July 2015

Response to Comments

For the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of 

Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Stratospheric Protection Division

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460
1

Introduction

This document summarizes comments on the proposed rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) Program, which are found in EPA’s docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198.1 EPA received 

unique comments from several organizations, trade associations, chemical producers,

environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), state governments, university 

organizations, and one automobile manufacturer. Table 1 provides a complete list of the 

commenters and their associated comment Docket ID number. A total of 227 comments were 

submitted by 192 commenters. Three of these comments were submitted via mass-mail 

campaigns from 7,022 private citizens who generally supported EPA finalizing the proposed rule 

with more rigorous timelines, 436 boat manufacturers, and 93 marine industry stakeholders. 

Additionally, one comment had 18 signatories, and is referred to throughout this document by 

the group name, “SNAP Coalition Request for Comment Extension (SNAP Coalition).” 

Comment summaries and responses are organized by topic (see Table of Contents). A bulleted 

summary of comments is provided below each individual topic heading with Docket ID numbers 

provided in parentheses to identify the source of the comment. Generally, comments 

supported by the largest number of commenters are placed first to highlight issues of common 

concern. Special attention was paid to ensure that comments are properly addressed with 

sufficient and relevant detail extracted from their submittal.

 1 This document was prepared with assistance from ICF International, 1725 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20006. 
2

Table of Contents

1 AEROSOLS.............................................................................................................................18

1.1 Change of Status Dates..........................................................................................................18

1.1.1 Aerosol Tire Inflators.....................................................................................................19

1.1.2 Technical Aerosols for Military and Space Uses and Medical Aerosols..................20

1.1.3 Pesticides.........................................................................................................................21

1.1.4 Aerosols for Functional Testing of Smoke Detectors.................................................21

1.2 Use Conditions........................................................................................................................22

1.2.1 Metered-Dose Inhalers..................................................................................................22

1.2.2 Definition of Consumer and Technical Aerosols........................................................22

1.2.3 Other Aerosol Applications...........................................................................................23

1.2.4 Compatibility of Components with Acceptable Alternatives...................................24

1.2.5 Clarification Requests....................................................................................................25

1.3 Flammability............................................................................................................................25

1.3.1 Flammability of Acceptable Alternatives....................................................................25

1.3.2 Flammability Concerns for Safety Dusters.................................................................27

1.4 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Status Changes........................................................27

1.5 Cost Impacts............................................................................................................................28

1.5.1 Cost Associated with Smoke Detector Sensitivity Testing Equipment....................28

1.5.2 Cost Associated with Aerosol Tire Inflators................................................................28

1.5.3 Cost Associated with Other Aerosol Applications.....................................................29

1.6 Exemptions/Additional Uses Subject to Use Conditions....................................................30

1.6.1 Medical Uses..................................................................................................................30

 1.6.2 Pesticides........................................................................................................................31

2 MOTOR VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONING (MVAC) SYSTEMS IN NEWLY 

MANUFACTURED LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES................................................................32

2.1 Timeline....................................................................................................................................33

2.1.1 Change of Status Dates.................................................................................................33

2.1.2 Challenges Associated with Use of Lower-GWP Alternative Refrigerants.............35

2.1.3 Supply of Alternative Refrigerants...............................................................................38

2.2 Interaction with Title II of the Clean Air Act........................................................................39

2.2.1 Interaction with EPA’s Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule..........................................39

2.2.2 Petition to Classify MVAC System as an Emission Control Device...........................39

2.3 Vehicles Manufactured in the United States for Export....................................................40

2.4 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Status Changes.........................................................52

2.4.1 Direct Climate Impact....................................................................................................52

2.4.2 Indirect Climate Impacts: Energy Efficiency................................................................53

2.5 Economic Impacts of Proposed Status Changes..................................................................53

2.6 Servicing, Repair, and Retrofits.............................................................................................54

2.6.1 Continued Servicing with HFC-134a.............................................................................54

2.6.2 Thermal Expansion Valves.............................................................................................55
3

2.6.3 Retrofit of HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf MVAC............................................................56

2.7 Refrigerant Blends......................................................................................................................56

2.8 Heavy-Duty MVAC Systems......................................................................................................57

2.9 Other Suggestions or Requests................................................................................................57

2.9.1 General Requests...........................................................................................................57

2.9.2 Proper Servicing & Technician Certification...............................................................58

2.9.3 Recertification of Technicians.......................................................................................59

3 RETAIL FOOD AND VENDING MACHINES.......................................................................61

3.1 Change of Status Dates..........................................................................................................62

3.1.1 Retail Food Refrigeration (Supermarket Systems) ...................................................62

3.1.2 Retail Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units) ............................................62

3.1.3 Retial Food Refrigeration (Stand-Alone Equipment) ................................................64

3.1.4 Vending Machines..........................................................................................................70

3.1.5 Other Comments on the Proposed Change of Status Dates.....................................70

3.2 Economic Impacts of Proposed Status Changes.................................................................78

3.2.1 General Increase in Capital Costs................................................................................78

3.2.2 Costs Associated with System Redesign.....................................................................79

3.2.3 Costs Associated with Testing......................................................................................80

3.2.4 Reduction in Workforce.................................................................................................80

3.2.5 Training Costs.................................................................................................................81

3.2.6 Increase in Cost of Finished Products..........................................................................82

3.2.7 Reduction in New Product Development....................................................................82

3.2.8 Decrease in Sales............................................................................................................83

3.2.9 Other Economic Concerns.............................................................................................84

3.3 Other Impacts of Proposed Status Changes........................................................................85

3.3.1 Energy Efficiency of New Equipment...........................................................................86

3.3.2 Climate Change, Carbon Footprint, and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases..............87

3.3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds........................................................................................87

3.3.4 Environmental Impacts from Continued Operation of Equipment..........................88

3.3.5 Technology Considerations for Reducing Emissions of High-GWP Gases...............89

3.4 Availability and Acceptability of Alternatives.....................................................................90

3.4.1 Availability of Acceptable Alternatives........................................................................90

3.4.2 Viability of Alternatives Listed as SNAP Acceptable..................................................93

3.4.3 Flammability of Acceptable Alternatives....................................................................93

3.4.4 Toxicity of Acceptable Alternatives.............................................................................95

3.5 Existing Components and Equipment..................................................................................95

3.5.1 Servicing of Existing Retail Food Refrigeration Equipment and Vending 

Machines.........................................................................................................................96

3.5.2 Existing Inventories of Components and Appliances Prior to the Change of Status 

Date..................................................................................................................................96

3.6 Charge Size...............................................................................................................................98

3.7 Clarification Requests.............................................................................................................98

3.8 Other Suggestions or Requests...........................................................................................100
4

3.9 SNAP Requirements and Exports..........................................................................................102

3.10 General Comments...............................................................................................................105

3.10.1 General Comments on GWP Values..........................................................................105

3.10.2 General Comments on Acceptable Alternatives......................................................105

3.10.3 General Comments on Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning End-Uses Not Affected

 by the Refrigerant Status Changes in the Final Rule...............................................106

4 FOAM BLOWING AGENTS...................................................................................................108

4.1 Status Listing Changes..........................................................................................................109

4.2 Change of Status Date..........................................................................................................110

 4.2.1 General Comments on the Proposed Status Change Date......................................110

 4.2.2 Challenges Associated with Product Research and Development, Testing, and

 Certification...................................................................................................................111

 4.2.3 Challenges Associated with Conversion, System Redesign, 

 and Validation...............................................................................................................119

 4.2.4 Interactions with Other Rules......................................................................................123

4.3 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Status Changes.......................................................125

 4.3.1 Energy Efficiency..........................................................................................................124

 4.3.2 ENERGY STAR Requirements......................................................................................127

 4.3.3 Toxicity of Proposed Acceptable Alternatives..........................................................128

 4.3.4 Life-cycle Impact of Acceptable Alternatives...........................................................128

4.4 Cost Impacts...........................................................................................................................129

4.5 Acceptable Alternatives........................................................................................................130

 4.5.1 Availability and Viability of Acceptable Alternatives..............................................130

 4.5.2 Narrowed Choice of Suppliers....................................................................................135

 4.5.3 Flammability of Acceptable Alternatives..................................................................137

4.6 SNAP Requirements and Imports........................................................................................140

4.7 Narrowed Use Limitations....................................................................................................141

4.8 Exemption Requests..............................................................................................................144

4.9 Clarification Requests...........................................................................................................146

4.10 Other Suggestions or Requests...........................................................................................148

5 HCFCs........................................................................................................................................152

6 OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS...............................................................................................153

6.1 General Comments on the Proposed Status Listing Changes.........................................153

6.2 General Comments on the Proposed Status Change Dates............................................157

6.3 Legal Authority and Application of SNAP Framework.....................................................158

6.3.1 General Authority.........................................................................................................158

6.3.2 Second Generation Substitutes...................................................................................160

6.3.3 GWP Considerations.....................................................................................................160

6.3.4 Montreal Protocol/International...............................................................................163

6.3.5 Petitions.........................................................................................................................165
5

6.3.6 Application of SNAP Criteria and Guiding Principles..............................................167

6.4 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Status Changes.................................................176

6.4.1 EPA’s Benefits Analysis...............................................................................................177

6.4.2 Energy Efficiency..........................................................................................................177

6.5 Cost and Economic Impacts.................................................................................................180

6.5.1 Costs of the Proposed Rule.........................................................................................180

6.5.2 Small Business Impacts...............................................................................................182

6.6 Availability and Acceptability of Acceptable Alternatives..............................................183

6.7 Other Suggestions or Requests...........................................................................................184

6.7.1 Additional Status Change Requests..........................................................................184

6.7.2 Comment Period Extension Requests.......................................................................186

7 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................187
6

Acronyms

AC—air conditioning

AHRTI—Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Technology Institute

AR4—fourth assessment report

AR5—fifth assessment report

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

ASTM—ASTM International 

CAA—Clean Air Act

CAP—Climate Action Plan

CCAC—Climate and Clean Air Coalition 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

CH4—methane

CO2—carbon dioxide

CO2eq—carbon dioxide equivalent

COPD—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 

CRE—commercial refrigeration equipment

CSPC—United States Consumer Product Safety Commission

DIY—do-it-yourself 

DOD—United States Department of Defense 

DOE—United States Department of Energy 

DOS—United States Department of State 

DOT—United States Department of Transportation 

ENGO—environmental non-governmental organization

EO—Executive Order

EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency 

EU—European Union 

FCA—Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

FDA—United States Food and Drug Administration

FM—Factory Mutual

FMEA—Failure Mode and Effect Analysis 

FR—Federal Register

FTOC—Foams Technical Options Committee

GHG—greenhouse gas 

GWP—global warming potential

HC—hydrocarbons

HCFC—hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HF—hydrogen fluoride

HFC—hydrofluorocarbon 

HFO—hydrofluroolefin 

HVAC—heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

ICF—ICF International, Inc.

INDC—Intended Nationally Determined Contribution 
7

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

ISO—International Organization for Standardization 

LD GHG Rule—Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule

LP SPF—low-pressure spray foam

MAC Directive—Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning

MDI—metered dose inhaler 

MIE—minimum ignition energy 

MMTCO2eq—million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

MVAC—motor vehicle air conditioning 

MY—model year

N2—nitrogen

N2O—nitrous oxide

NAICS—North American Industrial Classification System 

NASA—National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NESHAP—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFPA—National Fire Protection Association

NGO—non-governmental organization

NHTSA—National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NO—nitrogen oxide

NPRM—notice of proposed rulemaking 

ODS—ozone-depleting substance 

ODP—ozone-depleting potential

OEM—original equipment manufacturer 

OSHA—U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PFC—perfluorocarbons

PU—polyurethane 

REACH—Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals

RRR—Recovery, Recycling, and Recharging 

SBA—United States Small Business Administration

SF6—sulfur hexafluoride

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy

SRES—Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

TEAP—Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

TSCA—Toxic Substances Control Act

TXV—thermal expansion valve

UL—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme 

UNFCCC—United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USCG—United States Coast Guard

VOC—volatile organic compounds 

VVOC—very volatile organic compounds
8

Table 1: Index of Commenters

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

1

3M

Teresa Borzcik EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0064

2 Kurt T. Werner EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0117

3 The Adhesive and Sealant 

Council (ASC) Mark Collatz EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0046

4 Aeropres Corporation

(Aeropres) Mark Rivers EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0127

5 Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI)

Karim Amrane

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0174

6 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

7 Aladdin Temp-Rite David Gordon EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0102

8 All Weather Insulated 

Panels (AWIP) Mike Lowery EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0067

9 Alliance for Responsible 

Atmospheric Policy (The 

Alliance)a

Kevin Fay

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0202

10 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

11

Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (AAM)b

Julie Becker EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

12 Giedrius Ambrozaitis EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113

13

American Composites 

Manufacturers 

Association (ACMA)

Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0132

14 American Panel 

Corporation (American 

Panel)

Harmon S. Lewis EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0097

15 Paul Ramsbottom EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

16 Arkema Inc. (Arkema) William J. Hamel EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0131

17 Association of Global 

Automakers, Inc. (Global 

Automakers)c

Julia Rege EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207

18 John Cabaniss EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

19

Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM)

Joseph M. McGuire EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0065

20

Robert D. McArver EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0211

21

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

22

Automated 

Merchandising Systems, 

Inc. (AMS)

Jim Collins EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0109
9

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

23

Automotive Refrigeration 

Products Institute 

(ARPI) and Auto Care 

Association

Michael J. Conlon EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0063

24 Bally Refrigerated Boxes, 

Inc. (Bally) Michael H. Coyle EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

25 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0213

26

BASF Corporation (BASF)d

Kyle Laliberte EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0032

27 Erika M Peterman; 

Jozef G Venner EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0093

28 Mike Krupa EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

29 BMW Group (BMW) Christoph Huss EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0118

30 Boeing Defense, Space & 

Security (Boeing) Sheryl Sizelove EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0111

31 Bottleless Water 

Association Jim Booth EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0053

32 California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) Richard W. Corey EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0106

33

Center for Polyurethanes 

Industry of the American 

Chemistry Council (CPI)

Steve Russel EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0175

34 Clayton 

Corporation (Clayton) Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0133

35 Coca-Cola North America 

Group (Coca-Cola) Bruce Karas EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0074

36

Commercial Food 

Equipment Service 

Association (CFESA)

Heather Price EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0176

38 Consumer Specialty 

Products Association 

(CSPA)

D. Douglas Fratz

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0125

39 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

40 Continental Refrigerator Jeff Bauman EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0122

41 CyCan Industries (CyCan) A. Monte McCall EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0135

42 Danfoss Mark Menzer EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0115

43 Christopher Nitz EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

44 Department of Defense 

(DoD) Donald R. Schregardus EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0094

45 DiversiFoam Products Steve Slavik EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0030

46 Dow Chemical Company 

(Dow Chemical) Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0204

47 Duke Manufacturing Co. Michael McDermott EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0038j
10

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

48 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0040

49 DuPont Chemicals and 

Fluoroproducts (DuPont)d

Michael Parr; Mack 

McFarland EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077

50 Michael Parr EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

51

Effective Altruism at 

University of Maryland 

(Effective Altruism at 

UMD)

Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0052

52 Electrolux North America 

Inc. (Electrolux) George E. Hawranko EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0191

53

Emerson Climate 

Technologies, Inc. 

(Emerson)

Rajan Rajendran EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0190

54 Environmental 

Investigation Agency (EIA)

Mark W. Roberts EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0134

55 Allan Thornton EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

56 Eppendorf Dr. Birgit Schreiber EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0081

57

Extruded Polystyrene 

Foam Association (XPSA)e John Ferraro

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0189

58 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

59 Falcon Safety Products Philip M. Lapin EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0069

60 Federal Industries Jerry Sokol EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0138

61 Fomo Products, Inc. Dr. Thomas Fishback EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0139

62 Food Marketing Institute 

(FMI) Stephanie K. Barnes EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0173

63 GE Appliances (GE) Kelley Kline EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0205

64

Grindmaster-Cecilware 

Corporation

(Grindmaster-Cecilware)

Jose Avendano

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0021

65 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0022

66 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0031

67 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

68 Richard Willey EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

69 HSI Fire & Safety Group, 

LLC Thomas Barakat EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0050

70 H&K International Bryan Tonn EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0024

71 Hatco Corporation (Hatco) John Scanlon EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0028

72

HC Duke & Son, 

LLC/Electro-Freeze (HC 

Duke/Electro-Freeze)

Kyle Elsom EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0209
11

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

73

Heating, Air-Conditioning 

& Refrigeration 

Distributors International 

(HARDI)

Jon Melchi EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0121

74 Helmer Scientific (Helmer) Dennis Smith EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0027

75 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0218

76 Hillphoenix Fred L. Minelli EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0104

77 Larry Howington EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0215

78

Honeywell International 

Inc. (Honeywell)

Dave Stirpe EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

79

Ken Gayer; Amy Chiang EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0170

80

Hoshizaki America, Inc. Stephen Schaefer

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0217

81 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

82 Howe Corporation (Howe) Jeff Mackowiak EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0048

83 Hudson Technologies 

(Hudson)

Stephen P. 

Mandracchia EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0103

84 Huntsman Corporation 

(Huntsman) Keith Day

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0091i

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0180

85

Hussman Corporation

(Hussman)

Ron Shebik EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0119

86 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

87 Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

88 Ice-O-Matic George Parsons EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

89 IMC Water Coolers Susan Bierly EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0164

90 Imperial Brown Rick Jones EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0181

91 Ingersoll Rand Nanette Lockwood EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0203

92 Intel Corporation (Intel) Fawn Bergen EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0126

93

InterMetro Industries 

Corporation (InterMetro 

Industries)

Willard Sickles EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0062

94 International Cold 

Storage, Crown Tonka, 

and ThermalRite Walk-Ins

Steve Combs EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0206

95 Terry Brooks EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

96

International 

Pharmaceutical Aerosol 

Consortium (IPAC)

Maureen Donahue 

Hardwick EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0208

97 IP Moulding Inc. Ty Scopel EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0088

98 ITW Global Tire Repair Ian Fletcher EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0210
12

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

99 ITW Polymers Sealants 

North America Frederick P. Walnut EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0071

100

Kairak - ITW Food 

Equipment Group, LLC 

(Kairak)

Brian Casserilla EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

101 KeepRite Refrigeration Vince Zolli EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0212

102 King & Spaulding, LLP James K. Vines; 

Christina M. Markus EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0078

103 Laboratory Products 

Association (LPA) Clark Mulligan EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0073

104 Lapolla Industries, Inc. 

(Lapolla) Douglas J. Kramer EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0096

105 Lennox International, Inc. 

(Lennox) John J. Hurst EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0120

106

LPS Laboratories a 

Division of Illinois Tool 

Works, Inc. (LPS 

Laboratories)

Elena Badiuzzi EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0214

107 Maersk Container 

Industry Morten Heide EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0089

108 Manitowoc Foodservice 

(Manitowoc) Daryl G. Erbs EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0216

109

Masonite International 

Corporation (Masonite 

International)

James Rabe

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0124g

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0182

110

Mass-mail Campaign

Carrie Mann EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0177n

111 Andrew Munao EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0178o

112 Mike Lewan EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0179p

113

Master-Bilt Products 

(Master-Bilt) Kenny Owen

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0092

114 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

115 Metl-SpanKarl F. Hielscher EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0100

116 Karl Hielscher EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

117 Mexichem Fluor, Inc. 

(Mexichem) John Pacillo EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0101

118 MicroCare Corporation

(MicroCare) David A. Ferguson EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0029

119 Minus Forty Technologies Julian Attree EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0033

120 N. Wasserstrom & Sons Mike Taylor; David F. 

Baum EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0082
13

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

121

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

(NASA)

James S. Leatherwood EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0070

122 National Aerosol 

Association (NAA) Doug Raymond EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0107

123 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

124 National Association of 

Manufacturers (NAM) Ross Eisenberg EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0129

125

National Automatic 

Merchandising 

Association (NAMA)

W. Eric Dell EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0183

126

National Automobile 

Dealers Association 

(NADA)

Douglas I. Greenhaus EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0116

127 National Coil Company Frank Xu EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0090

128

National Marine 

Manufacturers 

Association (NMMA)

John McKnight EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0072

129 National Refrigerants, Inc. Maureen Beatty EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0130

130 National Restaurant 

Association (NRA) Laura Abshire EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0123

131

Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) 

and Institute for 

Governance Sustainable 

Development (IGSD)

David Doniger;

Benjamin Longstreth; 

Emily Davis

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0136h

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0108

132 New Era Group Peter Williams EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

133 NewField Technologies, 

LLC Jennifer L. Stevens EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0059

134 Nor-Lake, Inc. Bill Larson EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0076

135 North American 

Association of Food 

Equipment Manufacturers 

(NAFEM)

Charlie Souhrada

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0137

136 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0026

137 NRDC Emily Davis EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

138

Owens Corningd Paul S. Lewandowski EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0035

139 Greg Mather EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0085

140 Pactiv Building Products Edward Bates EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m
14

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

141

Parker Hannifin 

Corporation’s Division 

Sporlan (Parker Hannifin)

Ty R. Doyle EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0105

142 Pregis Corporation

(Pregis) George Allen EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0051

143 Premium Spray Products Mac Hess EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

144 Private Citizen Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0019

145 Private Citizen Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0036

146 Private Citizen Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0043

147 Private Citizen Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0044

148 Private Citizen Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0066

149 Private Citizen Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0068

150 Private Citizen Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0075

151 Private Citizen Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0099

152 Private Citizen Andrew Munao EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0178

153 Private Citizen Barbara Nadel EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0141

153 Private Citizen Carol Sweger EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0154

155 Private Citizen Carrie Mann EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0177

156 Private Citizen Dana Dyer EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0161

157 Private Citizen David Winkel EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0140

158 Private Citizen Denise Curry EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0167

159 Private Citizen Eleanor Kiy EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0158

160 Private Citizen Grace Perry EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0162

161 Private Citizen Jane Beattie EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0143

162 Private Citizen Jason Kamalie EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0163

163 Private Citizen Jean Sommer EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0152

164 Private Citizen Jessica Dyer EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0168

165 Private Citizen Joe Newton EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0144

166 Private Citizen Karen Swam EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0157

167 Private Citizen Lee Stewart EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0159

168 Private Citizen Lester Bodi EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0169

169 Private Citizen Maija Schaefer EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0160

170 Private Citizen Margaret Bullitt-Jonas EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0155

171 Private Citizen Mark Levin EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0166

172 Private Citizen Michael Leone EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0145

173 Private Citizen Mike Lewan EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0179

174 Private Citizen Nat Houghton EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0147

175 Private Citizen Paula Abel EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0149

176 Private Citizen Peggy Malone EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0150
15

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

177 Private Citizen Peter Hanson EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0142

178 Private Citizen Richard Gorringe EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0146

179 Private Citizen Robert Spector EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0153

180 Private Citizen Sigrid Asmus EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0151

181 Private Citizen Tom Broy EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0165

182 Private Citizen Truett Bobo EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0148

183 Private Citizen Varun Patel EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0080

184 Pure Water Innovations Vicky Hortman EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0041

185 Pure Water Technology of 

Mid-Michigan Barrett Bugg

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0039

186 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0060

187 Radiator Specialty 

Company (RSC) Larry G. Beaver EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0192

188 RHH Foam Systems, Inc. 

(RHH) J. Bartell EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0112

189

SAE Interior Climate 

Control Committee (SAE 

ICCC)

Timothy P. Mellon EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0114

190 Scotsman Ice Systems 

(Scotsman) Chris Salatino EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0186

191 System Development 

Integration, LLC (SDI) and 

No Climb Products d

Stewart Pepper EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0110

192 Rick Heffernan EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

193 SEVO Systems, Inc. (SEVO 

Systems) Jon Flamm EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0095

194 Shecco America (Shecco) Kiara Skacanova EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0194

195 Keilly Witman EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

196

SNAP Coalition Request 

for Comment Extension

(SNAP Coalition)f

Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0054

197 So-Low Environmental 

Equipment Co., Inc.

Walter Schum EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0086

198 William Berling EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0087

199 Solvay Fluorides, LLC 

(Solvay) Mark Looney EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0098

200 Southern Case Art Massoud Neshan EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0193

201 Stoner Incorporated Robert W. Sweger EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0128

202 Structural Composites and 

Compsys, Inc. (Structural 

Composites Inc.)

Scott M. Lewit

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

203 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0172

204 Structural Concepts David P. Geerts; Viktor 

Anderson EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0199
16

Count Organization Commenter Docket ID Number

205 Viktor Anderson EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0195

206 Jason Paquette EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037m

207 Sub-Zero Design 

Engineering (Sub-Zero) Paul V. Sikir EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0187

208 Supermarket Company 

ABC Keilly Witman EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0200

209 Suterra, LLC Kari Mavian EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0079

210 Techspray Steve Cook EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0156

211 Thermo Fisher Scientific Bill McMahon EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0042k

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0047

212 Thermo-Kool/Mid-South 

Industries, Inc. (ThermoKool)Lee Thames

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0084

213 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

214 Traulsen - ITW Food 

Equipment Group, LLC 

(Traulsen)

Mary Dane

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0188

215 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

216 True Manufacturing Charles Hon EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0196

217 Underwriters Laboratories 

Inc. (UL)

Randall J. Haseman;

Dwayne E. Sloan EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0083

218 Unified Brands

Rick Seiss; Dino 

Delorenzo; Tushar 

Kulkarni

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0049

219 Unisom Comfort 

Technologies Tim Chapp EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0020

220 United Refrigeration Inc. Richard Rosen EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0197

221 United Technologies John Mandyck EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0061

222 Utility Trailer 

Manufacturing Company 

(UTMC)

Jeffrey J. Bennett

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0023l

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0025

223 Vollrath Company, LLC 

(Vollrath) Bernie Goch EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0201

224 West Development Group Anonymous EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0045

225 Whirlpool Corporation 

(Whirlpool) Nathan Mouw EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0198

226 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0037

227 Zero Zone, Inc. Bruce R. Hierlmeier EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0171

a. Member groups include: AGC Chemicals Americas, A-Gas/RemTec, Air-Conditioning, 

Heating & Refrigeration Institute, Airgas, American Pacific Corp., Arkema, Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers, Auto Care Association, Bard Manufacturing Co., BASF, 

Brooks Automation, Cap & Seal Company, Carrier Corporation, Center for the Polyurethanes 
17

Industry, Combs Gas, Daikin Applied, Danfoss, DuPont, Dynatemp International, Emerson 

Climate Technologies, E.V. Dunbar Co., Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association, Falcon 

Safety Products, FP International, Golden Refrigerant, Halotron, Heating, Air-conditioning & 

Refrigeration Distributors International, Honeywell, Hudson Technologies, Hussmann, ICOR 

International, IDQ Holdings, International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium, Johnson 

Controls, Lennox International, Metl-Span Corporation, Mexichem Fluor, Midwest 

Refrigerants, Mitsubishi Electric, National Refrigerants, Owens Corning Specialty & Foam 

Products Center, Polar Technology, , Ritchie Engineering, Solvay, Sub-Zero, Dow Chemical, 

Trane Company, Whirlpool Corporation, and Worthington Cylinder.

b. Member groups include: BMW Group, Chrysler Group, LLC, Ford Motor Company, General 

Motors Company, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, 

Porsche Cars, Toyota, Volkswagen Group, and Volvo Cars.

c. Member groups include: Aston Martin, Ferrari, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, 

McLaren, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, and Toyota.

d. Original comment submission included an attachment.

e. Members include: Dow Chemical, Pactiv Corporation, and Owens Corning, Inc.

f. Signed by member groups: Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute, American 

Beverage Association, American Frozen Food Institute, Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers, Bottleless Water Association, Commercial Food Equipment Service 

Association, Food Marketing Institute, Global Cold Chain Alliance, International Association 

of Refrigerated Warehouses, Manufacturers’ Agents Association for the Foodservice 

Industry, North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers, National 

Association of Concessionaires, National Association of Convenience Stores, National 

Automatic Merchandizing Association, National Grocers Association, National Frozen & 

Refrigerated Foods Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, and National 

Restaurant Association.

g. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0182. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0124 is listed 

under EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0182 in the following sections.

h. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0108. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0136 is listed 

under EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0108 in the following sections.

i. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0180. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0091 is listed 

under EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0180 in the following sections.

j. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0040. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0038 is listed 

under EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0040 in the following sections.

k. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0047. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0042 is listed 

under EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0047 in the following sections.

l. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0025. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0023 is listed 

under EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0025 in the following sections.

m. In addition to oral comments, written comments were submitted at the Public Hearing held 

August 27, 2014. 

n. Mass-mail campaign included 7,022 letters.

o. Mass-mail campaign included 436 letters.

p. Mass-mail campaign included 93 letters.
18

1 AEROSOLS

EPA received several comments from members of the aerosol industry on the proposed change 

of status for the aerosol propellant HFC-125 as unacceptable; HFC-134a as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical aerosols; and 

HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in MDIs by January 1, 

2016. Comments were in reference to the use conditions for MDIs and other aerosol 

application categories (e.g., aerosol tire inflators), the availability and flammability of some 

alternatives, as well as the environmental and cost impacts of the proposed status changes. 

Some commenters requested that EPA not change the status of one or more of the substitutes 

for various uses and some commenters requested clarification of certain terms. Additionally, 

some commenters requested status changes that were not included in the proposed rule. The 

majority of commenters opposed the proposed status change date of January 1, 2016, and 

advocated change of status dates ranging from 2018 to 2021. One commenter supported the 

2016 change of status date, stating that important climate reductions will result from the 

transition to safer alternatives. Commenters who advocated for alternate status change dates 

mentioned various technical challenges, such as the time required to reformulate products, 

conduct testing, and acquire the necessary certification and approvals. One commenter also 

recommended a sell-through period, of no later than January 1, 2017, to prevent stranded 

inventories for aerosol products that are manufactured prior to the proposed status change 

date, and that have entered the distribution channel. 

Commenters included the National Aerosol Association (NAA), Aeropres Corporation 

(Aeropres), Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), Radiator Specialty Company (RSC), 

LPS Laboratories, Suterra, LLC, Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), Institute for 

Governance Sustainable Development (IGSD), Mexichem Fluor, Inc. (Mexichem), Stoner 

Incorporated, ITW Global Tire Repair, MicroCare Corporation (MicroCare), System Development 

Integration (SDI), No Climb Products, Honeywell, Arkema, Environmental Investigation Agency 

(EIA), DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts (DuPont), ITW Polymers Sealants North America, 

International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC), Falcon Safety Products, King and 

Spaulding, LLP, CyCan Industries (CyCan), Traulsen-ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC (Traulsen), 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), SAE Interior Climate Control Committee (SAE 

ICCC), NewField Technologies, LLC, Techspray, and HSI Fire & Safety Group, LLC. 

EPA responds to many of these comments in section V.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule. 

This section summarizes and responds only to those comments not addressed in the preamble.

1.1 Change of Status Date

EPA received comments on the proposed change of status date from NAA, Aeropres, CSPA, RSC, 

LPS Laboratories, Suterra, NRDC and IGSD, Mexichem, Stoner Incorporated, ITW Global Tire 

Repair, MicroCare, SDI, and No Climb Products. EPA responds to many of these comments in 

section V.A.3.a of the preamble to the finale rule. The remainder are summarized and 

addressed in this section.
19

1.1.1 Aerosol Tire Inflators 

RSC, a manufacturer of tire inflator products, stated that they have concerns that the proposed 

January 1, 2016, implementation date will not provide enough time to fully evaluate and 

implement an appropriate, safe alternative to HFC-134a propellant in tire inflator applications. 

RSC also indicated that they had already performed successful flammability testing on an 

alternative formulation. ITW Global Tire Repair, another manufacturer of tire inflator products, 

commented that they have been working on new aerosol tire inflator formulations with a third 

party vendor of a next generation propellant. ITW Global Tire Repair commented that, while 

this is a long process that includes multiple iterations of formulas of sealant and propellant 

combinations and multiple rounds of testing for many variables, they are nearing completion of 

their longest lead time tests. They stated that if the proposed rule goes into effect as 

scheduled, they expect to be ready for a smooth transition to a new product. [0192, 0210]

EPA Response: In response to comments from RSC and ITW Global Tire Repair concerning 

reformulating aerosol tire inflators, EPA notes that public announcements in January 2015 

indicate that ITW Global Tire Repair is successfully transitioning away from HFC-134a to HFO1234ze(E) (Honeywell, 2015). Although RSC indicates a general concern with meeting the 

proposed January 1, 2016 change of status date, RSC also indicated that they had already 

performed successful flammability testing on an alternative formulation and thus EPA 

concludes they have overcome the major potential obstacle to a transition. As provided in 

sections V.A.3.a and V.A.3.c of the preamble to the final rule, we are establishing a change of 

status date of one year from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, for the aerosol 

propellants end-use, which is more than seven months later than the date proposed. Based on 

the successful transition of ITW Global Tire Repair, the lack of any specificity from RSC regarding 

how much additional time they would need beyond January 1, 2016, and the fact that they 

indicated that they have made significant progress in the transition, we see no technical basis 

for establishing a change of status date later than one year from publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register. 

 NAA commented that the proposed status change date of January 1, 2016, is probably not 

feasible because manufacturers of some aerosol products, such as emergency use tire 

inflators, dusters, tissue freeze, and smoke detector calibrators, either are having issues 

reformulating products by the proposed date or are unable to reformulate the products at 

all, especially because of the need for third party testing and approvals, and certifications. 

NAA noted that industry will have less than a year to comply with the final regulations. 

[0107]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that it may be difficult for manufacturers to transition all aerosol 

products affected by this rule to alternatives that remain acceptable in less than a year. In this 

final rule, in response to concerns about the time needed for reformulation, we are establishing 

a change of status date of one year from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. See 

also section V.A.3.a of the preamble. In regard to NAA’s concern about whether manufacturers 

of emergency use tire inflators, dusters, tissue freeze, and smoke detector calibrators can 
20

reformulate products by the proposed status change date, or reformulate at all, we note that 

reformulated products using propellants other than HFC-134a have already been developed by 

some companies for tire inflators, dusters, and tissue freeze (Honeywell, 2014; Honeywell, 

2015). In the case of smoke detector calibrators, otherwise referred to as aerosols for smoke 

detector sensitivity testing, the final rule has added this as a use of HFC-134a that is acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, as described in section V.A.3.c of the preamble.

1.1.2 Technical Aerosols for Military and Space Uses and Medical Aerosols 

 MicroCare supported the proposed change in status of HFC-134a for use as a propellant in 

technical and medical aerosols as long as a later change of status date is established. 

MicroCare emphasized that technical and medical products are designed with specific 

performance and safety requirements. They stated that when there are new formulations, 

they need to vet them and submit the specific components to organizations, such as the 

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

MicroCare stated that, in the case of medical products regulated by the FDA, these tests 

require a series of cytotoxicity testing and subsequent process validations. They also stated 

that these processes can average 18-24 months with some approvals taking up to five years. 

With regard to military uses of HFC-134a, MicroCare stated that there are multiple technical 

formulations as well as fluids that have national stocking numbers and/or original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) technical specifications that are tied to use in government 

affiliated programs, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the 

military. MicroCare commented that changing the propellant will require additional testing 

of the propellant as well as requalification. [0029] 

EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the change of status date for medical 

aerosols needs to account for the time needed for testing of medical products to receive FDA 

approval. EPA also agrees that additional time will be required for aerosols that must be tested 

and requalified for programs for NASA and the military. The commenter has not suggested a 

specific change of status date. Nor has the commenter specifically identified how long they 

expect reformulation, retesting, and requalification to take for military and space applications 

although they identify a potential timeframe of 18-24 months, but as long as five years for FDA 

approval of medical products. For all of these uses identified by the commenter, EPA expects 

that the testing and qualification processes would take approximately one and a half to two and 

a half years, consistent with the 18-24 month period suggested by the commenter for medical 

products. This would include 6 to 12 months to reformulate and retest, and another 12 to 18 

months for requalification. The commenter’s vague allegation that some FDA approvals could 

take up to five years is not sufficient support for determining that alternatives will not be 

available for these uses until sometime in 2021. In the final rule, we are listing HFC-134a as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, from one year from publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, until January 1, 2018, for new formulations requiring U.S. federal government 

review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military or space agency specifications, or FDA 

approval (aside from metered-dose inhalers (MDIs)). See also section V.A.b of the preamble.
21

1.1.3 Pesticides 

 Suterra, a manufacturer of pesticides, commented that their formulations have been tested 

and refined over many years, and at least two years of efficacy testing is standard practice 

to ensure the effectiveness of any formulation change. They stated that the proposed status 

change date of January 1, 2016, does not allow enough time for reformulation and 

subsequent EPA and state agency approvals for pesticide formulations. Suterra noted that 

the regulatory approval process for an alternative propellant used in agricultural pesticide 

formulations is quite extensive as all inert ingredients in the formulation (e.g., this new 

propellant) must be approved first by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs. [0079]

EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that additional time is required for the 

regulatory process for new aerosol pesticide formulations. Such approval processes are beyond 

the control of the aerosol formulator. An additional two years beyond the proposed date of 

January 1, 2016, will allow additional time for EPA’s review of the new propellant as an inert 

ingredient under FIFRA and to subsequently amend individual product labels. In addition, this 

will allow for the two years of efficacy testing that Suterra indicated is their standard practice. 

Therefore, in the final rule, we are listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

from one year from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, until January 1, 2018, 

for new formulations requiring EPA approval of pesticide formulations. We will also coordinate 

within EPA to allow for timely review of HFO-1234ze(E) as an inert ingredient in pesticides. See 

also section V.A.3.a of the preamble.

1.1.4 Aerosols for Functional Testing of Smoke Detectors

SDI and No Climb Products commented that they are currently working on an HFO-based 

replacement for their smoke detector tester product, which is used for the functional testing of 

smoke detectors where confined spaces and potential ignition sources can be present. The 

commenters stated that because of the need for a Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing, which 

in the past has taken up to four months for a simple label change with no testing involved, and 

other necessary and vital certifications and endorsements such as those from smoke detector 

manufacturers and possibly also local fire marshals, this product cannot be commercially 

available by January 1, 2016. The commenters stated that in certain limited cases the detector 

test sector of the fire industry can utilize HFO-1234ze as an alternative propellant to HFCs, but 

the only marketed formulation to date has not been widely accepted by the market nor 

accepted by smoke detector manufacturers as required by the NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and 

Signalling Code. The commenters requested a status change date of January 2018 for use in 

non-flammable functional smoke detector test aerosols to allow:

• continued product development of a product to meet requirements without the use 

of silicone (estimated 18 months);

• UL listing of the resulting product which typically takes 6-12 months from submittal;

• time to obtain smoke detector manufacturer endorsement, taking at least 12; and

months (which can only start after UL listing has been received). [0110, 0037]
22

EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that additional time is required for third-party 

approvals such as UL listing of aerosols for smoke detector functional testing, smoke detector 

manufacturers, and local fire marshals. Such approval processes are beyond the control of the 

aerosol formulator. We are listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, from one 

year from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register until January 1, 2018, for use in 

products for functional testing of smoke detectors to allow the testing necessary for a UL listing 

to demonstrate compliance with fire codes, as well as to allow for smoke detector 

manufacturer acceptance. See also sections V.A.2.b and V.A.3 of the preamble.

1.2 Use Conditions

EPA received several comments on the use conditions of certain aerosol products, such as MDIs 

and aerosol tire inflators, from Honeywell, Arkema, EIA, DuPont, NAA, LPS Laboratories, SDI, 

ITW Polymers Sealants North America, IPAC, Falcon Safety Products, CSPA, MicroCare, RSC, 

Mexichem, King & Spalding, HSI Fire & Safety Group, and Techspray. RSC, NAA, and Honeywell 

also commented on the compatibility of components with available alternatives. EPA responds 

to many of these comments in section V.A.3.c of the preamble to the final rule. The remainder 

are summarized and responded to below.

1.2.1 Metered-Dose Inhalers

 IPAC provided comments in support of the acceptable uses of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea

in medical aerosols and applauded EPA’s effort to “ensure that there is no confusion 

about the ability to continue to use these HFCs in medical aerosols.” IPAC commented 

that sustaining the availability of HFCs for use in MDIs is critical to meeting patient 

treatment needs. [0208]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that it is important to avoid confusion particularly with regard to 

meeting patient treatment needs. HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of HFC-134a and HFC227ea remain acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in MDIs. 

1.2.2 Definition of Consumer and Technical Aerosols 

 ITW Global Tire Repair commented that EPA has categorized aerosol tire inflators as 

consumer products, thus lumping their product into a category with hairspray, deodorant 

and other dissimilar products simply because they share aerosol as a delivery method. ITW 

Global Tire Repair stated that they provided EPA with industry information that 

demonstrated that aerosol tire inflators should more properly be designated as “technical” 

aerosol rather than “consumer” aerosols. They commented that this evidence included 

showing the history of the product and its uses. Specifically, ITW Global Tire Repair 

commented that while aerosol tire inflators may “be purchased by consumers as the best, 

fastest, and safest roadside emergency solution,” greater exposures occur when trained 
23

service technicians repair tires. These trained professionals must consider safety factors, 

such as the product’s flammability. [0210]

 Falcon Safety Products commented that EPA’s definition of technical aerosols as “for sale 

and use solely in commercial and industrial applications, not for day to day use or medical 

use" is outdated. Falcon Safety Products commented that EPA should revise the definition 

to reflect that consumers buy technical aerosols outside of professional or industrial 

applications, such as in telecommuting, do-it-yourself projects, and personal computing. 

Falcon Safety Products also commented that of employees that use technical aerosols in an 

industrial setting, many buy them at big box stores and national chains stores, rather than 

through commercial catalogs or suppliers. [0069]

 CSPA commented that although the undefined terms “consumer aerosols” and “technical 

aerosols” are not used in the express language of the proposed rule, their use in the 

preamble material and supporting documents could lead to confusion in interpretations of 

the final rule. CSPA stated that these terms have never been defined for use regarding U.S. 

aerosol products, which exist across a broad spectrum from retail household consumer 

products to industrial-use-only products sold direct to use sites, with many products 

marketed and used across multiple sectors. CSPA noted that no clear distinctions can be 

made to classify the broad spectrum of U.S. aerosol products into “consumer” and 

“technical” categories. [0125]

EPA Response: EPA understands that there may be some confusion regarding the use of 

“technical” and “consumer” in describing aerosols. In part, this is because some products that 

are primarily for industrial or commercial use may also be used by consumers and some 

products purchased for commercial or industrial use may be available for purchase at stores 

that also supply consumer goods. Therefore, to avoid confusion, we have minimized the use of 

the terms “consumer aerosols” and “technical aerosols” in the preamble to the final rule; 

moreover, in both the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the final rule the regulatory 

text identifies the use conditions for use of HFC-134a as an aerosol propellant by specific 

product types, rather than by broader categories such as consumer, technical, or medical.

1.2.3 Other Aerosol Applications

 MicroCare supported EPA’s proposal to list HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for mold release applications, since these products are used in high temperature 

scenarios in which flammable products are not allowed. [0029]

 Honeywell suggested that EPA list HFC-134a as unacceptable for cleaning products for 

removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for 

aircraft maintenance; mold release agents; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust 

from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron 

microscopes; safety dusters for use on energized electrical equipment; and pesticides for 

use near electrical wires, in aircraft, or in total release insecticide foggers. Honeywell 
24

commented that there are multiple, wide-ranging low-global warming potential (GWP)

commercial products and/or shelf-ready prototypes currently available for these uses

containing alternate propellants such as HFC-152a and HFO-1234ze(E). [0170]

EPA Response: EPA agrees with MicroCare that mold release applications may involve high 

temperatures where flammability risk is greater. Although Honeywell commented that other 

alternatives are available for mold release products, they did not support that statement and 

we are unaware of any alternatives to HFC-134a for that use that have been tested and verified 

as non-flammable under the conditions where these products are used. The final rule lists HFC134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for mold release agents, as proposed. For the 

other uses that Honeywell mentioned, see the response in section V.A.3.c of the preamble to 

the final rule.

 Honeywell commented that since dusters are often distributed through channels over 

which the marketer has no control, this use condition creates a loophole whereby a duster 

labeled for an “exempt” use could be purchased and used for other applications. Honeywell 

mentioned that California regulations, for example, allow HFC-134a dusters to be used only 

on energized electrical equipment, and cans are so labeled; however, it is possible to 

purchase a HFC-134a duster from an online catalog for delivery to an address in California 

without any restrictions or questions about the intended end-use. Honeywell requested 

that EPA list HFC-134a as unacceptable for use in cleaning products for removal of flux and 

other soils from electrical equipment and electronics as there are numerous examples of 

available defluxers containing alternative propellants, including non-flammable propellants 

such as HFO-1234ze(E). [0170]

EPA Response: EPA recognizes Honeywell’s concern that end users may violate the SNAP 

regulations by using products containing HFC-134a for uses other than those specified in the 

use conditions. However, it is necessary to allow continued use of these products to address a 

very real safety concern. As with any regulation, there likely will be parties who violate the 

requirement and we will have enforcement authority to pursue such violations. 

1.2.4 Compatibility of Components with Acceptable Alternatives

 RSC and NAA commented that they will need time to ensure that all components (i.e., can,

 valves, etc.) are compatible with HFO-1234ze(E) for tire inflators. Honeywell commented

 that in general, no changes in package components (i.e., cans, valves, actuators, dip tubes,

 etc.) are required when converting from HFC-134a to HFO-1234ze(E). [0192, 0107, 0170]

EPA Response: RSC and NAA did not state the steps required to ensure compatibility, any 

specific problems with compatibility of HFO-1234ze(E) with components seen to date, or the 

additional time they believe is required. Comments from Honeywell, the producer of HFO1234ze(E), indicate that HFO-1234ze(E) has generally been compatible with components used 

in aerosol cans. Based on this information and based on experience of aerosol formulators 

already using HFO-1234ze(E), we consider the time until one year from publication of the final 
25

rule in the Federal Register, sufficient to ensure compatibility of HFO-1234ze(E) with 

components. Moreover, we note that other alternatives are also listed as acceptable and are 

being sold and used for tire inflators. 

1.2.5 Clarification Requests 

 CSPA and MicroCare requested a clarification to Table 2, Appendix T “Substitutes 

Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions” for the use of HFC-134a in “mold release agents.” 

