the products passed, and (5) country of origin and
if different the country of shipment to the United States. These
requirements are consistent with the recordkeeping already required for
the subset of importers subject to subpart QQ of the GHGRP and will
allow EPA to enforce the proposed restrictions by tracking the movement
and sources of noncompliant products when they are identified.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed recordkeeping requirements and
whether additional recordkeeping should be required. EPA also requests
comment on whether the Agency should consider a retention period for
records of five years in alignment with the HFC Framework rule.

X. What are the costs and benefits of this proposed action?

    EPA estimated the costs and benefits of restricting HFCs consistent
with this proposal. This analysis, presented in the RIA addendum
contained in the docket, is intended to provide the public with