CSPA and MicroCare commented that the use condition appears to be erroneously 

combined with another use condition and should be corrected to show that they are 

separate and distinct. [0125, 0029] 

EPA Response: EPA agrees that this was an error. These two uses are separated in the final rule.

 Techspray commented that in the proposal, the use of “cleaning products for removal of 

grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment & electronics” is an acceptable use of 

HFC-134a. Techspray requested clarification on whether the use of gas dusters and 

electronic gas freeze sprays for cleaning electrical equipment and electronics falls under the 

above “acceptable” status because “dust” falls under other soils. Techspray stated that if 

gas dusters and electronic gas freeze sprays do not qualify under the current wording, then 

“gas dusters and electronic gas freeze sprays for use on live circuits” be added. [0156]

EPA Response: EPA clarifies that we do consider duster sprays or electronic freeze sprays to be 

different from “cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical 

equipment and electronics.” Aerosol cleaners contain both a propellant and a solvent to 

remove soils. Duster sprays and electronic freeze sprays consist solely of propellant and may be 

used either to blow loose dust or to cool down electronics or to freeze soils or wastes upon the 

electronics for easy removal. In the final rule, we listed HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for dusters for use on energized (live) circuits.

1.3 Flammability 

EPA received several comments on the need for non-flammable aerosol propellants for certain 

products and uses, and the flammability risks of certain acceptable alternatives from RSC, LPS 

Laboratories, CSPA, Aeropres, NAA, RSC, ITW Global Tire Repair, Mexichem, Falcon Safety 

Products, SDI, EIA, and Honeywell. EPA responds to many of these comments in sections 

V.A.3.a and V.3.A.c of the preamble to the finale rule. The remainder are summarized and 

responded to below.

1.3.1 Flammability of Acceptable Alternatives

 EIA supported the proposal to change the status of HFC-125 to unacceptable as an aerosol 

propellant as of January 1, 2016, and HFC-134a and HFC-227ea to acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, allowing their use only in specific types of aerosols (e.g., technical and medical 
26

aerosols) as of January 1, 2016. EIA commented that while hydrocarbons (HCs) (e.g., 

propane, isobutane, ethane, and blends) are ordinarily the most cost-effective option, they 

are inappropriate for some technical uses due to concerns about flammability, though in 

many cases, blending is an effective way to reduce flammability concerns. They also 

commented that if there are concerns about flammability or volatile organic compound 

(VOC) limitations, CO2, nitrogen oxide (NO), and HFO-1234ze(E) are available as nonflammable hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) alternatives, as well as HFC-152a, which is not affected 

by the proposed rule. In response to certain technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a that EPA 

proposed not to list as acceptable, subject to use conditions, EIA noted that there are 

already products available using low-GWP alternatives, and thus, use conditions for HFC134a are not needed for tire inflators, freeze sprays, tissue freezes, safety horns, and 

personal defense sprays. [0134]

 LPS Laboratories encouraged EPA to also list HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in all energized electrical equipment applications where flammability is a 

concern. They commented that propellants are selected based on flammability and HFC134a is the preferred propellant when a non-flammable product is required and other nonflammable propellants, such as CO2 and nitrogen, are inappropriate. LPS Laboratories 

commented that “neither carbon dioxide nor nitrogen has the ability to suppress 

flammability in an aerosol product containing flammable constituents.” [0214]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates EIA’s support for the proposed changes of status for the 

aerosol propellant end-use. Concerning EIA’s suggestion that flammability risks may be reduced 

by blending, EPA agrees this may be true of some blends. However, EPA is not aware that 

blends have been formulated and tested for flammability for the uses covered by the use 

condition. In addition, we note that HFC-152a is mildly flammable and in certain situations, 

HFO-1234ze can be flammable, contrary to EIA’s statement. Concerning EIA’s comments about 

aerosol tire inflators, freeze sprays, tissue freezes, safety horns, and personal defense sprays, 

see section V.A.3.c of the preamble. Regarding LPS’s statement that “neither carbon dioxide 

nor nitrogen has the ability to suppress flammability in an aerosol product containing 

flammable constituents,” the commenter did not submit any information to support the 

statement. EPA’s understanding is that nitrogen and CO2 are used as fire suppressants and at 

sufficiently high concentrations could suppress flammability and flames. However, it is possible 

that the concentrations of nitrogen or CO2 from an aerosol can are not sufficiently high. These 

two compounds suppress a flame by reducing oxygen, rather than by removing heat, as HFC134a does. Thus, the commenter’s point is plausible, though unsupported. In the final rule, we 

are listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for uses on energized electrical 

equipment, such as cleaners for electrical equipment and dusters specifically for use on 

energized electrical circuits. See sections V.A.3.a and V.A.3.c of the preamble for additional 

information. 
27

1.3.2 Flammability Concerns for Safety Dusters 

 Falcon Safety Products stated that HFO-1234ze(E) is cost-prohibitive, which would 

encourage unsafe usage of other dusters with flammable contents on energized electrical 

equipment. [0069]

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making 

listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. We note, however, that 

in the final rule, EPA is listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in 

duster sprays for use on energized electrical equipment in order to allow sufficient alternatives 

that address the higher flammability risk of this specific use.

1.4 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Status Changes 

EPA received several comments on HFC consumption and the environmental impacts of 

proposed status changes from Honeywell, CSPA, Mexichem, DuPont, ITW Global Tire Repair, 

NRDC and IGSD, ITW Polymer Sealants North America, and a private citizen. EPA responds to 

many of these comments in section V.A.3.d of the preamble to the final rule. The remainder are 

summarized and responded to below.

 In support of the proposed change of status date of January 1, 2016, for HFC-125, HFC-134a,

and HFC-227ea, NRDC and IGSD cited EPA estimates that show reductions in HFC emissions 

can be achieved in this sector of approximately one million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (MMTCO2eq). NRDC and IGSD also commented that EPA claims the U.S. aerosols 

market as a whole “is using a larger volume of HFCs in aerosol products relative to aerosol 

markets globally.” They commented that the European aerosol industry has developed a 

“Code of Practice” against using HFCs “whenever feasible,” and the U.S. industry should 

continue to change their formulations and learn from these international approaches 

wherever possible. [0108]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that there are industry developed codes of practice including the 

European code cited by the commenters and also notes that the Alliance for Responsible 

Atmospheric Policy (the Alliance), a U.S. industry group that includes chemical producers and 

manufacturers of products in many of the SNAP industrial sectors, also has guidelines for 

responsible use of HFCs in aerosols. EPA also agrees that experience in other countries can 

inform U.S. industry just as experience in the United States informs industry abroad. The 

emissions avoided overall from this final rule are estimated to be 28 to 36 MMTCO2eq in 2020 

and 53 to 69 MMTCO2eq in 2025. Although the volume of HFCs used in aerosols is small 

compared to the other sectors in this rule, 100% of HFCs in aerosols can be assumed to be 

emitted to the atmosphere during use, unlike use in closed cell foams or refrigeration and air 

conditioning equipment, where HFCs slowly enter the atmosphere over the complete lifetime 

of the equipment and during and after disposal. Although EPA agrees with much of the factual 
28

information provided by these commenters, we are modifying the change of status date in the 

final rule for the reasons provided in the preamble.

 A private citizen commented on the environmental impacts of HFC-125, including its 

biodegradability and ecotoxicity. The commenter suggested that, due to its environmental 

impacts, EPA should list HFC-125 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, only in specific 

technical uses. [0080]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the additional information provided by the commenter on the 

ecosystem effects of HFC-125. This information indicates that the biodegradation of HFC-125 is 

not significantly different from that of other substitutes, nor is it significant enough to change 

EPA’s conclusions about the overall risk to human health and the environment from HFC-125 

compared to other available alternative aerosol propellants. EPA is listing HFC-125 as 

unacceptable for use as an aerosol propellant in the final rule.

1.5 Cost Impacts

SDI, No Climb Products, NRDC and IGSD, ITW Global Tire Repair, NAA, and Honeywell 

commented on the conversion costs associated with the proposed status change listing for HFC134a in smoke detectors, tire inflators, and other aerosol uses.

1.5.1 Cost Associated with Smoke Detector Sensitivity Testing Equipment

 SDI and No Climb Products commented that they are concerned that prohibiting HFC-134a 

for use in their smoke detector and alarm tester, which is a sensitivity product that is used 

with expensive equipment, will cost companies significantly due to the loss of the use of this 

equipment, and will subsequently expose the public to an unacceptable risk since it would 

cause noncompliance with requirements set forth in National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) 72, the Fire Alarm Safety Signaling Code. [0110, 0037]

EPA Response: As described in section V.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA is changing 

the status of HFC-134a to acceptable, subject to use conditions, for certain aerosol uses. The 

use conditions allow the continued use of HFC-134a for aerosols that test the sensitivity of 

smoke detectors. This decision is based upon the technical grounds that there is a lack of other 

available alternatives for this particular use, because it requires non-flammability and a specific 

vapor pressure. As described in section VII.A.7 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA does not 

consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making listing decisions because under 

the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of 

the substitute under review.

1.5.2 Cost Associated with Aerosol Tire Inflators

 NRDC and IGSD commented that costs are not a barrier for use of other alternatives in tire 

inflators. They noted that a main remaining use of HFCs, particularly HFC-134a, in the 
29

aerosol sector is for tire inflators. NRDC and IGSD commented that there are four 

manufacturers in the United States who EPA estimates produce a total of 18.6 million tire 

inflators per year that still use HFC-134a. NRDC and IGSD also commented that EPA’s 

analysis assumes a one-time capital conversion cost of only $342,000 to convert to 

hydrocarbons, and an annual savings of $0.26 per can. NRDC and IGSD stated that assuming 

EPA’s estimates are correct and that the manufacture of tire inflators is equally distributed, 

this means that the pay-back period for the capital conversion cost for all four plants is well 

under one year. [0108]

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making 

listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. However, based on a 

screening analysis EPA performed to meet its obligations under Executive Order (EO) 12866, we 

agree that aerosol manufacturers, including tire inflator manufacturers, would not incur 

significant costs associated with complying with the rule. 

 ITW Global Tire Repair commented that they are an approximately $130 million company 

and Aerosol Tire Inflator sales are the largest single product segment in their portfolio. ITW 

Global Tire Repair stated that as currently written, the NPRM puts a significant portion of 

that business at risk. ITW Global Tire Repair commented that should sales drop, they would 

be forced to reduce their headcount. ITW Global Tire Repair also commented that should 

sales drop significantly, there is a real possibility that the entire product segment could 

become unprofitable, which would result in product extinction and additional job losses. 

[0210]

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making 

listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review.

See also section VII.A.7 of the preamble to the final rule and the previous response in this 

section to NRDC and IGSD.

1.5.3 Cost Associated with Other Aerosol Applications

 NAA commented that manufacturers will need to budget for capital expenditure and to 

obtain permits if new storage tanks are required, all of which take time and resources, 

necessitating an extension of time. [0107]

 Honeywell commented that they are not aware of any special or costly modifications 

undertaken at any of the locations at which HFO-1234ze(E) aerosols are currently being 

filled. Honeywell commented that, based on customer conversions that have occurred to 

date and based on discussions on pending conversions, it is not anticipated that there will 

be any capital costs required to convert an aerosol filling line from HFC-134a to HFO1234ze(E). Honeywell further commented that in some instances, a nominal expense might 
30

be required to replace gaskets and seals, but even this is uncertain because HFO-1234ze(E) 

is generally compatible with the same materials as HFC-134a. They also commented that in 

general, no changes in aerosol package components (i.e., cans, valves, actuators, dip tubes, 

etc.) are required when converting from HFC-134a to HFO-1234ze(E). Further, Honeywell 

commented that for dusters, because of the lower vapor pressure of HFO-1234ze(E), 

aerosol packaging would be less expensive than for HFC-134a, which requires specially 

permitted U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved cans. [0170]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the information on costs, however, EPA does not consider the 

cost of transition to other alternatives in making listing decisions because under the SNAP 

criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the 

substitute under review. As a practical matter, EPA expects that some manufacturers of 

aerosols will need to budget for capital expenditure, particularly if they transition to a 

flammable alternative such as hydrocarbons or HFC-152a, and that extending the change of 

status date for HFC-134a to one year from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, 

will have the effect of allowing aerosol manufacturers to spread out capital costs over time, 

which will reduce the impact of the final rule compared to the NPRM. In the case of formulation 

changes that require federal approval, such as for certain medical and pesticide uses, these fall 

under the use conditions that allow continued use of HFC-134a until January 1, 2018. With 

respect to HFO-1234ze(E), we expect little capital expenditure based on the information 

supplied by Honeywell. But, as discussed in an earlier response and noted by Honeywell, the 

price is approximately one and a half to two times higher than that of HFC-134a. Some portion 

of the higher chemical cost could be offset by less expensive packaging for aerosol dusters, 

based on information from the commenter.

1.6 Exemptions/Additional Uses Subject to Use Conditions

EPA received several comments requesting that HFC-134a remain acceptable for various 

aerosol applications for which we proposed to change the status. Comments were submitted by 

King and Spaulding, IPAC, Mexichem, SDI, CSPA, Falcon Safety Products, EIA, ITW Polymer 

Sealants North America, NAA, MicroCare, CyCan, LPS Laboratories, Stoner Incorporated, 

Honeywell, Traulsen, AAM, SAE ICCC, DuPont, NRDC and IGSD, and NewField Technologies. EPA 

responds to many of these comments in section V.A.3.c of the preamble to the final rule. The 

remaining comments are summarized and addressed in this section.

1.6.1 Medical Uses

 NewField Technologies requested that HFC-134a be considered acceptable for 

veterinary medical uses for two of their products. NewField Technologies stated that the 

aerosol cans contain HFC-134a, which is used to help expel the anesthetizing agent 

(isoflurane). NewField Technologies noted that in trials without HFC-134a, much of the 

isoflurane remained in the can and resulted in a less effective product. NewField 

Technologies stated that isoflurane does not mix well with water or other non-HFC 
31

substances, and in order to atomize/aerosolize isoflurane, a medical-grade propellant 

was needed; therefore, HFC-134a is the best propellant for NewField Technologies’ 

products. [0059]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that other alternatives are not available for these veterinary uses. 

We agree with the commenter that there is a need for a compound that readily mixes with the 

anesthetic isoflurane and that other alternatives that do so have not been identified. In 

addition, given the confined spaces involved, the potential for sparking in close quarters with 

an operating fan, flammability is a concern. This use would be allowed by the use condition for 

HFC-134a in the final rule.

1.6.2 Pesticides

 Suterra commented that their CheckMate® Puffer® platform of products uses aerosol 

technology to provide and grant the diffusion of optimal doses of pheromone throughout the 

duration of the growing season. Suterra commented that based on EPA estimates of HFC 

consumption in 2012, all aerosol products represent about five percent of annual consumption 

based on CO2-equivalents, but 76% of that usage is in medical aerosols. Suterra stated that 

EPA’s proposal would restrict the use of HFC-134a to “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.” Suterra requested that EPA 

expand the allowed uses of HFC-134a to include all pheromone-based pesticide products based 

on the fact that propellant use in these products represents only a small fraction of overall HFC 

consumption. Suterra noted that the increased benefit of using pheromone-based aerosol 

pesticide products to reduce conventional insecticide use far outweighs the risk of their 

negligible contribution to HFC consumption. [0079]

EPA Response: Concerning Suterra’s comment regarding the small fraction of their specific use 

compared to total HFC consumption, see the responses in sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.6 of this 

document. Concerning the benefit of using pheromone-based pesticide products, in the SNAP 

review, we compare different substitutes to determine whether one or more substitutes poses 

greater risk than other available substitutes within the same end-use. Suterra does not suggest 

that their pheromone-based aerosol propellant poses less risk than other available substitutes 

in the same end-use, but rather that their product using HFC-134a is safer than other forms of 

pesticides on the market. This type of comparison is beyond the scope of the SNAP program –

safe use of pesticides is addressed under other programs and can also be addressed by the end 

user. We note that Suterra did not provide any details about the specific human health or 

environmental harms that would be avoided through use of their product versus the use of 

“conventional pesticides.” 
32

2 MOTOR VEHICLE AIR-CONDITIONING (MVAC) SYSTEMS IN 

NEWLY MANUFACTURED LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

The organizations that submitted comments on the MVAC section of the proposed rule 

included representatives from various interests in the MVAC sector. The Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers is a trade association that submitted comments on behalf of twelve car and light 

truck manufacturers including BMW Group (BMW), Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), Ford 

Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, 

Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche Cars, Toyota, Volkswagen Group and Volvo Cars. Together, AAM 

members account for 77% of the cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The Association 

of Global Automakers (Global Automakers) is a trade association that submitted comments on 

behalf of twelve automobile manufacturers including Aston Martin, Ferrari, Honda, Hyundai, 

Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, McLaren, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, and Toyota. BMW was the only 

automobile manufacturer to submit individual comments.

Comments on this section of the rule were also submitted by SAE International on behalf of the 

SAE ICCC, which is an industry-based standards setting body in the United States for MVAC, 

whose membership includes engineers from global automakers, system and component 

suppliers, and service equipment manufacturers. Other associations that submitted comments 

include the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), Automotive Refrigeration 

Products Institute (ARPI), Auto Care Association, and Solvay Fluoride, LLC (Solvay). EPA also 

received comments from four chemical producers, DuPont, Honeywell, Mexichem, and Arkema, 

as well as three environmental organizations: NRDC, IGSD, and EIA. Comments were also 

submitted by the California Air Resource Board (CARB), one university organization titled 

Effective Altruism at University of Maryland (UMD), and one private citizen.

The majority of commenters supported finding HFC-134a unacceptable for use in newly 

manufactured light-duty MVAC; however, many commenters disagreed with the proposed 

status change date of model year (MY) 2021 and advocated change of status dates ranging 

from MY 2017 to beyond MY 2025. The commenters supporting a change of status date prior to 

MY 2021 cited a number of reasons including technical feasibility, adequate refrigerant supply, 

alignment with European regulations, and achieving an environmental benefit beyond business 

as usual. Commenters advocating for a change of status date after MY 2021 focused primarily 

on technical feasibility based on transition during vehicle redesign cycles, supply of alternative 

refrigerant, and alignment with the 2017-2025 Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (LD GHG Rule). 

Additionally, commenters addressed the impact of the rulemaking on vehicles manufactured in 

the United States for export.

EPA also received comments on other topics such as environmental and economic impacts, 

continued servicing of HFC-134a vehicles, regulations on retrofits, and technician certification 

and training. This section summarizes and responds only to those comments not addressed in 

the preamble to the final rule.
33

2.1 Timeline

EPA received unique comments related to the proposed change of status date for HFC-134a in 

MVAC from NRDC and IGSD, EIA, CARB, Effective Altruism at UMD, Honeywell, DuPont, Global 

Automakers, AAM, NADA, Arkema, Mexichem, and a private citizen. One commenter supported

EPA’s proposal to change the status in MY 2021, while the remaining commenters supported 

either earlier or later change of status dates. EPA responds to many of these comments in 

section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the final rule. The remainder are summarized and addressed 

in this section. Several commenters submitted market data, including Honeywell, DuPont, 

NRDC and IGSD, EIA, AAM, and Global Automakers. This information has been used to inform 

the preamble to the final rule and the updated Market Characterization technical support 

document (ICF, 2015a).

2.1.1 Change of Status Dates

 NRDC and IGSD commented that the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that “to the maximum 

extent practicable” EPA must require transition to substances that “reduce overall risks to 

human health and the environment.” 42 U.S.C. §7671k(a). In support of a MY 2017 change 

of status date for MVAC, NRDC and IGSD commented that the evidence shows that the 

transition away from HFC-134a can occur more quickly than EPA has proposed, and it is

“practicable” for industry to move more quickly and therefore EPA must set deadlines that 

achieve a faster transition. [0108]

EPA Response: For the reasons provided in the preambles to the proposed and final rules, EPA 

does not agree that it is “practicable” for all model vehicles to safely transition to lower-GWP 

alternatives prior to MY 2021. For additional information, see EPA’s response to commenters 

suggesting an earlier change of status date in section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the final rule.

 CARB commented that a faster transition away from HFC-134a would reduce in-use 

emissions during MVAC service and end-of-life emissions during vehicle dismantling and 

may reduce the time period in which HFO-1234yf MVAC systems could probably be serviced 

with an illicit refrigerant (HFC-134a). [0106]

 DuPont commented that a MY 2019 change of status date would likely serve to speed the 

rate of global transition, as the automakers would be motivated to simplify their supply 

chain by moving entirely to low-GWP refrigerants. [0077]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that an earlier change of status date would reduce emissions of HFC134a during MVAC service and disposal as it would reduce the number of vehicles entering the 

market with HFC-134a MVAC systems. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, “while not 

relevant to EPA’s decision regarding the appropriate date for changing the status of HFC-134a 

for use in MVAC, EPA also agrees its action to change the status of HFC-134a will send a 

valuable signal to the international community regarding the continued use of high-GWP 

alternatives.” It is unclear whether an earlier change of status date would speed the rate of 
34

global transition because, as we recognize under the narrowed use limit established in the final 

rule, a number of countries do not yet have adequate servicing infrastructure in place at this 

time. As explained in response to comments in section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the final rule, 

EPA believes that there are technical challenges to a safe transition earlier than MY 2021.

 Arkema commented that, “the earliest that HFC-134a should be delisted in the MVAC 

sector, assuming any such delisting is warranted under CAA section 612, is 2025. This is to 

be expected given other ongoing changes in the automotive industry, including the move to 

hybrid and electric vehicles as well as the GHG tailpipe and fuel economy standards.” [0131]

EPA Response: See section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to 

similar comments from AAM, Global Automakers, NADA, and Mexichem recommending a 

change of status after MY 2021.

 AAM commented that “because, as EPA itself states in the SNAP proposal, technical barriers 

will prevent certain models from being capable of using alternative refrigerants safely in MY 

2021, EPA is in fact not authorized to change the listing status of HFC-134a in MY 2021. CAA 

section 612(C)(2) authority requires that alternative MVAC systems be available, either 

potentially or currently, before they can be required by regulation; since EPA has been 

informed via confidential manufacturer information that technical barriers for certain 

models will require longer product design cycles if the systems were to use substitute 

refrigerant, EPA is not authorized under its CAA authority to list HFC-134a as unacceptable 

for use in MVAC for those model years.” [0113]

 Global Automakers commented that EPA is in a position to independently confirm the 2014 

industry survey results and conclude that a change of listing status of HFC-134a as of MY 

2021 would negatively impact a small, but significant volume of production after MY 2021, 

based on confidential one-on-one discussions with many manufacturers regarding their 

individual product plans. [0207]

EPA Response: CAA section 612(c) directs EPA to publish lists of alternatives for specific uses, 

not individual pieces of equipment, such as specific model vehicles for MVAC. Consistent with 

that directive, EPA considers availability of alternatives for the specific end-use (or, in some 

instances, an application within an end-use) as it relates to technical feasibility. EPA is not 

required to wait until every single vehicle model or piece of equipment that a manufacturer 

wishes to manufacture can be designed to safely use alternatives to change the status of an 

alternative that poses higher overall risk to human health and the environment. In addition, as 

a practical matter, EPA does not typically have sufficient information on every model to 

perform an analysis on a model-by-model basis. Nonetheless, EPA has determined that MY 

2021 is the model year by which it will be technically feasible for all new, light-duty model 

vehicles (except those vehicles subject to narrowed use limits) to transition to refrigerants that 

pose lower overall risk than HFC-134a.
35

Evidence submitted by AAM and Global Automakers, indicates that manufacturers are on track 

to transition MVAC systems to alternative refrigerants in 90% of vehicle models by MY 2021, 

and EPA did not receive information to lead the Agency to conclude that it would not be 

technically feasible for the remaining 10% to be transitioned by MY 2021. We note that the 

commenter has taken the preamble text out of context. While EPA stated in the NPRM (79 FR 

46,142) that “a relatively small number of vehicle models... will not have had the opportunity 

for an engineering redesign by MY 2021,” EPA did not state in the NPRM and does not believe 

now that that these models could not incorporate alternative refrigerants safely by MY 2021. 

EPA also stated in the NPRM, and repeats in the preamble to the final rule, that some vehicles 

will be able to transition to lower-GWP refrigerants in between redesign cycles (or during a 

“refresh”). 

In the NPRM, the Agency requested specific information “supporting claims that a transition by 

MY 2021 would not be technically feasible because specific model vehicles cannot be 

redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by MY 2021.” EPA received confidential 

information on the cost of transitioning prior to scheduled redesign cycles for a few specialty 

model vehicles; however, EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in 

making listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. Sufficient information 

was not submitted to support a claim that transition by MY 2021 will not be possible due to 

technical feasibility. EPA has considered all information submitted to the docket including 

information claimed as confidential submitted on this topic, and has concluded that all vehicle 

models (except certain export vehicles subject to the narrowed use limit) will be able to safely 

transition by MY 2021. As a result, EPA has determined that MY 2021 is the time by which 

alternative refrigerants will be “available” within the meaning of CAA section 612(c)(2) for this 

end-use. Additional information on EPA’s analysis of alternative refrigerants, and EPA’s 

consideration of information, including that claimed as confidential, is located in section V.B.2.a 

and throughout section V.B of the preamble to the final rule. EPA has also prepared a 

document responding to the information claimed as confidential. Because the document 

contains information claimed as confidential, it is not available to the public.

2.1.2 Challenges Associated with Use of Lower-GWP Alternative Refrigerants 

 Honeywell commented that the proposed rule mistakenly states that HFO-1234yf has 

“measurably lower energy efficiency” than HFC-134a. Honeywell commented that “to the 

contrary, auto manufacturers that have tested and used HFO-1234yf in their vehicles have 

found that systems designed for the properties of HFO-1234yf are at least as efficient as 

those using HFC-134a, and in some cases systems using HFO-1234yf were found to be more 

efficient.” [0170]

EPA Response: EPA’s understanding is that MVAC systems optimized for HFO-1234yf are 

capable of achieving equal cooling capacity to that of HFC-134a systems. 
36

The purpose of EPA’s statement in the preamble of the proposed rule was to explain that, to 

address the SNAP use conditions and due to differences in thermodynamic properties between 

HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, changes to the MVAC system beyond those required during the 

transition from CFC-12 to HFC-134a are necessary. CFC-12 and HFC-134a have similar enough 

thermodynamic properties that manufacturers were able to switch many more vehicles midredesign cycle. A 2015 presentation by FCA,

2 available in the docket, shows that the basic lay 

out of FCA’s HFO-1234yf MVAC systems is similar to current HFC-134a systems and notes the 

system modifications required for comparable air conditioning (AC) performance and to meet 

EPA requirements (i.e., SNAP use conditions). System modifications include the addition of an 

internal heat exchanger and unique service fittings, as well as new compressor oil and AC 

plumbing packaging, calibration of the thermal expansion valves (TXV) and HVAC control 

software, optimization of the suction line, and improvements to condenser performance. 

The presentation by FCA, as well as all other information available to the Agency, confirms 

EPA’s conclusion that the majority of vehicle models will need to transition during a redesign 

cycle to ensure safe use of lower-GWP refrigerants in accordance with SNAP use conditions, 

and also to account for differences in the thermodynamic properties of the refrigerants. EPA is 

finalizing the change of status as of MY 2021 which will allow for the majority of vehicles to 

transition during a redesign cycle; EPA anticipates that a small number of models would likely

transition between redesign cycles, which, as discussed in section V.B.2.a of the preamble to 

the final rule, EPA has concluded is technically feasible.

 In support of an “end of MY 2025” change of status date, AAM stated that a transition to 

HFC-152a or CO2 requires major design changes to vehicle hardware and technologies. AAM 

also commented that because of HFC-152a’s flammability, MVAC systems using this 

alternative refrigerant would have to incorporate engineering strategies or devices (such as 

release valves or secondary-loop systems) that are not required for other refrigerants. 

[0113]

EPA Response: HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are the only flammable refrigerants acceptable for 

use in MVAC systems. For these two refrigerants, EPA established use conditions which mitigate 

risks from flammability. EPA recognizes that to address the use conditions for HFC-152a, major 

system design changes may be necessary and that there may be significant technical hurdles to 

overcome prior to use of HFC-152a. The status change date of MY 2021 provides time for 

manufacturers to overcome those hurdles. However, as discussed in response to the comments 

from AAM on CO2 MVAC systems in section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the final rule, “even if a 

particular alternative could not be used in some or any vehicles consistent with the use 

conditions by MY 2021... we have determined that other alternatives can be safely used 

consistent with use conditions by MY 2021.” See section V.B.6.a of the preamble for additional 

information.

 2 FCA, 2015. 
37

 Regarding EPA’s statement in the proposed rule that auto manufacturers may need more 

time to ensure systems using HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf are safe, since both substances are 

classified as flammable, Honeywell commented that it is true that systems using HFC-152a 

may require a secondary loop to adequately address the flammability risks of HFC-152a.

Honeywell commented that using HFO-1234yf does not require a secondary loop design. 

Honeywell claimed that EPA’s rationale that HFO-1234yf may also need more time for 

development of safe systems is not justified and recommended a change of status for HFC134a in MY 2018. Honeywell stated that HFO-1234yf systems safely utilize the same 

architecture as HFC-134a systems, as documented by the SAE CRP1234, which adequately 

protects against any flammability risks, and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has assigned HFO-1234yf a flammability rating of A2L, 

mildly flammable. [0170]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that HFO-1234yf systems do not require the use of a secondary 

loop; EPA does not require the use of a secondary loop for HFO-1234yf or HFC-152a. While EPA 

is aware of a demonstration project under the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) on HFO1234yf and HFC-152a in secondary loop systems3

, the HFO-1234yf systems being incorporated 

into vehicles today in the United States, European Union (EU) and other countries use a direct 

vapor compression cycle similar to HFC-134a, with adjustments to account for flammability and 

thermodynamic properties of HFO-1234yf as discussed above, not a secondary loop. Secondary 

loop systems may be used for HFC-152a in the future if automobile manufacturers decide a 

secondary loop is necessary to comply with the SNAP use conditions and sufficiently mitigate 

flammability. Responses to comments from Honeywell and other commenters requesting a 

change of status date prior to MY 2021 are available in section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the 

final rule. 

 EIA requested that EPA impose appropriate use restrictions on HFO-1234yf in MVAC under 

the “precautionary principle” as there continues to be environmental controversy 

concerning its use including that when it is burned, it releases hazardous chemical hydrogen 

fluoride (HF). [0134]

EPA Response: EPA did not propose to change the SNAP listing for HFO-1234yf in MVAC 

systems as part of this rulemaking. HFO-1234yf was found acceptable subject to use conditions 

for new passenger cars and light-duty trucks in March 2011 (76 FR 17,488). In the March 2011 

final listing rule, EPA concluded the following: “EPA considers the risk level presented by HFO1234yf to be similar to that of the refrigerant currently being used by automobile 

manufacturers, HFC-134a. Therefore, there is no reason to regulate HFO-1234yf more 

stringently to protect against HF exposure than for HFC–134a.” (76 FR 17,508). For additional 

information, see the preamble to the final rule listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable subject to use 

conditions, cited above, as well as supporting information for that rule available at 

regulations.gov in docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664.

 3 Anderson et al., 2015.
38

 A private citizen commented that HFC-125 is the major compound that is used in MVAC 

systems and raised concerns with this chemical. [0080]

EPA Response: EPA does not agree that HFC-125 is the major compound used in MVAC 

systems. HFC-125 is a component of one of the MVAC refrigerant blends that the Agency is 

listing as unacceptable for use in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles in this final rule, as 

discussed in section V.B.2.b of the preamble to the final rule; however the Agency does not 

believe this blend, or any of the refrigerant blends, are currently used in MVAC. This statement 

is made in the context of a paragraph otherwise addressing use of HFC-125 in aerosols. We 

address the commenters’ concerns with HFC-125 in section 1.4 of the aerosols section of this 

Response to Comments document.

 In support of their comment that transition from HFC-134a is already underway around the 

world and in the United States, addressed in the preamble, EIA commented that HCs have 

been proven to be an effective MVAC refrigerant in Australia and in owner conversions.

[0134]

EPA Response: Hydrocarbon refrigerants are unacceptable for use in MVAC systems in the 

United States. SNAP has listed all flammable refrigerants as unacceptable for use in MVAC 

unless a particular refrigerant is specifically listed as acceptable subject to use conditions. The 

only two flammable refrigerants listed as acceptable subject to use conditions are HFC-152a 

and HFO-1234yf, which are not HC refrigerants. To date, EPA has not listed any hydrocarbon 

refrigerant as acceptable in MVAC systems. EPA welcomes additional information from the 

commenter on the use of HCs by light-duty automobile manufacturers in Australia or 

elsewhere. 

2.1.3 Supply of Alternative Refrigerants

 Global Automakers commented that while they understand that the supply of alternative 

refrigerants is expected to increase, automakers are just currently entering discussions with 

refrigerant suppliers regarding supplies for the North American market. Global Automakers 

believes that given the tentative stage of these negotiations and the lingering questions 

about the EU transition and availability of alternative refrigerants, it is too early to conclude 

that there will be adequate supplies of alternative refrigerants to meet U.S. demand as well 

as other possible demands for alternative refrigerants worldwide by MY 2021. [0207]

 Mexichem commented that U.S. automakers have been told the refrigerant is only available 

for purchase on allocation, and that the absence of competition for the sole supplier of 

HFO-1234yf reduces their incentive to expand capacity in response to demand in a timely 

manner. [0101]

EPA Response: EPA is not involved and cannot comment on negotiations and contracts for the 

purchase of refrigerant between the automobile manufacturers and the chemical suppliers. The 
39

suppliers of HFO-1234yf have provided information indicating that sufficient supply will be 

available to allow for a full transition by MY 2021 as discussed in section V.B.6.a of the 

preamble to the final rule. We also note that other refrigerants, such as HFC-152 and CO2, are 

acceptable for use in MVAC and systems are being developed to use those refrigerants. These 

alternative refrigerants are already used for other applications and supply should not be 

limited. 

2.2 Interaction with Title II of the Clean Air Act 

EPA received comments from Global Automakers, AAM, NADA, Mexichem, Arkema, and NRDC 

and IGSD related to the interaction of this rulemaking and the MVAC end-use with provisions 

and regulations under CAA Title II. EPA responds to many of these comments in section V.B.6.b 

of the preamble to the final rule. The remainder are summarized and addressed in this section.

2.2.1 Interaction with EPA’s Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule

 Global Automakers commented that it is too soon to conclude that there will be adequate 

supplies of alternative refrigerants to meet demand in the United States as well as other 

possible demands for alternative refrigerants worldwide by MY 2021. Because of this, 

Global Automakers recommended that EPA review the supply of alternative refrigerants as 

part of the mid-term review that EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) will conduct of the 2017-2025 MY LD GHG Rule. [0207]

EPA Response: This comment is outside the scope of the present rulemaking as it concerns the 

Mid-Term Evaluation that EPA will perform for the LD GHG Rule. However, we note that as part 

of the Mid-Term Evaluation, EPA anticipates reviewing a broad range of factors addressing 

issues relevant to the 2022-2025 standards, pursuant to 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h). This includes the 

“availability and effectiveness of technology, and the appropriate lead time for introduction of 

technology.” As provided in a previous response, the chemical producers of HFO-1234yf have 

assured EPA that supplies will be adequate for a transition in MY 2021, if not sooner. Also, the 

other refrigerants acceptable subject to use conditions for MVAC, HFC-152 and CO2, are used 

for other purposes and supply should not be limited. 

2.2.2 Petition to Classify MVAC System as an Emission Control Device

 NRDC and IGSD commented that the HFC requirements of the LD GHG Rule were 

established under CAA section 202(a)(1), which provides: 

“The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in 

accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of 

any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle 

engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” [0108]
40

 NRDC and IGSD commented that the integrity of an MVAC system is essential to avoiding 

emissions of HFCs, which are “air pollutants” regulated under CAA section 202 because they 

endanger public health and welfare. NRDC and IGSD commented that EPA should therefore 

classify the MVAC system (or at least the components of the MVAC system relevant to 

preventing leaks) as an “emission control device” under CAA Title II. NRDC and IGSD 

commented that doing so would significantly reduce emissions by ensuring that the systems 

are properly designed and maintained to avoid leaks. NRDC and IGSD commented that 

although they plan to submit more detailed information at a later time, EPA should consider 

the comment a formal petition to take this action. Furthermore, NRDC and IGSD 

commented that properly categorizing the system as an emission control device would 

ensure that the systems are under warranty for repair and would guard against aftermarket 

or do-it-yourself (DIY) repair issues. NRDC and IGSD commented that warranty coverage 

would incentivize the design of more durable leak-resistant ACs, lowering the probability 

that AC repairs or refills would be needed during the life of a vehicle. NRDC and IGSD 

commented that this change would be inexpensive to manufacturers and attractive to 

consumers in that an additional component of the car would be covered by the terms of the 

warranty in the event repairs are needed. Further, NRDC and IGSD commented that this 

classification would guard against repair-related leakage issues by preventing tampering 

and at-home recharging of MVAC systems, which can lead to inadvertent emissions. [0108]

EPA Response: These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, we note 

that this issue has already been addressed under our Title II regulations. As stated in section 

V.B.3 of the preamble to the final rule, “For vehicles for which the manufacturer counts air 

conditioning credits toward its LD GHG compliance, the MVAC systems (or elements of those 

systems) are considered emission-related components as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803. This 

designation includes provisions for emission-related warranty, requirements that they operate 

properly for the specified useful life, as well as tampering restrictions. For example, if a 

manufacturer claims air conditioning credits for an MVAC system that uses a lower-GWP 

refrigerant on a particular vehicle as part of the LD GHG program, removing and replacing that 

refrigerant with any other refrigerant that has a higher GWP, including HFC-134a, would be 

considered tampering with an emission-related component under Title II of the CAA.” 

2.3 Vehicles Manufactured in the United States for Export 

EPA received comments from Global Automakers, AAM, Arkema, Mexichem, BMW, NRDC and 

IGSD, and DuPont addressing the impact of the change of status of HFC-134a on vehicles 

manufactured in the United States for export. EPA responds to many of these comments in 

section V.B.6.h of the preamble to the final rule. The remainder comments are summarized and 

addressed in this section. 

 AAM commented that “by including MVAC systems within the scope of [CAA section] 612, 

EPA appears to be expanding its interpretation of the statute to allow the Agency to also 

prohibit the production of any MVAC system capable of using HFC-134a beginning in MY 

2021. This is well outside the scope of EPA’s statutory authority.” AAM commented that 
41

EPA’s authority under the CAA does not extend to the prohibition of equipment or systems 

capable of using a prohibited substance, as long as the manufacturers do not charge the 

system with HFC-134a in the United States. AAM commented that any such prohibition 

would significantly reduce manufacturers’ ability to produce vehicles for export in the 

United States and would lead to the production of vehicles in other nations, to the 

detriment of the U.S. economy and without reducing the global use of HFC-134a. [0113]

 Global Automakers commented at the August 2014 public hearing that the proposed rule 

could induce automobile manufacturers to wait to charge AC systems of exported vehicles 

until the vehicle is outside of the United States. Global Automakers stated that this could 

have the undesirable effects of poor quality control at the factory, and other potential 

environmental problems because of more leakage after systems are charged. [0037]

EPA Response: EPA recognizes that the SNAP regulations do not prohibit a manufacturer from 

exporting vehicles designed to use HFC-134a without refrigerant in the MVAC and charging 

those systems once outside the United States. EPA also recognizes that manufacturers could 

choose to manufacture vehicles for export in a different country. In response to the comment 

on the impact on the U.S. economy, EPA notes that it does not consider the cost of transition to 

other alternatives in making listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 

CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. For 

additional information, see section V.B.6.d of the preamble to the final rule.

Furthermore, regarding the comment about charging systems outside the United States, the 

commenter did not provide information to support the claim that this would result in more 

leakage or “poor quality control” nor did the commenter support how those concerns would 

affect EPA’s determination that safer alternatives are available starting with MY 2021 vehicles.

EPA is providing the narrowed use limit through MY 2025 to allow export to countries without 

infrastructure to safely handle other alternatives. Many countries to which the United States 

exports vehicles, such as Canada, are following the example of the EU and the United States 

and are establishing requirements that limit the use of HFC-134a in MVAC. Thus, we expect that 

the number of countries without the necessary infrastructure will diminish both before and 

over the period during which the narrowed use limit would apply. 

 AAM commented that in the 1994 final rule establishing the SNAP program, “EPA noted 

that substances produced and used outside the United States were not subject to the SNAP 

program because “EPA believes its authority under section 612 extends only to use of 

substitutes in areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.” By prohibiting the 

production of new vehicles for export with MVAC systems using HFC-134a, EPA would 

contradict this 1994 statement by effectively dictating which MVAC refrigerants must be 

available in areas well outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.” 

EPA Response: AAM included only a selective portion of the text from the 1994 rule 

establishing the SNAP program. In that rule EPA stated that “Companies manufacturing 

substitutes outside the U.S. who are producing solely for use by entities outside the U.S. are not 
42

subject to the requirements of these section 612 rules. EPA believes that its authority under 

section 612 extends only to use of substitutes in areas under the jurisdiction of the United 

States government.” 59 FR 13,052. We disagree with the commenter that EPA is “dictating 

which MVAC refrigerants must be available in areas well outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

government” because systems designed to use HFC-134a can be manufactured in the United 

States as long as the system is not charged until after it is outside the United States, as 

discussed above. However, that is not the issue here. In this case, the issue is whether products 

manufactured in the United States for export are subject to the SNAP regulations. EPA notes 

two types of SNAP requirements that are relevant to products manufactured for export: the 

requirement to notify EPA 90 days in advance before introducing a refrigerant substitute into 

interstate commerce and the regulation of “use” in the United States, where “use” is defined at 

40 CFR 82.172 to include “use in a manufacturing process or product.” These two requirements 

are addressed in section V.B.5.a of the preamble to the final rule. As discussed elsewhere, EPA 

is finalizing a narrowed use limit through MY 2025. 

 AAM noted EPA’s statement in the 1994 rule that “Substitutes manufactured within the U.S. 

exclusively for export are subject to SNAP since the definition of use in the rule includes use 

in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.” AAM commented 

that this “simply subjects HFC-134a to the SNAP program” and the SNAP program has a 

number of options for limiting how and when a substance can be used, including the “ability 

to continue allowing a specific end-use or application of HFC-134a via narrowed use limits –

namely, limits the use of HFC-134a to use in new vehicles manufactured for exports only.” 

[0113]

 AAM commented that it is “solidly” within EPA’s authority and consistent with prior EPA 

rules issued under the SNAP program to prohibit the use of HFC-134a in new vehicles 

manufactured for sale in the United States beginning at the end of MY 2025 and continue to 

allow the use of HFC-134a in new vehicles manufactured solely for export. [0113]

 AAM cited, as an example, the 2002 SNAP rule in which EPA continued to allow certain

foam blowing uses of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b through a narrowed use limit due to a lack of 

technically viable alternatives. EPA agreed with commenters on the rule that while 

substances with zero ozone depleting potential had already been implemented in Europe, 

the conversion to non-hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) alternatives in the United States

required additional research and development due to differences in buildings codes, 

technical requirements, and compliance with safety requirements. [0113]

 Global Automakers opposed the change of status applying to vehicles produced in the 

United States for export and recommended that EPA revise the rulemaking to exempt 

vehicles produced for export to markets that have not adopted provisions for alternative 

refrigerants and/or that do not have sufficient infrastructure to support such refrigerants. 

Global Automakers commented that “EPA clearly has the legal authority to exempt vehicles 

produced in the United States for export. Under the CAA Section 612(c), the Administrator, 

in judging substitute substances, must determine whether the “alternative ... reduces the 
43

overall risk to human health and the environment; and ... is currently or potentially 

available.”” Global Automakers commented that in recognition that the risks associated 

with alternatives and their practical availability may vary due to individual circumstances, 

EPA must look to particular end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector in 

evaluating and approving substitutes and such end-uses must be assessed on a world-wide 

basis. [0207]

 Global Automakers noted EPA’s statement that ““Environmental and human health 

exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute; 

therefore, EPA makes decisions based on the particular end-use where a substitute is to be 

used.” 79 FR 46,132 (emphasis added)” and claimed that given that the technology available 

and training on handling automotive refrigerant substitutes vary dramatically among 

nations, EPA would act in an arbitrary and capricious manner if it failed to distinguish 

between automobiles for the domestic market and those exclusively for export to locations 

where the substitute would not be responsibly managed by the proposed 2021 deadline. 

[0207]

 Global Automakers commented that the highly fact-specific nature of EPA’s CAA authority 

in this area – focused on individual “end-uses” and on “specific applications with an industry 

sector” – carries with it the power and, indeed, the obligation for the Agency to allow 

different substitutes for domestic and for export products. [0207]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that the Agency can provide different requirements for different 

end-uses and has done so throughout its 21 year history. Although we do not believe that EPA 

has an obligation to endlessly sub-divide the broad end-uses into specific niche applications, as 

explained in the preamble, we agree with the commenters that it is reasonable to create, for a 

specified period, a narrowed use limit for MVAC systems in light duty vehicles manufactured for 

export. EPA recognizes that servicing motor vehicles is different than servicing other products 

and that many products discussed in this rule (e.g., various aerosols and foams) are not 

serviced.

We do not agree that we should differentiate unnecessarily between MVAC systems 

manufactured for domestic use and those manufactured for export beyond the narrowed use 

limit. EPA is finalizing the narrowed use limit through MY 2025, as discussed in section V.B.5.b 

of the preamble to the final rule. See section V.B.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s 

comparison of HFC-134a and other alternatives for light-duty MVAC and a discussion on how 

these factors contribute to the change of status determination for HFC-134a in newly 

manufactured light-duty vehicle AC systems.

 AAM commented that comparable issues have not arisen in past SNAP program actions 

where EPA determined not to exempt U.S. exports, such as the December 20, 2011 final 

rule in which the Agency decided not to allow household and commercial refrigerators and 

freezers intended for export to be manufactured with larger charge sizes than would be 

permitted for such products sold in the United States. AAM commented that in those 
44

situations, manufacturers could unilaterally produce and export products that met all the 

“EPA Use Conditions” for safe operation, without the need for significant supporting actions 

by foreign governments and extensive new service support programs by independent 

overseas companies and industries. [0113] 

 AAM commented that motor vehicles manufactured for export only should be treated 

differently than refrigerators and freezers due to the very different regulatory 

requirements, performance expectations, and known servicing requirements. AAM further 

commented that what EPA has proposed regarding use of HFC-134a also is very different 

from what EPA requires for household and commercial freezers. AAM commented that for 

household and commercial freezers, EPA placed a limit on the maximum quantity of 

refrigerant that could be used in an appliance domestically, while allowing the same charge 

size for export. In contrast, EPA has proposed to completely eliminate the ability of a vehicle 

manufacturer to produce and export a vehicle containing any amount of HFC-134a. [0113]

EPA Response: In the 2011, rule EPA decided not to apply different use conditions based on 

whether the appliances subject to that rule would be exported. Similarly, in this rule EPA is not 

making a permanent distinction between MVAC for domestic use and MVAC for export. 

Nonetheless, EPA understands that the MVAC end-use is different from commercial 

refrigerators and freezers particularly as it relates to servicing. Moreover, the concerns raised 

by commenters on this rule include concerns for servicing infrastructure which differ from the 

concerns relating to appliances considered in the 2011 rule. As discussed in the preamble, EPA 

is finalizing a narrowed use limit through MY 2025 for certain export markets where servicing 

infrastructure is not in place. 

 AAM commented that distinguishing between vehicles offered for sale in the United States 

and those manufactured for export only is consistent with the CAA and EPA’s past practice. 

AAM claimed that EPA has distinguished between vehicles produced for sale in the United 

States and those produced for export for 40 years. AAM noted EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR

85.1709(a) and 1068.230 that provide an exemption from the requirement in CAA section 

203(a) that all vehicles be covered by a certificate of conformity. AAM stated that the 

certification requirement does not apply to vehicles intended solely for export to a country 

with emission standards that differ from U.S. standards, as long as the shipping container 

and vehicle itself are labelled as for export only. AAM commented that the exemption is 

void ab initio if the vehicle is sold or offered for sale in the United States or if the 

manufacturer has reason to believe the vehicle would be offered for sale in the United 

States. [0113]

 Under the CAA, EPA can impose penalties of up to $37,500 per vehicle if vehicles intended 

for export are sold or offered for sale in the United States. AAM believes as a result of these 

provisions, there is little to no chance that vehicles manufactured for export only will be 

intentionally or unintentionally offered for sale in the United States. AAM concluded that 

EPA has a pre-existing and extremely strong mechanism for enforcing a regulatory 
45

requirement that applies differently to vehicles intended for sale in the United States and 

those intended for export. [0113]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that certain regulations promulgated under other parts of the CAA 

treat motor vehicles manufactured for export differently than those that will be sold for use in 

the United States. EPA also appreciates that the statutory penalty provisions serve as a 

deterrent to the domestic sale of vehicles manufactured for export. However, as described 

previously, the SNAP program regulates “use” of refrigerant within the United States, and this 

includes the charging of an MVAC system at the manufacturing facility. 

 AAM commented that “even if EPA can apply the definition of “potentially available” in CAA 

section 612(c)(2) to MVAC systems, systems capable of using alternative refrigerants are not 

currently or potentially available for use in all vehicle models intended for export by MY 

2021.” AAM commented that EPA appears to conflate the availability of alternative 

substances and the ability of manufacturers to transition their entire product lines. AAM 

commented that MVAC technology currently exists to use at least some of these 

refrigerants in some vehicles in those markets where the refrigerants are available and 

approved for use in MVAC systems. AAM expects that some vehicles manufactured for sale 

in the United States, as well as some vehicles manufactured for export outside of the United 

States, cannot be redesigned to safely use alterative refrigerants by MY 2021, either 

because of their place in the design cycle or because of barriers to the use of the alterative 

refrigerant in the country of importation. Further, AAM commented that the fact that the 

alternative refrigerants exist and are potentially available for use in MVAC systems does not 

negate the fact that vehicle manufacturers must comply with the regulatory and statutory 

requirements of the countries to which vehicles are exported. [0113]

EPA Response: Charging an MVAC system with refrigerant during the manufacturing of a 

vehicle in the United States falls under the SNAP definition of “use” and is subject to the 

prohibition on use of an unacceptable substitute at 40 CFR 82.174(d). In considering whether a 

substitute is “available,” EPA considers whether the substitute can be feasibly used in the 

relevant end-use. For example, for MVAC, there are alternative substances that exist in 

sufficient supply and in that sense are “available.” However, if the technology to use those 

substitutes consistent with the use conditions or to otherwise use the substitutes safely has not 

been developed, then the substitutes are not “available” for that end-use in a broader sense. 

Thus, for MVAC, in considering whether alternatives are available, we have considered when it 

will be technically feasible for MVAC systems with the lower-GWP alternatives to be used safely 

in all vehicle models consistent with the SNAP use conditions. It is this consideration that led to 

our proposal and final decision to change the status of HFC-134a for use in MVAC for MY 2021 

vehicles. If, instead, we looked solely to whether there are substitutes that exist for use in 

MVAC with no regard for technical feasibility or safety, the change in status date would be 

much earlier. Additional information on EPA’s decision that MY 2021 is the time by which 

alternatives will be “available” for use in all light-duty vehicle models, except those vehicles 

subject to the narrowed use limit through MY 2025, can be found in section V.B.2.a of the 

preamble to the final rule. This decision applies to the “use” of HFC-134a in both vehicles 
46

manufactured for sale in the United States and vehicles manufactured in the United States for 

exports.

Regarding the commenter’s claim that applying EPA’s test for availability to exports would 

result in a conclusion that MVAC systems for vehicles manufactured for export would not be 

available by MY 2021, EPA agrees that the lack of adequate servicing infrastructure may 

prohibit the safe use of alternative refrigerants in some export markets for a limited timeframe.

EPA recognizes that a manufacturer who markets products in a foreign country may be subject 

to laws or requirements in that country that are different than the laws that apply in the United 

States and that some of those laws or requirements may stymy use of alternatives in some 

markets in the short term until they can be revised. Moreover, with regard to MVAC, we also 

recognize that there are near-term concerns about safe use of alternatives in foreign countries 

without adequate servicing infrastructure. We are addressing these concerns by providing a 

narrowed use limit for export for a transitional period, through MY 2025. However, as noted in 

the preamble, these conditions are not expected to be permanent barriers. We do not believe 

that the current status of laws and regulations or the current lack of servicing infrastructure is a 

basis for establishing an indefinite narrowed use limit. 

As noted above, we do not consider the availability of alternatives on a model-by-model or 

vehicle-by-vehicle basis. Nor will we be able to ascertain the future laws and requirements or 

servicing infrastructure in every single export market. In establishing MY 2025 as the last year 

of the narrowed use limit, we need not conclude that alternatives will be available for every 

vehicle manufactured for export by MY 2026. Because safer substitutes exist and the 

technology to use them in light-duty vehicles is in place in some models and can be developed 

over the next several years to be used safely in additional models, we have determined that 

alternatives will be available by MY 2021 and, where the narrowed use limit can be justified for 

certain export vehicles, by MY 2026.

 Global Automakers commented that it is likely that many developing countries have 

legislative and/or regulatory barriers that must be addressed prior to allowing the use of 

alternative refrigerants. Global Automakers commented that the reason for this barrier is 

that some alternative refrigerants, such as HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf, are somewhat 

flammable. [0207, 0037]

 Global Automakers commented that the experience in the United States shows that EPA 

found that the health and safety codes in many U.S. states needed to be updated to provide 

the proper legal framework to allow the transition to these alternative refrigerants. Global 

Automakers commented that in 2005, EPA reported to the SAE that 18 states had 

regulatory barriers for flammable refrigerants, that 11 states had regulatory barriers for 

refrigerants with toxicity characteristics, and that there were various regulatory barriers in 

occupational health and safety provisions related to storage, handling, ventilation, 

inspection, reporting, labeling, hazard communication, worker training, and other issues. 

EPA, automakers, and other stakeholders worked together to address these state, local, and 

federal regulatory barriers. Most were corrected in the first few years, but after nine years, 
47

the United States is only now able to start the transition to alternative refrigerants in the 

market. Global Automakers commented that this is likely to be the case in many developing 

countries as well. [0207]

 AAM commented that it took many years to create the legal and regulatory basis to allow 

the current transition to low-GWP refrigerants in the United States and referenced the 

EPA’s 2005 report and the collaborative effort made to remove these U.S. regulatory 

barriers. AAM commented that it took more than three years for most of these barriers to 

be resolved and even then, seven states still prohibited any flammable refrigerants (even 

refrigerants that had received EPA SNAP approval). AAM commented that where issues 

could not be resolved through administrative action by DOT or the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA), and new legislation was required, progress was slow. AAM 

commented that it was not until 2010 that the last of the state prohibitions against using a 

flammable or toxic refrigerant were removed. This shows the difficulty and unpredictability 

of the legislative process to enact a new law, even when there is consensus and support for 

the new law among all the government, NGOs and commercial stakeholders. Additionally, 

AAM commented that the final U.S. regulatory steps to enable a transition to HFO-1234yf 

are being completed nine years after the launch of the joint industry-government effort in 

the United States. AAM commented that these efforts have not yet been fully completed 

for other alternative refrigerants such as R-744 and HFC-152a. [0113]

 AAM commented that the EU Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC Directive) was 

initially proposed and endorsed by EU Parliamentary committees as early as 2003, but was 

not fully enacted and issued until 2006. Although originally planned to take effect in 2011, it 

was suspended for two years due to unexpected delays in building HFO-1234yf production 

capacity. AAM commented that it took 10 years before large numbers of vehicles with lowGWP refrigerants were being sold and it will be 14 years after the legislative process began 

before 100% of new vehicles in the EU will be required to transition. AAM commented that 

during this time, the EU and its member states undertook various reviews to confirm the 

safety, effectiveness, and environmental benefits of the new replacement refrigerants, 

including a special vehicle safety review of HFO-1234yf in 2013-2014 by the EU Joint 

Research Center, and an ongoing HFO-1234yf review under the Registration, Evaluation, 

Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program. [0113] 

 Mexichem commented that transport and handling regulations in export markets may not 

permit the alternative refrigerants to be used. [0101]

 AAM commented that other nations may be reluctant to attempt a transition to HFO1234yf in the near-term; some may even resist efforts to create the necessary basis for a 

transition. [0113]

 AAM commented that the SNAP approval process also demonstrates the need for 

additional lead time. AAM commented that the first new candidate low-GWP refrigerant, 

HFC-152a, was given EPA SNAP approval in June 2008, nearly two years after this was 
48

proposed in a NPRM. AAM also noted that CO2 had received SNAP approval in 1994 but, in 

response to ongoing research, an update to CO2 Use Conditions was proposed in September 

2006. In June 2012, after much debate, the new, more restrictive use conditions for CO2 

were issued. SNAP approval for HFO-1234yf was proposed in October 2009 (urgently 

proposed, in view of imminent regulatory deadlines in the EU and United States), with the 

final SNAP approval issued approximately 18 months later. [0113]

 Mexichem and AAM commented that five years from 2015 to 2020 is not a realistic 

timeframe to create the necessary market conditions for the use of new refrigerants in 

overseas markets for U.S. vehicle exports, given the need to undergo regulatory and 

legislative processes similar to those in the EU and the United States in each jurisdiction 

where U.S.-produced vehicles are exported, effectively preventing U.S. automobile 

manufacturers from exporting to those countries. [0101, 0113, 0037]

EPA Response: EPA understands that additional time may be necessary to resolve legislative 

and regulatory barriers; however, as discussed in response to these comments in section 

V.B.6.h of the preamble to the final rule, “EPA does not agree that every country in the world 

would need as much time as was needed in North America and Europe to resolve barriers to 

transition.” Other countries can learn from the efforts of early leaders such as the countries in 

the EU and the United States, thus allowing for a smoother transition. While EPA is not aware 

of any other country that takes exactly the same approach for listing alternatives as acceptable 

or acceptable subject to use conditions prior to allowing import of charged vehicles, we are 

aware that other countries look to the SNAP program as a source of information to inform their 

domestic programs and, in many cases, they can rely in part or in whole on the work that has 

been done already by the United States. Also, EPA notes that the steps necessary to overcome 

regulatory and legislative barriers typically are not sequential, and it may be possible to pursue 

any of the necessary changes concurrently. The narrowed use limit will be in place through MY 

2025 to provide additional time for those instances in which other countries have additional 

regulatory processes or legislative barriers.

 AAM commented that Singapore has a ban on HC refrigerants in MVAC systems because of 

potential safety hazard to users and occupants due to extreme flammability. AAM 

commented that this regulation may affect introduction of low-GWP refrigerants. [0113]

EPA Response: EPA does not agree that this regulation would affect the export of MVAC 

charged with lower-GWP refrigerants to Singapore because none of the three lower-GWP 

MVAC alternatives are HCs. Singapore’s ban on HC refrigerants aligns with EPA’s unacceptability 

listing under SNAP for all flammable refrigerants in MVAC except those that have been 

submitted and found acceptable subject to use conditions. At this time, the only flammable 

refrigerants found acceptable subject to use conditions are HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a (40 CFR 

part 82 subpart G appendix B). 

 AAM commented that Japan has a ban on explosive refrigerants in workshops other than 

explosion proofed workshops. AAM commented that there is no implementation timing 
49

requirement for HFO-1234yf in Japan. However, HFO-1234yf is regulated by high-pressure 

gas safety law. When it comes to servicing AC refrigerants (discharge and refill), workshops 

must have anti-explosive facility. According to AAM, the Japanese auto industry is 

requesting deregulation of handling of HFO-1234yf, but it may not happen until the second 

quarter of 2015. AAM commented that this regulation may affect introduction of low-GWP 

refrigerants. [0113]

EPA Response: EPA is finalizing a change of listing status for HFC-134a for use in MVAC in lightduty vehicles as of MY 2021, with a narrowed use exemption through MY 2025 for vehicles 

exported to countries without adequate infrastructure to safely handle other alternatives. EPA 

understands that Japan is moving forward with changes to their domestic regulations to both 

allow for the use of HFO-1234yf and to restrict the use of all refrigerants for MVAC with a GWP 

greater than 150. EPA understands that Japan is proposing that the GWP limit take effect no 

later than January 1, 2023.4

 AAM noted that these new U.S. regulations were overlaid on a foundation of extensive preexisting regulations that are also needed for safe and effective usage of the new 

refrigerants. For example, intentional venting of refrigerants during servicing or vehicle endof-life disposal was already prohibited under CAA section 608, although this becomes 

especially important when using new refrigerants that are flammable or toxic. [0113]

 AAM commented that regulatory actions have been required under CAA section 609 to 

address issues such as servicing practices, certification requirements for recovery and 

recycling equipment, the rules for training and testing technicians, and recordkeeping 

requirements for service facilities and refrigerant retailers. These processes were 

undertaken to implement the mandatory SNAP use conditions that were created to ensure 

safe usage in terms of vehicle safety, occupational safety, and environmental protection. 

For example, it was determined in the SNAP review that properly trained workers using 

equipment certified to the required SAE standards would not be exposed to refrigerant 

concentrations above EPA’s long term exposure benchmark levels during vehicle service or 

vehicle end-of-life disposal and recycling. In contrast, EPA noted that servicing by untrained 

individuals “may cause exposures at high enough concentrations to cause concern.” [0113]

 AAM commented that EPA also established use conditions requiring unique fittings for 

service equipment and vehicle service ports in order to prevent the mixing and 

contamination of different gases during servicing and the improper recharging of MVAC 

systems. AAM commented that combined with worker training and public education, these 

requirements were needed to prevent unsafe conditions (such as introducing flammable 

gases where they were not intended or anticipated) and damage to the MVAC. AAM 

commented that these requirements would need to be both adopted and enforced in 

markets worldwide in order to fully accommodate U.S. exports with the new refrigerants. 

[0113]

 4 Masafumi, 2014.
50

EPA Response: AAM is correct that CAA section 608 prohibits knowingly venting refrigerants 

during service, maintenance, repair and disposal and that the SNAP use conditions under CAA 

section 612 require unique fittings for vehicle service ports to prevent the mixing and 

contamination of refrigerant during servicing and the improper recharging of MVAC systems.

Also, as AAM noted, CAA section 609 directs the EPA to establish standards and requirements 

regarding the servicing of MVACs. EPA does not expect other countries to have identical 

legislative authorities, nor does EPA agree that other countries need to adopt the exact 

regulations promulgated in the United States under CAA sections 608, 612, and 609 to ensure 

the safe use of the alternative refrigerants. Different countries may take different approaches 

to addressing safe use of substitutes in specific settings and applications. However, as noted 

previously, many other countries look to the work already done in the United States and 

Europe and these efforts should help to provide a smoother legislative and regulatory process. 

Moreover, as a general matter, the safety of HFO-1234yf as a global alternative refrigerant has 

been researched, verified, and confirmed by industry-based standards setting bodies, which 

include automobile manufacturers and chemical producers. These efforts should also ease the 

transition for other countries.

 AAM commented that export markets other than Canada and the EU cannot be expected to 

be prepared to accommodate new refrigerants by MY 2021 because they do not have the 

conditions to use any of the EPA approved low-GWP replacement refrigerants in a manner 

that would conform to the use conditions that EPA established for safe usage in the United 

States, nor can the appropriate conditions reasonably be expected to come into existence in 

the many export markets within a definite timeframe. [0113]

 Mexichem noted that export markets other than Canada and Europe do not have conditions 

to use the approved low-GWP refrigerants consistent with the use conditions that EPA has 

established for the United States. [0101]

EPA Response: EPA does not agree that existence of provisions that mirror U.S. regulations is a 

necessary pre-condition. HFO-1234yf is already being distributed in other countries including 

the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, as well as throughout Europe and North 

America. As noted above, different countries take different approaches to addressing safe use 

of substitutes in specific settings and applications. We also note that the use conditions for 

refrigerants used in newly manufactured light-duty MVAC are addressed during the 

manufacture of the vehicle. This includes, but is not limited to, labeling, installation of unique 

fittings, and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. Thus, these concerns are not relevant to ensuring 

adequate legislative and regulatory authorities and servicing infrastructure.

 AAM commented that EPA should designate in the current rulemaking certain export 

markets that can still receive U.S. exports of HFC-134a vehicles, which currently should be 

all export markets except Canada and Europe. AAM commented that at a later point these 

exemptions could be removed. AAM suggested that to provide for periodic future review of 

such provisions, EPA could monitor developments internationally and, when conditions in 
51

export markets conform to the use conditions and when the export markets implement 

low-GWP refrigerants requirements, EPA could then require export of low-GWP refrigerants 

to those markets. [0113]

EPA Response: EPA understands there are concerns about servicing in some export markets; 

however, EPA does not agree that the Agency is required to tailor the SNAP listing decisions to 

address each specific foreign country. EPA is finalizing a narrowed use limit that will require the 

automobile manufacturers to “ascertain that these other alternatives are not technically 

feasible because of the lack of infrastructure for servicing with the alternative refrigerants and 

document the results of their analysis” with regard to each specific country to which the 

manufacturer plans to export vehicles.

 AAM and Mexichem commented that the constrained production of HFO-1234yf, the slow 

ramp rate of expanded production, the much higher cost, and the use of nearly all of the 

current supply of HFO-1234yf to meet regulatory requirements in the EU and United States

makes it unlikely that other nations will transition to HFO-1234yf in the near-term. They 

also commented that the lack of a substantial number of MVAC systems using other 

alternatives, such as HFC-152a and CO2, also hinders a near-term transition in other nations. 

[0113, 0101]

 Arkema commented that it is unreasonable for EPA to assume without support that HFO1234yf will be available for cars exported from the United States. [0131]

EPA Response: While EPA agrees that to-date, supplies have been limited, EPA does not agree 

that supply of refrigerant is a concern for the change of status dates EPA is establishing in the 

final rule. EPA has concluded that sufficient supply of alternatives will exist to transition MVAC 

systems in all new light-duty vehicles manufactured in the United States, for both domestic use 

and export, by MY 2021. The suppliers of HFO-1234yf have provided information indicating that 

supply will be adequate prior to MY 2021. See section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the final rule 

for EPA’s response to additional comments on supply of refrigerant and section V.B.6.d for 

EPA’s response to comments on cost of refrigerant. 

 AAM commented that EPA should work with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and other 

U.S. government agencies to assist international development efforts to put into place 

infrastructure to handle low-GWP refrigerants, implement safe usage practices, and 

establish no refrigerant release to atmosphere policies, and purchase refrigerant capture 

and recycling machines. [0113]

EPA Response: To the extent practicable, EPA will work with the U.S. State Department to assist 

with the development and deployment of infrastructure for handling lower-GWP refrigerants, 

the implementation of safe use practices and establishment of no refrigerant release to 

atmosphere policies, and the purchase of refrigerant capture and recycling machines. Such 

work could occur under the auspices of the Montreal Protocol working with international 

agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme’s OzonAction Branch and/or the 
52

CCAC. EPA has already developed information that can be used to assist efforts of foreign 

countries and that information is available on our website.

2.4 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Listing Changes 

EPA received comments from DuPont, Global Automakers, AAM, NADA, Arkema, NRDC and 

IGSD, and EIA addressing the direct and indirect environmental impacts of the proposed 

decision to change the status of HFC-134a to unacceptable for use in new light-duty MVAC

systems. EPA summarizes and responds to many of these comments in section V.B.6.c of the 

preamble to the final rule. The remainder are summarized and addressed in this section.

2.4.1 Direct Climate Impact 

 DuPont commented that a MY 2019 change of status date would be manageable by the 

automobile manufacturers and likely result in net additional CO2 reductions over those 

achieved by current regulations. DuPont commented that it is unlikely that any additional 

credits achieved under the LD GHG regulations from a MY 2019 status change date would 

be fully offset by OEMs slowing the adoption of other fleet improvements. [0077]

 NRDC and IGSD commented in support of a MY 2017 change of status date that the rate at 

which manufacturers are transitioning vehicles to low-GWP MVAC refrigerants under the 

vehicle GHG rules is far slower than the sector could achieve. NRDC and IGSD commented 

that under the GHG standards for vehicles, the rate of transition away from HFC refrigerants 

is a function of manufacturers’ choice about whether to comply with those standards 

exclusively through improving the drive-train efficiency of their vehicles or by also 

benefiting from credits for using climate-friendlier refrigerants. NRDC and IGSD commented 

that some manufacturers who could feasibly switch to alternative refrigerants well before 

MY 2021 are expected to elect not to do so because they have adopted other pathways to 

comply with the vehicle standards. [0108]

EPA Response: Whether or not net additional CO2 reductions could be achieved beyond those 

required by the LD GHG rule is not the focus of this rulemaking. EPA is finalizing the change of 

status under SNAP for the use of HFC-134a in MVAC as of MY 2021, and not MY 2017 or MY 

2019. For the reasons provided in the preamble to the final rule, EPA has determined that MY 

2021 is the model year by which it will be technically feasible for all model vehicles to safely 

transition to a lower-GWP alternative refrigerant, consistent with the SNAP use conditions 

(except certain export vehicles subject to the narrowed use limit). While this aligns with the 

timeline for transition projected (but not required) in support of the LD GHG Rule, the results of 

the 2014 industry survey submitted as a comment on this rule indicate that automobile 

manufacturers planned to transition some models after MY 2021. As a result of this final rule, 

all vehicle models will now be required to transition by MY 2021. See section V.B.2.a of the 

preamble to the final rule for additional information.
53

 AAM commented that without more widespread adoption of alternative refrigerants in 

export markets, which cannot be achieved unilaterally by the automobile manufacturers, a 

variety of undesirable outcomes would be expected, such as incorrect recharging during 

repair and servicing, with resulting system damage and additional loss of refrigerant. [0113]

 AAM commented that lifetime environmental benefits would be diminished if exported 

vehicles are, for example, serviced incorrectly with less expensive HFC-134a. [0113]

EPA Response: The SNAP use conditions requiring refrigerant labeling and unique fittings for 

vehicle service ports serve as a means to inform technicians as to what refrigerant is being used 

with the aim of prohibiting system damage and loss or contamination of refrigerant resulting 

from the mixing of refrigerants. EPA agrees that proper servicing reduces emissions of 

refrigerant and EPA is aware that many countries offer technician training as a means of 

conveying information on best practices. EPA is finalizing a narrowed use limit for vehicles 

exported to countries lacking adequate servicing infrastructure in order to allow additional time 

for the development of infrastructure in export countries not currently prepared to import and 

service vehicles with alternative refrigerants.

2.4.2 Indirect Climate Impacts: Energy Efficiency

 NRDC and IGSD commented that EPA should incentivize automakers to improve the energy 

efficiency of vehicles with climate-friendly refrigerants to reduce the cost of car ownership 

and to lower emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from this sector. [0108] 

EPA Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. We note, however, that 

the LD GHG Rule provides incentives for increased vehicle efficiency, regardless of refrigerant. 

Specifically, GHG and fuel economy credits can be indirectly earned through improvements to 

technologies that result in decreased consumption of fuel to provide mechanical power to the 

AC system. The regulations allow vehicle manufacturers to generate AC leakage credits of up to 

13.8 and 17.2 g/mi CO2eq and AC efficiency credits of up to 5.0 and 7.2 g/mi CO2eq for cars and 

trucks, respectively, in complying with the industry fleet-wide average standard projected to be 

163 g/mi CO2eq in model year 2025 (77 FR 62,624). Those incentives remain unchanged by this 

rule. 

2.5 Economic Impacts of Proposed Status Changes

EPA received comments on the economic and cost impacts of the proposed rule from AAM, 

Global Automakers, NRDC and IGSD, Mexichem, ARPI and Auto Care Association, BMW, and 

Arkema. EPA responds to many of these comments in section V.B.6.d of the preamble to the 

final rule. Additional comments relating to EPA’s cost analysis are addressed in this section and 

in section 6.6 of this document.
54

 Mexichem commented that listing HFC-134a as unacceptable will make the industry’s 

dependence on a monopoly supplier of HFO-1234yf worse because it would take away their 

ability to determine their own transition schedule based on market conditions. [0101]

EPA Response: EPA provides a response to this comment in section V.B.6.a of the preamble to 

the final rule, where EPA responds to other comments from Mexichem and Arkema related to 

the patents on HFO-1234yf. 

 EIA commented that the transition of all models to HFO-1234yf should help create 

competition and economies of scale that contribute to a declining price. Also, EIA 

commented that Daimler has made public statements that their CO2 MVAC systems will be 

installed in 2017 cars, and that will provide additional market pressure for the cost of HFO1234yf to be reduced. [0134]

 EIA also stated that the litigation over the HFO-1234yf use patents continues to proceed 

through the courts and if the use patents are not upheld the price of HFO-1234yf is likely to 

plummet. [0134]

EPA Response: See EPA’s response to other comments on cost of refrigerant in section V.B.6.d

of the preamble to the final rule. 

2.6 Servicing, Repair, and Retrofits 

EPA received several comments on the service, repair, and retrofit of MVAC systems, including 

comments from NADA, Global Automakers, ARPI and Auto Care Association, AAM, SAE ICCC, 

and DuPont. In addition to the comments addressed in section V.B.6.e of the preamble, EPA 

received other comments related to these topics, which are summarized and addressed in this 

section.

2.6.1 Continued Servicing with HFC-134a

 NADA urged EPA to clarify in its final rule that the use of all service and repair products 

containing HFC-134a, not just the “pure” refrigerant are excluded from the SNAP rule. 

[0116]

EPA Response: The commenter is requesting clarification on the use of HFC-134a mixed with 

another fluid that is not a refrigerant, such as oil or leak detection dye, and introduced into the 

MVAC system. EPA has previously considered these types of products in the context of the Class 

I Nonessential Products Ban for CFC-12 products and has determined that when the refrigerant 

is operating as both a refrigerant and a propellant such as where the refrigerant is mixed with 

oil, EPA treats the product as a refrigerant. Comments concerning other aerosol propellants, 

including those used for automotive maintenance, are responded to along with other 

comments on aerosol propellants in section V.A.3.c of the preamble to the final rule. 
55

 AAM commented that they understand that EPA is not proposing changes that would alter 

the ability to service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC-134a. Therefore, AAM 

requested that EPA clarify that service parts, including TXVs and closed cell foam products, 

can continue to be made domestically and/or imported to be used as service parts, as 

necessary, even if they contain or are produced using HFC-134a, for servicing HFC-134a 

vehicles. [0113]

EPA Response: In the preamble to the final rule, EPA has stated that the change of status of 

HFC-134a for use in MVAC “does not prohibit the servicing or replacement of motor vehicle air 

conditioning systems manufactured to use HFC-134a.” The motor vehicle air conditioning enduse as addressed by this rule is limited to refrigerant used in MVAC systems, and does not 

extend to other parts of the vehicles. Other uses covered by this rule include aerosols, foams 

and commercial refrigeration. TXVs are addressed below in section 2.6.2, and AAM’s comments 

on closed cell foams are addressed in section V.a.3 of the preamble to the final rule and section 

4.6 of this document. 

2.6.2 Thermal Expansion Valves

 AAM commented that most MVAC systems use a TXV to control the expansion and flow of 

refrigerant entering the evaporator by sensing the pressure and temperature of the 

refrigerant exiting the evaporator. AAM explained that the sensing and control element, 

often referred to as the “Power Dome,” contains a diaphragm which senses the refrigerant 

pressure and also contains a small amount of refrigerant, which is isolated from the system, 

to sense temperature. AAM commented the refrigerant in the Power Dome can be the 

same type as the system refrigerant, or it can be a proprietary blend. AAM commented that

it is not clear if the proposed rule is intended to eliminate the use of HFC-134a in TXVs. AAM 

commented that TXVs are planned to continue to be used as new parts even in HFO-1234yf 

vehicles, in addition to use as replacement parts for HFC-134a legacy vehicles. Additionally, 

AAM commented that use of TXVs which contain HFC-134a should be allowed for servicing 

of MVAC systems manufactured with HFC-134a as well as systems manufactured with an 

alternative refrigerant because the amount is small, the refrigerant is sealed in the 

expansion valve, and it could provide characteristics which optimize the performance and 

efficiency of the MVAC system. Also, for HFC-134a systems, changing to another refrigerant 

would require re-engineering and re-validation of many MVAC systems produced over the 

last 20 years. [0113]

EPA Response: TXVs have not historically been included as part of the SNAP MVAC end-use. 

TXVs are not affected by this change of status of HFC-134a for use in newly manufactured lightduty vehicles.
56

2.6.3 Retrofit of HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf MVAC

 DuPont suggested that EPA clearly state on the SNAP website that any low-GWP MVAC 

refrigerant system can only be serviced with the OEM refrigerant listed in the vehicle AC 

manual and AC system label. [0077] 

 SAE ICCC recommended that EPA make it clear, on the listing table, on their website, in fact 

sheets and FAQ’s, etc. that a refrigerant listed as “Acceptable for Retrofit” can only be 

legally used to retrofit a MVAC originally manufactured with CFC-12. [0114]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the suggestions made by DuPont and SAE ICCC and will 

consider updating the information on our website, as appropriate. See section V.B.6.e of the 

preamble to the final rule for a response to several comments on servicing CFC-12, HFC-134a, 

and the lower-GWP alternative refrigerant MVAC systems.

 AAM commented that due to major design changes to vehicle hardware and technologies, it 

is not possible to retrofit legacy HFC-134a vehicles to use HFC-152a or CO2. [0113]

EPA Response: HFC-152a and CO2, as well as HFO-1234yf, cannot be used to retrofit MVAC 

systems using HFC-134a or CFC-12. These refrigerants are currently listed as acceptable subject 

to use conditions under SNAP for use in new MVAC systems only. 

2.7 Refrigerant Blends 

EPA received comments from DuPont, EIA, SAE ICCC, and NADA on the ten HFC and HCFC 

blends for which EPA proposed to change the status to unacceptable in MVAC systems for 

newly manufactured LD vehicles: SP34E, R-426A, R-416A, R-406A, R-414A, R-414B, HCFC Blend 

Delta, Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda. Herein these alternatives are referred to as 

the “refrigerant blends.” EPA responds to many of these comments in section V.B.6.f of the 

preamble to the final rule. The remainder are summarized and addressed in this section.

 DuPont agreed with EPA’s proposal to list the refrigerant blends as unacceptable for use in 

MVAC systems in newly manufactured LD motor vehicles. DuPont commented that because 

the refrigerants are not currently in use and it would be undesirable to have them used, EPA 

should change the listing status as of the effective date of the final rule. [0077]

 EIA supported the proposal to list the refrigerant blends as unacceptable in the MVAC 

sector in MY 2017. [0134]

 SAE ICCC commented that because they have never written any standards for the 

refrigerant blends, they support the change of listing status to unacceptable. [0114]

 NADA stated strong support for the change of status for the ten refrigerant blends. NADA 

commented that this should have no untoward impact on dealerships or their customers, 
57

because to NADA’s knowledge these blends have never been used in the United States in 

new vehicles or by dealership technicians for servicing or repairs. [0116]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the support for finding unacceptable the HFC and HCFC 

refrigerant blends, as proposed. The comments received support the Agency’s understanding 

that these refrigerant blends are not currently in use in the industry. In response to DuPont’s 

comment on the change of status date for these refrigerant blends, EPA is finalizing the change 

of status for MY 2017, and not effective immediately upon publication of the final rule because 

MY 2017 is the next full model year. As discussed in the preamble, because the manufacture of 

new light-duty MVAC system is so closely related to vehicle design, we are using model years 

and not calendar years for this end-use.

2.8 Heavy-Duty MVAC Systems

EPA received comments from CARB on heavy-duty MVAC systems, which are addressed below.

 CARB commented that they are aware that the industry is planning to “petition” EPA to 

approve HFO-1234yf for use in heavy-duty MVAC systems. CARB encouraged EPA to initiate 

the SNAP process with high priority once it receives such a petition. CARB commented that

industry has been studying the use of HFO-1234yf in AC systems in heavy-duty vehicles and 

buses. Additionally, CARB commented that the lack of regulatory requirement or regulatory 

incentive is believed to be a major barrier impeding a transition to low-GWP refrigerants in 

heavy-duty MVAC systems and MVAC-like appliances. CARB suggested that a mandatory 

“phase-out” of high-GWP refrigerants under the SNAP program for these uses would 

provide the impetus needed to expedient transition. CARB urged EPA to prohibit the use of 

high-GWP refrigerants in heavy-duty MVAC and MVAC-like appliances at the earliest 

possible time, and specifically recommended MY 2021. [0106]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the comments submitted on this topic and will take them into 

consideration as the Agency responds to any relevant submission to the SNAP program for the 

use of HFO-1234yf in heavy-duty MVAC systems and as the Agency considers any additional 

status change rules.

2.9 Other Suggestions or Requests

EPA received the following other suggestions or requests from NADA, NRDC and IGSD, DuPont, 

and Global Automakers as comments on the proposed rule. 

2.9.1 General requests

 NADA requested that EPA condition the purchase and use of all HFC-134a-containing 

service and repair products to certified technicians. NADA commented that the purchase 
58

and use of all HFC-134a products by uncertified persons lacking proper training and tools 

should be prohibited. [0116]

EPA Response: Under CAA section 612, EPA does not regulate the sale of refrigerants, but 

rather their use. There is separate authority under CAA section 608 that currently regulates, 

among other things, the sale of ozone depleting refrigerants, and extending that provision to 

HFC-134a is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. However, EPA notes that under a separate 

process we have indicated plans to issue a proposed rule to make changes to portions of the 

existing CAA section 608 implementing regulations taking into consideration the merits of a 

petition submitted in January 2014 asking EPA to extend those implementing regulations to 

HFCs. EPA will take this comment into consideration. 

 NRDC and IGSD suggested that EPA maintain a list of vehicles sold with low-GWP next 

generation technology so that this information is readily available to consumers. NRDC and 

IGSD commented that some states, like Minnesota, are requiring that manufacturers report 

the leakage rates of HFC-134a from their models, making this data more readily available to 

consumers and making HFC-134a even less attractive as a coolant, particularly for those 

models with high leak rates. NRDC and IGSD commented that compiling both HFC-134a leak 

rates and models that use climate-friendly chemicals will allow customers to make more 

informed purchasing decisions. [0108]

EPA Response: While EPA agrees in the value of this information for consumers, the SNAP 

program is not designed to collect and provide this type of information to consumers. EPA 

currently provides consumers outreach material, such as a point-of-sale brochure on the new 

lower-GWP alternatives, on the portion of our website that concerns servicing motor vehicle air 

conditioners and the requirements of CAA section 609. 

 DuPont recommended that EPA require that all HFC-134a MVAC service containers be 

clearly marked that it is a legal violation to use the product for servicing vehicles other than 

those that were originally charged with HFC-134a or CFC-12. [0077]

EPA Response: EPA did not propose to revise the listing decision for use of HFC-134a as a 

retrofit and thus cannot establish a new use condition as part of the final rule. EPA understands 

that DuPont and/or other refrigerant manufacturers may be interested in voluntarily providing 

information to customers on permitted uses of their products and EPA sees no barriers to such 

communication. 

2.9.2 Proper Servicing & Technician Certification

 Global Automakers stated that in-use service of vehicle AC systems should be accomplished 

using the refrigerant for which the vehicle was originally designed. Global Automakers 

commented that it is important to note that vehicles designed for alternative refrigerants 

should be serviced with the alternative refrigerant for which they are designed as well. 

Global Automakers commented that this principle is very important to prevent loss of 
59

environmental benefits and ensure the performance and durability of AC systems. Global 

Automakers commented that as new AC systems using new refrigerants are phased in, it is 

imperative for service technicians to be trained and equipped to repair and service these 

systems. Global Automakers further commented that given the past experience with the 

SNAP program, there may be yet unidentified issues which will need to be addressed to 

maintain effective service support for these new AC systems. Global Automakers 

commented that EPA should continue to work with SAE, the auto industry, the service 

industry, equipment providers, and other stakeholders to ensure that any future AC service 

issues are addressed. [0207]

 DuPont commented that in relation to preventing servicing vehicles with HFO-1234yf based 

AC systems with HFC-134a, EPA notes in the proposal that “Two sets of regulations under 

[CAA Title] VI make it clear that doing so (i.e., servicing HFO-1234yf with HFC-134a) is 

unlawful.” DuPont commented that they appreciate that the regulations prohibit such 

improper servicing, but are cognizant of the fact that service can be performed by 

businesses and individuals with widely varying degrees of training and awareness of the 

regulations. DuPont also noted that while there are no-venting regulations in place for 

multiple HFC end uses, HFC aftermarket sales volumes and recycle rates suggest that 

venting does in fact occur. DuPont commented that any such improper servicing would 

serve to degrade the environmental benefits that would otherwise be realized by the 

proposed rule. Therefore DuPont strongly encouraged the Agency to pursue additional 

efforts to prevent both intentional and unintentional improper service, such as by 

enhancing the training requirements for MVAC servicing. [0077]

EPA Response: EPA agrees on the importance of technician training on safe handling of 

refrigerants. The Agency is currently working with the approved CAA section 609 technician 

training and certification programs to update training material to focus on HFC-134a and the 

new climate-friendly alternatives that technicians will encounter in the coming years. The goal 

of this update is to ensure that technicians entering the field today are aware of the growing 

use of additional MVAC refrigerants and their unique properties, current regulatory 

requirements for MVAC under CAA section 609, section 612 (SNAP), and section 608, and 

relevant industry standards. EPA has also made an effort to update the information available on 

our website. See section 2.6 above for additional comments and EPA responses on servicing.

In addition, EPA is committed to its engagement with MVAC stakeholders on emerging 

challenges facing the industry. For this reason, EPA currently participates as a liaison on the SAE 

ICCC, the leading standard setting body for MVAC in the United States, and attends industry 

conferences intended for OEMs, as well as the MVAC servicing industry.

2.9.3 Recertification of Technicians

 DuPont commented that currently, EPA requirements for Certification for Refrigerant 

Handling Equipment and Technician Training and Certification are one-time events, and 

such training and certification can at this point be decades old. DuPont commented that 
60

much has changed in the world of MVAC, including transitioning from non-flammable to 

mildly flammable refrigerants, and new compressor certification standards. DuPont 

commented that refresher training is commonly applied in many fields to both ensure 

technicians are reminded of basic requirements and to update technician knowledge with 

more recent developments. DuPont commented that they recommend mandatory 

technician training and certification be required every five years to ensure technicians are 

current on regulatory requirements, including use conditions, and appropriate industry 

standards. DuPont commented that this requirement could be phased in such a way that 

any technician whose training and certification was more than five years old as of the date 

the final rule goes into effect would have a period of time (such as 12 months) to complete 

the training and certification. [0077]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the recommendations by DuPont, and notes that EPA has 

received additional requests to establish recertification requirements for technicians outside of 

this rulemaking process. Technician certification requirements for MVAC systems are addressed 

under CAA section 609 and the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 82 subpart B. EPA will 

take the recommendation for requiring technician recertification under consideration as it 

considers whether to revise the section 609 regulations. 
61

3 RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION AND VENDING MACHINES

EPA received a number of comments on the proposed change of listing status for refrigerants in 

the three main retail food refrigeration end-use categories (supermarket systems, remote 

condensing units, and stand-alone units) and in the vending machines end-use.

Commenters expressed various concerns and opinions about the proposed status change date 

of January 1, 2016; transitioning from the proposed unacceptable refrigerants in certain types 

of equipment; economic and environmental impacts of the proposed status changes; servicing 

of existing equipment; interplay with energy efficiency requirements; and supply of 

components. Several commenters suggested alternate approaches.

For supermarket systems and remote condensing units, EPA received comments from one 

supermarket (Supermarket Company ABC), an association representing supermarkets (Food 

Marketing Institute (FMI)), two refrigerant producers (DuPont and Honeywell), and two 

environmental organizations (NRDC and IGSD) supporting the proposal to list the refrigerants as 

unacceptable. These commenters also supported the proposed 2016 status change date. 

Several equipment manufacturers (Lennox International (Lennox), Hillphoenix, Hussmann, 

Master-Built Products (Master-Built), Zero Zone, Continental Refrigerator, National Coil 

Company, Nor-Lake, International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, ThermalRite Walk-Ins,

Manitowoc Foodservice (Manitowoc)), and an association representing manufacturers (the Air 

Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)) also commented and did not oppose 

changing the status of the refrigerants but did request a later change of status date. Some of 

these commenters also requested exemptions based on the technology used. 

For stand-alone equipment, most manufacturers, industry associations, and some product 

users/purchasers (e.g., Kairak-ITW Food Equipment Group (Kairak), KeepRite Refrigeration, 

Aladdin Temp-Rite, Hoshizaki America, North American Association of Food Equipment 

Manufacturers (NAFEM), Unified Brands, Continental Refrigerator, Southern Case Arts, 

Hussmann) expressed concern regarding the proposed change of status date, although they 

differed widely on the date they felt was appropriate.

EPA received comments regarding the change of status for vending machines from one 

equipment manufacturer (Automated Merchandising Systems), a purchaser of such equipment 

(Coca-Cola North America Group (Coca-Cola)), and an association representing manufacturers 

of vending machines (NAMA). These commenters said that additional time was needed to 

change the status of HFC-134a, suggesting time frames of approximately 2020. 

Other organizations that submitted comments on this section of the proposed rule included

Emerson Climate Technologies (Emerson), EIA, Grindmaster-Cecilware Corporation 

(Grindmaster-Cecilware), Hatco Corporation (Hatco), Shecco America (Shecco), Commercial 

Food Equipment Service Association (CFESA), Minus Forty, Traulsen, Structural Concepts, 

Vollrath Company (Vollrath), Danfoss, Parker Hannifin Corporation’s Division Sporlan (Parker 

Hannifin), H&K International, United Refrigeration, InterMetro Industries Corporation 

(InterMetro Industries), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), So-Low Environmental Equipment, 

Duke Manufacturing, N. Wasserstrom & Sons, True Manufacturing, Howe Corporation (Howe), 
62

National Restaurant Association (NRA), Eppendorf, Hudson Technologies (Hudson), Ingersoll

Rand, Maersk Container Industry, CARB, National Refrigerants, Scotsman Ice Systems 

(Scotsman), United Technologies, Unisom Comfort Technologies, Thermo Fisher Scientific, 

Federal Industries, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), and 

LPA.

EPA responds to many of these comments in section V.C of the preamble to the final rule. This 

section summarizes and responds only to those comments not addressed in the preamble.

3.1 Change of Status Dates

EPA received comments related to the proposed change of status date for certain refrigerants

in the three retail food refrigeration end use categories (supermarket systems, remote 

condensing units, and stand-alone units end-use categories and in the vending machines enduse covered by this rule from Supermarket Company ABC, FMI, DuPont, Honeywell, NRDC and 

IGSD, Lennox, Hillphoenix, Hussmann, Master-Built, Zero Zone, Continental Refrigerator, 

National Coil Company, Nor-Lake, International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, ThermalRite WalkIns, Manitowoc, AHRI, Kairak, KeepRite Refrigeration, Aladdin Temp-Rite, Hoshizaki America, 

NAFEM, Unified Brands, Continental Refrigerator, Southern Case Arts, Hussmann, Automated 

Merchandising Systems, Coca-Cola, NAMA, EIA, Shecco, CFESA, Minus Forty, Traulsen,

Structural Concepts, Hatco, HC Duke & Son LLC/Electro-Freeze (HC Duke/Electro-Freeze), 

Vollrath, Emerson, Danfoss, Parker Hannifin, H&K International, United Refrigeration, UL, and 

So-Low Environmental Equipment. A few commenters supported the proposed 2016 status 

change date and some suggested specific alternate years ranging from 2017 to 2025. A few 

commenters did not recommend a specific change of status date but suggested an additional 

period of time ranging from three to 20 years before the transition should occur. Most of these 

comments are addressed in section V.C. of the preamble to the final rule. The remaining 

comments are summarized and addressed below.

3.1.1 Retail Food Refrigeration (Supermarket Systems)

EPA responds to comments regarding retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems) in section 

V.C.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

3.1.2 Retail Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units)

 Equipment manufacturers and trade associations for equipment manufacturers raised 

technical concerns regarding the testing and certification of remote condensing units that 

will be needed for new products and the availability of the testing facilities to complete this 

work. The commenters stated that there was not enough capacity at existing test facilities to 

accommodate all the testing that would be required by both the NPRM and the DOE 

standards, and argued for a later change of status date to allow for this testing to occur One 

commenter indicated that it takes three to 12 weeks to test each model and would take five 

to six years to go through its entire product line. Another estimated three to five years for 
63

testing its products. Many commenters requested that any change of status for refrigerants 

in remote condensing units occur after compliance with the DOE standard takes effect in 

2017. Some manufacturers, such as Lennox indicated that the DOE standard that has a 

compliance date in 2017 for walk-in refrigerators and freezers was developed assuming use 

of refrigerants that were proposed for a change of status and nonetheless present significant 

challenges. Manitowoc stated that for remote condensing units, efficiency issues arise with 

respect to the high-glide refrigerants (for R-407C and R-407F) and the high condensing 

temperatures required for outdoor condensers (for R-744). Zero-Zone also indicated “odd 

performance characteristics” with equipment using alternative refrigerants such as R-407A 

and R-407C and identified the glide of the refrigerants as the likely cause. Comments from 

DuPont and other information in the docket related to the proposed 2016 change of status 

date for R-507A and R-404A discuss energy efficiency results with two acceptable alternative 

refrigerants. Manufacturers also had a concern regarding the availability of components, 

such as compressors and condensing unit assemblies, utilizing acceptable alternatives. For 

instance, Nor-Lake said their suppliers of condensing unit sub-assemblies are estimating a 

two to four year timeframe to get their full current line approved for R-407A, with 10% 

completed. Manitowoc requested a minimum of six years from the date of publication of the 

final rule for the transition from R-404A to allow time for the development of compressors 

and other components; however, they indicated that R-410A is a possible alternative given it 

“has the advantages of no temperature glide and the availability of a wide range of 

compressor and refrigerant component options.” [0037, 0076, 0077, 0090, 0092, 0119, 0120, 

0137, 0171, 0174, 0184, 0216]

EPA Response: As discussed in section V.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule, comments 

indicate that refrigerants are available and in use today for both new and retrofit remote 

condensing units. However, as discussed in the preamble, there are technical challenges that 

support a change of status date of January 1, 2018, for new remote condensing units and one 

year from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register for retrofit remote condensing 

units. We agree that some time will be needed to further qualify components to service a 

range of remote condensing units, design products, and test models for certification. However, 

we disagree that the comment from Nor-Lake, which addresses the availability of components 

using acceptable refrigerants and estimates to convert a “full line” provides a basis for a change 

of status date as late as four years after the date proposed. Those comments focused on one 

particular refrigerant, and the commenter provided no information about the technical 

feasibility of converting on a quicker timeframe if other alternatives were used. Likewise, we 

disagree that energy efficiency issues with a few of the acceptable refrigerants in reason to 

delay the change of status date further. As indicated by Manitowoc, one acceptable refrigerant 

(R-410A) already comes with a wide range of component options. As this commenter noted, 

this refrigerant has little temperature glide, and hence may address its concern in that respect. 

Concurrent with this rule, EPA is listing the two blends, R-448A and R-449A, acceptable in new 

and retrofit remote condensing units. Information from Honeywell and DuPont indicate that 

these alternatives perform similarly to R-404A and components using these alternatives using 

these alternatives should be available shortly. Honeywell advocated for a 2016 change of status 

date and indicated these blends are “nearing commercialization” and were already undergoing 
64

numerous field trials A major component supplier was quoted as saying they would be devoting 

resources to approving components for those and other acceptable refrigerants 

We note that the change of status date established in the final rule occurs after the DOE 

standards take effect. Thus, the facilities testing to address alternative refrigerants based on 

the change of status could occur after any testing required to meet the DOE standards that 

have compliance dates in 2017. 

 EIA agreed with EPA’s proposed change of status for new and retrofit remote condensing 

and said the availability of alternatives support January 1, 2016, as an appropriate transition 

date. [0134]

 Shecco supported EPA's proposal to change the status of R-404A and R-507A in new and 

retrofit “commercial refrigeration systems.” [0194]

EPA Response: EPA has maintained its proposal to change the status of ten refrigerants in new 

remote condensing units and nine in retrofit remote condensing units. For the reasons provided 

in section V.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule, we are establishing change of status dates of 

January 1, 2018, for the identified refrigerants in new remote condensing units and a change of 

status date of one year after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register for retrofit 

remote condensing units.

3.1.3 Retail Food Refrigeration (Stand-Alone Equipment)

 Kairak, KeepRite Refrigeration, Aladdin Temp-Rite, Hoshizaki America, NAFEM, Unified 

Brands, Continental Refrigerator, Southern Case Arts, Hussmann, Manitowoc and others 

indicated that there were only a limited amount of components such as compressors and 

condensing units available using acceptable refrigerants. Several manufacturers and others 

looked specifically at R-290 and R-744 and stated that components for those refrigerants 

are offered only in certain size ranges and that more development work and testing by the

component suppliers must be performed before the manufacturers could begin designing 

stand-alone equipment. Minus Forty and Traulsen both indicated there were no 

commercially available HFO compressors at present while others commented that 

component technology was just becoming available on a sample basis to support the 

development of HFC/HFO blends. EIA stated that the necessary components for standalone equipment are already being manufactured by companies including Danfoss, 

Tecumseh, Cubigel, and Secop. Information submitted confidentially indicated that 

components used to date for R-290 and R-744 stand-alone equipment currently on the 

market are available for all manufacturers. Additionally, Danfoss, Manitowoc and Unified 

Brands, indicated that more components will be offered over the next one to two years.

Several manufacturers felt they were “forced” into one or a limited list of alternatives under 

the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date. Continental Refrigerator raised a 

concern about the supply of refrigerant-grade substances. Commenters stated additional 
65

time was needed to redesign products with acceptable alternatives. Manufacturers 

discussed the number of models they currently offered and indicated that each would 

require redesign once components were available. Coca-Cola estimated that some of its R744 stand-alone cabinets took up to two-years to fully develop to energy-efficient 

performance, based on numerous factors including iterative trial and error modifications, 

sourcing new components, modifying charge sizes, and procuring a production-ready 

refrigerant charge station on the manufacturing line. Some refrigerant suppliers and 

equipment manufacturers indicated that the acceptability of HFC/HFO blends would 

facilitate redesign procedures as the ones investigated to date are nonflammable or only 

mildly flammable and generally behave like the refrigerants used today and that are subject 

to the status change proposal. For instance, Structural Concepts said that ideally R-448A 

would be listed as acceptable, noting an improvement in energy efficiency compared to R404A, or if not, blends that behave similarly to HFC-134a could be adopted with some 

additional time to design and address energy efficiency considerations. N. Wasserstrom & 

Sons stated its major component supplier identified R-448A as “our best bet to avoid an 

engineering ‘reset.’” Unified Brands, Hillphoenix and Howe commented that these blends 

are still in the development or evaluation stage and are not yet commercially available, that 

not all refrigerant production facilities have been built, and those that have been built 

currently do not have the production capacity needed to handle the demand. Likely 

referring to such blends, Lennox said they did not expect nonflammable alternatives to be 

sufficiently available until 2017. Two refrigerant producers, Honeywell and DuPont, 

indicated that production is occurring and expected supplies to be readily available when 

listed acceptable under SNAP. Unified Brands indicated compressor and condensing unit 

testing is underway, prototypes are expected in a year, with full line production in three 

years. Also, Master-Bilt stated that such refrigerants would cut the redesign costs and 

Hoshizaki America said that with HFC/HFO blends they “would in the end be able to have a 

quicker changeover due to the safety, common parts, and lack of changes needed to our full 

supply chain and manufacturing facilities.”

Manufactures stressed that stand-alone equipment needs to be tested and certified for

compliance (e.g., to UL, DOE and NFA requirements) before being placed on the market. 

Estimates for the time to test and certify individual models or model families included 

“eight to 12 weeks” (Hatco), “six to 12 weeks” (Federal Industries), and “as long as 18 

weeks” (Master-Bilt). Many provided estimates of the time for testing and certifying all their 

products and these varied too; for example, “24-36 months” (HC Duke/Electro-Freeze), 

“three to five years” (Traulsen), and “eight to twelve years” (Hoshizaki America). Duke 

Manufacturing estimated a two to three year time frame for designing, testing and 

certifying equipment. Discussing stand-alone products and other end-use categories 

covered by this rule, Lennox suggested varying status change dates that they said “will allow 

for a more effective equipment certification process.” Of the certification bodies, only 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) provided comments. They said that the transition from 

“HCFC refrigerants was approximately five years” and in comparison stated that “five years 

may not be necessary” to complete the transition to alternatives not subject to a status 

change.
66

Master-Bilt and Structural Concepts commented that customers have concerns about 

flammable products and that customers have to be convinced that it is acceptable to have 

flammable refrigerants inside their stores. N. Wasserstrom & Sons and Hillphoenix noted 

that time would be needed and that a slow phase-in approach will ease customer 

flammability concerns. Several commenters, including AHRI, Nor-Lake, Hoshizaki America, 

Vollrath, Lennox, Hussmann, Hillphoenix, Supermarket Company ABC, Emerson, and 

Danfoss, claimed that flammable and other alternative refrigerants were not allowed based 

on current mechanical, fire, and building codes in the United States. Some indicated that 

efforts were underway to modify these codes, but that changes were not expected until 

2018 or later. DuPont, however, stated that nonflammable HFC/HFO blends could be 

adopted without changes to building codes. [0021, 0024, 0026, 0028, 0031, 0033, 0037, 

0039, 0040, 0048, 0049, 0062, 0068, 0074, 0076, 0077, 0082, 0083, 0092, 0102, 0115, 0119, 

0120, 0122, 0123, 0134, 0137, 0138, 0170, 0173, 0174, 0174, 0176, 0183, 0188, 0190, 0193, 

0194, 0195, 0196, 0199, 0200, 0201, 0209, 0212, 0215, 0216, 0217]

EPA Response: We recognize that additional time is necessary for more components to be 

developed, and then for equipment to be designed, tested and certified. Thus, we are 

establishing in the final rule a status change date of January 1, 2019, for certain stand-alone 

products and January 1, 2020, for other stand-alone products.

EPA recognizes that most manufacturers provide numerous models and the change of status 

dates we are establishing carry an expectation that the manufacturers will be in various stages 

of the development for different models at the same time. Under this scenario, equipment 

models that have advanced the furthest will be undergoing tesing and certification while other 

equipment models are still being designed and yet other equipment models are still awaiting 

development of components. As a result, equipment using alternatives not subject to the status 

change will be introduced on a staggered schedule, with some equipment just now entering the 

market and more becoming available as additional components are manufactured. Equipment 

using R-744 or R-290 have been the first to enter the market and more might next enter the 

market. Equipment designed with some of the newly-listed HFC/HFO blends that are more 

similar to the current refrigerants, and that likely will provide for an easier and quicker 

transition than what has been seen to date with R-744 and R-290, might enter the market later. 

Concurrently with this rule, EPA is finding acceptable for stand-alone low-temperature 

equipment two nonflammable HFC/HFO blends that are similar to R-404A (R-448A and R-449A) 

and for all stand-alone equipment one nonflammable HFC/HFO blend that is similar to HFC134a (R-513A). In addition, another nonflammable HFC/HFO blend similar to HFC-134a (R-450A) 

was previously listed as acceptable for all stand-alone equipment (79 FR 62,863).

EPA did not find any issues regarding the supply of R-290, R-441A, R-600a or R-744, as 

discussed in section V.C.4.a.2 of the preamble to the final rule. For HFC/HFO blends, some 

samples are available today and a larger supply is expected by 2017 as discussed in section 

V.C.2.a.1 of the preamble to the final rule.
67

The comments indicate there are some, albeit limited, components already available using 

acceptable refrigerants, especially R-290 and R-744, and these are being used by some 

manufacturers in their products. As discussed in section V.C.4 of the preamble to the final rule, 

all manufacturers can now use those components to begin the development of stand-alone 

units. For HFC/HFO blends, prototype components are already being tested by some 

manufacturers and production-ready supplies are expected before the change of status dates 

we are establishing. Emerson, a component supplier, was quoted as saying it is “prepared to 

support customers and devote more resources to qualifying lower GWP A1 refrigerant 

alternatives such as R448A, R449A, R-450A and R513A.”5

EPA recognizes that time is needed to design products and that unique challenges exist for

hydrocarbons and R-744 (e.g., charge size limits and high pressure, respectively). Challenges in 

using hydrocarbons have been addressed in equipment that has become available in the U.S. in 

the past few years and for much longer globally. Design challenges for R-744 have also been 

addressed; in fact, multiple suppliers to Coca-Cola in particular have already transitioned many 

of their models to this nonflammable alternative. As stated above, further designs with these 

alternatives would proceed as components become available. In addition, commenters have 

noted less design problems with HFC/HFO blends, given the acceptability and properties as 

discussed above, and such design work has already begun.

Although we also recognize that time is needed to test and certify models, we disagree with 

some of the time lengths commenters suggested. For example, it is our understanding that 

there was a three-year compliance period for the DOE efficiency standards (see section V.C.1.b 

of the preamble to the final rule), whereas the status change dates we are establishing for new 

stand-alone equipment are more than three years from now. We agree that certification bodies 

might not have been able to meet the demand for testing and certifying products by the 

proposed status change date of January 1, 2016; however, we find that given the later change 

of status dates, there is adequate time to obtain the required certification. As noted, such 

certification is required to meet DOE standards that have compliance dates in 2017, and those 

facilities, and possibly others, can provide similar services before the change of status dates we 

are establishing, which allow the industry to spread this demand for certification over several 

years.

Commenters did not provide sufficient information that building codes prohibit the use of 

alternative refrigerants, and did not provide an explanation of how such codes affected the R744 and R-290 products that EPA has noted are already in operation. While Hussmann indicated 

that they have dealt with instances where their customers had problems getting building 

permits, they did not indicate that those problems were not resolved. To the extent such code 

compliance issues exist, commenters have noted that there is on-going work to revise codes 

and DuPont in particular has stated that some acceptable alternatives can be used without any 

 5 See Emerson Climate Technologies offers to help supply chain move to lower-GWP refrigerants, Refrigeration and 

Air-Conditioning Magazine, January 28, 2015, http://www.racplus.com/news/-emerson-climate-technologiesoffers-to-help-supply-chain-move-to-lower-gwp-refrigerants/8677708.article.
68

code revisions. While we did not revise the change of status date in response to this concern, 

we note that the later change of status date in the final rule will allow time to address these 

concerns with building codes. 

EPA disagrees that any manufacturer is “forced” to use a particular alternative. We note that 

multiple alternatives are acceptable for the various stand-alone equipment and with the listings 

provided concurrently with today’s rule, more options exist. Several acceptable refrigerants fit 

the status change dates we are establishing and hence will be available by that date. In 

summary, for R-290 and R-744: refrigerant supply is adequate; some components are currently 

available and additional offerings will be provided over the next one to two years; units can be 

redesigned as those components are offered, products developed, tested and certified in a two 

to three year time frame; and factory modifications may take six months or more but could 

occur in parallel with the development phase. For the HFC/HFO blends: some samples are 

available today; component testing is underway; early results indicate they can be readily 

integrated into existing models without major design changes while improving energy 

efficiency; and major factory modifications can be avoided.

 NAMA commented that there is currently no refrigerant approved in SNAP for replacement 

of R-404A, and that ASHRAE and EPA have proposed some replacements, but none have 

been approved by SNAP at the time NAMA filed their comments. NAMA commented that 

without knowledge as to which actual refrigerant is going to be approved as the acceptable 

alternative, it is unable to determine if commercial refrigeration will require TXV valves. 

NAMA noted that valve manufacturers have not started the design process for new valves 

and may be submitting comments requesting a protracted enforcement and applicability 

date. NAMA urged EPA to consider this fact and the comments of the valve manufacturing 

industry when assessing and setting enforcement and applicability dates. [0183]

EPA Response: We disagree that at the time of the comment period on the proposed rule there 

were no SNAP-approved replacements for R-404A. At the time of proposal, R-290 was listed as 

an acceptable substitutes subject to use conditions in stand-alone equipment and R-744 was 

listed acceptable in that end-use category as well as the vending machines end-use. As 

indicated in section V.C of the preamble to the final rule, EPA is aware of stand-alone 

equipment and vending machines using R-290, R-600a and R-744. Addressing the use of R-744 

in retail food refrigeration equipment generally (i.e., covering multiple end-use categories), one 

valve manufacturer, Parker-Hannifin, noted “CO2 can be an environmentally friendly refrigerant 

in this application. Parker-Hannifin and other manufacturers are actively developing products to 

support both subcritical and transcritical CO2.” In addition to substitutes listed as acceptable at 

the time of the proposed rule, and additional substitutes listed subsequent to that rule (79 FR 

38,811; 79 FR 62,863), concurrent with the final rule, EPA is listing R-450A and R-513 as 

acceptable in new vending machines and stand-alone equipment, and is listing R-448A and R449A acceptable in stand-alone low-temperature equipment.

 Continental Refrigerator stated that numerous chemical and compressor suppliers, as well 

as trade associations and equipment manufacturers are working to develop alternative 
69

refrigerants, blends, critical components and new systems. AHRI’s Low-GWP Alternative 

Refrigerants Evaluation Program, Continental Refrigerator noted, has been coordinating 

evaluations and presenting industry-wide research on the topic. Continental Refrigerator 

claimed that in spite of these ongoing efforts, no widely-accepted replacements have been 

found yet for the refrigerants that EPA is proposing as unacceptable in retail food 

refrigeration equipment. Continental Refrigerator believed EPA should not change the 

status of refrigerants until solutions to essential technical problems have been developed, 

proven in multiple real world applications, and are widely accepted. [0122]

 KeepRite Refrigeration commented that the proposed status change date does not allow for 

consideration of other newer refrigerants. KeepRite Refrigeration commented that there is 

a lot of activity going on in the industry trying to evaluate some new low-GWP alternatives 

that are soon to be available. KeepRite Refrigeration commented that many of these 

refrigerants are being tested and coordinated by the AHRI AREP. KeepRite Refrigeration 

commented that finalizing the proposed dates could result in decisions being made to go to 

less efficient and possibly higher GWP, alternatives which could increase environmental 

impact. [0212]

EPA Response: EPA recognizes and appreciates the ongoing work of industry programs, 

including AREP. We also recognize that it is important under the SNAP Program to not limit end 

users to a single choice. EPA has identified several alternatives that are acceptable for each of 

the end-uses covered by this rule. Individual companies may determine for themselves which 

alternative(s) to use in its particular equipment and given the variety of alternatives available 

there may not be a single “widely-accepted” replacement; there may be several competing in 

the market. The later change of status dates we are establishing in the final rule provide time 

for the necessary technical steps to occur for both the refrigerants that have been listed on the 

SNAP lists as well as those that are newly listed. We disagree with the commenter who 

suggested that we should delay issuing a change of status rule until all of the steps suggested by 

these commenters have occurred. 

 A private citizen commented that this action is premature and EPA is complicating matters 

by proposing to change the status of commonly used refrigerants when there are few 

alternatives available for the wide range of applications that would face a change in status. 

The private citizen stated that there needs to be more time for new alternatives to come to 

market and be proven in the field for a variety of applications, not just for a limited subset. 

[0068]

EPA Response: EPA disagrees that there are “few” options available. For each of the end uses 

addressed, we have identified a number of alternatives that are acceptable for use, many of 

which are currently being used in refrigeration equipment or for which there has been 

substantial progress in terms of testing and design. We further disagree that EPA should not 

take final action changing the status of refrigerants until alternatives are on the market and 

“proven in the field.” We have established change of status dates based on the information that 
70

has been provided regarding the time to complete the technical steps necessary to design and 

test equipment. 

3.1.4 Vending Machines

EPA responds to comments regarding vending machines in section V.C.5 of the preamble to the 

final rule.

3.1.5 Other Comments on the Proposed Change of Status Dates

 Shecco commented that in terms of listing HFC refrigerants with high GWPs unacceptable as 

of 2016, the writing has been on the wall for years. Shecco included a list of reasons why “an 

awful lot of the industry should not be surprised” by the proposed action. Shecco commented 

that a large number of U.S. manufacturers have relied on EPA doing what it has stated it is 

going to do, and have invested in technology that uses environmentally friendly refrigerants 

and provide energy efficiency gains. Additionally, Shecco reminded that industry needs 

certainty to invest. Shecco believed that pulling back on EPA’s plans is a disincentive for those 

in industry who prepared for the future. [0037]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that there are reasons why some industry stakeholders anticipated 

this action and have invested in new technology using low-GWP refrigerants. In some cases EPA 

is establishing change of status dates later than proposed to allow manufacturers to address 

the technical challenges in the adoption of acceptable alternatives and, in the case of new 

supermarket systems, for owners to fulfill or adjust plans that may be in place to use a 

refrigerant whose status will change. These challenges are addressed in section 3.2 of this 

document and section V.C of the preamble to the final rule on an end-use or end-use category 

basis.

Establishing Change of Status Date Based on Availability of Non-Flammable, “Drop-In” 

Replacements

 Unified Brands, a manufacturer of stand-alone equipment, and NAFEM, an industry 

association representing such manufacturers, believed HFC-134a should not be listed as 

unacceptable for commercial refrigeration until such time that suitable nonflammable 

alternatives are available for HFC-134a. Unified Brands said rushing the implementation of 

R-290 “can pose serious safety concerns” and such a transition “requires very careful 

design, testing and validation to ensure a safe and useful product.” Hoshizaki America 

likewise recommended that EPA postpone setting a date to change the status of HFC-134a 

or R-404A for stand-alone commercial refrigerators until non-flammable choices are 

available as drop-in replacements. [0049, 0137, 0217]

 Commenters, including NAMA, NAFEM, Traulsen, Duke Manufacturing, Unified Brands, 

Hoshizaki America, Master-Bilt, and Minus Forty Technologies, said that at present there are

no immediate “drop-in” replacements for the refrigerants they or their members use in 
71

stand-alone equipment. Many noted that adopting other available options would require 

additional work, including component development and listing by agencies such as UL and 

NSF. [0033, 0040, 0049, 0092, 0137, 0183, 0188, 0217]

EPA Response: EPA does not agree that flammable refrigerants cannot be used safely in standalone equipment. We examined such risks and found R-290, R-600a and R-441A acceptable for 

this end-use category subject to use conditions that address the risk posed by flammable 

refrigerants. As discussed above and in section V.C.4 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA is 

establishing change of status dates for this category that allow for further introduction of 

products using these refrigerants in addition to the products that have already been 

introduced. As also discussed there, the change of status date allows for the development of 

components and equipment for use of nonflammable refrigerants, and for that equipment to 

be tested and certified for the market. EPA has listed or is listing concurrently with this rule 

nonflammable refrigerants as acceptable for stand-alone equipment. These nonflammable 

acceptable alternatives include: R-450A, R-513A, and R-744 for stand-alone mediumtemperature units and R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A and R-744 for stand-alone lowtemperature units. EPA finds the term “drop-in” to be misleading, as described in previous 

regulations (79 FR 64,270). Although the commenters did not explain what they would 

consider to be a “drop-in” replacement, some acceptable alternatives might meet the 

commenter’s intent, given that they are not flammable and have been formulated to mimic 

the characteristics and performance of either HFC-134a or R-404A, as discussed in section 

V.C.4.a.2 of the preamble to the final rule and elsewhere. Specifically, we point to R-448A, R449A, R-450A and R-513A as possibly meeting the commenters’ “drop-in” criteria.

Establishing Change of Status Dates Based on Charge Sizes

 Continental Refrigerator recommended a different change of status date than the date 

proposed for equipment using R-404A or HFC-134a above certain charge sizes, with no 

change of status applying to equipment below those charge sizes. They recommended: for 

new and retrofit direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems, R-404A 

charge size exceeding 500 grams (17.64 ounces) in each circuit to be unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2022; for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration remote condensing units, R404A charge size exceeding 500 grams (17.64 ounces) in each circuit to be unacceptable as 

of January 1, 2021; for new, stand-alone retail food refrigeration, R-404A charge size 

exceeding 500 grams (17.64 ounces) in each circuit to be unacceptable as of January 1, 

2023; and for new, stand-alone retail food refrigeration, HFC-134a charge size exceeding 

1,000 grams (35.27 ounces) in each circuit to be unacceptable as of January 1, 2025. [0122]

EPA Response: EPA is taking action to find R-404A and HFC-134a unacceptable in specified enduses because other alternatives pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. 

No information provided indicates that supermarket systems or remote condensing units 

currently manufactured with or retrofitted to R-404A with charge sizes below, at, or above 500 

grams cannot be manufactured with or retrofitted to the alternatives that pose lower overall 

risk. Likewise, no information provided indicates that stand-alone equipment currently 
72

manufactured with R-404A or HFC-134a with charge sizes below, at, or above 500 or 1,000 

grams, respectively, cannot be manufactured with at least one of the alternatives that pose 

lower overall risk by the change of status dates we are establishing. As discussed in section 

V.C.4 of the preamble to the final rule, we find that there are additional challenges in the 

development of large-capacity stand-alone equipment, in particular because these large 

capacities might not be achievable when using R-290, R-441A or R-600a, which are subject to a 

maximum 150 gram charge size limit based on the use conditions that apply, and hence we are 

establishing a later change of status date for such equipment. We note that other acceptable 

refrigerants are not subject to any charge size limit.

Product Safety and Quality under the Proposed Change of Status Dates

 Hoshizaki America was concerned that under the proposal flammable refrigerants would be 

chosen without proper time to consider the safety aspects when using such refrigerants. They 

stated that the original intent of the SNAP program was such that flammable refrigerants not 

be the first choice as an alternative. Instead, they stated that proper time must be given to 

ensure safety aspects are properly addressed. Hoshizaki America suggests ten years are 

needed before a change of status provided information on certain steps in the development 

of products with alternative refrigerants. Stating “US suppliers are not prepared to provide 

samples for every single product today,” they indicated that compressor samples will not be 

available for two to three years. They also stated that eight to 12 months per model group 

are needed to develop end products. [0037]

EPA Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the original intent of the SNAP

program was that flammable refrigerants should not be the “first choice.” In the original SNAP 

rule (59 FR 13,044; March 18, 1994), EPA found some flammable refrigerants unacceptable but 

others acceptable, depending on the end-use. Flammable refrigerants were found acceptable 

subject to use conditions specifically in the stand-alone end-use category under subsequent 

SNAP rules (76 FR 78,832; December 20, 2011 and 80 FR 19,454; April 10, 2015). Further, in all 

commercial refrigeration end-uses addressed by this rule, EPA has found nonflammable choices 

acceptable. We address in section V.C of the preamble the time that is appropriate for the 

change of status based on technical concerns raised by the commenters. While Hoshizaki 

America, a manufacturer of stand-alone equipment, provides estimates of the time to meet 

certain steps in the development of end products with alternative refrigerants, they did not 

identify specific challenges that prevent them from using currently-available compressors or 

that prevent them from developing different model groups in parallel—actions that we believe 

will allow for a transition to low-GWP alternatives by the change of status dates we are 

establishing in the final rule. 

 Minus Forty Technologies generally agreed with the long term goals of the proposed rule to 

list R-404A and HFC-134a refrigerants as unacceptable in new commercial stand-alone

refrigeration units; however they believe to implement as of January 1, 2016, is 

unreasonable and unrealistic and would have detrimental effects on the refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers, their customers, refrigeration service providers, and the public. 

Minus Forty Technologies commented that with the proposed effective date and the date 
73

this ruling is expected to be finalized manufacturers would have less than nine months to 

make the transition, which they said is an extremely short time considering the necessary 

level of planning, investment, design and engineering, testing, certification, and other 

related activities. Minus Forty Technologies stated that, due to the pressure of getting new 

equipment into the market given the short timeline, they are concerned that quality and 

safety will be compromised. [0033]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that it may be difficult for manufacturers to transition by January 1, 

2016 all new stand-alone equipment affected by this rule. As discussed in section V.C.4 of the 

preamble to the final rule, the change of status date for refrigerants for new stand-alone 

equipment is either January 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, depending on the product size, 

function and design. While the commenter stated that they need “at least five years” to 

transition, they did not specify the time required for any particular step in that process that 

they believe is necessary to transition. Thus, we could not evaluate the reasonableness of the 

time the commenter requested. EPA based the change of status date on information submitted 

identifying specific technical challenges and the time it would take to meet those challenges for 

manufacturers across the end use.

 Lennox commented that allowing seven years before changing the status of refrigerants for 

stand-alone equipment would allow time for chemical manufacturers, component 

manufacturers and OEMs to develop alternative nonflammable or slightly flammable lowGWP refrigerant products, with the appropriate level of safety and reliability. Lennox 

commented that other factors supporting the reasonableness of this timeframe include the 

need to understand the impact of new refrigerant alternatives on equipment efficiency and 

component reliability along with typical product design, certification and other activities that 

coincide with the release of new products. [0120]

EPA Response: The commenter did not provide details about why the necessary activities for 

transition must take as long as seven years and we disagree that seven years are needed for the 

transition for new stand-alone equipment. As discussed in section V.C.4.a of the preamble to 

the final rule and elsewhere in this document, the information in the docket shows that by 

proceeding in a step-wise fashion with activities occurring in parallel, the status change dates 

established in the final rule provide adequate time for manufacturers to meet the technical 

challenges of adopting low-GWP alternative refrigerants, including time to assess and perform 

the activities the commenter mentions.

 Automated Merchandising Systems commented that the refrigerants under consideration 

present several unknowns to its engineers, and it will need to exercise extreme caution when 

storing and handling the alternatives. Automated Merchandising Systems commented that 

while these new designs must be done with the usual attention to factors such as cost, 

performance, and efficiency, they must also be done with extreme consideration for the 

safety of factory personnel, operator service personnel and the general public that will 

interact with these machines on a regular basis. Automated Merchandising Systems 

commented that this work will be time-consuming and must not be rushed. Looking at R-290 
74

in particular for its vending machines, the commenter generally concluded that “a 

reasonable time to achieve this conversion would be 5 years.” [0109]

EPA Response: While we agree that all refrigerants must be handled in a safe manner, we note 

that there are multiple alternatives available for the vending machine end-use, including nonflammable refrigerants that exhibit characteristics similar to HFC-134a, the refrigerant the 

commenter said is used in the equipment it produces today. We also noted in the NPRM and 

the preamble to the final rule that vending machines using R-290 and R-744 have been 

commercialized already and are in use today. The commenter did not identify the time needed 

to address the specific technical concerns that they raise. As provided in section V.C.5.a of the 

preamble to the final rule, we are establishing a January 1, 2019, change of status date for new 

vending machines based on more specific information submitted by other commenters about 

the time needed to address the technical challenges. 

Other General Challenges to the Change of Status Date

 Several companies, International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, Thermal Rite Walk-Ins, Parker 

Hannifin, H&K International, Unified Brands, Traulsen, United Refrigeration, and Danfoss, 

made general comments regarding the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date for 

new refrigeration equipment and indicated that date was too soon due to numerous 

concerns including: converting factories; testing equipment; component availability, 

development, and testing; the number of acceptable alternatives; the perceived safety of 

some alternatives; DOE standards; the numerous models that need to be converted and the 

“bills and material” used by each; building codes; and costs. [0024, 0037, 0049, 0105, 0115, 

0197, 0206]

EPA Response: Given the breadth of markets served by these commenters, in particular 

component suppliers Parker Hannifin and Danfoss, EPA believes these comments are pertinent 

to all three categories of the retail food refrigeration end-use addressed by this rule. Regarding 

safety aspects, consistent with the established SNAP criteria, we prepared risk screens for 

previous listing decisions; for instance, we prepared a risk screen when finding R-600a 

acceptable subject to use conditions in stand-alone retail food refrigeration (EPA–HQ–OAR–

2013–0748-0012). These commenters did not provide specific detail about the time that 

would be needed to address each and all of the technical concerns in the particular end uses. 

As discussed in section V.C of the preamble for each of the refrigeration end uses, and 

elsewhere in this document, the information in the docket shows that by proceeding in a stepwise fashion with activities occurring in parallel, the status change dates established in the final 

rule provide adequate time for manufacturers to meet the technical challenges of adopting 

low-GWP alternative refrigerants, including time to assess and perform the types of technical 

activities the commenter mentions, such as converting factories, testing equipment, and 

developing components.

Regarding costs, as noted in section VII.A.7 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA does not 

consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making listing decisions because under 
75

the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of 

the substitute under review.

 UL estimated that less than 5% of the currently UL-listed commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and vending machines use a refrigerant that will be acceptable after this proposed rule takes 

effect. UL estimated that if the January 1, 2016, change of status date is adopted, 

manufacturers will be afforded about one year to re-design a rather substantial number and 

variety of products. UL requested that EPA take these observations into account, along with 

related and relevant input from industry, when finalizing a transition period for impacted 

products and end-uses. [0083]

EPA Response: Based on specific technical information submitted by a number of commenters

regarding challenges in transitioning, we are establishing change of status dates for new 

refrigeration equipment ranging from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2020, as discussed in 

section V.C of the preamble to the final rule. 

 InterMetro Industries stated that the automotive industry produces more units with 

refrigerant than the commercial food equipment industry, and thus suggested that given 

that commercial food equipment businesses often have smaller engineering staff relative to 

the automotive industry, that commercial food equipment manufacturers should not have a 

deadline any earlier than the automotive industry. Coca-Cola also said that the change of 

status date for stand-alone units and vending machines should be similar to that of motor 

vehicle air conditioners, because of similarities in the supply of alternate refrigerants and the 

need to redesign systems. [0062, 0074]

EPA Response: EPA reviews substitutes on an end-use by end-use (or end-use category) basis. 

Although some aspects might apply across end-uses, such as the supply of refrigerant, the set 

of technical challenges that justify a particular change of status date for motor vehicle airconditioners is not relevant for determining when technical challenges will be addressed and 

alternatives will be available for the retail food refrigeration and vending machine end uses. 

Regarding the refrigeration end uses, we have reviewed the information submitted by 

numerous commenters during the comment period regarding the technical challenges they 

face and have established change of status dates that reflect the time needed to address those 

challenges. 

 Several commenters stated that the charge size are too small for many medium-sized and 

larger stand-alone units and thus are only applicable in a small percentage of companies’ 

existing products. In addition to capacity, commenters noted challenges with lowtemperature equipment and during or after defrost cycles, door openings, and temperature 

pull-downs. Several commenters believed the option to use two or more separate circuits is 

impractical, could cause products to fail DOE efficiency standards, adds costs to the system, 

and faces space constraints. Manitowoc strongly recommended that EPA consider 

additional options to allow the timely transition away from R-404A. Manitowoc 

recommended that for stand-alone equipment, HFC-134a or R-407C remain acceptable on 
76

an interim basis “where the 150 g limit cannot be accomplished with a single refrigeration 

circuit” and that such status be possibly reconsidered if and when new blends become 

available or the 150 gram charge size limit is increased. Traulsen similarly suggested a 

narrowed use limit for stand-alone units that would require more than 150 grams of a 

hydrocarbon refrigerant. [0037, 0038, 0040, 0049, 0068, 0076, 0092, 0102, 0105, 0119, 

0120, 0137, 0183, 0188, 0193, 0199, 0200, 0215, 0216]

EPA Response: EPA notes that in the proposed rule we discussed options related to the 

concerns raised by commenters regarding the use of HFC-134a in stand-alone equipment that 

was unable to use R-290 due to the charge size limit established as a use condition. 79 FR 

46,148-46,149. In the NPRM, we considered and sought comment on an option to change the 

status of HFC-134a to acceptable subject to a use restriction for “large” stand-alone units and 

sought comment on how to define such units. Commenters suggested allowing the use of 

refrigerants subject to a status change where a single circuit with 150 grams of a hydrocarbon 

refrigerant would not satisfy the design requirements. Based on information submitted by 

commenters, and as provided in section V.C.4 of the preamble to the final rule, we are 

establishing a January 1, 2020, change of status date for “large” stand-alone units whereas 

certain smaller units would be subject to a January 1, 2019, change of status date. We note 

there that an analysis provided by another commenter estimated capacity limits that could be 

successfully reached using 150 grams of R-290 in a single circuit. We based these change of 

status dates on the detailed technical concerns raised by these and other commenters and 

detailed timelines to address those concerns. 

 Nor-Lake commented that EPA’s proposed date of January 1, 2016, for the change of status 

of HFC-134a and R-404A in stand-alone equipment, condensing units and direct supermarket 

systems is not possible for them to attain on several levels. Nor-Lake noted that because 

they are a manufacturer in more than one industry segment subject to the EPA proposal, it 

will require significantly more testing than an organization that is in one segment and can 

focus their time and resources on that segment. Nor-Lake commented that they will need to 

add the foam blowing agent and stand-alone time lines to the condensing unit time line. 

[0076] 

EPA Response: EPA recognizes that several companies manufacture products in multiple retail 

food end-use categories addressed by this rule, and that some of these products also utilize 

foam that may be affected by the status change action for the foams end use. EPA has 

established status change dates based on the technical challenges faced by manufacturers in 

each of the end-use categories and the time expected to overcome those challenges. Those 

companies that make products in more than one end-use category can apply approaches that 

allow them to address the challenges for the different end-use categories sequentially or in 

parallel, and indeed may be able to apply lessons learned from one end-use category to 

products in another category. We are establishing status change dates for new refrigeration 

equipment that are later than the proposed January 1, 2016, date and that vary by end-use or 

end-use category. These staggered dates will help this commenter and other manufacturers 

who make products in more than one of the end use categories. 
77

 So-Low Environmental Equipment commented that they manufacture a multitude of 

refrigerators and freezers, many of which are used in the health care and research industry. 

So-Low Environmental Equipment stated that it is of the utmost importance that their 

products and procedures are subjected to the most rigorous testing possible. So-Low 

Environmental Equipment commented that they “just do not have the time to properly 

subject the new coolants and blowing products to the necessary amount of scrutiny before 

January 17, 2017.” [0086, 0087]

EPA Response: The commenter did not provide any detail with regard to how long the 

“rigorous testing” would take them. EPA relied on technical information provided by other 

commenters in establishing the status change dates finalized in this rule. We do not know if the 

date of January 17, 2017, mentioned was when the commenter believed they could comply 

with the status changes proposed, or if it was a mistake in identifying the proposed change of 

status date of January 1, 2016, for certain refrigerants in certain end-uses and/or January 1, 

2017, for certain foam-blowing agents in particular types of foam. We note that the final rule 

establishes change of status dates for refrigerants used in retail food refrigeration and vending 

machines. The equipment mentioned by So-Low Environmental Equipment that is “used in the 

health care and research industry” might not be part of the refrigeration end-uses included in 

this rule. For example, products used to hold blood samples or petri dish cultures would not be 

part of the refrigeration end-uses included in this rule, whereas products used to hold food sold 

at a health-care facility cafeteria would be included. Other products made by the manufacturer 

might also be considered part of the retail food refrigeration end-use, and the foam used by the 

manufacturer may also be covered by the status changes finalized in the rule.

 Parker Hannifin commented that material compatibility between new refrigerants, 

refrigeration oils, and polymer and elastomer parts used in system components is an issue 

affecting industry that must be considered. Parker Hannifin noted that only R-407A and R407F require minimal or no material compatibility testing. Because HFC/HFO blends would 

require material compatibility testing, the change of status date must allow adequate 

development and testing time for component manufacturers like Parker Hannifin. Parker 

Hannifin believed that valve and control development could take 24 to 36 months to support 

OEMs; OEM qualification of these components could take an additional 24 to 36 months. 

Parker Hannifin highlighted that there are many blends being proposed, and significant time 

and cost are involved in the testing of each blend. Parker Hannifin requested clarity on which 

blends will be approved for use so that company investment can be directed effectively 

toward refrigerants that will be viable in the market. [0105]

EPA Response: Several HFC/HFO blends have been found acceptable. EPA listed R-450A as 

acceptable in the new retail food end-use categories affected by this rule on October 21, 2014. 

(79 FR 62,863) Concurrent with this rule, EPA is listing R-450A and R-513A acceptable in new 

vending machines, R-513A acceptable in new stand-alone medium-temperature units, and R448A, R-449A and R-513A acceptable in stand-alone low-temperature units. As the commenter 

notes, some amount of time is required to develop components for equipment that will use 
78

these refrigerants, and such time is considered above and in section V.C. of the preamble to the 

final rule when establishing change of status dates. EPA recognizes that some HFO compatibility 

testing has been done with results publicly available. For example, the Air-Conditioning, Heating 

and Refrigeration Technology Institute (AHRTI), the research arm of AHRI, of which Parker 

Hannifin is a member, has published research on the material compatibility of HFOs. See AHRTI 

Report No. 09004-01, Material Compatibility & Lubricants Research for Low-GWP 

Refrigerants—Phase I: Thermal and Chemical Stability of Low-GWP Refrigerants with Lubricants, 

March 2012, and Report 8007, Material Compatibility & Lubricants Research for Low-GWP 

Refrigerants-Phase II: Chemical and Material Compatibility of Low GWP Refrigerants with 

HVACR Materials of Construction, June 2014. In addition, ASHRAE has initiated research project 

1641-RP, Effect of Unsaturated Fluorocarbon Contaminants on the Reliability and Performance 

of HVAC&R Equipment (see https://www.ashrae.org/standards-research--technology/research).

3.2 Economic Impacts of Proposed Status Changes

EPA received comments from H&K International, Traulsen, Unified Brands, Duke 

Manufacturing, Vollrath, Parker Hannifin, Minus Forty, N. Wasserstrom & Sons, Hillphoenix, 

Nor-Lake, and True Manufacturing, AHRI, NAMA, NAFEM, FMI, Honeywell, GrindmasterCecilware, InterMetro Industries, Aladdin Temp-Rite, Howe, NRA, Hussmann, Master Bilt, 

Lennox, So-Low Environmental Equipment, Continental Refrigerator, and private citizens on the 

economic impacts of the proposed status changes for commercial food refrigeration and 

vending machines. Several commenters noted the increased capital costs of transitioning to the 

available alternatives, system redesign and, costs associated with testing. A number of 

commenters voiced concerns regarding various other economic impacts of the proposed rule, 

including reductions in the workforce, training costs, increases in the cost of finished products, 

reduction in new product development, decreases in sales, and the effect on the U.S. 

manufacturing industry relative to the international market. The comments are summarized 

and addressed below. 

3.2.1 General Increase in Capital Costs

 Multiple stand-alone equipment and component manufacturers, including H&K 

International, Traulsen, Unified Brands, Duke Manufacturing, Vollrath, Parker Hannifin, 

Minus Forty Technologies, N. Wasserstrom & Sons, Hillphoenix, Nor-Lake, and True 

Manufacturing, along with a private citizen and industry associations AHRI, NAMA and 

NAFEM commented on the cost to convert factories and related expenses for the use of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. To use such flammable refrigerants, commenters state that 

production facilities may need to be reconfigured or constructed, new charging equipment 

would need to be purchased, additional safety equipment may need to be installed, and 

personnel training would need to be conducted. Some commenters offered estimates of 

the cost to convert facilities. Commenters believed these costs were especially burdensome 

under the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date. [0024, 0033, 0037, 0038, 0040, 

0049, 0066, 0068, 0076, 0082, 0105, 0137, 0174, 0183, 0196]
79

EPA Response: In the final rule EPA is establishing a change of status dates for refrigerants in 

new stand-alone equipment of January 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, and for refrigerants in 

vending machines of January 1, 2019. As discussed in sections V.C.4 and V.C.5 of the preamble 

to the final rule, comments support that facility upgrades may occur in parallel with other 

activities, including designing and testing of equipment with acceptable alternatives. 

Furthermore, EPA notes that there are acceptable nonflammable alternatives that operate at 

similar pressures as HFC-134a and R-404A and are not subject to the charge size limit that exists 

for the acceptable flammable refrigerants, as implied by some of the comments. Based on 

those characteristics, those alternatives might alleviate the need for all the facility upgrades the 

commenters indicate are needed to be compatible with alternative refrigerants and remove 

issues regarding the proper handling of flammable or high-pressure refrigerants. 

EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making listing decisions 

because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is 

limited to cost of the substitute under review. See section VII.B.1 and 2 of the preamble to the 

final rule for a discussion of the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA recognizes that 

transitioning to other alternatives is likely to require capital costs and investments in research, 

updated equipment, and their related financial impacts. In those cases where commenters 

provided specific, detailed cost information, we used that information to revise the cost 

assumptions in our updated cost analysis for this final rule. For additional information on 

economic analysis conducted for this rule, see the supporting documents “Revised Cost Analysis 

for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives – April 2015” (ICF, 2015b) 

and ”Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives Revised – April 2015” (ICF, 2015c). 

 FMI was concerned that without clear guidance on the terms “retrofit” and “new,” food 

retailers and wholesalers would be required to make incredibly expensive and burdensome 

changes under the proposed rule. FMI stated that purchasing, repairing and retrofitting 

refrigeration equipment is a significant undertaking that includes disruption to store 

operations and time-consuming, costly equipment changes. [0173]

EPA Response: EPA has provided guidance on these terms in section V.C.1.c of the preamble to 

the final rule.

3.2.2 Costs Associated with System Redesign

 Several commenters, including Unified Brands, Honeywell, NAMA, Grindmaster-Cecilware, 

InterMetro Industries, and Aladdin Temp-Rite, indicated that costs would be incurred as 

they designed and built stand-alone equipment and vending machines to use alternative 

refrigerants. NAMA for instance noted that when using a hydrocarbon refrigerant, arc-less 

components would be needed, and when using R-744, thicker-walled tubing would be 

required. Honeywell stated that many higher-capacity units would require dual systems if 

using hydrocarbons, raising prices. Several commenters suggested that the limited 

availability of components could result in increased prices. Commenters also pointed out 
80

that additional costs would be incurred during the design process as equipment or 

prototype models were tested. [0031, 0049, 0062, 0102, 0170, 0183]

EPA Response: EPA agrees with commenters that some costs may be incurred as 

manufacturers redesign systems. It is a normal cost of doing business and manufacturers may 

choose whether to absorb or recoup those costs. Section VII.B.1 and 2 in the preamble to the 

final rule discusses the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also placed in the docket 

to this rule an analysis of the costs to comply with this rule and a screening of the economic 

impacts of the rule. See response in section 3.2.1.

3.2.3 Costs Associated with Testing

 Several commenters, including Howe, Duke Manufacturing, Aladdin Temp-Rite, Vollrath, 

True Manufacturing, and Nor-Lake, commented on the cost associated with testing new 

models of stand-alone equipment. Several provided cost estimates for testing a single 

product and/or their entire line of products, while others provided only general comments. 

True Manufacturing stated that safety agency testing (e.g., UL, ETL) is time consuming and 

Howe indicated the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date made the costs of such 

testing “too much to shoulder.” [0040, 0048, 0076, 0102, 0196, 0201]

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making 

listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. Section VII.B.1 and 2 in 

the preamble to the final rule discusses the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also 

placed in the docket to this rule an analysis of the costs to comply with this rule and a screening 

of the economic impacts of the rule. See response in section 3.2.1 of this document. We note 

that in the final rule we are establishing change of status dates that range from one year from 

the date of publication of the final rule to 2020 for the refrigeration end-uses.

3.2.4 Reduction in Workforce

 Several commenters stated that the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status would 

result in job loss. Unified Brands, Duke Manufacturing, Structural Concepts, Vollrath, and

So-Low Environmental Equipment indicated that they would not be able to meet that 

deadline and would be forced to discontinue production of some models or slow down 

production. NAMA commented that the combined costs under the proposed change of 

status date would cause manufacturers to cut jobs, stop making refrigeration equipment, or 

shut down entirely. NAMA indicated that the approval process would require hiring 

additional employees, but that if manufacturers were unable to meet orders or future 

demand of products they export, they would lose sales and cut jobs. [0026, 0037, 0040, 

0049, 0086, 0087, 0183, 0199, 0201] 

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making 

listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 
81

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. Hiring and redistribution 

of workforce resources is a normal function of doing business and manufacturers may choose 

to absorb or to recoup this cost. We note that technical challenges identified by numerous 

commenters have resulted in EPA establishing change of status dates for stand-alone 

equipment of January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2020, as discussed in section V.C.4 of the 

preamble to the final rule, and for vending machines of January 1, 2019, as discussed in section 

V.C.5 of the preamble to the final rule. Section VII.B.1 and 2 in the preamble to the final rule 

discusses the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also placed in the docket to this 

rule an analysis of the costs to comply with this rule and a screening of the economic impacts of 

the rule. See response in section 3.2.1.

3.2.5 Training Costs

 CFESA commented that they have over 300 service companies and over 5,000 certified 

technicians that would have to be properly trained to handle the new refrigerants. CFESA 

noted that the current EPA refrigerants course work takes an average of 4 hours per 

technician, so it will take roughly 20,000 person-hours to get just the CFESA members 

trained. CFESA’s estimate does not include the training required for each technician to 

attend training from the hundreds of different equipment manufacturers that will be 

impacted with the redesigning of their equipment. CFESA called out that all of this 

certification and training would take time and money to arrange. CFESA noted that this is 

just an average for the CFESA certified technicians, there are thousands of technicians 

working on this equipment that are not under their umbrella that need to be reached and 

educated, and there are implications for those who do not receive the updated training. 

[0176]

 Hoshizaki America commented that every person who handles refrigerant would have to be 

trained for this new refrigerant. Hoshizaki America stated that their manufacturing 

employees are not currently trained on how to handle flammable refrigerants and this 

retraining process will be time consuming since this was not a risk associated with either 

HFC-134a or R-404A. These safety trainings would involve significant investment of money, 

time, and human resources for the commenter. In addition, any service technician that 

services Hoshizaki America products would have to be trained on their redesigned products. 

[0217]

 A private citizen commented the lack of technicians qualified to repair systems with 

flammable refrigerants will result in an undue hardship for the consumer, who will face 

much higher equipment repair costs. [0068]

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making 

listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. EPA agrees proper 

education and training is valuable, and we note that there are already many manufacturers and 

suppliers who have been conducting such training. See section V.C.6.c of the preamble to the 
82

final rule for examples of such training. Regarding training needs due to the handling of 

flammable refrigerants, EPA notes in recent years, training programs on hydrocarbon 

refrigerants have been developed. In addition, there are nonflammable alternatives that 

operate at similar characteristics to those subject to the status change. Thus, training for these 

alternatives should be relatively simple. Section VII.B.1 and 2 in the preamble to the final rule 

discusses the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also placed in the docket to this 

rule an analysis of the costs to comply with this rule and a screening of the economic impacts of 

the rule. See response in section 3.2.1 of this document.

3.2.6 Increase in Cost of Finished Products

 Several commenters, including Hussmann, a private citizen, Structural Concepts, NAFEM, 

NRA, NAMA, Hoshizaki America, N. Wasserstrom & Sons, and Hillphoenix, predicted the 

proposed rule would lead to an increase in the cost of finished products that they or their 

members sell or buy. Several commenters stated that the use of hydrocarbons would result 

in a cost increase due to the additional engineering and specialized components required.

Commenters also noted other costs that could be passed on resulting in an increased costs 

of the finished product. Hillphoenix believed that the properties of R-744 would likely make 

products so expensive as to be not cost effective. Some commenters indicated that 

transportation costs of equipment would increase and additional costs would be incurred if 

equipment designed for hydrocarbons had to be shipped and charged outside of the 

manufacturer’s facility. Hoshizaki America stated “All of this adds to the cost of the end 

product.” [0026, 0037, 0068, 0082, 0123, 0183, 0215, 0217]

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making 

listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. Most commenters noted 

the increase in cost was due to the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants or R-744: however,

additional options are listed as acceptable. Section VII.B.1 and 2 in the preamble to the final 

rule discusses the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also placed in the docket to 

this rule an analysis of the costs to comply with this rule and a screening of the economic 

impacts of the rule. See response in section 3.2.1 of this document.

3.2.7 Reduction in New Product Development

 Several manufacturers of stand-alone equipment, including Hussmann, Hillphoenix, Master 

Bilt, Lennox, Aladdin Temp-Rite, Vollrath, So-Low Environmental Equipment, and Nor-Lake, 

were concerned that they would need to partially or completely divert resources from 

product development to meet the proposed change of status date for their existing 

equipment. They indicated that they would not be able to convert all of their products by 

then and therefore would reduce the number and diversity of products they offer. NAFEM 

and NRA, representing manufacturers and users of such equipment, likewise expressed 

concern. Vollrath indicated that meeting the proposed status change date would also take 
83

resources from non-refrigerated product development. [0026, 0037, 0076, 0086, 0087, 

0102, 0120, 0123, 0201, 0215]

 FMI believed that without adequate implementation time many of the models available to 

retailers today will not be available immediately after January 2016. FMI stated that the 

unavailability of new equipment will lead to increased costs for food retailers and 

wholesalers with no available alternatives or substitutes for self-contained stand-alone 

equipment. FMI therefore urged EPA to allow companies more time to plan and to adjust to 

the changed requirements in a final rule. They stated that “FMI believes that gradual 

reductions up to 2020 would help the food industry adopt new refrigeration tools while 

continuing to serve our customers.” [0173]

EPA Response: We note that the change of status dates that we are establishing for new standalone equipment are three or four years later (January 1, 2019 and January 1, 2020) than 

proposed. Although these modified change of status dates were not based on these vague 

claims for additional product development, we note that the change of status dates in the final 

rule recognize that manufacturers will need to develop products, whether new or modifications 

of existing products, that can use alternatives that will remain acceptable. These dates allow 

manufacturers to continue developing new products designed to use acceptable alternatives 

while also transitioning existing products to other alternatives. Section VII.B.1 and 2 in the 

preamble to the final rule discusses the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also 

placed in the docket to this rule an analysis of the costs to comply with this rule and a screening 

of the economic impacts of the rule. See response in section 3.2.1.

3.2.8 Decrease in Sales

 Hoshizaki America indicated that it would lose sales during the time it converted its 

production line to the use of a new refrigerant. Others, including Structural Concepts, Duke 

Manufacturing, Vollrath, and United Refrigeration, felt that manufacturers would have to 

discontinue sales or eliminate product categories because of an inability to meet the 

proposed status change date or the inability to sell unconverted units after that date. [0037, 

0040, 0195, 0197, 0201, 0217]

EPA Response: EPA notes in section 3.5.2 of this document that pre-charged products placed 

into inventory or within the normal sales channel before a status change date are considered a 

“manufactured” product and thus could be sold and placed in the ultimate consumer’s 

possession after a status change date. The change of status dates established in the final rule 

will address the technical concerns of ensuring that manufacturers have sufficient time to 

convert their production lines sequentially without a need to shut down production. In 

addition, EPA notes that there are nonflammable alternatives including blends that operate 

with similar characteristics as HFC-134a or R-404A, for all the refrigeration end-uses affected by 

this rule and that such choices may alleviate or eliminate the need for significant changes to 

production lines. 
84

3.2.9 Other Economic Concerns

 Southern Case Art commented that the proposed rule would have significant negative 

impact on the operation and the viability of their company as an ongoing business. They 

stated that 42% of their total business was in stand-alone equipment that would be 

eliminated because they could not be converted to the acceptable alternatives due to 

unavailability of components and limitations due to the charge size limit of some acceptable 

refrigerants [0193]

EPA Response: EPA has not assessed the impact on specific individual businesses. While the 

commenter indicated the refrigerants that were acceptable in stand-alone equipment when 

they commented, which included R-290 and R-744, were unsuitable, it did not speak to the 

additional alternatives that were in development that EPA discussed in the proposed rule. 

Those additional alternatives include nonflammable refrigerants listed acceptable in October 

2014 and concurrent with this rule. EPA addresses the availability of components above and in 

section V.C.4 of the preamble to the final rule, and is establishing change of status dates 

recognizing that need. In section VII.B.1 and 2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA discusses 

the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also placed in the docket to this rule an 

analysis of the costs to comply with this rule and a screening of the economic impacts of the 

rule. See response in section 3.2.1 of this document. 

 Continental Refrigerator noted that most manufacturers, particularly small businesses, do 

not have the luxury of dedicating resources exclusively to individual research and 

development projects. In the normal course of business, staff must also support on-going 

production and customers. [0122]

EPA Response: EPA leaves the decision of how to dedicate resources towards the various 

activities mentioned to the individual manufacturers. Although not specifically stated by the 

commenter, we assume this concern is based at least in part on the proposed change of status 

date of January 1, 2016, and that the change of status dates established in the final rule will 

help alleviate these concerns. 

 Howe commented that there may be potentially higher insurance rates to end users, service 

contractors, and manufacturers with the adoption of R-290 (propane) and R-600a 

(isobutane). [0048]

EPA Response: EPA believes the commenter is stating such increased costs would potentially

occur because R-290 and R-600a are flammable. However, EPA is not requiring the adoption of 

R-290 or R-600a for any end-use category. Nonflammable alternatives exist for all refrigeration 

end-uses affected by this rule. Manufacturers and end users will be able to factor this concern 

into their decisions on whether to use flammable refrigerants in the products they are 

manufacturing and purchasing. Similarly, servicing companies can consider whether to service 

such equipment and also what the cost of servicing should be. These costs are considered 

transition costs and as noted EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives 
85

in making listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review..

 Continental Refrigerator believed that small businesses (including manufacturers, servicers,

and end-users, such as restaurants) that produce, support, and purchase many of the standalone systems are impacted significantly by regulations that affect the ability and cost to 

produce them, which in turn affects the availability and purchase price. [0122]

EPA Response: Although EPA did not consider the costs of transitioning to other alternatives in 

making the listing decisions in this rulemaking, we did prepare a cost analysis and a small 

business impacts analysis for this rule for businesses that are directly regulated. We have 

updated our small business impacts screening analysis using the change of status decisions and 

dates in the final rule using detailed cost information provided by commenters (ICF, 2015c). In 

the analyses, EPA recognized that some small businesses may experience significant costs, but 

concluded that the number of small businesses that would experience significant costs was not 

substantial. Additionally, as discussed in section VII.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA 

performed an analysis of the costs of the proposed rule on businesses and estimated the gross 

annualized compliance costs to range from $8.9 million to $41.6 million; net annualized costs 

were estimated to range from $1.4 million to $16.4 million (ICF, 2014g). This cost analysis did 

not evaluate the share of costs likely to be borne by end-users, for example, because it is not 

clear what proportion of cost impacts may be carried on to end-users, and further, such 

economic analyses typically look at costs to the regulated community rather than indirect 

impacts on end-users. Also see the first response in section 3.2.1 of this document.

 Parker Hannifin commented that the adoption of new alternatives in the retail food 

refrigeration and vending machine end-uses to meet the status change decisions will 

impart a large economic burden on all component manufacturers and OEMs, no matter the 

effective date of the change. [0105]

EPA Response: Section VII.B.1 and 2 in the preamble to the final rule discusses the cost and 

economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also placed in the docket to this rule an analysis of the 

costs to comply with this rule and a screening of the economic impacts of the rule. See 

response in section 3.2.1 of this document.

3.3 Other Impacts of Proposed Status Changes

EPA received comments from Coca-Cola, Master-Bilt, CARB, Structural Concepts, DuPont, H&K 

International, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Parker Hannifin, Automated Merchandising Systems, 

Lennox, EIA, AHRI, NAMA, Emerson, Supermarket Company ABC, Ingersoll Rand, KeepRite 

Refrigeration, Unisom Comfort Technologies, NRDC and IGSD, NAFEM, Vollrath, Hudson, 

Traulsen, Howe, NRA, Honeywell, Arkema, and a private citizen on other impacts of the 

proposed status changes and the energy efficiency of new equipment using alternative 

refrigerants. EPA responds to some of these comments in section V.C.7 of the preamble to the 

final rule. Additional comments on other climate change related issues, the VOC status of 
86

certain refrigerants, the impacts from continued or extended operation of existing equipment, 

specific technology considerations related to certain refrigerants, and questions regarding EPA’s 

analysis of the benefits from the proposed rule are summarized and addressed below.

3.3.1 Energy Efficiency of New Equipment 

 Some commenters believed the status change will have the net effect of increasing 

equipment efficiency and reduce the climate impacts of the refrigeration equipment 

affected by this rule; others believed the opposite. Several commented that if efficiency did 

decrease, total GHG emissions may increase. Some commenters felt that the status of 

certain refrigerants should not change for stand-alone equipment, and implied that those 

refrigerants would offer better energy efficiency than other lower-GWP alternatives. CocaCola noted specific types of stand-alone equipment where efficiency had not increased due 

to a lack of R-744 components designed for those products. Master-Bilt indicated that the 

high discharge temperature of R-407A would lead to a decrease in energy efficiency. Some 

commenters explained that R-744 would yield lower energy efficiency at higher 

temperature above the critical points, although CARB noted research has been performed 

to develop R-744 systems that work in all climates. Structural Concepts discussed technical 

issues with stand-alone equipment using hydrocarbons, stemming from the charge size 

limit, which would result in lower energy efficiency. DuPont provided efficiency results from 

their tests of HFC/HFO blend in stand-alone equipment and a remote condensing unit.

[0020, 0024, 0037, 0047, 0068, 0074, 0077, 0092, 0105, 0106, 0108, 0109, 0120, 0134, 

0137, 0174, 0183, 0190, 0200, 0201, 0203, 0212] 

EPA Response: We note that we do not have a practice in the SNAP program of including 

energy efficiency in the overall risk analysis. We do, however, consider issues such as technical 

needs for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether alternatives 

are “available.” EPA agrees with Coca-Cola that the refrigerant is not the sole factor affecting 

energy efficiency. EPA notes that with each refrigerant transition, we have seen improved 

energy efficiency. This is often due to equipment redesigns and technology advances that 

include factors besides the choice of refrigerant. While some manufacturers and end-users of 

appliances contend that a particular alternative is not efficient in a particular application (e.g., 

R-290 in products requiring electric heaters, R-744 at higher temperatures), other commenters 

reported energy efficiency gains, and data provided in the comments point to efficiency 

improvements that can be achieved. For all refrigeration end-uses affected by this rule, there 

are multiple acceptable alternatives and technical designs, and manufacturers may choose the 

combinations of design and alternative that offer the best efficiency for the particular product. 

EPA finds no evidence to support claims that the status changes finalized in this rule will result 

in decreased energy efficiency and we point to test data supplied by DuPont and referenced by 

EIA that indicated better efficiency using acceptable alternatives.
87

3.3.2 Climate Change, Carbon Footprint, and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 

 Hudson, NRDC, IGSD and CARB suggested actions that they contend will reduce emissions 

of high-GWP alternatives. Hudson suggested that EPA limit virgin production and incentivize 

reclamation and reuse. NRDC and IGSD said EPA should reduce refrigerant leakage and 

encourage transition to alternatives, mentioning HCFC-22 in particular. CARB commented 

on the applicability of leak repair regulations on HFC systems. [0103, 0108, 0106]

EPA Response: Most of these comments are outside the scope of the present rulemaking and 

some address other authorities under the CAA, such as the venting prohibitions in CAA section 

608. Regarding the suggestion that EPA encourage transition to alternatives, we note that the 

purpose of this rule is to encourage transition to alternatives that pose lower risk than those we 

are listing as unacceptable. EPA appreciates the information provided by Hudson, NRDC, IGSD 

and CARB and notes the Agency held a stakeholder meeting in November 2014 to discuss 

potential changes to the section 608 regulations, which include refrigerant recovery, 

reclamation and leak repair.

 Continental Refrigerator noted that if the release of high-GWP substances was thoroughly 

controlled, the impact on the environment could be reduced substantially, without 

excessive, costly and time-consuming product revisions. Continental Refrigerator also 

commented that EPA notes that stand-alone systems only account for seven percent of the 

global commercial refrigerant stock. Continental Refrigerator highlighted that previous 

studies have estimated that self-contained systems have a leak rate of approximately one 

percent. Consequently, Continental Refrigerator concluded, any risk from their refrigerants 

is relatively low. [0122]

EPA Response: EPA reviews substitutes on an end-use by end-use (or end-use category) basis

and not based on whether the risk from that end-use is “relatively low” compared to other enduses. We agree that if emissions of high-GWP refrigerants were completely eliminated, the 

impact on the environment would be reduced substantially and the direct benefits of HFC 

emissions based on this rule would likewise be substantially lower. Information in the docket, 

however, makes clear that HFCs are potent greenhouse gases and threaten the public health 

and welfare of current and future generations (EPA, 2009). Additional information in the docket 

show that emissions of HFCs continue to rise and are expected to continue to do so (e.g., 

Akerman, 2013; EPA, 2015a and 2015b; IPCC, 2007 and 2013; IPCC/TEAP 2005; Montzka, 2012; 

Velders et al., 2009). EPA is acting under the authority of section 612 of the CAA to reduce the 

overall risk to human health and the environment. We are also considering actions that more 

directly address refrigerant leaks and recovery under section 608 of the CAA, and we note the 

Agency held a stakeholder meeting in November 2014 to discuss potential changes to such 

regulations.

3.3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds 

 Traulsen and Howe commented that VOCs have been targeted for reduction by EPA as VOCs 

released to atmosphere are known to contribute to the production of ground level ozone 
88

when they react with sunlight. Both commenters noted that R-290 and R-600a are defined 

by EPA as VOCs. Howe stated that considering EPA’s latest effort to further reduce ground 

level ozone standards, there seems to be a strange contradiction in objectives if on one 

hand EPA encourages the increased use of VOCs in the form of HC refrigerants in 

applications where the potential for leaks to atmosphere always exists, yet on the other 

hand release of these VOCs is contrary to EPA’s goal of reducing ground level ozone. Howe 

was concerned that this may open the door to costly penalties to manufacturers, end users, 

or even service contractors for future VOC release violations. [0188, 0048]

EPA Response: When listing R-290 and R-600a as acceptable subject to use conditions, EPA 

applied our comparative risk analysis and thus considered the potential impacts on local air 

quality, including the formation of ground-level ozone. EPA’s analysis indicates that their use as 

refrigerants in the end-uses addressed by this rule are not expected to contribute significantly 

to ground level ozone formation and thus would pose little risk to the environment. (ICF, 

2014a).

3.3.4 Environmental Impacts from Continued Operation of Equipment

 EPA specifically requested comment on whether listing some currently acceptable 

substances as unacceptable creates an unintended incentive to continue to use old leaky 

equipment. Honeywell, Supermarket Company ABC, EIA, NRDC and IGSD all commented 

that they did not believe this would happen. Some commenters said that the controls on 

HCFC-22 that exist, the likely higher price of that chemical, and the availability of 

alternatives will prevent such an incentive. In contrast, AHRI, NRA, and Parker Hannifin 

commented that rather than purchasing new equipment, users may choose to operate 

existing stand-alone equipment, which they claim is less efficient and higher polluting. 

Parker Hannifin stated this may occur because new units would not be available due to the 

fact that charge size limits would not satisfy all designs and the financial strain on 

manufacturers. AHRI indicated this would occur due to the high costs of using hydrocarbon 

refrigerants and said that because of this fact, EPA should not change the status of some 

alternatives for this end-use category. [0105, 0108, 0123, 0134, 0170, 0174, 0200]

EPA Response: EPA does not believe that the proposed rule will create an unintended incentive 

for equipment users to retain older systems. The possible supply of HCFC-22 and other ozonedepleting substances is finite and thus we believe that the transition away from equipment 

using ODS refrigerants and to other alternatives will continue. In addition, we believe that 

there are a multitude of factors that an end user must consider in making decisions to operate 

equipment using refrigerants whose status will change, including the useful life of existing 

equipment, the impact of replacement on ongoing operations, and the costs associated with 

operating older equipment that may be less energy efficient as compared with the costs of 

operating new equipment. The commenters have provided speculation, but no evidence, to 

suggest that EPA’s change of status rule would drive any such future decision. 
89

3.3.5 Technology Considerations for Reducing Emissions of High-GWP Gases

 Lennox commented that the low leak rate of the primary loop of a cascade or secondary 

loop system operating with R-404A results in a negligible contribution of CO2 equivalent 

leakage to the atmosphere compared to even a traditional single-loop refrigeration system 

operating with R-407A. Lennox noted that R-404A and R-507A refrigerants are well-known 

among technicians in the industry and are more likely to be serviced properly and without 

leakage. Lennox commented that the relative absence of glide in these traditional 

refrigerants, if applied in a cascade or secondary loop system, will eliminate some 

unintended consequences of the proposed rule, as the single-loop or primary-loop of an R407X system will run less efficiently due to the unequal leakage (fractionation) of 

components of an R-407 series blend. Lennox commented that continuing to allow the use 

of R-404A and R-507A in the primary refrigeration loop of supermarket cascade systems 

would likely continue the migration towards cascade systems over single loop systems given 

the performance and field troubleshooting benefits of those refrigerants (e.g., no 

refrigerant glide). Lennox noted that a cascade system using R-404A in the top side 

refrigeration loop with a CO2 secondary loop results in approximately 90% lower equivalent 

CO2 emissions than a single loop R-407A system. [0120]

 AHRI noted that as part of the re-design effort that started a few years ago, manufacturers 

have developed secondary loop/cascade systems that use significantly less HFC refrigerants 

than conventional direct expansion (DX) rack systems. AHRI commented that the life cycle 

climate performance (LCCP) for these systems is a fraction of conventional DX systems and 

should be a factor to consider when deciding whether to change the listing status of some 

substitutes. For these reasons, AHRI stated that exceptions should be made to retain the 

status of R-404A and R-507A in secondary loop/cascade refrigeration systems. [0174]

 In response to a discussion in the proposed rule regarding options EPA considered, EIA 

stated that there is no need or technical justification for allowing the use of HFC-227ea, R407B, R-421B R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A in systems with a low charge size 

such as the use restriction examined in the NPRM. [0134]

EPA Response: EPA notes that AHRI’s and Lennox’s suggestion is similar to one option, 

considered in the proposal, to not change the status of certain high-GWP refrigerants (but not 

R-404A or R-507A) in low-charge systems. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA explained 

that it considered this option but was not proposing it because, “given the high GWP of these 

refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are available in [supermarket systems], we do 

not believe that use with a small charge size adequately addresses the greater risk they pose.” . 

79 FR 46,147-46,148. As explained in the proposed rule, Use in a lower-charge system does not 

guarantee lower overall emissions. If catastrophic losses occurred in a system employing R404A, R-507A or other high-GWP refrigerants, the emissions in CO2-equivalent terms could be 

twice or more than if a lower-GWP refrigerant were used in the same design. The Lennox and 

AHRI comments focus on the benefits of suing a secondary loop/cascading design; however, 
90

they fail to acknowledge that product designs exist with R-407 series refrigerants for cascade 

systems. While the commenters claim that a secondary loop or cascade system operating on R404A or R-507A would result in lower CO2-equivalent emissions, they presented no evidence of 

the emissions of any such systems nor any evidence of the emissions from other systems that 

would be acceptable after the status change date, such as direct or indirect systems operating 

on acceptable refrigerants such as R-407A, R-407F, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A or R-744. 

Furthermore, the comments provided no evidence that simply because R-404A and R-507A are 

“well-known” that any user would choose such a system simply because it was acceptable 

rather than other acceptable systems such as a secondary loop or cascade system with R-407A. 

3.4 Availability and Acceptability of Alternatives

EPA received comments from NAMA, NAFEM, Traulsen, Duke Manufacturing, Unified Brands, 

Hoshizaki America, Minus Forty Technologies, DuPont, Master-Bilt, Parker Hannifin, Arkema, 

Federal Industries, Manitowoc, AHRI, EIA, CARB, Lennox, Hillphoenix, Hussmann, Continental 

Refrigerator, KeepRite Refrigeration, N. Wasserstrom & Sons, H&K International, Howe, Zero 

Zone, Unisom Comfort Technologies, Grindmaster-Cecilware, InterMetro Technology, Aladdin 

Temp-Rite, NRA, International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, ThermalRite Walk-Ins, and a private 

citizen on the availability and acceptability for certain alternatives in certain end-use categories. 

3.4.1 Availability of Alternatives

Need for Additional SNAP Listed Alternatives including HFO Blends

 Multiple commenters stated that more nonflammable acceptable alternatives were needed 

for all refrigeration end-uses affected by this rule. Commenters looking at vending machines 

and stand-alone equipment indicated that there are only limited choices available, such as 

R-744 and hydrocarbons. Several pointed to HFC/HFO blends that are currently under 

development and indicated that some are nonflammable and DuPont indicated that R-513A 

is three percent more efficient than HFC-134a in some equipment designs. [0019, 0026, 

0037, 0077, 0092, 0105, 0131, 0138, 0183, 0216, 0217]

EPA Response: We note that one HFC/HFO blend, R-450A, was found acceptable in new retail 

food refrigeration equipment in October 2014 (79 FR 62,863). Concurrent with this rule, EPA is 

listing R-450A as acceptable for use in new vending machines. We are also listing three other 

HFC/HFO blends (R-448A, R-449A and R-513A) as acceptable alternatives in the refrigeration 

end-uses affected by this rule. All four of these blends are nonflammable. 

Available Alternatives 

 EIA and CARB indicated that transition to low-GWP alternatives is possible in the other 

refrigeration end-uses addressed by this rule. EIA provided examples of transitions 

occurring or pledges made, while CARB stated that R-407A, R-407C and R-407F are already 

widely used in lieu of R-404A and R-507A. [0037, 0106, 0174]
91

EPA Response: EPA thanks these commenters for this information highlighting current 

examples of the use of low-GWP alternatives and the future potential of such alternatives. 

Other Comments on Availability of Acceptable Alternatives

 AHRI stated that the proposed change of status of R-404A, R-507A, HFC-134a and other HFC 

blends in stand-alone commercial refrigeration equipment is premature and would leave 

manufacturers with no viable alternatives. AHRI commented the number of acceptable 

substitutes for stand-alone equipment is very limited. [0174]

 Parker Hannifin commented that the elimination of HFC-134a, R-404A, R-507A, and all other 

common HFCs for stand-alone equipment while only making hydrocarbons and R-744 

available leaves many manufacturers with no viable refrigerant options. [0105]

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that there are no viable alternatives for 

stand-alone equipment or that hydrocarbons and R-744 are the only available alternatives. As 

noted in the NPRM and section V.C of the preamble to the final rule, there are some existing 

stand-alone systems using available alternatives today, including two hydrocarbons (R-290 and 

R-600a) and R-744. The commenters did not provide information as to why these alternatives 

would not be viable in other stand-alone equipment. Besides R-744, other non-hydrocarbon 

refrigerants are acceptable: EPA has found R-450A acceptable in all stand-alone equipment and 

concurrently with this rule is finding R-513A acceptable in all stand-alone equipment as well as 

R-448A and R-449A acceptable in stand-alone low-temperature equipment. 

 Lennox, Hillphoenix, and Hussmann indicated that there are multiple implementation 

challenges for stand-alone equipment given the proposed status changes and dates in the 

NPRM. The three manufacturers indicated one possible outcome would be for users of 

stand-alone equipment to instead use a remote system running refrigerant lines from a 

central system to cases. They indicated that such systems would likely have higher 

refrigerant charges and higher leak rates. Lennox indicated the system may be possible in 

large-footprint supermarkets but not so in smaller retail operations, including convenience 

stores, forcing such users to adopt either flammable hydrocarbons subject to use conditions 

that may not satisfy all equipment types or R-744, which would lead to a “significantly 

increased cost.” On the other hand, comments from DuPont and Honeywell discuss the 

possibility of implementing HFC/HFO blends in stand-alone equipment with minimal or no 

changes to existing designs [0077, 0119, 0120, 0170, 0215]

EPA Response: EPA acknowledges there are design requirements that must be taken into 

account when using refrigerants such as R-290, R-441A, R-600a and R-744; however, EPA notes 

that stand-alone equipment using these refrigerants is already on the market and in some cases 

has been for several years. However, as discussed in section V.C.4 of the preamble to the final 

rule, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2019, for small mediumtemperature units not employing a flooded evaporator and establishing a January 1, 2020 

change of status date for larger and low-temperature units and those that use a flooded 
92

evaporator. Furthermore, the comments indicate that other acceptable refrigerants, such as R450A and R-513A, do not demand the same design requirements as the four mentioned, as 

they operate similarly to HFC-134a. For stand-alone low-temperature equipment, R-448A and 

R-449A offer performance similar to R-404A. EPA has previously listed or is listing these 

refrigerants as acceptable concurrent with this rule. As the commenter points out, some largefootprint supermarket installations may be able to use a remote condensing until in lieu of 

stand-alone equipment. Supermarkets can make the choice of design based on the solutions 

that best satisfy their customers’ needs, as they do today. EPA is not mandating any particular 

design choice. Regarding smaller applications, where using a remote condensing system is not 

an option, we note that there are still numerous choices from which the retailer can choose. As 

an initial matter, end users are not required to change from existing equipment. If the end user 

wishes to change from existing equipment, there should be a variety of options available, 

including both flammable and nonflammable options. There are several nonflammable 

alternatives that operate at pressures similar to those of the refrigerants that have been 

predominantly used. Finally, we note that for the reasons provided in the preamble to the final 

rule, we are establishing later change of status dates than proposed.

 

 Manitowoc commented that a second Low-GWP AREP refrigerant evaluation program was 

launched this year to identify alternatives to R-404A, but the results will not be available 

until 2015. They indicated this “state of flux” for alternatives was one factor that makes it 

impossible for the industry to transition to alternative refrigerants by the proposed January 

1, 2016, change of status date. [0216]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates this information regarding phase II of the AHRI Low-GWP AREP. 

The results from this program will be useful as manufacturers pursue the use of alternatives. 

Although Manitowoc did not indicate which end-use categories the results for AREP would be 

most useful, EPA understands that a variety of products are being tested under that that 

program. Some of these products are covered by this rule and we note are subject to change of 

status dates later than the time when Manitowoc indicated the AREP results would be 

available, as explained in section V.C of the preamble to the final rule.

 N. Wasserstrom & Sons noted that while R-448A may work as an effective alternative, they 

are concerned that it has a similar GWP to HFC-134a, and thus believed they will have to 

begin the difficult and lengthy process of developing R-290 units and having them tested and 

certified. [0082]

EPA Response: EPA understands the commenter’s concern regarding the use of R-448A and the

process to develop, test and certify R-290 units. EPA leaves the decision of which acceptable 

alternative(s) to pursue to the manufacturer. EPA notes that at the time of the proposal, R448A had not been listed as an acceptable alternative; however, it is now listed as acceptable in 

stand-alone low-temperature equipment and similarly we are not finalizing a change of status 

for HFC-134a in those applications.
93

3.4.2 Viability of Alternatives Listed as SNAP Acceptable

CO2 and Hydrocarbons

 Several commenters provided comments on the viability of hydrocarbon refrigerants for use 

in stand-alone equipment and vending machines and on R-744 for use in those end-uses as 

well as in remote condensing units. NAFEM and Hoshizaki America stated that because R744 operates at very high pressure, it presents safety concerns. Minus Forty Technologies 

indicated that many of its models could not adopt R-290 “due to their size, shape, and 

custom uniqueness” or that to do so would be impractical. For vending machines, 

Automatic Merchandising Systems concluded that R-290 would provide acceptable 

performance in its vending machines, while R-744 would not. [0033, 0037, 0109, 0137, 

0217]

EPA Response: EPA is not requiring the use of hydrocarbons (R-290, R-441A and R-600a) or R744 in any type of equipment. Some manufacturers have already introduced products that 

meet applicable DOE requirements and that utilize these acceptable alternatives. Other

manufacturers may choose a different path. For instance, those concerned with perceived 

efficiency declines and flammability issues may choose to pursue nonflammable HFC/HFO 

blends that operate at pressures and perform similarly to HFC-134a or R-404A. 

3.4.3 Flammability of Acceptable Alternatives

 Aladdin Temp-Rite and InterMetro Industries noted that there are significant safety 

concerns regarding the placement of highly flammable refrigerants inside commercial 

kitchens around open flames and other heat sources. AHRI, International Cold Storage, 

Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite Walk-Ins stated that other safety concerns exist associated 

with the raw material transport, storage, and dispensing of flammable alternatives. A 

private citizen commented that because few technicians have experience with flammable 

refrigerants, they risk being injured. Unison Comfort Technologies urged EPA to consider 

the merits of natural refrigerants noting that although they have some safety concerns 

associated with them, they are not untested, stating R-600a has been used commercially 

and relatively safely for 70 years and R-290 has been used in refrigeration relatively safely 

since the mid-1800s. [0020, 0037, 0062, 0068, 0102, 0174, 0206]

EPA Response: EPA established use conditions for these flammable refrigerants when it listed 

them as acceptable subject to use conditions in the various refrigeration end uses. EPA notes 

that the use conditions set are in part derived from consensus safety standards developed with 

industry input, such as UL 471. In addition, the use conditions we set go beyond just compliance 

with those standards and require additional or more prominent markings that would provide an 

additional level of safety, especially during service and disposal. 

EPA addressed safety concerns associated with the raw material transport, storage, and 

dispensing of flammable alternatives when finding R-290 acceptable subject to use conditions 
94

in stand-alone equipment. In that decision, EPA did not finalize a proposed use condition to 

require R-290 be sold only in containers containing at least five pounds of the substance, noting 

that such a use condition “could cause the transport of an unnecessary amount of refrigerant 

and increase risks to service technicians and—in the event of a vehicular accident—to others on 

the road” (76 FR 78,849). In that same decision, we referenced specific OSHA requirements 

regarding the storage of flammable refrigerants (76 FR 78,851) and included recommendations 

regarding the storage of flammable refrigerants as further information to our decision (76 FR 

78,857). We also finalized labeling requirements stating our belief that “notification is

necessary to alert technicians and personnel who dispose of or recycle appliances that a 

refrigerant has the potential to ignite if a sparking source is nearby” (76 FR 78,846). Under the 

SNAP regulations, EPA addresses “use” of a substitute and does not address whether a 

substitute may be safely transported. The producer of a substitute would need to address such 

an issue to get its product to the marketplace, including complying with any laws or regulations 

section by federal, state or local governments that may address the safe transport of goods

Many of these substitutes are already in use for other applications, and have been used as 

refrigerants for many decades, as pointed out by commenters. Thus, we have no knowledge 

that transport of these refrigerants creates and impediment to their use. 

EPA notes that for stand-alone equipment, as well as for all the other refrigeration end-uses 

addressed in this ruling, non-flammable alternatives exist, such as R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R513A and R-744. 

Label Considerations for Flammable Alternatives

 True Manufacturing commented that the Council for Harmonization of Electrotechnical 

Standards of the Nations in the Americas (CANENA) Working Group 5 (60335-2-89) is 

working on a bi-national testing requirement to replace UL 471 and Canadian Standards 

Association (CSA)-120 testing procedures. True Manufacturing noted that the group would 

request that EPA allow lettering on labels for flammable refrigerants to be 1/8 inch rather 

than 1⁄4 inch because labels in Canada need to be in English and French. True Manufacturing 

stated that the labels get too large to apply to correct locations. [0196]

 Automated Merchandising Systems commented that it exports a significant number of 

machines to Canada and other countries. NAMA and Automated Merchandising Systems 

noted that while European certification requirements deal with the alternate refrigerants, it 

finds that CSA C22.2 No. 128-95 (2013 version for Vending Machines) does not specify the 

functional and marking requirements for their use. Automated Merchandising Systems 

commented that it has not had time to research the functional and marking requirements 

for other countries, such as Australia, to which it exports products. [0109, 0183]

EPA Response: EPA did not propose in the NPRM and is not in this final rule adjusting the use 

conditions that were established when it listed the various refrigerants acceptable in standalone retail food refrigeration and vending machine, including the appropriate size of labels and 

lettering. Any party can petition EPA to modify an existing SNAP listing, including making 

modifications to the use conditions. The commenters are primarily raising concerns about 
95

requirements that might apply in other countries. We do not tailor use conditions to ensure 

that products can be marketed in a foreign country. Rather, EPA bases its decisions under 

SNAP, including the creation of use conditions, on what is necessary to ensure that an 

acceptable substitutes does not pose significantly greater risk to human health or the 

environment than other available substitutes. 

3.4.4 Toxicity of Acceptable Alternatives

 NAFEM, Lennox, Howe, and InterMetro Industries all commented that R-717 is of particular 

concern to human health and safety because of its toxicity and is not likely to be used in 

commercial food refrigeration. Howe claimed “The likelihood of ammonia as a refrigerant 

for use in food retail is very slim” while noting that they manufacture ice makers, which are 

not subject to this rule unless incorporated into a larger supermarket system, for that 

refrigerant. Lennox noted that further safety precautions, handling procedures, and 

installation practices are required and that some localities limit R-717 use. [0048, 0062, 

0120, 0137]

EPA Response: As discussed in section V.C.2.a.1 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA 

recognizes that R-717 is listed as a class B (higher toxicity) chemical by ASHRAE Standard 34, 

unlike the other acceptable alternatives that are listed as class A (lower toxicity). Based on 

those concerns, R-717 is listed as acceptable only in retail food refrigeration systems when used 

as the primary refrigerant in a secondary loop system. As such, access to equipment containing 

R-717 would be limited to trained personnel and other restrictions, such as those from OSHA or 

within local codes, would apply. As we have noted numerous times, there are a variety of 

refrigerants available and manufacturers and purchasers of refrigeration equipment will be able 

to choose whether to use R-717 when designing a system or whether to purchase a system that 

uses R-717.

3.5 Existing Components and Equipment

EPA received comments from National Refrigerants, the Alliance, AHRI, Coca-Cola, UL, 

Honeywell, and Hussmann on issues related to servicing existing retail food refrigeration 

equipment and vending machines. EPA did not propose to limit the ability to service existing 

retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines with the refrigerant it contained as 

of any status change date. Several but not all commenters supported this approach. A few 

commenters discussed general issues related to servicing. EPA also received requests from 

CFESA, United Refrigeration, Lennox, NAFEM, HARDI, and National Refrigerants for clarification 

regarding the “grandfathering” of the use of refrigerants whose status will change to 

unacceptable and the ability to “sell-through” or “draw-down” supplies of components and 

equipment designed for or charged with such refrigerants. These comments are summarized 

and addressed below.
96

3.5.1 Servicing of Existing Retail Food Refrigeration Equipment and Vending Machines

 National Refrigerants, the Alliance, AHRI, Coca-Cola, and UL agreed that EPA should not 

limit the ability to service existing equipment with the refrigerant it contained as of the 

change of status date. The Alliance and AHRI suggested that EPA should promote the use of 

recovered refrigerant for servicing such equipment. Coca-Cola noted that users of its 

equipment would be financially affected if they were not allowed to continue use and 

service with the original refrigerant. National Refrigerants pointed out that the system most 

likely operates most efficiently with the refrigerant it was designed to use. UL warned that if 

there were a restriction on the use and service of installed equipment with the original 

refrigerant, alternatives not suited could be used and may present additional risk. [0074, 

0083, 0130, 0174, 0202]

EPA Response: EPA reiterates in the preamble to the final rule that the Agency is not taking 

action that would restrict the ability of users to continue servicing existing retail food 

refrigeration equipment and vending machines with the refrigerant such equipment used prior 

to the relevant status change date. Some commenters specifically mentioned the use of 

recovered/ recycled refrigerants for servicing. In the NPRM, EPA noted that some servicing is 

done using recovered/recycled refrigerants; however, that is not a requirement under this rule. 

Either virgin or recovered refrigerant may continue to be used to service such systems. We note 

that the Agency held a stakeholder meeting in November 2014 to discuss potential changes to 

the section 608 regulations, which includes refrigerant recovery and recycling requirements.

 Honeywell urged EPA to consider disallowing the use of R-404A and R-507A for servicing in 

stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines no later than January 

1, 2022, and for supermarkets and remote condensing units at some unspecified date in the 

future, to further encourage transition to lower-GWP alternatives. However, Honeywell also 

stated that “EPA should continue to allow recycled and reclaimed R-404A and R-507A to be 

used for servicing to encourage reclamation and make the transition to lower-GWP

substances less disruptive. “ (emphasis added) [0170]

EPA Response: EPA did not propose to change the approach it has historically taken under the 

SNAP Program, which is to allow users to continue to service existing equipment with the 

refrigerant in use. At this time, and for the reasons provided in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, we do not see a basis for changing that approach. Regarding the suggestions that we 

interpret to request that we prohibit the use of virgin material for servicing, we note that many 

users will not know the difference between reclaimed and virgin R-404A and R-507A, and 

creating a paper trail to track the two different types would require additional actions not 

proposed. 

3.5.2 Existing Inventories of Components and Appliances Prior to the Change of Status Date

 Several commenters, including CFESA, United Refrigeration, Lennox, NAFEM, HARDI, and 

National Refrigerants, requested that EPA “grandfather” the components and equipment 
97

using alternatives subject to the status change. Commenters felt that they should be 

allowed to continue selling their existing supply of refrigerants, components and products 

beyond any change of status date. NAFEM believed a four-part test to judge the 

appropriateness of Agency grandfathering as discussed in the original SNAP rule (59 FR 

13044) was satisfied here. Lennox referenced EPA’s provisions on the installation of HCFC22 after January 1, 2010, as promulgated at 40 CFR 82.15(g)(2)(ii), and felt similar provisions 

should apply here. [0176, 0197, 0120, 0137, 0121, 0130] 

EPA Response: As an initial matter, the change of status applies to the use of refrigerants in 

specific appliances. Those refrigerants may continue to be sold for other purposes. In addition, 

EPA has been clear that existing products may continue to be used and serviced with the 

refrigerants in the products at the time of the change of status; see section V.C.1.c of the 

preamble to the final rule.

EPA did not use the grandfathering test referenced by NAFEM in promulgating this rule, 

because none of the change of status dates for the end uses addressed is “immediate.” The 

regulation cited by Lennox allows the use of components manufactured prior to January 1, 

2010, to be assembled into an appliance using HCFC-22 and manufactured prior to January 1, 

2012, provided they were “specified in a building permit or a contract dated before January 1, 

2010, for use on a particular project.” This was an alternative approach to the one used in this 

rulemaking. In that case, EPA established a change of status for HCFC-22 shortly after the final 

rule was issued, but built time into the regulation to allow for continued marketing of product. 

In this rulemaking, EPA accounted for the possible need for plans to be implemented or 

changed in choosing the appropriate status change dates; see for example section V.C.2.a.1 of 

the preamble to the final rule. 

Both the rulemaking addressing HCFC-22 and this current rule anticipate that pre-charged 

appliances could be manufactured before reaching the ultimate consumer and that such 

products could be sold after the change of status date. As we recognized in the preamble to 

the previous rule, the rule “in effect” contains “a ‘sell-through’ provision.” (74 FR 66,458). The 

same is true in this rule for pre-charged appliances, such as stand-alone equipment and vending 

machines. For instance, a vending machine using HFC-134a that is produced and placed into the 

manufacturer’s inventory prior to the January 1, 2019, status change date may be sold through 

normal distribution channels even if that unit does not reach the ultimate consumer and is not 

put into operation (e.g., by connecting to a power source) until after that date.

Furthermore, equipment operating on a refrigerant subject to a status change may continue to 

be serviced with that refrigerant. Such service can include the use of components or parts, 

possibly pre-charged, designed for that particular refrigerant. Thus, components and parts may 

continue to be produced and sold after a change of status date for the purposes of servicing 

equipment that contained as of the status change date a refrigerant subject to the status 

change.
98

Such parts however may not be used to manufacture a new appliance or to retrofit an existing 

appliance after the status change date applicable for new or retrofit applications. EPA has 

issued guidance on how to interpret EPA’s definition of “manufacture” and specifically 

discusses how this applies to supermarket systems in section V.C.1.c of the preamble to the 

final rule.

3.6 Charge Size

 EIA suggested that charge reduction techniques such as microchannel heat exchangers, 

small tube diameters, and close-coupled systems can be utilized to circumvent limitations 

imposed by charge size limitations on large vending and stand-alone equipment. [0134]

EPA Response: EPA thanks EIA for these suggestions that manufacturers can explore to reduce 

the charge size required by certain units and thus further support the use of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants as available alternatives consistent with the use conditions.

3.7 Clarification Requests

EPA received comments from NAFEM, FMI, Nor-Lake, and Grindmaster-Cecilware requesting 

clarification on several issues. In addition to the comments addressed in this section, see 

sections V.C.1.b and V.C.1.c of the preamble to the final rule for more comments requesting 

clarification to the proposed rule. 

 NAFEM commented that EPA should clarify what factors determine a product is a “largesized unit” that must comply with additional requirements. [0137]

EPA Response: In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether it should establish a 

use restriction such that HFC-134a and other refrigerants would not be subject to a change of 

status for “large” stand-alone units but would be subject to a status change for “small” standalone units. EPA did not attempt to define those terms, but rather requested comment on how 

they might be defined. In response to comments, in the final rule, EPA is establishing a January 

1, 2020, status change date for “large” units and other types of stand-alone equipment, while 

we are establishing a January 1, 2019, status change date for certain types of “small” units. For 

purposes of the final rule, “large” units are those with a compressor capacity equal to or 

greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and “small” units are those with a compressor capacity below 2,200 

Btu/hr. See section V.C.4.a.2 of the preamble to the final rule for information on what 

determines a “large” unit.

 FMI stated that the end-use classifications in appendix U, Table 3 in the proposed rule are 

vague. FMI commented that for R-404A and R-507A, the end-use is identified simply as a 

“retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit).” FMI believed the agency intended to identify 

the end-use as “retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems – new 

and retrofit) and (stand-alone units – new and retrofit)” and sought clarification on this 

point. [0173]
99

EPA Response: As discussed in section V.C.1.a of the preamble to the final rule, the end-use 

“retail food refrigeration” includes the end-use categories of “supermarket systems,” “remote 

condensing units,” and “stand-alone equipment.” FMI is correct that the proposal for “retail 

food refrigeration” would have applied to all three end-use categories listed. In the final rule, 

we provide separate listings for each of these three end-use categories.

 Nor-Lake commented that they manufacture remote systems that meet the current 

condensing unit description for their walk ins but they also make unitary walk in 

refrigeration systems that incorporate the evaporator section with the condensing unit 

sections and charge these at the factory. Nor-Lake states that these systems are 

eventually installed in the field as components of walk in coolers. Nor-Lake noted that 

these unitary systems match the capacity noted for the condensing units and meet the 

same application and should be regulated the same. Nor-Lake would like confirmation of 

classification. Lennox also asked EPA to clarify whether their “’packaged’ walk-in units 

with dedicated condensing units” fall under the stand-alone equipment end-use category 

or the remote condensing units end-use category. [0076, 0120]

EPA Response: EPA discussed what a stand-alone product is at 76 FR 78,834 (December 20, 

2011) and stated that “a stand-alone appliance is one using a hermetically-sealed compressor 

and for which all refrigerant-containing components, including but not limited to at least one 

compressor, condenser, and evaporator, are assembled into a single piece of equipment before 

delivery to the ultimate consumer or user. Such equipment does not require addition or 

removal of refrigerant when placed into initial operation.” As described, unitary and packaged 

walk-in refrigeration systems may meet that definition. As EPA reads the comments, it appears 

that such units may be fully and properly charged, not requiring addition of refrigerant in the 

field, and may contain a hermitically-sealed compressor. While the unit may be placed in a 

building, such as an employee-only part of a restaurant, or may be integrated into a structure 

such as a walk-in room or bay in the structure of a supermarket, where customers would access 

products from one side, supermarket staff would load product from the other side, and 

refrigeration technicians would access the equipment from the staff side (e.g., the evaporator) 

or outside the room or bay (e.g., the condenser), such placement or integration may not 

require any modification to the refrigeration system. As such, this would be considered standalone equipment. If, however, additional refrigerant was required to be added, or the system 

needed to be connected to unit coolers or evaporators in the field, or did not use a hermiticallysealed compressor, the system as described would fit the definition of a remote condensing 

unit.

 Grindmaster-Cecilware believed that the Food Equipment Manufacturers category should 

list the type of equipment that is affected by the proposal. Grindmaster-Cecilware 

indicated that they produce frozen and cold beverage dispensing equipment and asked for 

clarification on whether or not hot, cold, and frozen beverage equipment are affected by 

this proposed rule. [0021, 0022, 0037]
100

EPA Response: Certain equipment that stores hot, cold and frozen beverages (e.g., a “reach-in” 

cooler) fall within the end uses addressed by this rule, but equipment that dispense such 

beverages via a nozzle do not. For a description of the equipment covered by this rule, see 

section V.C.1.b of the preamble to the final rule.

 FMI stated that the term “retrofit” is used vaguely in the preamble and is not defined in the 

proposed rule. FMI sought additional clarity on how EPA would define “retrofit” and

believed that EPA should provide the public an opportunity to comment on the definition of 

new and retrofit in order to fully understand the impact of the proposed rule. [0173]

EPA Response: In section V.C.1.c of the preamble to the final rule, EPA explains these terms and 

in particular how they apply to supermarket systems, and notes that we have made a 

distinction between “new” and “retrofit” since the inception of the SNAP program. While the 

regulatory text does not define these terms, the public had an opportunity to comment on how 

these terms might apply during the comment period.

3.8 Other Suggestions or Requests

EPA received several comments related to alternate approaches EPA could take for the 

proposed rulemaking. A few commenters, including CARB, Honeywell, and DuPont requested 

that EPA list HFCs as unacceptable by GWP across commercial refrigeration equipment uses, 

such as all HFCs with a GWP above 1,500. Those comments are addressed in section V.C.6.a of

the preamble to the final rule. In addition, EPA received comments from Parker Hannifin 

recommending an alternate approach for establishing status change dates. EPA also received 

requests from Emerson and Traulsen to not change the status of refrigerants for flooded 

evaporator systems and low temperature freezing applications. One commenter also 

requested that EPA establish a process for manufacturers to request that specific products be 

allowed to use refrigerants subject to the status change. These comments are summarized and 

addressed below.

 Parker Hannifin commented that the refrigerants HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R422C, R-422D, R-428A, and R-434A are primarily HCFC-22 drop-in replacements. They stated 

that, since HCFC-22 is in the middle of a phase-out, eliminating the use of several 

alternatives having zero ozone depletion potential prior to the end of HCFC-22 production 

(January 1, 2020) is not a logical choice. Parker Hannifin stated that this is particularly true 

of retrofits. They noted that since viable alternatives to these exist, they can be phased out 

without serious harm to the industry, but such a change should not be made prior to the 

end of HCFC-22 production. [0105]

EPA Response: As recognized by the commenter, there are several alternative non-ozonedepleting refrigerants for retrofitting HCFC-22 equipment. 

Based on our comparative risk analysis, alternatives are available for retrofit that pose less 

overall risk to human health and the environment than those subject to a status change under 

this rule. Parker Hannifin did not provide any technical justification for why changing the status 
101

of these refrigerants must wait until 2020. In section V.C.2.c of the preamble to the final rule, 

EPA notes that a supermarket company supported the 2016 status change date for retrofit 

supermarkets and remote condensing units and that a trade organization that represents 

supermarkets has commented that many of its members have already voluntarily and 

proactively discontinued use of R-422D as a retrofit refrigerant. We note that HFC-227ea has 

not been found acceptable for retrofit retail food refrigeration.

 Emerson requested that EPA not change the status of R-507A for “flooded evaporator 

systems.” Emerson stated that R-507A is preferred due to its “low glide” characteristic and 

that the current alternatives and those being developed are “high glide.” The commenter 

contended that requiring these applications to move from a refrigerant with little to no glide 

to one with high glide would require redesign of the entire system and that there would be

significant impact to performance and cost. In some other cases, like ice machines, frozen 

soft serve ice cream and slushies, the quality of the product could be affected. [0190]

 EPA Response: EPA notes that certain types of equipment mentioned by the commenter 

(i.e., products that are designed to make or process cold food and beverages that are 

dispensed via a nozzle) are not considered to fall in the end-use categories addressed by the 

rule, as explained in section V.C.1.b of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding end uses 

convered by the rule, we see that alternatives found acceptable recently (79 FR 62,863) and 

concurrently with this rule (i.e. R-450A and R-513A) addressed the technical concerns 

identified by the commenter. In particular, in establishing a status change date of January 1, 

2020, for stand-alone equipment utilizing a flooded evaporator, we are allowing time to 

more fully explore and develop products using the “low glide” refrigerants the commenter 

indicates are required. For instance, ASHRAE Standard 34 classifies both R-507A and R-513A 

as azeotropes (i.e., zero glide) and also indicates that the glide (difference between the 

bubble and dew points) of R-450A is 1.1°F (0.6°C) whereas that of R-404A for instance is 

1.5°F (0.8°C). 

 Traulsen interpreted the proposal as addressing equipment being retrofitted from another 

refrigerant to R-404A and R-507A that may have operated on another refrigerant including 

an ODS. Traulsen requested a narrow use exemption for R-404A and R-507A in lowtemperature freezing applications. [0188]

EPA Response: In the proposed rule, EPA stated it did not believe that retrofits of stand-alone 

equipment are common, and did not receive comments to the contrary. EPA further stated that 

it believes alternatives other than those subject to the status change are available for 

retrofitting equipment. The commenter does not indicate why other refrigerants could not be 

used for the small amount of retrofitting of such units that may exist after the change of status 

date that occurs one year after publication. EPA also notes that there are no requirements to 

retrofit such units or any equipment. Individual owners may choose if and when they would like 

to retrofit such equipment and the acceptable refrigerant that they would like to use. 

Equipment using R-404A and R-507A may continue to be serviced with the refrigerant the 

system was using as of the date of the status change. 
102

 Coca-Cola endorsed creating a temporary narrowed use limit with an expiration date for 

where there are shortcomings in technology or unavailable commercial solutions. Coca-Cola 

commented that there are some stand-alone cabinet sizes and configurations where an 

energy-efficient solution does not immediately exist, and that this exception process would 

accommodate the temporary continued use of an HFC for a specific application within the 

end-use. Coca-Cola also recommended an exception process for those specific applications 

within an end-use where no other acceptable, minimal risk, technical alternative is 

achievable to meet the requirements for the specific application in the end-use. Coca-Cola 

explained that a commercial refrigerator (cooler) or vending machine of a specific size, 

configuration, and refrigerating capacity may not be technically achievable with any 

commercially available components. Coca-Cola commented that under these circumstances 

the end user would document why there is no other alternative or why the acceptable 

listings will not work, the anticipated period of time for the shortcoming, and EPA would 

grant an exception for a reasonably limited time. [0074]

EPA Response: EPA did not propose and has not finalized a narrowed use for the vending 

machine end-use and stand-alone equipment end-use category. The information before the 

Agency indicates that several alternatives for this equipment are either in use or are being used 

to develop components and the commenter has provided no specific support that alternatives 

will not be available by the change of status date established in the final rule. 

3.9 SNAP Requirements and Exports

EPA received comments from Lennox, H&K International, NAFEM, NAMA, Hussmann, Traulsen,

and Hillphoenix on the SNAP requirements for exported products. These comments are 

summarized and addressed below. 

 Lennox commented that CAA Section 612 does not explicitly authorize the regulation of 

exports, nor even mention the word “export.” Lennox noted that the proposed rule cites 

the definition of “interstate commerce” (79 FR 46,156) in the context of the proposed SNAP 

requirements applying to exports. Lennox commented that 40 CFR §82.106, which is in the 

same subpart of the EPA regulations as this definition which EPA cites, states that “Products 

intended only for export outside of the United States shall not be considered ‘products 

introduced into interstate commerce’ provided such products are clearly designated as 

intended for export only.” Lennox also commented that given markets outside the United 

States may not adopt the “refrigerant use restrictions” that EPA is proposing, this EPA 

rulemaking should clarify that it applies to retail food refrigeration equipment sold, 

imported, installed and/or serviced for the United States market only and equipment may 

be exported with any refrigerant. [0120]

EPA Response: We address the applicability of the SNAP regulations to products manufactured 

for export in section V.B.5.a of the preamble to the final rule, addressing MVAC. 
103

The commenter references a clause within subpart E of 40 CFR part 82. The purpose of 40 CFR 

part 82 subpart E is to require warning statements on containers of, and products containing or 

manufactured with, certain ozone-depleting substances, pursuant to section 611 of the CAA, as 

amended. EPA’s reference to subpart E was for the purpose of indicating how “interstate 

commerce,” has been defined under a related CAA program since that term is not separately 

defined in subpart G. Our reference does not imply that any provisions under subpart E apply 

for purposes of the SNAP program. And, that regulatory provision cited by the commenter 

conflicts with the SNAP program under which “use” is defined and would include charging 

equipment prior to export.

 Lennox stated that if the U.S. government wants to reduce the use of ozone-depleting or 

global warming substances in foreign markets in developing countries, it should seek to 

accomplish this through international treaty measures or relevant international 

negotiations, not by changing the status of refrigerants U.S. manufacturers use for the retail 

food refrigeration products it exports. [0120]

EPA Response: EPA understands the commenter’s preference for a different approach than 

that adopted in this rule, but we believe that SNAP provisions of the CAA and EPA’s regulations 

provide the authority for this action. We note that while it is not the goal of the SNAP program 

to reduce the use of ozone depleting or global warming substances in foreign markets, it could 

have that effect. We also note that promulgation of this rule would not preempt the possibility 

of future international negotiations.

 Pointing to statements in the preamble regarding the servicing of MVAC systems in foreign 

countries, Lennox commented that foreign countries also lack the servicing infrastructure 

for retail food refrigeration equipment that uses the alternatives that remain acceptable. 

[0120]

EPA Response: Of the retail food refrigeration end-uses addressed in this rule, stand-alone 

equipment is the only end-use that is typically charged and hermetically sealed during 

manufacture (76 FR 78,834; December 20, 2011). Supermarket systems and remote 

condensing units are typically charged onsite and thus would likely be shipped without a charge 

and the SNAP regulations would not apply, and thus would not restrict, the type of refrigerant 

that could be used to charge the equipment in a foreign country. 

While EPA is establishing a narrowed use limit for MVACs to allow export of vehicles using HFC134a to countries where adequate service infrastructure does not yet exist, we do not believe 

such a narrowed use limit is required or appropriate for retail food refrigeration equipment.

The commenter did not support or provide evidence that such service infrastructure does not 

exist in any export market for retail food refrigeration equipment using the refrigerants that are 

listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions under SNAP. Multiple alternatives 

exist for the retail food refrigeration end-use categories. EPA expects that, as with MVAC, the 

primary concern of the commenter is the servicing infrastructure for flammable refrigerants, 

especially, for retail food refrigeration, hydrocarbons used in stand-alone equipment. 

Hydrocarbons are used frequently in many types of stand-alone sealed equipment and often to 
104

a greater degree outside the United States. For example, the use of hydrocarbons in domestic 

refrigerators outside of the United States is very common. Thus EPA believes there is an ample 

infrastructure in place. In the MVAC end-use, HFC-134a has been used almost exclusively over

the past 20 years. In contrast, a wide variety of refrigerants are used in retail food refrigeration 

equipment and technicians servicing retail food refrigeration equipment are already 

accustomed to working with a variety of refrigerants including some flammable refrigerants. 

The servicing requirements for commercial refrigeration differ significantly from MVAC systems 

which are more numerous and typically serviced several times over the lifetime of a vehicle. 

Stand-alone equipment and vending machines are typically shipped to the location where the 

equipment often remains for the remainder of its useable lifetime. In many cases this 

equipment will remain operational and not require servicing for the lifetime of the equipment. 

Lennox describes stand-alone equipment as “systems typically having lower refrigerant leak 

rates (~1% annually)” implying that little if any service to the refrigerant-containing system 

would be needed. This characteristic makes stand-alone equipment different than MVACs, 

which may be used by multiple different owners throughout their lifetime and which often 

require multiple servicing events.

 Lennox commented that at a minimum EPA should clarify that "dry” retail food refrigeration 

equipment that is field-charged may be exported without any restrictions. [0120]

EPA Response: The definition of “use” under the SNAP regulations includes charging a system 

with refrigerant during manufacture. The SNAP regulations do not apply to equipment that is 

not charged with a refrigerant. Thus, a manufacturer could choose to export equipment 

without refrigerant (i.e., “dry”) and charge the equipment once outside the United States.

 Lennox commented that the “undue regulation of refrigeration equipment exports 

encourages manufacturers to relocate facilities abroad, thus harming U.S. manufacturing 

jobs. Furthermore, regulating exports of refrigeration equipment doesn’t reduce emissions, 

because foreign markets can simply look to non-U.S. manufacturers to supply the product.” 

Lennox also commented that prohibiting the export of equipment using refrigerants listed 

as unacceptable “would create an arbitrary and unreasonable competitive disadvantage in 

those markets for U.S. OEMs.” Lennox commented that these export markets are an 

important source of U.S. manufacturing jobs. [0120]

EPA Response: As noted previously, of the retail refrigeration end-uses addressed in this action, 

stand-alone equipment is likely the only equipment that would be charged prior to export. We 

note that EPA does not prohibit the export of equipment, as suggested by the commenter. 

Rather, if a manufacturer chooses to charge equipment in the United States, such “charging” is 

considered “use” under the SNAP regulations and the manufacturer would be limited to using 

SNAP-acceptable refrigerants to charge the equipment. While it is possible that manufacturers 

may choose to relocate jobs outside the United States to avoid the SNAP program, the 

commenter has submitted no evidence to support such a claim. Nor has the commenter 

supported its claim that U.S. manufacturers would be at a competitive disadvantage. In any 

event, the possibility that a manufacturer may choose to relocate or may be at a competitive 
105

disadvantage does not affect our review that there are other alternatives that pose less risk to 

human health and the environment. We note that many foreign countries are enacting similar 

restrictions on the use of certain substitutes, including countries in the EU as well as Canada 

and Japan.

 Several commenters, including H&K International, NAFEM, NAMA, Hussmann, Traulsen, and 

Hillphoenix, stated that because the SNAP requirements apply to exported products, U.S. 

manufacturers would be at a disadvantage in markets where refrigerants whose status will 

change based on this rule are allowed. NAFEM commented that U.S. manufacturers would 

also be at a disadvantage because European manufacturers had “a head start” on using the 

acceptable refrigerants. Traulsen recommended establishing a narrowed use limit to allow 

HFC-134a and R-404A products to be exported to markets that allow such refrigerants. 

[0024, 0026, 0037, 0119, 0183, 0188, 0215]

EPA Response: Markets and products constantly change and the commenters provided no 

support for their claims that U.S. manufacturers would be at a disadvantage either because 

they cannot charge equipment in the U.S. with a refrigerant listed as unacceptable or because 

other countries are ahead of the curve in transitioning to other substitutes. Regardless, these 

are not factors that weigh in EPA’s evaluation of the SNAP criteria to determine if other 

available alternatives pose less risk and thus they do not support the creation of a narrowed 

use limit.

3.10 General Comments

EPA received general comments from Eppenorf, Lennox, Vollrath, Master-Bilt, Scotsman, 

Hoshizaki America, NAFEM, Howe, CARB, LPA, InterMetro Industries, United Technologies, 

Ingersoll Rand, Maersk Container Industry, Unified Brands, Shecco, Nor-Lake, and Hudson 

Technologies related to GWP values, acceptable refrigerants, and end-uses not included in the 

proposed rule. These comments are summarized and responded to below.

3.10.1 General Comments on GWP Values

 Eppendorf commented that they support the general goal of the proposed rulemaking to 

reduce and potentially eliminate coolants with GWPs. [0081]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates Eppendorf’s support of the proposed rule. 

3.10.2 General Comments on Acceptable Refrigerants

 Vollrath and Master-Bilt were concerned that some alternatives that remain acceptable in 

certain end-use categories, such as R-407A and R-407F in supermarket systems, would be 

found unacceptable in the future. Nor-Lake commented that it would double the cost of 

research and development if a change was made now followed by another refrigerant 

change in two years. Howe, InterMetro Industries, and Lennox expressed a need for 
106

regulatory predictability and for the list of acceptable refrigerants to remain “stable.” [0048, 

0062, 0076, 0092, 0120, 0201]

EPA Response: EPA cannot provide guarantees on how long a particular substitute will remain 

on the list of acceptable substitutes. However, we note that over the twenty-one years since 

the initial SNAP rule was promulgated, EPA has modified an acceptable listing only a handful of 

times. While we will continue to evaluate the SNAP lists to determine whether to propose 

changing the status of additional substitutes in the end-uses addressed in this action or 

substitutes in different end-uses, we don’t anticipate routinely revising the SNAP lists for any 

specific end use. We will continue to work with stakeholder groups when we consider any 

additional change of status actions. 

3.10.3 General Comments on Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning End-Uses Not Affected by 

the Refrigerant Status Changes in the Final Rule 

 Four commenters, Scotsman, Hoshizaki America, NAFEM, and Howe, submitted comments 

regarding commercial ice machines and four other commenters, Ingersoll Rand, Maersk 

Container Industry, CARB, and United Technologies, submitted comments regarding 

refrigerated transport. [0048, 0061, 0089, 0106, 0137, 0186, 0203, 0217] CARB submitted 

comments regarding the use of flammable refrigerants in residential refrigerator-freezers. 

[0106]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the comments provided on these end uses. EPA did not 

propose and is not finalizing in this rule a change of status for refrigerants for these end-uses

but we will consider this information if we consider any new status change action for those end 

uses.

 LPA noted that their members globally provide products that use coolants in laboratory 

refrigerators and freezers, centrifuges, incubators, and other lab equipment to community 

blood banks, cancer treatment centers and hospitals, academic researchers and other 

scientific settings. LPA noted that this rule could prompt delays in product deliveries to 

laboratories, which could adversely impact crucial scientific and medical research. LPA 

commented that while they share the long-term goal of protecting our environment and 

reducing ODS use, it must be done in a way that ensures patients and researchers are not 

jeopardized. [0073]

EPA Response: This rule establishes change of status dates for refrigerants used in retail food 

refrigeration and vending machines. The types of equipment mentioned by LPA are not part 

of the refrigeration end-uses included in this rule.

 Unified Brands commented that R-404A should be listed as unacceptable. Unified Brands 

urged EPA to maintain refrigerants with a GWP less than 2,500, such as HFC-134a. Unified 

Brands incorrectly stated that changing the status of R-410A is not being considered under 

the proposed rule. [0049]
107

EPA Response: With respect to R-404A, EPA notes that we are establishing status change dates 

for that refrigerant in all refrigeration end-uses and end-use categories addressed by this rule, 

for both new and retrofit equipment. EPA proposed to change the status of HFC-134a for new 

vending machines and new stand-alone equipment. EPA proposed to change the status of R410A for these same end uses. For new supermarket systems and new remote condensing 

units, and retrofit vending machines, retrofit stand-alone equipment, retrofit supermarket 

systems, and retrofit remote condensing units, EPA did not propose to change the status of 

either HFC-134a or R-410A. EPA responds to suggestions regarding setting a specific GWP limit 

in section V.C.6.a of the preamble to the final rule.

 Hudson encouraged EPA to remove SNAP-approved alternatives for use in servicing and as a 

retrofit and to limit approval to use in newly manufactured equipment. Hudson commented 

that continued production of HFC refrigerants for new equipment allows for an orderly 

transition to low-GWP refrigerants over time. Hudson believed that the aftermarket should 

be viewed differently, and treated through the use of recovery and reclamation, with only 

supplemental supply from virgin production (i.e., when the supplies from recovery and 

reclamation are not enough to satisfy demand), especially when alternatives have higher 

GWP than the refrigerants they are replacing. [0103] 

EPA Response: EPA agrees that recovery and reclamation of HFCs and HFC blends will continue 

to play an important role for servicing and retrofitting existing systems for those HFCs and HFC 

blends that are acceptable for such use. Under the SNAP Program, EPA does not regulate the 

production of substitutes and thus users are not limited to using recycled or recovered 

materials. 
108

4 FOAM BLOWING AGENTS

A number of comments were provided on the proposed change of listing status for certain 

substitutes in the foam blowing sector. Some commenters supported finding HFC-134a and 

blends thereof, and the HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses by 

January 1, 2017; and HFC-143a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC blends 

Formacel B and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses (except for spray 

foam applications) by January 1, 2017. However, some commenters noted challenges of 

compliance due to the increased demand for testing; federal, state, and local building code 

requirements; third-party product approvals; DOT, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and FDA 

requirements; conversions, system redesign, and validation; catalyst technology; product 

research, development, and commercialization; and lack of staff capacity to make the 

transition. Commenters also noted inconsistencies with EPA’s approach for selecting the 

proposed change of status date. Other commenters raised points about the environmental 

impacts of the proposed listing changes, such as the GWP of alternatives and life cycle energy 

consumption considerations; the availability and suitability of alternatives; and the impact of 

the proposed rule on international trade of regulated products.

Commenters included 3M, AAM, ACMA, the Adhesive and Sealant Council (ASC), AHAM, AHRI, 

American Panel Corporation (American Panel), AMS, CARB, Arkema, All Weather Insulated 

Panels (AWIP), Bally Refrigerated Boxes (Bally), BASF Corporation (BASF), Boeing Defense, 

Space, & Security (Boeing), CFESA, Clayton Corporation (Clayton), Continental Refrigerator, 

Center for Polyurethanes Industry of the American Chemistry Council (CPI), Crown Tonka, 

DiversiFoam Products, DoD, Dow Chemical, DuPont, EIA, Emerson, Electrolux North America 

(Electrolux), Eppendorf, Federal Industries, FMI, Fomo Products, GE Appliances (GE), HC 

Duke/Electro-Freeze, Helmer, Hillphoenix, Honeywell, Hoshizaki America, Huntsman

Corporation (Huntsman), Hussman, Imperial Brown, Ingersoll Rand, InterMetro Industries, 

International Cold Storage, IP Moulding, Kairak, LaPolla Industries (Lapolla), Laboratory 

Products Association (LPA), Manitowoc, marine products manufacturers, Masonite 

International Corporation (Masonite International), Master-Bilt, Metl-Span, Mexichem, NAFEM, 

NAM, National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA), National Marine Manufacturers 

Association (NMMA), Nor-Lake, NRDC and IGSD, Owens Corning, Pactiv Building Products, 

Pregis Corporation (Pregis), Premium Spray Products, RHH Foam Systems (RHH), Structural 

Composites and Compsys (Structural Composites), Solvay, Sub-Zero Design Engineering (SubZero), Supermarket Company ABC, ThermalRite Walk-Ins, Thermo Fisher Scientific, ThermoKool/Mid-South Industries (Thermo-Kool), Traulsen, True Manufacturing, United Brands, UL, 

Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company (UTMC), West Development Group, Whirlpool 

Corporation (Whirlpool), Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association (XPSA), Zero Zone, and private 

citizens.

EPA responds to many of these comments in section V.D.3 of the preamble to the final rule. 

This section summarizes and responds only to those comments not addressed in the preamble.
109

4.1 Status Listing Changes 

EPA received several comments on the proposed change of listing status for foam blowing 

agents in the various end-uses, including comments from AHAM, EIA, GE, DuPont, Whirlpool, 

CPI, Pactiv Building Products, Honeywell, Mexichem, and Arkema. EPA responds to many of 

these comments in section V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule. The remainder are 

summarized and addressed in this section.

 Concerning EPA’s proposal to prohibit import of closed cell foam products or products 

containing closed cell foam that contain any of the blowing agents listed as unacceptable,

Whirlpool commented that the SNAP program was never intended, nor authorized, to 

classify foams or products as unacceptable, only the foam blowing agents used to create 

those foams. They believe that using the program in ways that it is not intended or 

authorized significantly reduces any certainty for the regulated industrials sectors. [0037, 

0198]

EPA Response: EPA is not taking final action on this aspect of the proposal as part of this final 

rule. See section V.D.2.d of the preamble to the final rule.

 CPI commented that the potential impact of the proposed rule is broad. CPI commented

that within the foam blowing end-use market, impacted stakeholders include, but are not 

limited to: suppliers, foam manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, third party testing 

facilities and laboratories, and downstream end users and customers. CPI encouraged EPA 

to consider company- and product-specific information provided by the individual business 

entities (individual manufacturers and suppliers) in the development of the final status 

change rule. [0175] 

EPA Response: EPA has considered information from a range of individual businesses in 

developing this final rule, including information about specific types of products.

 Pactiv Building Products commented that the proposed status change for HFC-134a in XPS 

insulation is not consistent with the approach discussed in their May 2014 meeting with 

EPA. [0037]

EPA Response: It is not clear from the comment what Pactiv believes was the approach 

discussed in EPA’s May 2014 meeting with representatives of the XPS industry or how they 

believe that approach differed from the proposal. 

 Honeywell, a manufacturer of HFC-245fa and alternative foam blowing agents, stated that 

there is already a low-GWP option available for high-pressure spray foam applications, so 

HFC-143a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof should also be unacceptable in this 

application. [0170]
110

 Mexichem questioned the proposed determination to allow HFC-245fa use but not HFC134a use in spray foams, as their difference in GWP is not significant. They requested that 

EPA demonstrate consistency and extend the “narrowed use acceptance” to both HFC245fa and HFC-134a for all two-component spray foam use. Arkema commented that for 

rigid polyurethane (PU) spray foam, the NPRM maintains as acceptable alternatives with 

GWPs up to 1,100, while HFC-134a with an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) GWP of 1,430 (1,300 under IPPC Fifth Assessment 

Report (AR5)) would undergo a status change to unacceptable. Arkema commented that 

the NPRM does not say what the difference in climate effects is between 1,100 and 1,430. 

[0101, 0131]

EPA Response: In response to the comments about spray foam, including those from 

Honeywell, Mexichem and Arkema, EPA has not finalized a change of status for spray foam in 

this final rule. See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule. 

4.2 Change of Status Dates

EPA received comments regarding the proposed status change date from more than 500 

commenters, including 3M, ACMA, ASC, AHRI, American Panel, AMS, Arkema, Bally, BASF, 

Boeing, Clayton, Continental Refrigerator, CPI, Crown Tonka, DiversiFoam Products, DoD, Dow

Chemical, DuPont, EIA, Emerson, Electrolux, Eppendorf, Federal Industries, FMI, Fomo Products, 

GE, Helmer, Hillphoenix, Honeywell, Hoshizaki America, Huntsman, Hussman, Imperial Brown, 

Ingersoll Rand, InterMetro, IP Moulding, Kairak, LaPolla, LPA, Manitowoc, marine products 

manufacturers, Master-Bilt, Metl-Span, Mexichem, NAFEM, NAM, NMMA, Nor-Lake, NRDC and 

IGSD, Owens Corning, Pactiv Building Products, Pregis, Premium Spray Products, RHH, 

Structural Composites, Solvay, Sub-Zero, Supermarket Company ABC, Thermo Fisher Scientific, 

Thermo-Kool, Traulsen, United Brands, UL, UTMC, West Development Group, Whirlpool, XPSA,

Zero Zone, and private citizens. EPA responds to many of these comments in sections V.D.3.a

and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule. The remainder are summarized and addressed in 

this section.

4.2.1 General Comments on the Proposed Status Change Date

 Solvay stated that the proposed timeline for transitioning away from ODS replacements is 

shortened because the first year of development must be budgeted for in the prior year 

from a corporate planning standpoint, and does not fully consider the substantial time and 

investments required by the regulated community to offer safe, qualified products. [0098]

EPA Response: EPA does not agree that these types of budgeting concerns support delaying the 

change of status. We note that for many of the foam-blowing end-uses, the final rule 

establishes a change of status date of January 1, 2020 and for XPS January 1, 2021, roughly four 

and a half years or five and a half years after issuance of the final rule and five and a half years 

or six and half years after issuance of the NPRM. While the change of status dates were based 
111

on technical issues, we note that internal processes, including resource allocation, should occur 

concurrent with the technical work necessary to effectuate the transition. 

 RHH and CPI commented that EPA should consider the timelines for previous blowing agent 

transitions under phaseout schemes when determining the status change date for the final 

rule. CPI commented that EPA should also consider stakeholder comments that describe the 

technical similarities or differences between previous transitions and the transitions 

contemplated in the proposed rule when determining the status change date for the final 

rule. In the past, RHH noted, the phase-outs were at least five years, and there were drop-in 

replacements commercially available. [0112, 0175]

EPA Response: EPA considered the status change dates for transitions away from HCFC to HFC 

foam blowing agents in developing the NPRM (August 6, 2014; 79 FR 46,126, 46,154). That 

previous transition took from EPA’s proposal in November 2005 to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b 

unacceptable to the compliance date of March 2008, or approximately two and a half years; 

considering this, we proposed a timeframe of approximately two and a half years after the 

issuance of the proposal. We also considered information provided by commenters specific to 

each end-use. In some cases, those commenters identified specific steps that present greater 

challenges as compared to the transition to HFCs. EPA has used such information in establishing 

the change of status dates in the final rule. Also see sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the 

preamble to the final rule.

4.2.2 Challenges Associated with Product Research and Development, Testing, and 

Certification

Rigid PU Spray Foam

 West Development Group, a user of high-pressure two-part spray foam systems,

acknowledged that during their conversion from HFC-245fa to trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoroprop-1-ene in 60 days, the greatest challenge was determining a satisfactory 

catalyst package (type and quantity), but they ultimately used standard “off the shelf,” 

catalysts in their new system. Premium Spray Products believed EPA should not rush and 

establish arbitrary deadlines, but ensure proper testing is done, so the best alternatives are 

allowed to materialize. [0037, 0045]

EPA Response: EPA is not taking final action on a change of status for HFC-134a as a foam 

blowing agent in spray foam applications. See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to 

the final rule.

 A number of commenters, including Solvay, Mexichem, RHH, Fomo, Clayton, and DuPont, 

raised concerns about the stability and shelf-life of alternative foam blowing agents and 

rigid PU spray foam formulations using those alternatives. DuPont stated that development 

of low-GWP alternatives is underway by many companies, but additional time will be 

necessary before low-pressure two-part PU spray foam can effectively transition. Fomo 
112

Products believed the process of learning and combining new catalysts, flame retardants, 

and surfactants puts a strain on R&D’s ability to develop a high quality products in the short 

timeframe proposed by the draft rule. Fomo Products commented the proposed status 

change date for HFC-134a (January 1, 2017) actually becomes January 1, 2016, for lowpressure spray foam (LP SPF) and low-pressure pour-in place applications, because they are 

typically sold through distribution. Fomo Products commented that a one year shelf-life is 

an absolute necessity in order to account for time spent in the distribution chain and 

storage by end users prior to use. Additionally, Clayton commented that HFO-1234ze(E) is 

known to break apart or adversely react with other ingredients to create toxic and corrosive 

chemicals, such as hydrofluoric acid ("HF"), as reported by Honeywell. [0077, 0098, 0101, 

0106, 0112, 0133] 

EPA Response: EPA is not finalizing a change of status for rigid PU spray foam in this final rule. 

See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule. Concerning low-pressure 

pour-in place applications, see the response to CPI in section 4.7 of this document.

Rigid PU Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels

 American Panel requested a delay in the status change date for HFCs from January 1, 2017,

to January 1, 2020, to allow time to choose an appropriate manufacturer, work with 

manufacturers through field tests of new formulations, use all existing HFC-245fa foam 

stock, and deplete stock panels while implementing the new foam into their plastic sink 

tanks and dispensing equipment. American Panel believed they would have little time to 

certify Class 1 foam with UL and/or Factory Mutual (FM) for fire-rated structures. 

Supermarket Company ABC commented that structural/building components, insulated wall 

and ceiling panels are subjected to additional required certifications for smoke and flame 

propagation that will require more than the proposed two years for manufacturers to 

address. Thermo-Kool, a panel manufacturer, believed it takes a minimum of two years for 

flammability, toxicity, and field testing before foam systems houses feel confident to sell a 

new system to their customers. Thermo-Kool was especially concerned for a failure or a 

safety related issue to occur with their customers, including schools, restaurants, hospitals, 

hotels, prisons, etc. Nor-Lake commented that since a foam blowing agent that will pass all 

of the building code requirements is not yet commercially available, they would need 

approximately one year to complete all required third party testing and approvals and 

convert their production facility. InterMetro Industries applauded EPA’s efforts to change 

the listing status of high-GWP HFCs, but believed the timeline is unreasonable because they 

would need an estimated lead time of 24 months to design, test, and evaluate their product 

after selection of a new foam insulation blowing agent. [0062, 0200, 0037, 0076, 0097, 0084] 

EPA Response: EPA agrees that further time after January 1, 2017, is needed for rigid PU 

commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels to transition to alternatives in order to 

accommodate, among other things, toxicity testing, field testing, and testing and certification 

for flammability ratings of foam blown with alternative blowing agents (see also section 4.5.4 of 

this document). EPA has established a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU 
113

commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel, for the reasons discussed in section V.D.3.a of 

the preamble to the final rule.

 InterMetro Industries commented that they could not begin an earnest search for an 

alternative foam blowing agent until EPA releases its final list of acceptable alternatives. 

[0062]

EPA Response: We do not agree that end users cannot begin to evaluate alternatives until after 

this action is finalized. While it is true that the end users cannot be certain whether EPA would 

finalize its action to change the status of all of the high-GWP substitutes proposed, the end 

users are well aware of the other available substitutes that are acceptable. As noted by other 

commenters, other end users have already made the transition or have begun the process of 

transitioning and the commenter has not provided any reason why it is unique and cannot also 

do so. However, we note that the final rule establishes a change of status date of January 1, 

2020, which will provide the end user four and a half years to make the transition.

 Kairak commented that all of their marketing and sales literature will need to be updated. 

[0037] 

EPA Response: EPA does not consider updating the company’s marketing and sales literature to 

be a technical challenge that affects the availability of alternative foam blowing agents. Thus, 

EPA has not considered this in establishing the status change date. EPA also believes these 

changes can be made concurrently with technical work.

 Thermo-Kool was concerned with the shelf life of their product, specifically that the 

solubility does not allow the product to stay within the system long enough to actually 

produce. Bally commented that the shelf-life and continued solubility of HFC alternatives is 

of paramount importance and must be demonstrated by thorough and robust testing. Bally 

noted that instability must be eliminated as an issue, but this is not yet the case for any HFC 

alternative in the insulated panel sector. Helmer and Thermo Fisher Scientific commented

that within their industry and their customers' industry, brand new substitutes, like the 

Honeywell Solstice foam blowing agent, need to be fully evaluated regarding their end 

product impact and long term stability across a wide array of end products and 

environmental conditions before they can be implemented into routine manufacture and 

use. UTMC tested a prototype formulation using Honeywell’s Solstice LBA, but found the 

alternative was unacceptable in the areas of tensile adhesion, roller abrasion, and 

dimensional stability. UTMC tests indicated the prototype foam did not meet the required 

minimums to demonstrate long-term stability, and failed less than half the number of 

abrasion cycles compared with the current HFC-245fa formulation. UTMC commented that 

such a foam de-lamination failure could cause a refrigerated trailer to collapse under load, 

given the right circumstances. [0037, 0213, 0047, 0218, 0025]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that there must be thorough testing of foam formulations with 

alternative foam blowing agents in order to achieve stable foam before an end user can 
114

transition to an alternative. EPA has considered this need for additional testing as part of the 

status change date of January 1, 2020, for the rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich 

panel end-use. Also see sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.

 Imperial Brown requested that EPA consider changing the status change date from January 

1, 2017, to January 1, 2025. Imperial Brown provided details on the time needed for the 

foam testing process, subsequent storage to ensure foam stability over time, and the 

subsequent testing by testing companies and local jurisdictions. Imperial Brown estimated 

the timeframe could range from several months to over a year. Metl-Span suggested a 

status change date five years beyond that in the proposed rule. Metl-Span commented that 

HFC-152a and HCs are flammable and may require national and local fire safety restrictions 

for storage and processing and additional air permitting and other regulatory compliance. 

They said this would require engineering, specifying, purchasing, manufacturing, installation 

and accreditation before they can be placed into service. Metl-Span also stated that HFC152a and HCs constitute dissimilar processing and performance characteristics from each 

other, forcing a choice to be made at the outset of the conversion process. Furthermore, 

Metl-Span commented that initial tests indicated that LBA and GBA HFOs (i.e., trans-1-

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene and HFO-1234ze(E)) are not viable alternatives and 

furthermore the HFOs are not fully accredited in these markets. Metl-Span commented that 

a facility’s natural environment can present additional problems needing individual 

solutions. Huntsman requested a later status change date, stating that the long-term 

performance of HFOs is not widely proven. Huntsman commented that a number of articles

indicate that the HFOs trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and (z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-

hexafluoro-2-butene (HFO-1336mzz(Z)) are not flammable and have low thermal 

conductivities that are desirable for rigid PU insulation foam applications. However, 

Huntsman has not found sufficient published data related to the long-term performance of 

these HFOs in rigid PU foam applications. Huntsman also commented that because of 

supply issues they have not had an opportunity to assess long-term performance of HFOs in 

various rigid foam applications, including metal sandwich panels, water heaters, metal 

(entry) doors, and panels for commercial refrigeration. [0181, 0100, 0180]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the detailed information provided by these commenters 

regarding the technical hurdles they face in adopting alternatives, including performance and 

testing of new alternatives, testing specific to a particular market segment, and site-specific 

environmental factors, among other things. See sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to 

the final rule. Based on this information and information provided by other commenters, we 

believe that foam manufacturers will need approximately five years to perform the necessary 

research, testing, and certifications in this end-use, including development and testing for the 

HFOs, regulatory approvals for storage and use of flammable blowing agents, and in the case of 

HCs, addressing any necessary air permitting requirements.

 Supermarket Company ABC commented that wall and freezer panel changes can have 

significant impacts on store design and construction cycles. For new stores, these cycles 

typically run two to three years, meaning that stores are already designed that will open 
115

after January 1, 2017. Changes to panel dimensions and methods of construction will 

require building design changes for these projects. That will result in increased store design 

fees and can negatively impact space available for other uses within if increased

refrigerated storage space is needed. Extending this deadline to 2020 would allow changes 

to be accounted for in the earliest design phases of future stores. [0200]

EPA Response: For the reasons discussed in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the 

final rule, EPA has established a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels. This will accommodate the store design and construction 

cycles mentioned by the commenter, as well. 

 A number of commenters in the commercial refrigeration industry, including Nor-Lake, 

American Panel, Thermo-Kool, Bally, Imperial Brown, and Metl-Span, expressed concern 

about the proposed change of status date in light of the limited number of testing 

laboratories and the likelihood of a backlog of untested products, which they suggest would 

be exacerbated with an early change of status date like that proposed. [0097, 0037, 0076, 

0213, 0084, 0100]

EPA Response: For the reasons discussed in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a in the preamble to the 

final rule, EPA has established a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels. As noted, this is in part due to the need to accommodate 

testing in light of the concerns raised by these and other commenters.

 AMS commented that changes to the insulation system used on its vending machines will 

require review by its safety approval agencies, which would add to the burden and 

timelines. [0109]

EPA Response: It is not clear from the comment if AMS is referring to third-party testing 

organizations, such as UL, ETL, or FM, or if they are referring to their local fire marshal or OSHA 

nor is it clear how much time they believe would be needed. Regardless, based on the 

information that has been provided by various commenters, the change of status date of 

January 1, 2020, provides sufficient time for the necessary testing to occur. 

Rigid PU Appliance Foam

 Whirlpool commented that the proposed transition time for refrigerator freezer foam 

blowing agents will limit their options for alternative technologies and supplier 

partnerships, and could disrupt business operations, because Whirlpool was unable to 

transition in this timeframe to any alternative. Whirlpool commented that contrary to what 

is advertised by chemical producers, there is no “drop in” alternative for foam blowing 

agents for panels used in refrigerators, regardless of the substance being replaced and the 

selected alternative. They stated that transitioning from one blowing agent to another is a 

major engineering and manufacturing challenge to execute; this transition requires 

significant engineering design, testing, and approvals to ensure all product requirements are 
116

met, but also to ensure that the manufacturing process is delivering a product with the 

quality levels and cost that U.S. consumers expect. Whirlpool suggested that EPA adopt a 

change of status date that allows “natural market forces” to direct manufacturer's decisions 

on which alternatives to pursue, adequate time to pursue those alternatives, and time for 

the supply base to meet its demand. [0037, 0198]

EPA Response: Concerning the status change date for appliance foam, EPA has established a 

status change date of January 1, 2020, in the final rule, for the reasons discussed in sections 

V.D.2 and V.D.3.a in the preamble to the final rule. The information provided by these and 

other commenters support that transitioning from the HFCs undergoing a status change to 

other alternatives is not a simple process and requires time for development, testing, and 

verification that products meet required specifications. To the extent that Whirlpool is raising 

cost as a basis for modifying the proposed status change date, see section VII.A.7 of the 

preamble to the final rule. 

XPS

 Mexichem advocated a later status change date. They commented that system houses need 

to conduct several activities when transitioning to an alternative blowing agent, such as 

obtain permits or make modifications to existing permits, make equipment changes, 

establish raw material suppliers, develop formulations, test final products; and obtain final 

product review and approval by relevant boards or agencies. Arkema and DiversiFoam 

Products commented that a change in a blowing agent is technically difficult, entailing 

redesigned screws, barrels, dies, metering equipment, and storage equipment, plus 

selection of compatible additives (catalysts and surfactants), qualification of the final 

product, and modification of environmental permits. Arkema estimated that previous 

blowing agent transitions for XPS have taken up to seven years. [0101, 0131, 0030]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that a number of activities are required when transitioning to an 

alternative blowing agent, such as those mentioned by these commenters, and that these 

activities will require time beyond the proposed status change date. To the extent that Arkema 

is suggesting that seven years is needed to transition for XPS foams, we note that they did not 

provide any detail about why that is the case – i.e., how much time is needed for the various 

activities that must occur. As provided in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a in the preamble to the 

final rule, we are establishing a status change date of January 1, 2021. 

PU Marine Flotation Foam

 The American Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA) commented that to preserve 

the viability of the manufacturers in the composites industry, and their ability to provide 

important products, they request a 2020 date for the change of status for HFC-134a in foam 

blowing end-uses for the composites industry. ACMA commented that virtually all 

recreational boats manufactured today that employ fiberglass composite hulls utilize HFC134a for insulation. ACMA remarked that HFC-134a is certified by the USCG for this 
117

purpose, and their industry does not currently have a commercially available USCG 

approved alternative. ACMA asked EPA to delay, until 2020, the phaseout of the composites 

industry’s use of HFC-134a as a blowing agent for PU foam in order to provide time for the 

USCG approval process. A private citizen in the boating industry with Independent Boat 

Builders noted that, once they are supplied with an acceptable foam alternative, each 

model would have to be tested completely, and each boat builder may have as many as 20 

models that require testing, which they believe will be impossible to complete by January 1, 

2017. In the absence of an adequate, fully tested and approved, HFC-134a replacement, the 

commenter supported the NMMA’s request that EPA establish a change of status date of

2022. Additionally, a private citizen commented that their fiberglass small business boat 

builder members will have to stop building boats if they cannot use HFC-134a to meet the 

USCG safety requirements for flotation foam. The commenter also stated that if a suitable 

alternative exists, they are not opposed to working with EPA on a phaseout of HFC-134a, 

but they need to do it in an informed, timely manner. [0132, 0043, 0165]

EPA response: For the reasons stated in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the 

final rule, EPA has established a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU marine 

flotation foam. This date applies to all users of rigid PU marine flotation foam and not just the 

composites industry, as we have received no technical information indicating that there are 

different technical challenges for this subset of users of rigid PU marine flotation foam. This 

date allows for the necessary government approval processes.

Integral Skin PU

 BASF commented that the status change date for integral skin PU should be no earlier than 

July 1, 2017. They stated that integral skin PU requires a blowing agent to produce a 

necessary skin on the surface of the flexible foam, and that the system components must be 

chosen carefully because people will come into direct contact with the foam. BASF 

estimated at least two years would be needed to formulate a system to meet the 

requirements for this industry, based on the very limited success to date with using 

hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) blowing agents. BASF expected to need another six months to 

commercialize their systems. [0093]

EPA Response: BASF has not noted the specific technical challenges found to date with integral 

skin PU with HFOs. We note that there are already alternative blowing agents used in this enduse, primarily CO2, and other blowing agents in addition to HFOs are acceptable, including light 

saturated HCs, water, ecomate (methyl formate), methylal, and HFC-152a. A period of two and 

a half years after issuance of the NPRM would be January 2017, rather than the July 1, 2017,

date suggested by the commenter. EPA has established a status change date of January 1, 2017,

for integral skin PU in the final rule, as proposed. See also section V.D.2.b of the preamble to 

the final rule.
118

Other Comments on Product Research and Development, Testing, and Certification

 Solvay commented that seismic and wind tests, which are required in roofing and other 

applications, are needed to assess long-term in-situ performance. Solvay commented that 

additional time to conduct testing and maintain fire safety approvals may be necessary, and 

modifications of building and fire codes themselves may be necessary to accommodate 

alternatives. Solvay commented that as blowing agents, HFCs used in building materials 

must meet building code requirements to ensure that they reduce flammability hazards but 

that there is a lack of HFC alternative systems that meet Class 1 fire code rating 

requirements, which include having a flame spread at or under 25 and a smoke 

development rating that does not exceed 450, as per ASTM E84, “Standard Test Method of 

Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials.” BASF also claimed that many of their 

customers need agency approvals from UL and FM Insurance Company and certifications to 

sell products that require a flammability rating. [0093, 0098] 

EPA Response: EPA agrees that some types of foam used in construction will need to be tested 

for performance in seismic and wind tests and that it is important to consider the time for this 

testing in setting the change of status date. Similarly, time is required for flammability testing 

and Class 1 certification. We consider these tests to be part of the certification testing 

described in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.

Concerning modifications of building and fire codes, the commenter has not specified any 

alternative foam blowing agents prohibited by building and fire codes or specific types of code 

requirements that might require revision in order to adopt alternative foam blowing agents. 

EPA is not aware of any such prohibitions related to foam blowing agents.

 Solvay commented that with regard to catalyst technology, which is critically important in 

the production of PU foams, of the approximately 40 commercially available amine catalysts 

used in PU production today, only one is compatible with HFOs, and odor properties of this 

catalyst prevent its use indoors. Solvay noted that catalyst suppliers have confirmed that 

new catalyst technology will likely be needed to use HFOs since products that offend the 

sense of smell are unsellable. Solvay commented that this presents a huge barrier to early 

adoption of this technology, and adequate time must be given to allow for compatible 

chemicals to be developed. Solvay stated that otherwise, the effect of this proposal will be 

to ban the use of PU foam. [0098] 

EPA Response: EPA agrees that time is required to develop catalyst technology to work with 

new olefinic blowing agents for a number of PU foam end-uses. In determining the appropriate 

status change dates for the final rule, we considered this as part of the time needed to develop 

formulations. EPA is establishing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU appliance 

foam, rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, and rigid PU flotation foam, and a 

status change date of January 1, 2019, for rigid PU slabstock and other foam for the reasons 

stated in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.
119

 Solvay commented that with only test quantities of material available to most users, the 

process of formula optimization and testing of pre-production samples, field testing, and 

qualification testing for commercially-produced products made with alternatives are years 

away. Solvay commented that most product manufacturers agreed that it will be 2020 or 

2022 before products made with non-HFC technology could be commercialized. [0098]

EPA Response: EPA considered the time needed for formulation and testing (in particular for 

some alternatives that are not yet commercially available) in establishing the status change

dates for the various foam blowing end-uses in the final rule. See sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a 

of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of change of status dates adopted in the final 

rule. 

 DuPont stated that while foam producers have continued to evaluate lower-GWP foam 

expansion agents, many of these manufacturers have been unable to find the next technical 

solution that is anticipated to be commercially available by EPA’s proposed status change 

date. DuPont commented that in some cases this is due to polyol blend and foam stability 

issues with an olefin alternative. [0077]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that there must be sufficiently thorough testing of foam 

formulations with alternative foam blowing agents in order to achieve stable foam before an 

end user can transition to an alternative. EPA has considered this need for additional testing as 

part of the status change dates of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU appliance foam, rigid PU 

commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, and rigid PU flotation foam, and a change of 

status date of January 1, 2019, for rigid PU slabstock and other foam. Also see sections V.D.2.b 

and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.

4.2.3 Challenges Associated with Conversion, System Redesign, and Validation

Rigid PU Spray Foam

 Clayton commented that due to the instability of HFO-1234ze(E) as compared with the 

stability of HFC-134a, the transition away from HFC-134a will be significantly more difficult 

than the change of status listing for HCFC-22. Clayton stated that the proposed status 

change date of January 1, 2017, does not provide an adequate amount of time to identify a 

replacement gaseous blowing agent and to accommodate lengthy reformulation and 

testing. Clayton commented that it sells its 2K LP SPF products to various industries, each 

with strict regulatory testing requirements, and that each of these steps significantly adds 

to the timeframe to comply with the SNAP Program. They stated that it can take up to 12

months to successfully field trial and approve a new product. In addition, Clayton 

commented that their initial testing has shown that HFO-1234ze(E) is not a drop-in 

replacement for HFC-134a, and that it is a massive project to reformulate and requalify each 

of their 2K LP SPF products. Clayton commented that its testing demonstrates that HFO1234ze(E) does degrade and cause issues with stability, toxicity, corrosion and storage. 

[0133]
120

 RHH commented that, for low-pressure two-component spray foam systems, the 

determining factors to implement replacement blowing agents include the time needed to

reformulate their systems, the suitability of the existing alternative blowing agents which 

will meet specific performance requirements and physical properties, and other factors 

including required testing and certification. RHH stated that once they create a stable 

formulation, they must have the formulation tested to meet all of the approvals required 

for the wide variety of applications, which takes a considerable amount of time, and if a 

product fails, they must again reformulate and retest. RHH noted that all voluntary and 

mandatory testing requires the use of third-party testing facilities like UL or Intertek and 

that these tests take many months to complete. With the proposed rule, RHH believed

there will be a large influx of products submitted for testing and they expect that capacity 

issues will cause even longer times to get products tested and certified. [0112]

 Fomo Products urged EPA to consider extending the January 1, 2017, status change date for 

HFC-134a in LP SPF and low-pressure pour-in place. Fomo Products commented that a later 

date will be essential in order to surmount the extraordinary technical challenges that they 

face in reformulation and requested a status change date of 2020 to fully integrate a safe 

and effective transition. Fomo Products stated that normally, successful low-pressure foam 

formulations go through years of shelf-life studies, field testing, and external testing to 

ensure that a safe, quality product will be on the market. [0139]

 ASC and 3M commented that the proposed status change date of January 1, 2017, would 

need to be extended by at least two years if HFC-134a is listed as unacceptable for use in

spray adhesive applications. The commenters noted that their products need specific 

bonding properties to withstand high wind and heavy precipitation during roofing 

applications. They also noted that this would require performance testing that includes 

Miami Dade, ICC-ES, DSA IR15-2, Class A Rated, ASTM E-108, TRI Approved, Miami Dade 

County, Florida Building Code, Texas Department of Insurance Evaluation and various FM

Uplift Wind Testing protocols. [0046, 0064]

 CPI stated that EPA should consider information regarding testing entities’ current or 

expected capacity when developing the final rule, and should ensure that the status change 

dates in the final rule align with the capacity and the timeframes required to complete new 

product testing. Solvay commented that the spray foam industry faces significant technical 

challenges such as solubility and compatibility with other spray foam ingredients to 

maximize performance. Lapolla stated that with support from Honeywell, and the general 

responsive action by most testing laboratories, a relatively swift transition is feasible. [0096, 

0175, 0098]

EPA Response: At this time, EPA is not taking final action on a change of status for HFC-134a as 

a foam blowing agent in spray foam applications, including low-pressure spray foam systems 

and foam sealants. See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule.
121

Rigid PU Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels

 A number of companies in the commercial refrigeration industry mentioned that they 

would likely need to redesign their products, manufacturing equipment, manufacturing 

process, or facilities to accommodate alternative foam blowing agents. For example, 

Continental Refrigerator mentioned new storage, distribution and dispensing equipment, as 

well as tighter, temperature-controlled foaming fixtures. According to Continental 

Refrigerator, some products would need to be redesigned, to eliminate leakage of viscous 

liquid foam during manufacturing. NAM commented that lower-GWP foam blowing agents 

will require product redesign, which in some cases will trigger additional action from other 

regulatory agencies, such as FDA. Federal Industries commented that changing to an 

alternate urethane foam insulation that does not use HFC-134a blowing agents could 

require design and fabrication of new manufacturing fixtures. Hoshizaki America 

commented that they have to order capital tooling for each model group to make sizespecific tooling. LPA noted that many lab products will need to be redesigned to 

accommodate higher operating pressure of alternative foam blowing agents, and that 

existing systems will have to be modified. Similarly, Helmer, a manufacturer of laboratory 

equipment including refrigerators and freezers, commented that replacing foams would 

require a redesign of all of their cabinets because the replacement foams have a higher 

operating pressure that exceeds the design capacities of their current cabinets and fixtures. 

Helmer stated that they have multiple fixtures that would need to be replaced, and the 

replacement fixtures are supplied by two companies that have a delivery lead time of 12 to 

18 months per fixture. Zero Zone stated that many of the new systems use a “pour in place” 

delivery system instead of the “auto frothing” delivery system that they use. They suggested 

a minimum of six years will be needed to make conversions. Thermo-Kool believed that 

there are a lot of uncertainties regarding equipment modifications that would be required 

for HFOs. They believed that if HCs are used as an alternative, explosion proof motors and 

equipment would be required, and lead times for such equipment would significantly be 

increased due to the demand from all walk-in manufacturers. UL stated that they believed 

EPA should set a status change date to provide sufficient time for manufacturers to safely 

re-design their products and implement the changes in production. [0122, 0129, 0138, 

0217, 0073, 0171, 0037, 0083, 0027, 0218]

EPA Response: In the final rule, EPA has established a status change date of January 1, 2020, for 

rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, in light of the technical concerns raised 

by these and other commenters and the information they submitted to support these concerns.

While some commenters suggested periods of time for certain activities they did not place 

those timeframes in context. For example, while Helmer suggested a lead time of 12 to 18 

months is needed per fixture, they did not indicate how many fixtures need to be replaced nor 

whether replacement would need to happen serially or could overlap. Similarly, Zero Zone did 

not provide detail on why they believe that 6 years is needed to make conversions. See also 

sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.
122

 Bally noted that international building codes and all local building codes could potentially 

require the redesign of panel systems based on structural testing results. [0037, 0213]

EPA Response: EPA recognizes that structural testing is part of the testing required for panel 

systems and that based on the results of such testing, panel systems may need to be 

redesigned and retested. EPA considered the time needed for testing and certification in setting 

the status change date of January 1, 2020, for this end-use. See sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of 

the preamble to the final rule.

 Thermo Fisher and Helmer commented that combining the design efforts for the physical 

implementation with the re-registration of regulated products opens the severe risk of 

limiting product availability. Helmer noted that when the current EPA proposed timeline 

comes into effect, if the regulated product has not completed the required design and 

approval steps, then the end user will have to use an alternative that hasn’t been validated, 

which will negatively impact the end user. [0218, 0047]

EPA Response: We understand the concern of the commenter and have accounted for it in 

establishing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU commercial refrigeration and 

sandwich panels. See sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.

 A number of manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment, including Master-Bilt, 

Nor-Lake, Federal Industries, Hillphoenix, Zero Zone, American Panel, and Imperial Brown, 

raised concerns that alternative foam blowing agents have different insulation properties 

and would require thicker panels to achieve comparable R-values. Master-Bilt stated that 

this would result in either changing the size of refrigeration equipment or reducing the 

usable interior space. Imperial Brown stated that International Building Code IBC section 

2603.4.1.3 states that when panel thicknesses increase beyond 4” thermal barriers and/or 

automatic fire suppression equipment must be installed, increasing the expense of 

equipment with thicker foam. American Panel commented that thicker panels that meet 

new DOE R-value requirements must cure in the fixture approximately 33% longer, so the 

manufacturer will lose significant production capacity, basically 33%. Several commenters 

requested additional time for development of compatible foam systems for alternative 

blowing agents and complete testing of alternative blowing agents to allow for availability 

of foam blowing agents that would produce equal or better R-values and would not affect 

the ability to meet DOE’s energy conservation standards. [0037, 0092, 0076, 0138, 0171, 

0104, 0097, 0181]

EPA Response: EPA acknowledges that different foam blowing agents have different insulation 

values, and some of the alternatives (e.g., CO2, water) would require thicker panels than foam 

blown with HFCs to achieve comparable R-values (insulation values). Other alternatives, such as 

trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene and HFO-1336mzz(Z), are expected to provide 

comparable or better R-values than HFCs. For the reasons discussed in sections V.D.2.b and 

V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule, EPA is establishing a status change date of January 1, 

2020, for rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel. This change of status date will 
123

allow time to increase the supply of alternatives that result in better insulation values, for 

optimization of other alternatives to reduce the likelihood of panel thicknesses beyond 4” or 

longer curing times that could result in significantly decreased production capacity, or for 

redesign of commercial refrigeration equipment. 

XPS

 Owens Corning commented that the use of blowing agents containing HCs or HFO1234ze(E) in their manufacturing process creates safety, fire, and explosion risks that are 

unacceptable to them. They state that risk reduction will require careful planning, 

significant capital investments, and management of human factors. Owens Corning stated 

that a 2017 status change date will prevent them from developing a safe alternative that 

also meets the objectives of the President's Climate Action Plan (CAP). Owens Corning's 

unique manufacturing process operates at temperatures and pressures significantly in 

excess of the standard temperature and pressures that are represented as safe by the HFO 

manufacturer. Owens Corning noted that the safety risks and added costs to try and 

minimize those risks make HFOs an unacceptable and unviable option for meeting the 

proposed January 1, 2017, status change date for HFC-134a. [0035, 0085]

EPA response: If an alternative is in its flammable range at the temperature and pressures of 

Owens Corning’s manufacturing process, then capital investment and engineering will need to 

occur before it is an available alternative. EPA has established a status change date of January 

1, 2021 for XPS, as stated in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule. This 

status change date considers time to reengineer facilities to address such safety issues.

4.2.4 Interactions with Other Rules

Rigid PU Spray Foam

 Clayton, a manufacturer of rigid PU low-pressure two-part spray foam systems, noted that 

there are numerous manufacturing concerns when HFO-1234ze(E) is introduced into 

manufacturing plants. They commented that EPA and OSHA regulations, and their internal 

rules, all govern their manufacturing facilities, and that these regulations require a specific 

process for safety testing and training when they make changes in their manufacturing 

facilities. Clayton stated that once production issues have been resolved, field trials can be 

initiated, and an estimate to convert their equipment and performing pilot batches is 180 

days. [0133]

EPA Response: EPA is not finalizing a change of status for rigid PU spray foam in this final rule. 

See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule.
124

Rigid PU Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels

 Helmer commented that many of the lab products utilizing blown foam are listed/approved 

by regulatory bodies both domestically (e.g., the FDA) and globally (e.g., the Ministry of 

Health, World Health Organization), and more time will be needed to validate the design 

changes and maintain the registrations than the current proposed status change date

affords. Helmer also commented that a step change in the equipment used to support end 

users’ protocol, including extensive clinical studies (e.g., drug development and 

manufacture), will need time to be re-validated by FDA. Helmer noted that current Ministry 

of Health and Welfare (Japanese FDA) registrations can take two to three years to get 

approval before exporting products from the United States. LPA noted that for medical 

devices listed with the FDA, any changes to the status listings will be complicated by the 

FDA’s regulatory timelines. [0218, 0073]

 Solvay commented that DOT requirements apply to certain applications, like refrigerated 

transport. These important performance requirements, and the time necessary to produce 

commercial products that satisfy these requirements, have not been adequately addressed 

by EPA. [0098]

EPA Response: We considered certification and testing requirements, as well as the need to 

meet other federal regulatory requirements, in establishing a change of status date of January 

1, 2020, for the rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels end-use. See sections 

V.D.2.b of the preamble to the final rule. 

Rigid PU Marine Flotation Foam

 A private citizen commented that even if acceptable alternatives were available to boat 

builders today, more time would be needed to meet EPA and USCG requirements coupled 

with time for testing and operator training. Structural Composites remarked that in their 

marine products, the foam provides both structure and flotation, thus the change of 

blowing agent involves much work and buy-in from their customers and from regulatory 

agencies such as the USCG, American Bureau of Shipping, American Boat and Yacht Council, 

and DoD, depending on the application. Structural Composites commented that once a 

proven alternative is available, they will need four to six years for transition to allow time 

for plant evaluations, customer acceptance trials, agency certification, and plant conversion.

Solvay commented that USCG requirements apply to buoyancy foams. These important 

performance requirements, and the time necessary to produce commercial products that 

satisfy these requirements, have not been adequately addressed by EPA. [0043, 0037, 0172, 

0098]

EPA Response: EPA has established a status change date of January 1, 2020, for the rigid PU 

marine flotation foam end-use in the final rule for the reasons discussed in sections V.D.2.b and 

V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule. We expect that this will provide sufficient time to test 

and to meet regulatory requirements, as well as to perform plant evaluations and conversion. 
125

BASF, a major systems house working with end users in the marine flotation foam end-use, has 

commented that EPA should establish a change of status date no earlier than July 1, 2019, for 

this end-use, and Honeywell, a supplier of olefin alternatives, has stated that the technical 

requirements for this use may be much simpler than other industries in which customers are 

already transitioning—both implying that it should be technically feasible to meet a date of 

January 1, 2020. The method of applying the foam via injection for rigid PU marine flotation 

foam is essentially the same as for rigid PU appliance foam or rigid PU commercial refrigeration 

foam, so we do not see a technical reason why this end-use should require longer than those 

end-uses. This status change date should accommodate the time needed for operator training 

and customer acceptance, although those are not technical factors that serve as the basis of 

our selection of the status change date. 

4.3 Environmental Impacts of Proposed Rule

EPA received comments on the environmental impacts of the proposed status listing changes 

for the various foam blowing agents, including those from ACMA, AHAM, American Panel, AMS, 

Arkema, CPI, Crown Tonka, DuPont, Dow, Honeywell, Imperial Brown, International Cold 

Storage, IP Moulding, Mexichem, NAMA, NRDC and IGSD, Owens Corning, Pactiv Building 

Products, Structural Composites, Sub-Zero, ThermalRite Walk-Ins, Thermo Fisher Scientific, 

Thermo-Kool, Whirlpool, XPSA, and private citizens. EPA responds to many of these comments 

in section V.D.3.c of the preamble to the final rule. EPA also received comments concerning the 

energy efficiency, atmospheric lifetimes of the proposed status listing changes, and EPA’s 

ENERGY STAR program. These comments are summarized and addressed in this section. 

4.3.1 Energy Efficiency

 Several commenters remarked on the insulation value of the foam when using alternative 

foam blowing agents. Hillphoenix stated that there are currently no available alternatives 

for walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration panels in sufficient quantity or that are in 

compatible equipment that would produce R-values equal to or better than those 

mandated by DOE and the chemical companies cannot provide any schedule of availability. 

Master-Bilt stated that the available alternatives are CO2 and Ecomate, and they are 

incapable of producing foam with comparable R-values to foam blown with HFC-245fa. 

Continental Refrigerator stated that, in practice, the alternative foam blowing agents 

provide less thermal insulation (i.e., lower R-value). NRDC and IGSD commented that EPA’s 

proposal recognizes that, from a climate perspective, it is important that substitute foams 

used for building insulation can perform their insulating function as well as the current 

materials using high-GWP materials, and they noted that substitutes on the market now 

appear to do so. CPI noted that applying thicker foam, as the proposed rule suggests, is not 

an acceptable commercial or technical solution in all instances. CPI remarked that EPA 

should consider the thermal performance of alternative blowing agents in the development 

of the final rule where there are existing, or potential, market barriers for less thermally 

efficient foam insulation products. [0104, 0122, 0108, 0175, 0092]
126

EPA Response: EPA agrees that foam has an important function in providing insulation for 

appliances and building materials. In response to the comments from Hillphoenix, Master-Bilt, 

Continental Refrigerator, NRDC and IGSD, and CPI, see sections V.D.3.c and VII.C.3 of the 

preamble to the final rule and section 6.4.2 of this document. 

In response to Master-Bilt’s comment about CO2 and Ecomate, EPA notes that other 

alternatives are acceptable for this end-use that are able to provide comparable or better Rvalues than those from HFC-blown foam, such as trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, HFO1234ze(E), and HFO-1336mzz(Z). EPA has heard that some companies have successfully used 

Ecomate while meeting DOE energy conservation standards. Further, DOE energy conservation 

standards are met by a piece of equipment, rather than by the foam blowing agent in isolation. 

Examples of other characteristics of a foam that also contribute to greater energy efficiency of 

refrigeration equipment include thickness of the foam, size and uniformity of the cells in the 

foam, the ability of a foam to flow evenly around corners and fill an entire cavity, and 

dimensional stability.

In response to CPI’s comment that EPA should consider thermal performance as well as 

Continental Refrigerator’s comment that the alternative foam blowing agents provide less 

thermal insulation, EPA notes that for all foam end-uses affected by this rule, there are multiple 

acceptable alternatives and technical designs, and manufacturers may choose the combinations 

of design and alternative that offer the best efficiency for the particular product. Additionally, 

EPA notes that based on the information in our possession, there is a range of thermal 

conductivity and insulation values among the alternatives, with some having lower values than 

the HFCs EPA proposed to list as unacceptable, some having higher values, and others having 

comparable values. 

In response to Hillphoenix’s comment about the lack of currently available alternatives or 

compatible equipment that would produce R-values equal to or better than those needed to 

meet DOE standards, EPA understands that not all alternatives perform equally in all cases and 

that there is often an iterative process between the foam system house and the end user in 

developing and testing new foam formulations. For some of the potential alternatives, EPA also 

understands that a change from a gaseous agent to a liquid agent could require additional 

familiarity with the agent’s characteristics and changes to dispensing equipment for blowing 

the foam. We note that the final rule establishes a status change date of January 1, 2020, for 

rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel and for rigid PU appliance foam to allow 

for greater supply of various alternatives and development of formulations by foam systems 

houses. EPA anticipates that this will allow for commercial availability of systems for alternative 

foam blowing agents that will provide R-values sufficient for use in equipment to meet DOE 

energy conservation standards. Additionally, EPA notes no information provided suggests that 

all of the alternatives that remain acceptable result in lower energy efficiency. In fact, in the 

preamble to the rule we point out information that indicates that the opposite can be true—

that the acceptable alternatives not subject to a status change have been used in equipment or 

used to produce insulating foam that provide for better energy efficiency. As indicated in the 

proposal and several comments, equipment containing rigid PU appliance foam or rigid PU 
127

commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel is subject to various energy conservation 

standards set by the DOE. These standards must be met regardless of the foam blowing agent 

used. We have no information that indicates those foam blowing agents that are not subject to 

a change in status for the various end-uses affected by this rule cannot be used in equipment 

that would meet the applicable standards.

In response to CPI’s comment that applying thicker foam is not an acceptable commercial or 

technical solution in all instances, EPA agrees that there may be some situations where space 

constraints prevent use of a thicker foam. However, in some other situations, thicker foam is a 

viable option to provide improved insulation values. We believe the range of acceptable foam 

blowing agents allows both for improving insulation values through foam reformulation, 

including the foam blowing agent, and through increasing foam thickness, where that is a viable 

option. 

See sections V.B.6.a, V.C.7, and VII.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule where EPA further 

discusses energy efficiency concerns.

4.3.2 ENERGY STAR Requirements

 Helmer and Thermo Fisher Scientific commented that they have been working with DOE 

and EPA in developing ENERGY STAR requirements for refrigerated laboratory products 

since 2010, and a change in the cabinet insulating properties will invalidate the baseline 

testing results currently being reviewed by the DOE. Helmer noted that baseline data was 

collated (using the older foam technologies) and test methods were finalized by the DOE 

only on July 16, 2014, with an imminent implementation date. Helmer and Thermo Fisher 

Scientific commented that manufacturers of lab products utilizing blown foam need time to 

accommodate ENERGY STAR requirements while transitioning to an alternate blown foam 

technology. [0047, 0218]

EPA Response: There is currently no DOE federal minimum efficiency standard for refrigerated 

laboratory products. As the commenters note, development of an ENERGY STAR specification 

for laboratory grade refrigeration is underway, and the Agency is appreciative of commenters’ 

involvement in that process, including the submission of efficiency data. EPA is willing to work 

with stakeholders to update data for the ENERGY STAR program as needed. We disagree that it 

is necessary for EPA to move the status change date later in order to accommodate the 

voluntary ENERGY STAR process, since that consideration is not relevant for determining when 

safer alternatives are available. However, for the reasons provided in the preamble to the final 

rule, we are establishing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels and that time can be used to address the commenters’ 

concerns.

 NAMA, a trade group representing manufacturers of vending machines, commented that 

the proposed rule would have an impact on meeting ENERGY STAR requirements based on 

using foam blowing agents currently being used in the industry, and the proposal would 
128

impact energy usage. NAMA urged EPA to request a formal opinion from the ENERGY STAR 

office on potential impacts of this rule on meeting their requirements before moving 

forward with a final rule.

EPA Response: EPA intends to revise the ENERGY STAR requirements for vending machines to 

reflect the remaining acceptable foam blowing agents before the status change date of January 

1, 2020 for rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel. In setting the ENERGY STAR 

requirements, the ENERGY STAR program considers performance requirements under DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. DOE is in the process of developing revisions to its energy 

conservation standards for vending machines. ENERGY STAR would evaluate the need for a 

potential revision after those federal standards are revised. Thus, there will be an opportunity 

for ENERGY STAR requirements to be updated to reflect the acceptable foam blowing agents 

under the SNAP program before the change of status for certain HFC foam blowing agents.

4.3.3 Toxicity of Foams

 Owens Corning stated that spray foams are not a viable alternative to XPS foam due to the 

risk of exposure to isocyanates in spray foams, which can lead to skin, eye, and lung 

irritation as well as asthma. [0085]

EPA Response: EPA reviews XPS as a separate end-use from rigid PU spray foam. Nothing in the 

current rule would prohibit the use of XPS foams or require use of spray foam in place of XPS 

foam.

4.3.4 Life-cycle Impact of Acceptable Alternatives 

 CPI recommended that EPA consider all relevant factors and not just GWP when identifying 

alternative blowing agents for foam end-uses covered by the proposed status change rule, 

including a full analysis of the life-cycle impacts for foam insulation end-uses, in order to 

prevent conversions to less thermally efficient alternatives in foam insulation products. CPI 

commented that this is particularly important where the effect of EPA’s rule is to render 

some substances unacceptable for use while others with similar GWP remain acceptable. 

CPI stated that EPA would then be in a position to justify decisions that may affect different 

industry segments in distinct ways. Arkema stated that the failure to address energy use 

and other indirect emissions is “unusual for a comparative assessment of climate risks.” 

Arkema commented that in other contexts, including especially fuels, EPA has 

demonstrated that it knows how to calculate indirect emissions, and cited EPA Science 

Inventory, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Gasoline Alternatives: MTBE and Ethanol 

Additives (2004) and EPA Regulatory Announcement, EPA Life Cycle Analysis of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions from Renewable Fuels at 1 (2010). Arkema also stated that it is doubtful that 

EPA even has in hand the information needed to compare indirect emissions. Arkema stated

that if EPA is going to leave efficiency and design considerations, to manufacturers, then it 

should leave them a complete array of options, including the choice to use HFCs, so they 

can balance risks while considering efficiency. Further, Arkema asserted that if EPA is going 
129

to limit engineering innovation and market choice by specifying particular aspects of 

equipment designs, as in the NPRM, then it must analyze the effect of its decision on 

indirect emissions and compare the performance of the various alternatives, “comparing 

apples to apples.” [0175, 0131]

EPA Response: Life-cycle analysis has not historically been a criterion by which the SNAP 

program has evaluated the climate impacts of foam blowing agents. EPA does not have, nor 

have the commenters provided, sufficient quantitative information to allow calculation of 

specific indirect emission estimates or life-cycle GHG emission values. The SNAP program has 

required reporting of information on thermal conductivity of foam blowing agents, but not 

estimated impacts on indirect emissions; even that information on thermal conductivity is 

imperfect for the purpose of quantitative life-cycle assessment because of inconsistency in the 

way the information has been reported to the Agency. Even with available data, commenters 

have disagreed as to whether specific alternatives are more or less energy efficient or will result 

in greater or less thermal efficiency (e.g., see discussion on comparison of efficiency of HFO1234ze and HFC-134a in section V.D.3.c of the preamble.) Second, we are not aware of any 

industry or scientific agreement upon the way to perform life-cycle analyses for each end-use 

for thermal insulation foam or the assumptions to use in such analyses to assure an “apples to 

apples” comparison, nor have the commenters suggested an approach. CPI has provided a lifecycle analysis for rigid PU spray foam, but not for other uses. Third, other factors can affect the 

insulation value of foams in addition to the selection of foam blowing agent that can offset 

indirect emissions (e.g., thickness of the foam). EPA did qualitatively consider the potential 

impacts of different foam blowing agents on insulation value using available quantitative 

information on insulation values provided by a commenter (Honeywell, 2014) and thermal 

conductivity information in the possession of the Agency. Our analysis of these information 

sources indicated that there is overlap in the thermal conductivity values for different types of 

foam blowing agents and that the insulation value of olefin foam blowing agents are 

comparable to or better than that of HFC foam blowing agents. In addition, the performance of 

cyclopentane and methyl formate is not expected to be significantly different from that of HFC134a.

4.4 Cost Impacts 

EPA received comments on the cost impacts of the proposed status change listings for the 

various foam blowing agents from 3M, AHAM, American Panel, Arkema, Bally, BASF, CFESA, 

Clayton, Crown Tonka, DiversiFoam, DoD, Dow Chemical, FMI, HC Duke/Electro-Freeze, Helmer, 

Hillphoenix, Honeywell, Hussman, Imperial Brown, InterMetro Industries, Lapolla, LPA, marine

products manufacturers, Master-Bilt, Mexichem, NAFEM, NMMA, Nor-Lake, NRDC and IGSD, 

Owens Corning, Pactiv Building Products, RHH, Solvay, Sub-Zero, Supermarket Company ABC, 

Thermo-Kool, True Manufacturing, West Development Group, Whirlpool, XPSA, Zero Zone, and 

private citizens. EPA responds to many of these comments in section V.D.3.d of the preamble to 

final rule. The remainder are summarized and addressed in this section.
130

 XPSA anticipated the cost of the newer technology would significantly increase the cost of 

all XPS products. XPSA did not believe SNAP considered the cost effectiveness for XPS 

insulation. [0037]

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making 

listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. However, as discussed in 

section VII.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA performed an analysis of the costs of the 

proposed and final rules on businesses and a screening analysis of small business impacts. We 

specifically updated these analyses using cost information provided by commenters that are 

members of XPSA, as well as assuming the status change date in the final rule. These revised 

analyses found that overall costs would be higher for individual XPS manufacturers than in 

EPA’s analysis at the proposal stage, but there still would not be a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, and the overall cost to the XPS industry would not be 

significantly higher than in EPA’s analysis at the proposal stage. 

 3M commented that their Industrial Adhesives and Tapes Division is a smaller U.S. 

manufacturer of sprayable adhesive products that currently use HFC-134a as a blowing 

agent, and failure of these products during heavy rains or hurricane can result in 

catastrophic financial losses for property owners. [0064]

EPA Response: EPA is not taking final action in this rule on a change of status for HFC-134a as a 

foam blowing agent in spray foam applications, including foam sealants. See sections V.D.2.a 

and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule.

4.5 Acceptable Alternatives

EPA received comments, including 93 form letters from marine products manufacturers, on 

acceptable alternatives. Commenters included ACMA, American Panel, CARB, Arkema, AWIP, 

Bally, BASF, Clayton, Crown Tonka, DiversiFoam Products, Dow Chemical, DuPont, EIA, Fomo 

Products, Helmer, Hillphoenix, Honeywell, Huntsman, Hussmann, International Cold Storage, IP 

Moulding, Masonite International, Master-Bilt Products, Metl-Span, Mexichem, NAFEM, NAM, 

Nor-Lake, NRDC and IGSD, Owens Corning, Premium Spray Products, RHH, Solvay, Sub-Zero, 

ThermalRite Walk-Ins, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Thermo-Kool, UTMC, West Development 

Group, Whirlpool, and private citizens. EPA responds to many of these comments in sections 

V.D.3.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule. The remainder are summarized and 

addressed in this section.

4.5.1 Availability and Viability of Acceptable Alternatives

Rigid PU Spray Foam

 Fomo Products commented that they are deeply concerned at the lack of suitable 

alternative blowing agents for LP SPF and low-pressure pour-in-place foam categories. 
131

Fomo Products identified one alternative, HFO-1234ze(E) and commented that although it 

is recognized it can be stable in low-pressure OCF foams, OCF ingredients cannot be directly

substituted in low-pressure spray foam and pour-in-place foams due to differing 

requirements (e.g., slow moisture cure (OCF) versus a very fast chemical cure (low-pressure 

spray foam and pour-in-place). [0139]

 BASF supported the lack of a proposed change of status for HFC-245fa and certain other 

HFC blends for spray foam because of the lack of available alternatives, as “spray foam 

cannot readily transition to hydrocarbon blowing agents due to flammability concerns.”

BASF also supported the lack of status change for certain HFCs in spray foam because it

provides additional time to properly field test foam roof applications made using the next 

generation blowing agents. [0093]

 Clayton noted that there is only one substitute identified in the proposed rule as a 

replacement for HFC-134a, the non-flammable gaseous blowing agent currently used in 2K 

LP SPF. Clayton commented that the substitute, HFO-1234ze(E), has not been sufficiently 

laboratory tested or field tested in order to demonstrate that it would make a viable 

replacement for HFC-134a. [0133]

 RHH believed that while some of the new blowing agents work in other foam applications, 

they are not stable in the low-pressure two-component spray foam kits. [0112]

 Dow Chemical commented that the proposed rule does not identify a viable, low-GWP 

blowing agent solution for spray foam.

 NAM noted that two very low-GWP alternatives for high-pressure foams will be 

commercially available by 2019, which will aid this transition. [0129]

 West Development Group commented that they have used Honeywell’s Solstice 1233zd(E) 

in the manufacturing of sprayed PU roof foam since April 2013. West Development Group 

commented that they have produced and sold 757,000 lbs of spray foam polyol blend (B 

side) or (1,514,000 lbs of system A & B) using Solstice 1233zd(E) over the past 16 months. 

[0045]

EPA Response: EPA is not taking final action on a change of status for HFC-134a as a foam 

blowing agent in spray foam applications, including LP SPF systems and foam sealants. See 

sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule.

Rigid PU Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels

 A number of commenters raised concern about the commercial availability of formulated 

systems for blowing rigid PU commercial refrigeration foam and sandwich panels with 

alternative foam blowing agents. Thermo-Kool commented that the foam system houses, 

such as BASF, Dow Chemical, and Carpenter, do not have systems utilizing HFOs as blowing 
132

agents readily available. AWIP commented that commercialization of Honeywell Solstice for 

all three of AWIP’s plants is expected by mid-2015. [0037, 0084, 0067]

EPA Response: For the reasons discussed in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a in the preamble to the 

final rule, EPA has established a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels. This will provide additional time to for systems using 

alternative foam blowing agents to be formulated and commercialized.

 Master-Bilt also stated that no commercially available drop-in replacement exists for HFC134a or HFC-245fa, which makes the transition more difficult than the previous transition 

from CFCs to HFCs. Hussmann noted that at this time, alternatives to HFC foam which have 

equivalent R- values are being tested but are not offered in a mixed state (i.e., in formulated 

systems) for high volume manufacturing. AWIP supported the proposed listing of certain 

HFCs as unacceptable because Solstice (i.e., trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene) is 

commercially available, and allows them to improve their product while moving to the only 

truly clean blowing agent available. Bally commented that in the preamble to the NPRM, 

EPA identified C3-C6 light saturated hydrocarbons, EcomateTM, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing 

agents, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene as 

suitable blowing agent alternatives to HFC-245fa for use in rigid PU foam in commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels. Bally remarked that most of these alternatives have 

been determined inappropriate because they are unsuitable for use in structural 

applications (e.g., water), or their use is cost prohibitive because of the need for explosionproofing production facilities (e.g., light hydrocarbons). [0104, 0037, 0067, 0213]

EPA Response: Concerning the cost of explosion-proofing production facilities, as described in 

section VII.A.7 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA does not consider the cost of transition to 

other alternatives in making listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 

CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review.

However, we note that there are non-flammable alternatives that are commercially available, 

such as trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, HFO-1234ze(E), CO2 and water. Concerning Rvalues, see the previous response on commercial availability of formulated systems for 

alternative foam blowing agents. We also note that the status change date in the final rule of 

January 1, 2020, for rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels will have the effect 

of allowing capital costs to be spread over a longer period of time, making such investments 

more affordable. EPA is aware of other panel manufacturers that have had success with a 

transition to other alternatives (e.g., AWIP’s transition to trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-

ene). Further, we note that since the issuance of the proposal, EPA has listed two more 

substitutes, methylal and HFO-1336mzz(Z), as acceptable for the rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panel end-use, providing more options. 

XPS Foam

 XPSA commented that HFO-1234ze(E) is not commercially available in the United States;

and thus XPSA‘s members have not conducted testing to confirm it can be used to produce 
133

products that provide comparable thermal efficiency or if there are any other issues that 

would make it an unacceptable alternative to HFC-134a. XPSA commented that suppliers do 

not currently have an alternative that is both functional and cost equivalent. Owens Corning 

commented that, contrary to statements in the proposed rule, there are no available and 

commercially viable substitute blowing agents for HFC-134a for use by the XPS industry. 

Owens Corning indicated that the only viable option is HFO-1234ze(E) but that they have 

several concerns. Owens Corning stated that they’ve attempted to use this blowing agent in 

test trials and have not been successful in producing a product that has similar 

characteristics to its current XPS foam. Owens Corning commented that none of the 

information provided by Honeywell supports the use of the blowing agent by them at this 

time to manufacture a product with characteristics similar to its current XPS foam. Owens 

Corning noted that substitutes are being used in the EU but comparisons between the 

North American and EU markets could not be made. Owens Corning commented that the 

Agency's determination that there are, or potentially will be, adequate alternatives to HFC

for polystyrene extruded board stock, billets, and sheets ignores the realities of making the 

conversion and oversimplifies the state of technology. Dow Chemical commented that a 

major issue with some proposed alternative blowing agents involves thermal performance. 

Dow Chemical commented that the North American industry standard for XPS foam is an 

aged R-value of 5.0 per inch @ 75°F as specified under ASTM C-578, and that it is not 

possible to achieve this standard without using a low thermal conductivity (< 0.09 BTUin/br-ft2-°F @ 25°C) and low permeability (< 0.4 cm3-mil/day-100in2-atm@ 25°C) blowing 

agent. Dow Chemical commented that none of the proposed alternatives identified in the 

proposed rule, with the sole exception of HFO-1234ze(E), meet these requirements for 

maintaining the performance standards specified by ASTMC578. Dow Chemical commented 

that the proposed alternatives that EPA says will maintain essential performance properties 

are either single sourced to one supplier's untested manufacturing facility or not technically 

validated, let alone qualified, in full foam formulations. In addition, Dow Chemical 

commented that HFO-1234ze(E) has not been fully commercialized in any geographical 

region, is currently only offered by a single supplier, and is not viewed as a viable option for 

use in foam manufacture, in part due to the current lack of broader markets for the 

material which limits the supply infrastructure. Additionally, Dow Chemical commented that 

HFOs are not currently being supplied to the XPS industry. They noted that once the 

industry switches to HFO-1234ze(E), it cannot easily or quickly switch to another foaming 

agent if HFO-1234ze(E) becomes unavailable, and the only option would be to reduce or 

halt production. Pactiv Building Products believed that a commercially available alternative 

to the HFC-134a for XPS insulation that will provide equivalent properties and performance 

does not currently exist. DiversiFoam Products commented that EPA’s acceptable 

substitutes have poor insulating properties and are VOCs, which are already regulated or 

have limited availabilities. Arkema commented that some of their customers have not yet 

identified any acceptable alternative for HFC-134a. [0030, 0037, 0085, 0101, 0131, 0189, 

0204]

EPA Response: HFO-1234ze(E) is an acceptable alternative for the XPS end-use, and it is EPA’s 

understanding, confirmed by the commenters, that it meets necessary requirements for 
134

insulation (e.g., R-value based on thermal conductivity and permeability). In response to the 

concern from DiversiFoam Products, we note that HFC-152a, CO2 and HFO-1234ze(E) are 

exempt from the definition of VOC under 40 CFR 51.100(s), and information from the 

manufacturer of HFO-1234ze(E) indicates better insulation value (lambda value) than HFC-134a 

(Honeywell, 2014). Although supply of HFO-1234ze(E) had been limited, it is now commercially 

available (Honeywell, 2014). We disagree with Dow Chemical that there is a lack of broader 

markets for HFO-1234ze, as this substitute is expected to be used more widely in the future as 

an aerosol propellant and as a component in refrigerant blends (e.g., R-450A). Concerning 

Owens Corning’s comment that they have made test trials using HFO-1234ze(E) and have not 

been successful in producing a product that has similar characteristics to its current XPS foam, a 

number of commenters in various end-uses have stated that HFOs are not drop-in 

replacements and they require time to work through reformulation and testing to address 

technical challenges with these foam blowing agents; EPA expects that, as in previous 

transitions and as in other end-uses, technical difficulties can be addressed through additional 

formulation and testing. In the final rule, EPA is establishing a status change date of January 1, 

2021, to provide sufficient time for working out such technical issues and to allow for greater 

production of HFO-1234ze. See also sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final 

rule.

Rigid PU Appliance Foam

 Whirlpool commented that SNAP approval does not mean a given alternative is a viable 

commercial solution. They stated that most alternative foam blowing agents are not 

technically feasible and/or economically justifiable; only a few have been actually been 

proven for use in appliance foam. [0037, 0198]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that listing an acceptable substitute does not mean that a given 

alternative is necessarily a viable alternative for all end-users. However, we are aware of at 

least two alternative foam blowing agents already successfully implemented by some 

manufacturers of household appliances—saturated light HCs and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoroprop-1-ene. And, as provided in this final rule, we have determined that these available 

alternatives pose lower risk than the alternatives we are now determining are unacceptable for 

use as of January 1, 2020, in this end-use.

Other Comments on Availability and Viability of Alternatives

 A number of commenters, including DuPont, Solvay, BASF, and Masonite International, 

expressed concern that there will not be a sufficient supply of alternative blowing agents

available for all of the impacted end-uses and industries by January 1, 2017. Masonite 

International stated that this would result in a significant impact on the cost of the material. 

[0077, 0098, 0037, 0182]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that supply of alternatives is a concern for a number of the foam 

blowing end-uses (XPS, rigid PU slabstock, rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich 
135

panels, rigid PU appliance foam, and rigid PU marine flotation foam). We have considered this 

issue in establishing the status change dates in the final rule. See sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of

the preamble to the final rule.

 Mexichem stated that other alternative low-GWP blowing agents (e.g., HCs) are readily 

available but require significant time and capital investment to develop viable products and 

manufacturing platforms, and due to the flammability of these products, significant capital 

investment would be required to make manufacturing facilities safe. BASF believed it will 

take a large capital investment and several years to implement flammable blowing agents 

for a customer that does not currently have that capability. DuPont commented that if a 

user has to transition from a non-flammable agent to a flammable agent, significant facility 

engineering design and refurbishment can be required. [0077, 0093, 0101] 

EPA Response: Concerning the cost of making facilities safe for use with flammable blowing 

agents, see third response under rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels in 

section 4.5.1 of this document and section V.D.3.d of the preamble to the final rule. Concerning 

time for development of viable products and manufacturing platforms, EPA has established 

status change dates later than in the proposal for a number of end-uses (rigid PU slabstock in 

2019; rigid PU appliance, rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, rigid PU 

marine flotation foam, and polyolefin in 2020; and XPS in 2021) in order to allow time for such 

development. Also see sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a.

 NRDC and IGSD commented that the foam industry is extremely varied and diverse, and 

cited EPA’s technical support document Market Characteristics of the U.S. Foams Industry

as stating that 65% of the market has adopted alternatives (ICF, 2014b). [0108]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that a significant portion of the foams sector is using HCs and CO2. 

However, this differs by end-use, with some end-uses much closer to a full transition to 

alternatives and others faces more significant technical challenges. We have considered these 

technical challenges and we are setting different change of status dates for the different enduses.

4.5.2 Narrowed Choice of Suppliers

Rigid PU Spray Foam

 Clayton commented that there is only one supplier of HFO-1234ze(E), Honeywell, which 

raises issues with supply considerations. Additionally, Premium Spray Products 

recommended that EPA let the market dictate which alternative formulations are the best. 

Premium Spray Products does not want EPA to “overregulate” or restrict quality, viable 

blowing agents in the United States. Premium Spray Products requested that additional 

monopolies not be created to restrain their industry and add unnecessary cost. [0037, 0133]
136

EPA response: EPA is not taking final action on a change of status for HFC-134a as a foam 

blowing agent in spray foam applications. See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to 

the final rule.

Rigid PU Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels and Rigid PU Appliance Foam

 Some commenters expressed concern about potentially having a single supplier for their 

foam blowing agent. Thermo-Kool noted that only one of the three refrigerant companies 

that have developed HFOs has a plant to manufacture the product. Thermo-Kool believed

the current capacity of the single manufacturing plant for HFOs cannot handle the demand 

from walk-in cooler companies and other panel manufacturers that use blowing agents by 

2017. Thermo-Kool estimated that an account manager with one the refrigeration plants 

that use HFOs would take approximately 18-24 months to erect the manufacturing plant 

that could be either built in the states or possibly in Asia. Thermo-Kool believed there will 

not be enough supply of the refrigerants used as blowing agents to meet the demand of the 

entire walk-in manufacturing industry. Metl-Span commented that commercial domestic 

availability is currently dependent upon one supplier with one recently commissioned, fairly 

untested domestic production source. International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, and 

ThermalRite Walk-Ins jointly commented that 1233zd(E) (i.e., trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoroprop-1-ene), for example, is being developed by Honeywell; as Honeywell has a 

patent and will be the sole source for this substitute, it stands to reason that the only one 

who wins, at the peril of many small manufacturers, is Honeywell. Whirlpool commented

that an unintended outcome of the proposed regulation may be a narrow choice of 

suppliers for the alternatives that could very possibly result in a monopolistic supply 

situation, inadequate supply for the industry, and business disruption. Whirlpool stated that 

even a very short lapse in supply causes severe economic implications for their company, 

employees, their suppliers and their employees, their trade customers, and ultimately 

causes a shortage of energy efficient products available for purchase by their end 

consumers. BASF, Mexichem and Huntsman commented that commercial quantities of 

Solstice 1233zd(E) are currently available only from Honeywell, although BASF noted that 

Arkema has made small quantities, and DuPont is reportedly obtaining Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) and SNAP approval for a different HFO blowing agent. [0037, 0100, 0198, 

0206, 0101, 0093, 0180, 0084]

EPA Response: EPA recognizes that Honeywell is a patent holder for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoroprop-1-ene and that currently, Honeywell is the sole source producer in the United 

States. The issue of a single supplier is not unique to the low-GWP substitutes to which 

users will be transitioning. For example, HFC-245fa which is currently widely used for foam 

blowing, has only one U.S. producer. Regarding whether sufficient supplies will be available 

for a transition, we note that Honeywell has assured EPA in its comments that it has enough 

production, and has begun commercial operation of their plant. Furthermore, we are 

establishing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for these end-uses, in part to address 

concerns about supply and suppliers. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene is not the 

only available alternative that can be used in this end-use. Additionally, we note that since 
137

the issuance of the proposal, EPA has listed two more substitutes, methylal and HFO1336mzz(Z), as acceptable for the rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel 

end-use, providing more options and further competition. 

XPS Foam

 Mexichem stated that the XPS industry should not have to rely on a sole manufacturer 

which has indicated an intent to produce HFO-1234ze(E) for the XPS industry at just one of 

its facilities. Mexichem commented that a strike, shutdown, fire, or other disruption to 

production at that plant would render the industry incapable of manufacturing XPS. [0101] 

EPA Response: As noted in the previous response, the issue of a single supplier of a specific 

substitute is not a new issue. There are multiple foam blowing agents listed as acceptable for 

XPS. We also note that the producer of HFO-1234ze(E) has the capability of producing smaller 

batches of HFO-1234ze(E) on a temporary basis from a different facility in the case of a 

temporary disruption to the commercial scale plant, as it did prior to the building of its 

commercial plant. Regarding endorsement, see section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the final rule.

4.5.3 Flammability of Acceptable Alternatives

Rigid PU Spray Foam

 Fomo Products, RHH, Dow Chemical and Solvay commented that flammable blowing agents 

are problematic in rigid PU spray foam, including both high-pressure and LP SPF. West 

Development Group commented that Solstice 1233zd(E) has improved fire resistance 

performance (UL testing) with similarly coated roof assembly's with the Solstice blown 

foam. [0037, 0139, 0112, 0204, 0045, 0098]

EPA Response: EPA is not finalizing a change of status for rigid PU spray foam in this final rule. 

See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule.

Rigid PU Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels

 American Panel noted that Class 1 foam is required for the panel industry in order to 

receive certification from UL and FM that allows the manufacture of fire rated structures, 

such as refrigerator warehouses. American Panel commented that discussions with others 

in the industry indicate that other foam suppliers have yet to develop a stable Class 1 PU

foam system as well. Solvay mentioned the lack of Class I certified systems using alternative 

blowing agents for walk-in coolers and other insulation end-uses. Master-Bilt Products 

noted that all replacements for HFC-245fa are either unable to pass Class 1 burn tests, 

which are required by building codes, or they are less energy efficient. AWIP commented

FM qualification for Class 1 fire rating of Solstice would be complete by 2015. Honeywell 

commented that their Solstice LBA for foam insulation in U.S. manufactured household 

refrigerators and freezers is non-flammable. Sub-Zero noted that using HC blowing agents is 
138

not practical for their company because of the high costs of addressing plant safety issues 

due to the flammability and loss of efficiency of these materials. [0037, 0097, 0092, 0187, 

0098, 0170]

EPA Response: Several alternative foam blowing agents for the rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels end-use are nonflammable, such as Solstice LBA (trans-1-

chloro-3,3,3-trichloroprop-1-ene), HFO-1336mzz(Z), CO2 and water. At least one commenter, 

AWIP, indicated that they expect that foam panels blown with trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trichloroprop-1-ene will be qualified with a Class 1 fire rating (i.e., meet Class 1 foam fire 

resistance requirements in ASTM E-84). Concerning energy efficiency in commercial 

refrigeration, see section 4.3.1 of this document. We are establishing a change of status date of 

January 1, 2020, for this end-use in part to allow any further necessary testing to address 

flammability concerns and to comply with certification requirements. 

XPS Foam

 DiversiFoam, IP Moulding, and XPSA commented that the substitutes for this end use are 

flammable. IP Moulding noted that their manufacturing facility was not designed to 

accommodate these types of chemicals and would require a complicated and costly retrofit 

for proper safety and thus they do not consider these to be acceptable alternatives. XPSA 

claimed that the flammability of certain substitutes could result in significant changes to 

manufacturing and product performance. Dow Chemical stated that flammability of 

hydrocarbon foam blowing agents has the potential to cause significant plant modifications 

in the case of XPS. [0088, 0037, 0030, 0204]

EPA Response: EPA agrees that certain substitutes for this end-use, such as HCs, HFC-152a, 

Exxsol blowing agents, and EcomateTM are flammable and that using these flammable foam 

blowing agents will require changes to the manufacturing facility and process to ensure worker 

safety. EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives in making listing 

decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of 

cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review. However, we note that the cost of 

explosion-proofing production facilities is unlikely to be prohibitive - other types of foam 

manufacturing facilities (e.g., facilities for flexible PU foam) have been changed to use HC

blowing agents and are now able to use them safely. Also, there are other, non-flammable 

alternatives for this end-use. 

 Owens Corning commented that EPA is allowing spray foam manufacturers to continue use

of these HFCs due to flammability issues but is “ignoring” flammability, explosiveness, and 

human safety for the XPS foam end-use. [0035, 0085]

EPA Response: EPA considered flammability issues for the XPS end-use just as it did for the 

spray foam end-use. In the proposal, we noted: 
139

Flammability is of particular concern in spray foam applications, in part because they 

are applied onsite in pressurized equipment with spray guns, sometimes in proximity 

to hot, flammable substances such as tar.... Flammability risks are more difficult to 

mitigate than in most other foam applications because, unlike in a factory setting, it 

is unlikely that ventilation can be provided that removes flammable vapors and 

maintains them below the lower flammability limit, and it is not practical to make all 

electrical fixtures explosion proof when applying spray foam in place in a residential

building. (79 FR at 46,152). 

We continue to believe that it is easier to mitigate flammability for foam blowing that 

occurs in a factory setting, such as with XPS foam because it is easier to provide ventilation 

and to ensure that electrical fixtures are explosion proof. The commenter did not provide 

any information to the contrary. As noted previously, we are continuing to evaluate the 

spray foam end-use and are not taking final action changing the status of any substitutes in 

that end-use as part of this final rule.

 Mexichem cited the UNEP Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC) report as stating that 

a recent “series of fires” “have caused a reaction against organic insulation materials in 

general and XPS in particular” (UNEP, 2014). Mexichem suggested that it seems unlikely 

that XPS manufacturers will be able to transition away from HFCs “in the short-term” 

“because of parallel concerns with the brominated flame retardants widely used in XPS and 

other polystyrene products” (again quoting from the UNEP FTOC 2014 report). [0085, 0101]

EPA Response: The fires mentioned in the UNEP FTOC 2014 report occurred in China and the 

reported cited the problem as being with the inconsistent use of flame retardants within XPS 

formulations, “with recycled feedstock not being properly characterized in some instances.” 

The UNEP FTOC 2014 report continues (p. 35), stating, “The introduction of unsaturated HFCs 

(e.g., HFO-1234ze(E)) will certainly avoid such a controversy, but the availability of such 

technology in Article 5 Parties is uncertain – particularly when the technology is yet to be 

commercially adopted elsewhere.” Since publication of the UNEP FTOC 2014 report, Honeywell 

has begun operating a commercial scale plant in the United States. EPA has established a status 

change date of January 1, 2021, for XPS in the final rule. This additional time will allow for 

further formulation, process, and facility changes to address flammability concerns in the 

longer term, including the concerns about use of flame retardants cited by Mexichem and the 

lack of commercialization of unsaturated HFCs (HFOs) mentioned in the UNEP FTOC 2014 

report. 

PU Marine Flotation Foam

 NMMA noted that the substitutes have higher exothermic temperatures that may or not be 

problematic, presenting both a workplace safety concern and a product safety concern. 

[0072]
140

EPA Response: EPA recognizes that different substitutes have different characteristics, 

including reaction temperatures that require time to test. EPA is establishing a status change 

date of January 1, 2020 for rigid PU marine flotation foam for the reasons stated in sections 

V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.

Other Comments on the Flammability of Acceptable Alternatives

 Solvay commented that the entire foam sector should have been excluded from the 

proposal based on flammability considerations. Solvay noted that throughout the foam 

sector, blowing agents must be handled carefully to ensure that potential flammability is 

minimized while the effectiveness of the blown material is maintained. Solvay noted that at 

each stage of end use, safety concerns are paramount because the substances used often 

trigger flammability concerns. Solvay stated that EPA's proposal raises significant public 

safety and worker safety concerns. BASF stated that the alternative low-GWP blowing 

agents that are readily available now are either flammable and/or have very limited 

performance history in most foam end-use applications. [0098, 0037, 0093]

EPA Response: We note that in a number of foam end-uses, such as flexible PU, polystyrene 

sheet, PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, and phenolic, flammable substitutes are 

commonly used, including HCs. EPA recognizes that transitioning from a non-flammable 

blowing agent to a flammable blowing agent requires time, capital investment, and facility 

engineering changes to ensure safe use of the flammable blowing agent. EPA notes that there 

are a number of non-flammable blowing agents, including water and CO2 in all end-uses; HFO1234ze(E) in all end-uses but flexible PU and polystyrene sheet; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoroprop-1-ene in all polyurethane end-uses; and HFO-1336mzz(Z) in all end-uses except 

low-pressure two-part rigid PU spray foam, one-component PU foam, XPS, polystyrene sheet, 

and polyolefin. Concerning VOC emissions of HCs, we note that water, CO2, methyl formate, 

HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are either not VOC or are VOCexempt. Concerning use of either flammable blowing agents and/or very limited performance 

history, EPA recognizes that a number of the newer non-flammable foam blowing agents will 

require time for reformulation and testing in order to ensure their performance. EPA has 

established later dates for a number of end-uses to allow for such technical work. See sections 

V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.

Concerning the need for Class 1 rated foam systems for foams used in building materials, see 

the first response above for rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels in section 

4.5.4 of this document.

4.6 SNAP Requirements and Imports

EPA proposed to prohibit the import of closed cell foam products or products containing closed 

cell foam that contain any of the blowing agents proposed to be listed as unacceptable. EPA 

sought comment on whether it should consider the unacceptability determinations for foam 

blowing agents to apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam. Some 
141

comments were in support of EPA’s proposal, particularly to maintain competitiveness with 

imported products, while others questioned EPA’s legal authority to prohibit the import of any 

product containing closed or open cell foam. 

EPA received comments on this aspect of the proposal from AAM, AHAM, Bally, DuPont, EIA, 

Honeywell, IP Moulding, Masonite International, Premium Spray Products, Solvay, and 

Whirlpool. Some of the commenters supported the proposal and some were opposed.

EPA is not finalizing in this action, an interpretation that import of closed-cell foam products 

manufactured with unacceptable foam blowing agents would be prohibited. As provided in 

section V.D.2.d of the preamble to the final rule, we plan to consider this issue further and may 

address it in a future rulemaking. We will consider the comments we received on this issue as 

we evaluate what, if any, future action we should take.

4.7 Narrowed Use Limitations

Arkema, Boeing, DoD, EIA, and NASA submitted comments on the proposed narrowed use 

limits for military and space/aeronautics applications. In addition, Dow Chemical, Helmer, 

Honeywell, and XPSA commented regarding expanding the narrowed use limits to other uses. 

EPA responds to many of these comments in section V.D.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.

The remainder are summarized and addressed in this section. 

 Arkema commented that EPA’s treatment of military and space/aeronautics applications, 

relative to all other applications, is striking because there is no firm change of status date. 

Arkema stated that the NPRM does not explain how the private refrigeration and foam 

sectors are any different in terms of extensive testing requirements. Arkema believed the 

same exception that was extended to the U.S. government should be extended to the 

private sector as well. EIA urged EPA to reconsider the proposed narrowed use limit for

military, space, and aeronautical applications. EIA noted that the military, space, and 

aeronautical industries have the financial resources and the abilities to adopt new 

technologies and/or to push for new technological development. EIA recommended that 

conversions of all foam blowing agents where technologically feasible should be required 

and exemptions should only be granted on a demonstration of need. EIA further 

commented that even in instances of demonstrated need, EPA should consider revising this 

narrowed use limit to an earlier date no later than January 1, 2018. Boeing stated that HFC245fa is used as a foam blowing agent for density foam insulation in a number of defense 

and space applications. Boeing commented that there are no currently available 

alternatives to HFC-245fa for these applications. Boeing recommended that EPA extend the 

narrowed use exemption for space and defense applications until 2027. Boeing stated that 

the development cycle to test and certify a substitute for HFC-245fa could take eight years 

or longer, including at least two years to develop and qualify new foam formulations, five 

years to manufacture flight-representative samples, followed by ground and flight testing, 

and then retooling of facilities to use the new foam formulations. DoD and NASA supported

EPA’s proposed narrowed use limit, and suggested that the time EPA proposed and is 
142

finalizing is needed to identify, test and qualify substitutes for certain specialty applications.

[0131, 0134, 0111, 0094, 0070]

EPA Response: We disagree with Arkema with regard to the lack of a transition date and lack of 

an explanation in the NPRM of how the private sector differs from military and 

space/aeronautics applications. The NPRM proposed, and the final rule allows for, the 

narrowed use limit to apply only until January 1, 2022. See section V.D.2.e of the preamble to 

the proposed rule and section V.D.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. EPA explained in the 

proposed rule that the narrowed use limit military or space- and aeronautics-related 

applications is based on information indicating that for the military, there are several unique 

performance requirements related to weapon systems that require extensive testing prior to 

qualifying alternatives for HFC-containing foams. In contrast, at the time of proposal, we 

believed the available information supported that the vast majority of applications for foams 

would be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by the proposed January 1, 2017. In the 

case of space- and aeronautics-related applications, HFCs are used in numerous applications, 

including certain mission-critical applications such as foam blowing for which appropriate 

substitutes have not yet been identified. Due to the unusually broad range of temperatures and 

pressures that exist in military, space and aeronautics applications, the difficulty of egress or 

replacement for workers depending on the safety of such systems, the unique nature of many 

of these systems, and the unique requirements for flight testing, EPA believes they are 

significantly different from applications for private companies. Past experience indicates that 

transitions away from CFC- and HCFC-blown foams in similar applications took several years 

due to the challenging operational environment and the lengthy requalification process 

associated with human-rated space flight systems. In previous changes of status for the foams 

sector, EPA has also provided exceptions for defense and space uses (September 30, 2004; 69 

FR 58,269). 

EPA proposed that the narrowed use limit for these unique applications would be available 

through January 1, 2022. While Boeing suggested that the narrowed use should be available 

through 2027, approximately 12 years from issuance of the proposed rule. Boeing did not 

support such a lengthy extension in their comments. While Boeing stated that it could take 

“eight years or longer” and then indicated it could take two years to develop and qualify the 

foam, followed by five years to manufacture samples, they provided no explanation as to why 

those steps would take those periods of time. Furthermore, although they identified additional 

steps - ground and flight testing, and then retooling of facilities – they provided no estimation 

or explanation of the time needed for these activities. NASA and DoD have indicated that they 

support the proposed narrowed use limit and do not claim that additional time is needed for 

transitioning to alternatives and, in fact, appear to suggest that the time is sufficient. 

(Concerning EIA’s suggestion that EPA should revise this date to no later than January 1, 2018, 

one year after the proposed date for other foam blowing applications, EPA disagrees. Given the 

unique challenges for military, space and aeronautics applications, we do not think that a date 

of January 1, 2018, provides sufficient time for the reasons we previously explained. 
143

In response to EIA’s comment that there should not be a blanket exemption and that 

conversions of all foam blowing agents should be required where technologically feasible and 

exemptions should only be granted on a demonstration of need, we note that under the 

narrowed use limits, users of a restricted agent must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that 

other substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible. Thus, under this narrowed use 

limit, the end user for a military or space- and aeronautics application would need to ascertain 

that other alternatives are not technically feasible and document the results of their analysis. 

See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Users are expected to undertake a thorough technical investigation of 

alternatives to the otherwise restricted substitute. Although users are not required to report 

the results of their investigations to EPA, users must document these results, and retain them in 

their files for the purpose of demonstrating compliance.

 Helmer requested that EPA modify the list of substitutes acceptable, subject to narrowed 

use limits, to include products used in clinical, medical, pharmaceutical, and scientific 

research applications until January 1, 2022, in order to align with EU regulations. [0218]

EPA Response: Concerning the commenter’s request to align this rule’s status change dates 

with dates in EU regulations, see section V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule. Based on 

information provided by other commenters on the technical challenges in transitioning to new 

foam blowing agents for household refrigerators and freezers and for commercial refrigerators 

and freezers, we expect that equipment manufacturers can manufacture, test, certify, and offer 

for sale equipment using blowing agents other than the HFC blowing agents that are changing 

status from acceptable to unacceptable by January 1, 2020.

 XPSA urged EPA to consider narrowed use limits for high-performance insulation using HFC134a (i.e., for XPS boardstock and billet) until the new technologies are understood and 

widely available within the industry. Dow Chemical requested that use of HFCs be granted a 

narrowed use limit for XPS (until 2021) and rigid PU spray foam (until 2021), and PU foam 

formulations and formulated PU systems for commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels

(until 2020). Dow Chemical believed that a narrowed use limit would be consistent with the 

Administration and EPA goals to reduce GHG emissions, and consistent with previous 

rulings on ODS blowing agents within the Montreal Protocol, where EPA agreed that 

proposed alternatives were insufficiently developed to meet industry requirements and 

narrowed use limits for HCFCs were allowed until these alternatives were fully developed 

and implemented. [0204]

EPA Response: In the final rule, EPA is not finalizing a change of status for spray foam. See 

sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.

Dow Chemical and XPSA have suggested that EPA list HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to 

narrowed use limits for the XPS end-use Dow also made a similar request with respect to rigid 

PU used in commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels. Dow Chemical also indicated that 

such narrowed use limit should remain in place until 2021 for XPS and until 2020 for rigid PU.

While Dow Chemical is correct that in a previous action we did establish narrowed use limits for 
144

certain foam blowing end-uses, (July 22, 2002; 67 FR 47,703), we did so in that instance 

because we determined that a few niche uses faced challenges in meeting the status change 

date we were otherwise establishing. In other actions for foam blowing end-uses, we have not 

established narrowed use limits. (September 30, 2004; 69 FR 58,269; March 28, 2007; 72 FR 

14,432). 

In the final rule, EPA has listed HFC-134a as unacceptable in XPS with a status change date of 

January 1, 2021, and has listed a number of HFCs as unacceptable in rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panel as of January 1, 2020, based on information that additional 

time was needed beyond the proposed status change date of January 1, 2017, to address 

technical challenges. See section V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule. We believe that the 

information before the Agency is sufficient to determine that a transition is technically feasible 

for XPS manufacturers by January 1, 2021, and for manufacturers of sandwich panels and 

commercial refrigeration equipment by January 1, 2020, and that there are not niche 

applications where such a transition would be technically infeasible and for which a narrowed 

use limit could be invoked.

 Honeywell commented that although EPA might receive comments from customers and 

industries in more niche applications, such as medical refrigerators and boats, which 

typically do not engage in serious product development until after regulatory actions are 

near final, they do not believe that the technical and approval requirements of these 

industries present any serious challenges. Honeywell stated that they do not believe that 

any narrowed use limits, other than those already identified by EPA for aerospace and 

military applications are necessary.[0170]

EPA Response We are not adding uses to the categories in which certain HFCs are listed as 

acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits in this final rule, because we do not believe that any 

commenter has supported that there are additional niche applications where additional time is 

needed beyond the status change dates established in the final rule.

4.8 Exemption Requests

EPA received comments requesting exemptions. Comments were submitted by marine 

products manufacturers, Metl-Span, NMMA, and Structural Composites. These comments are 

summarized and addressed below. 

 Structural Composites commented that they supply over 30 OEM boat manufacturers and 

that their inability to produce Prisma Preforms, which is made with HFC-134a, would have 

an enormous negative impact on U.S. marine manufacturing. Structural Composites 

commented that they have no alternative system to HFC-134a; all systems they have tried 

to date have been unable to meet the requirements for their preforming process. Structural 

Composites stated that without a viable alternative they will not be able to stay in business. 

They stated that the efficiency impact of their technology offsets the very small amount of 

HFC-134a used in the foam and provided calculations of the GHG savings of their 
145

technology compared to standard refrigerated trailers and boat. For example, they 

calculated an 860% reduction in GHG over the life cycle of a refrigerated trailer based on 

fuel savings and described DoD craft that are 40% more payload fuel efficient and 

refrigerated trailers that are over 25% more thermally efficient. Structural Composites 

requested that the composites industry be exempt from the NPRM and remain exempt until 

a viable alternative is available. [0037, 0172]

EPA Response: The commenter did not state what alternatives they have investigated or what 

technical issues they would need to address to identify an alternative. Although the 

commenter’s claims for improved fuel efficiency are impressive, they do not address the 

fundamental question of whether there are other alternative foam blowing agents available for 

the same use that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. The 

commenter appears to be proposing that the SNAP listing decision address a process or 

product, rather than just the foam blowing agent. While a SNAP alternative could be a process 

or product, the process or product at issue here has never been submitted to EPA for review as 

a SNAP alternative. If the company continues to make good faith efforts to perform research on 

alternatives but is unable to find one for specific technical reasons, EPA may consider a petition 

at that time. See section V.D.2.b of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of the change 

of status dates for the end-uses addressed in this action. 

 NMMA and many of its members requested that boat manufacturers be exempted from the 

proposal to change the status of certain foam blowing agents, including HFC-134a, which it 

stated was an integral component used by 80 percent of the industry in the manufacturing 

process that keeps boats in compliance with United States Coast Guard buoyancy regulatory 

standards. NMMA stated that viable alternatives to HFC-134a do not presently exist in large 

enough quantities to keep the industry in compliance, and thus the industry should not be 

subject to the Administration’s proposed change of status.

EPA Response: EPA is not granting this request for an exemption for boat manufacturers. The 

final rule establishes a status change date of January 1, 2020, for rigid PU marine flotation foam 

for the reasons stated in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule. We 

considered this issue in establishing the status change date and believe that there will be more 

than adequate supplies of alternatives.

 Metl-Span requested that EPA establish a change of status date five years from the

proposed rule. Metl-Span commented that if the status change date does not allow 

adequate time for all users to convert, they would like to negotiate an independent 

conversion date, similar to the one coordinated with EPA when converting from HCFC-22 

and HFC-134a in the mid-2000s, which will not significantly disrupt the markets served. 

[0100]

EPA Response: Metl-Span has not provided any technical details about the additional time they 

might need. However, EPA has established a change of status date of January 1, 2020, for the 

rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel end-use in the final rule for the reasons 
146

discussed in sections V.D.2 and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule. This timeframe is 

consistent with Metl-Span’s request for five years from the proposed ruling. 

4.9 Clarification Requests

NAFEM, BASF, Dow Chemical, and ASC requested clarification of certain definitions and 

provisions in the proposed rule. These comments are summarized and addressed below. 

 NAFEM commented that EPA needs to rewrite the provisions related to blowing agents 

because, as it currently reads, it applies to products outside the scope of commercial 

refrigeration. NAFEM noted that the Agency has publicly stated that this is not their 

intention so they must bring their intent and the rule’s language into accordance. [0137]

EPA Response: The provisions related to blowing agents are intended to apply broadly to the 

use of HFC foam blowing agents, and not only to use in commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Unlike for refrigerant used in refrigeration end-uses, EPA is unaware of any case in which the 

Agency has stated or implied, publicly or otherwise, that the status change for blowing agents is 

limited to commercial refrigeration. 

 BASF requested further clarification and definition of spray foam applications, as there are 

many field applied and plant applied processes that use the same equipment and have the 

same shelf life limitations as spray foam. BASF indicated that many of these applications still 

use HFCs as foam blowing agents, processing aids, or to maintain physical properties in the 

application. BASF noted that these applications include (but are not limited to) the 

following: industrial piping applications; slab jacking or ground stabilization; flotation 

applications (e.g., boats, floating docks, barges); and spas and bath manufacture. BASF 

further noted that many of these applications use spray foam equipment but may have 

slightly modified spray tip to either control the spray pattern or dispense the material at a 

distance. BASF stated that the primary difference in these applications is mechanical to 

control the spray pattern, but the chemistry may be very similar to traditional spray foam 

chemistry. BASF is unclear if these applications would qualify as spray foam applications not 

subject to a status change or would be considered pour-in-place applications which would 

be subject to the status change. [0093]

EPA Response: In the final rule, we are breaking out “rigid PU marine flotation foam” as a 

separate end-use. We consider this use to be an injection foam or “pour-in-place” foam rather 

than a spray foam, similar to that for commercial refrigeration foam and appliance foam.

For the other specific uses mentioned by BASF, as well as for other uses not specified, EPA 

requires additional information to make a determination. The key points in differentiating 

between spray foam uses, for which we have not finalized a change of status, and the uses 

covered in the final rule are:
147

-Is the foam blown one time in situ in a location with limited ventilation where 

engineered controls cannot reasonably be installed, or is the foam blown repeatedly in 

the same location in a location where engineered controls could be installed or where 

ventilation is not a concern? The first case is typical of spray foam, while the second is 

typical of covered uses.

-Is the foam sprayed onto a surface, or is it injected into a cavity? The first case is an 

example of spray foam, while the second is a covered use.

Without additional information, EPA’s assumptions are that the use of foam for insulating 

industrial pipes is in an industrial setting where engineering controls can be applied, and this 

would fall under the rigid PU slabstock and other end-use; sufficient ventilation is available 

outdoors for ground stabilization foam, and it is injected into a cavity, and thus will be treated 

the same as marine flotation foam and commercial refrigeration foam; and ventilation is likely 

an issue for bath and spa foam, due to usage inside in non-industrial settings, so it should be 

treated as rigid PU spray foam.

 Dow Chemical commented that it has not had the opportunity to evaluate any of the lowGWP additions listed as acceptable [i.e., SNAP Determination of Acceptability 29, October 

21, 2014; 79 FR 62,863]. Dow Chemical stated that they are concerned that industry did not 

have an opportunity during the public comment period to give input on the viability of the 

new alternatives as options in place of the current materials proposed to change status. 

Dow Chemical requested that EPA comment on new, added blends like R-450A that use 

42% HFC-134a at a GWP value of 600 and why this is not an option for foam manufacturing 

or why this is significantly better than HFC-245fa or HFC-134a. [0204]

EPA Response: The Federal Register made SNAP Determination of Acceptability 29 available to 

the public on October 20, 2014, and published it on October 21, 2014. Some commenters 

mentioned substitutes in that document in their public comments on the proposed rule 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.

Concerning R-450A, EPA notes that this substitute was submitted for review and listed in a 

number of refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses, but not in the foam blowing sector. As 

we have stated in the preamble to the proposed and final rules, EPA’s decisions are made by 

sector and by end-use. We may reach different decisions on the same substitute depending on 

risk factors specific to an end-use and the available alternatives for the same end-use.

Concerning the use of blends, we note that in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, both 

EPA and the industry standard-setting body ASHRAE treat each blend with a designated 

composition as a separate substitute refrigerant. Blends of the same compounds with different 

percentages of compositions are considered separate substitutes and EPA reviews and lists 

them separately. For example, R-407A and R-407F are both blends of HFC-125, HFC-134a, and 

HFC-32, but they have different weight percentages of these three compounds, and EPA has 

listed them at different times in different end-uses. In contrast, in the foam blowing sector, EPA 
148

has reviewed and listed a few blends with specific compositions (i.e., commercial blends of HFC365mfc with seven to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc), but most blends have 

been listed with an indeterminate composition (e.g., blends of HFC-152a and saturated light

HCs, blends of HFC-365mfc with at least 5% HFC-245fa, the Formacel blends). Further, EPA has 

previously stated that blends of acceptable foam blowing agents in some but not all foam 

blowing end-uses do not require separate notification and review (March 18, 1994, 59 FR at 

13,044, 13,084-13,085). EPA could in the future consider specific blends of HFCs and lowerGWP foam blowing agents, review them, and amend the decisions in this rule to allow for such 

blends, if the specific blends reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.

 ASC requested clarification on whether spray adhesives using HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and 

HFC-365mfc are included in the NRPM. [0046]

EPA Response: Spray adhesives used as foam sealants are considered spray foams and were 

addressed in the NPRM. We are not taking final action on spray foam in this final rule.

4.10 Other Suggestions or Requests

EPA received comments from DuPont, CARB, and Honeywell requesting status changes for 

certain foam blowing agents that were not included in the proposed rule. Additionally, CPI, IP 

Moulding, BASF, and Huntsman suggested additional provisions that should be included in the 

final rule and ways in which EPA could expand certain foam end-uses and applications. These 

comments are summarized and addressed below. 

 DuPont commented that EPA is not proposing to change the status of the relatively highGWP foam expansion agents HFC-365mfc, HFC-227ea, and HFC-245fa, and blends thereof, 

for high-pressure spray foams. DuPont commented that for this application there is 

currently one very low-GWP olefin product available and that they recently announced 

timing for commercial production of an additional very low-GWP HFO foam expansion 

agent. DuPont believes that there will be multiple low-GWP alternatives available in

sufficient quantities for high-pressure spray foams and other low-GWP liquid and semiliquid applications globally by 2020. DuPont commented that, consistent with EPA’s 

proposal to transition foam segments when effective low-GWP alternatives become 

available and allow foam manufacturers sufficient time for conversion to lower-GWP 

alternatives, they are recommending that EPA change the status of HFC-365mfc, HFC-227ea 

and HFC-245fa, and blends thereof to unacceptable for high-pressure spray foam systems 

by a date that reflects the availability of alternatives and the time required to adopt 

alternatives. CARB recommended that EPA add spray foam using HFC-245fa to the 

unacceptable list of determinations, effective 2020, commenting that low-GWP spray foam 

using HFO foam expansion agents are already available. Honeywell stated that the 

transition to low-GWP substitutes should be expanded to include new applications like 

spray foam. Honeywell believes that the high-pressure spray foam application is the easiest 

and quickest application to transition, as demonstrated by transitions by several customers 

that they note in their comments. They strongly supported listing HFC-143a, HFC-245fa, 
149

HFC-365mfc and blends thereof as unacceptable in high-pressure spray foam beginning 

January 1, 2018. Honeywell commented that low-GWP alternatives in spray foam 

applications are high performing, with better energy efficiency, low cost, and in ample 

supply. [0077, 0106, 0170]

EPA Response: EPA is not taking final action on a change of status for rigid PU spray foam 

applications. See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule. 

 Honeywell commented that EPA should find HFC-227ea unacceptable in all polyurethane 

foam end-uses as of 60 days after publication of the final rule. They stated that because of 

HFC-227ea’s high GWP of 3,220-3,350, 225% that of HFC-134a’s GWP, EPA should list HFC227ea and its blends as unacceptable as it has proposed for HFC-134a. Honeywell also 

stated that HFC-227ea is not listed on its own and is not an effective blowing agent on its 

own, but rather is blended to reduce flammability of other HFCs, primarily HFC-365mfc, by 

blending. They commented that other non-HFC-227ea, non-flammable solutions are 

available to customers, and that listing HFC-227ea as unacceptable quickly will send a clear 

signal to customers not to formulate with a product that is as much as 3000+ times more 

harmful in terms of GWP than other solutions like HFO-1233zd(E). Honeywell also stated 

that listing HFC-227ea and blends containing HFC-227ea as unacceptable would have little 

negative impact to foam customers because of its limited use to date in the United States. 

[0170]

EPA Response: EPA has not listed HFC-227ea as an acceptable foam blowing agent in any use to 

date; thus far, we have listed commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea, containing 

seven percent to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC– 365mfc acceptable in rigid PU spray 

foam and in XPS. EPA did not propose to find HFC-227ea unacceptable as a foam blowing agent. 

We proposed to find HFC-365mfc and blends thereof unacceptable in all end-uses except rigid 

PU spray foam, and are finalizing that decision in this final rule. As pointed out by the 

commenter, HFC-227ea is not used on its own, and has only been listed as acceptable for use in 

commercial blends with HFC-365mfc that will now be unacceptable in all end-uses except rigid 

PU spray foam. We did not propose and we are not finalizing a change of status for HFC-227ea 

as unacceptable. 

 Honeywell commented that it is not clear whether or not methylene chloride is approved

under SNAP. If it is listed as acceptable, Honeywell recommended that EPA list methylene 

chloride and products containing foam blown with methylene chloride, consistent with the 

August 15, 2014, National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) final 

rule, disallowing methylene chloride in flexible foams because it is a hazardous air pollutant, 

starting 60 days after the issuance of the final rule. Honeywell commented that methylene 

chloride is not widely used in foam blowing applications in the United States, but it is used 

to a large extent abroad, particularly in China, in the manufacture of flexible PU products 

subsequently exported to the United States. [0170]
150

EPA Response: Methylene chloride is currently listed as acceptable as a foam blowing agent in 

the flexible PU, PU integral skin, and polyolefin end-uses. EPA did not propose to find 

methylene chloride unacceptable. Because we did not propose to change the status of 

methylene chloride to unacceptable, and thus there may be affected companies that did not 

have an opportunity to comment on such a change, EPA believes it is necessary to propose a 

change of status for methylene chloride first before finalizing such a change. EPA may propose 

a change of status for methylene chloride in a future rule. 

 CPI suggested that more discrete definitions for certain foam end-uses should be 

incorporated into the final rule to allow for a more complete and accurate accounting of 

relevant technical requirements. In particular, CPI commented that rigid PU foam systems 

include four distinct and separate PU foam systems: (A) high-pressure two-component spray 

foam systems, (B) low-pressure two-component spray foam systems, (C) one-component foam 

sealants, and (D) two-component pour-in-place systems. [0175]

EPA Response: Concerning high-pressure and low-pressure two-component spray foam 

systems and one-component foam sealants, see section V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final 

rule. Two-component pour-in-place systems fit in a number of other SNAP end-uses for rigid 

PU, including commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, appliance foam, laminated 

boardstock, and slabstock and other. We are finalizing status changes for two-component pourin-place systems under those end-uses, with status change dates of January 1, 2017 (PU and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock) , January 1, 2019 (rigid PU slabstock and other), and 

January 1, 2020 (rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels and rigid PU appliance 

foam). We agree that there are relevant distinctions between the four categories that CPI has 

identified. 

 IP Moulding recommended that EPA create a new subcategory for certain extruded 

polystyrene applications, such as extruded polystyrene –– moulding, where HFC-134a 

blends would continue to be acceptable for use, due to its unique production process and 

application and the low overall emissions from this use. In the absence of such an approach, 

IP Moulding requested that the change of status date for XPS boardstock and billet be 

changed to January 1, 2020. [0088]

EPA Response: The commenter stated that their production process is unique but did not 

provide information indicating that there were technical reasons why they could not adopt one 

of the alternatives or for XPS boardstock and billet. As discussed in section VII.A.3 of the 

preamble, any particular facility or user could have small emissions compared to the total, but 

this is not sufficient reason to find that HFC-134a is still acceptable. In the final rule, the change 

of status date for XPS boardstock and billet is January 1, 2021, for the reasons discussed in 

sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule.

 BASF recommended that EPA offer wider flexibility in the use of mixtures of HFCs (other 

than HFC-134a) in spray foam. BASF recommended that EPA add a provision allowing blends 

of HFC-365mfc, HFC-227ea, and HFC-245fa, so that a broader range of options utilizing only 
151

these three non-flammable foam blowing agents could be used. BASF also recommended 

that EPA modify the preamble language and propose the following revisions:

“Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC– 134a and blends thereof and Formacel TI 

unacceptable in this application. We are proposing that HFC–245fa; commercial 

blends of HFC–365mfc and HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC–227ea and the 

remainder HFC– 365mfc; commercial blends of HFC–365mfc and HFC–227ea 

(previously described) combined with HFC-245fa; and blends of HFC–365mfc and at 

least 5% HFC–245fa remain acceptable in spray foam because these three 

nonflammable foam blowing agents reduce overall risk compared to the available 

flammable alternatives.” [0093]

EPA Response: EPA has not finalized a change of status for spray foam in this final rule. See 

sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule. Concerning how EPA treats 

blends for the foam blowing sector, see third response in section 4.10 of this document.

 Huntsman commented that they would like to add insulation foam in water heaters to one 

of the rigid PU foam applications, which is not specified in EPA’s proposed rulemaking. 

[0180]

EPA Response: We consider insulation foam in water heaters to be a type of rigid PU appliance 

foam since water heaters are typically used in the home. 
152

5 HCFCs

EPA received comments on the proposed modifications affecting HCFCs from Hussman 

Corporation (Hussman), the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), New Era 

Group, and EIA. The comments were primarily on whether the unacceptability determination 

should apply to imported products containing closed cell foam that contain any of the blowing 

agents listed as unacceptable, as well as applying to the blowing agent itself. EPA responds to 

comments from Hussman and AHAM in section VI.B of the preamble to the final rule. 

Comments from New Era Group and EIA are addressed in this section. 

 New Era Group commented that the HCFC issue is unsettled, and that other EPA actions are 

dependent on phasing out HCFCs. New Era Group also commented that the proposal seeks 

to limit use of HFC products at the same time that HCFCs are still being produced. [0037]

EPA Response: As noted in the preamble to the October 28, 2014 HCFC Allowance Allocation 

Rule for 2015-2019, one of the factors EPA considered in developing the allocations in that rule 

was the proposed action under SNAP to modify the listings for certain higher-GWP alternatives 

(79 FR 64253). This final SNAP rule does not affect the HCFC phaseout schedule or the 

allocation of HCFC production or consumption allowances. 

 EIA supported the proposal to ban the use of HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, and HCFC-142b for use 

in aerosols, fire suppression, foam, adhesives, and sterilants, 60 days after issuance of the 

final rule. [0134]

EPA Response: EPA is modifying the listings for these three HCFCs, as well as blends containing 

these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable in the sectors indicated, 60 days following 

publication of the rule. For more detail on the final decision made, see section VI of the 

preamble to the final rule.
153

6 OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS 

EPA received additional comments on topics not addressed in the preamble of the final rule or

other sections of this document. These comments address a host of issues, including EPA’s CAA

authority to change the status of alternatives; perceived inconsistencies with the SNAP 

program’s “guiding principles;” perceived inconsistency with other actions; record keeping and 

reporting of alternatives; environmental and economic impacts of the proposed status changes 

and dates; availability and acceptability of alternatives; the President’s Climate Action Plan; 

potential exemptions for certain end-uses; and interactions with other rules. Additionally, some 

commenters requested status changes for end-uses or alternatives that were not included in 

the proposed rule or requested an extension to the public comment period for the proposed 

rule. 

Comments on these topics were submitted by NAFEM, AHAM, AHRI, Arkema, Continental 

Refrigerator, Southern Case Art, KeepRite Refrigeration, Coca-Cola, RHH, Hoshizaki America, 

Nor-Lake, Traulsen, CFESA, Unified Brands, the Alliance, New Era Group, Danfoss, NRDC, IGSD, 

Solvay, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Clayton, Hillphoenix, CARB, Honeywell, GE, NRI, DuPont, SubZero, EIA, HARDI, NAM, Imperial Brown, Thermo-Kool, American Panel, International Cold 

Storage, Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite Walk-Ins, Mexichem, Minus Forty Technologies, N. 

Wasserstrom & Sons, NAMA, H&K International, Grindmaster-Cecilware, Duke Manufacturing, 

Hatco, HC Duke/Electro-Freeze, Falcon Safety Products, Federal Industries, System 

Development Integration, Shecco, 3M, United Technologies, Eppendorf, So-Low Environmental 

Equipment, Maersk Container Industry, the SNAP Coalition Request for Comment Extension, 

Bottleless Water Association, Master-Bilt Products, Pure Water Technology of Mid-Michigan, 

Pure Water Innovations, Owens Corning, IMC Water Coolers, MicroCare, Bally, Dow Chemical, 

SEVO Systems, Unisom Comfort Technologies, and a large number of private citizens. EPA 

responds to many of these comments in section V.II of the preamble to the final rule. This 

section summarizes and responds only to those comments not addressed in the preamble or 

previously addressed in this document.

6.1 General Comments on the Proposed Status Listing Changes

In addition to the comments addressed in other sections of this document or in the preamble 

to the final rule, EPA received a few general comments from the Alliance, New Era Group, 

Danfoss, NRDC, Solvay, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and over 7,000 private citizens related to some 

of the proposed status changes. Some commenters expressed support for the proposed status 

changes while some commenters voiced concerns with the Agency’s approach to changing the 

listing status of certain alternatives. 

 Citing the commitments made by companies to reduce HFC emissions at the September 

2014 White House HFC Industry Leaders Roundtable and the July 2014 Montreal Protocol 

workshop on HFC management, the Alliance commented that it supports concerted global 

action to avoid significant future growth in GHG emissions associated with HFCs, but it is 
154

important that those emissions are avoided in a manner that ensures industry is able to 

continue to deliver the critical societal benefits that HFCs provide today. The Alliance 

encouraged EPA to take into account things such as economic impacts, adjustments to 

company business models, energy efficiency standards, building codes, safety standards, 

among other things, when changing the listing status of alternatives and determining 

transition dates. [0202]

EPA Response: As noted in the preamble and elsewhere in this document, EPA views this final 

action as complementary to the United States’ support for adopting an amendment to the 

Montreal Protocol to phasedown production and consumption. EPA agrees that it is important 

that actions are taken that result in reducing HFC use and emissions as demonstrated in the 

associated benefits analysis and at the same time ensure that overall industry is able to 

continue to deliver products and services including the products that are affected by this rule. 

In setting the change of status dates in this action, EPA considered technical constraints that 

could affect the availability of products in the end uses covered. EPA also recognizes the 

importance of corporate responsibility and notes the importance of all the actions announced 

September 16, 2014 at the White House HFC Industry Roundtable.

 One private citizen noted that until there is actual scientific evidence, not just speculation 

based on models that GHGs actually cause climate change, it is not appropriate to change 

the status of these compounds. The commenter stated that an educational program about 

the available alternatives, along with incentives to switch, would be more appropriate.

[0154]

EPA Response: We disagree with the commenter that there is not scientific support that GHG 

emissions are impacting climate. Relevant scientific and technical information is summarized to 

support EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding (74 FR 66,496, 66,517, 66,539) and that information 

can be found at: 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf. 

 New Era Group supported the proposed rule, but was concerned that EPA did not use 

accurate data to develop the rulemaking. They commented that more emphasis needs to be 

placed on recordkeeping and reporting, and suggested that EPA require all holders, sellers, 

and processers to report the HFCs on an annual basis. New Era Group called for EPA to

institute a national survey/data collection that will allow the public to know what the 

inventories are and provide comments based on facts, not assumptions. New Era Group 

also requested that refrigerants be labeled to inform the user of any side effects, similar to 

the warning label issued by FDA for a new class of chemicals. The commenter noted that 

there were no studies in the docket that address the toxic side effects of some of these 

products. Additionally, New Era Group commented that the proposed rule does not specify 

what is being regulated, i.e., ozone depletion, global warming, GHGs. [0037]
155

EPA Response: As an initial matter, the commenter does not identify what data they believe

EPA relied on and what they believe was inaccurate. However, EPA relied on the most recent 

and best data available to make its decisions in this action.

The commenter’s suggestions that EPA establish recordkeeping requirements for HFCs and 

require labeling that identifies the health effects of refrigerants are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. Regarding the recordkeeping requirement, we note that the SNAP program 

ensures that as certain sectors transition from the use of certain ODS, the alternatives used do 

not pose significantly greater risk than other alternatives. EPA does not require recordkeeping 

under the SNAP program of the quantities of alternatives that are sold or used. That said, it is

important to note that EPA’s GHG Reporting Program tracks the production, import, and export

of fluorinated GHGs, which include HFCs. Companies whose imports and exports remain below

25,000 MMTCO2eq are not required to report that data unless such imports or exports 

exceeded that threshold in previous years (40 CFR part 98). For these F-GHGs, EPA collects 

information on both bulk gases and gas charged into appliances or electrical equipment or 

contained in closed-cell foams. 

Regarding the labeling suggestion, we note that when adding certain refrigerants to the SNAP 

lists, EPA has sometimes established use conditions requiring labeling to ensure safe use of 

those refrigerants. In this action, EPA did not propose and is not finalizing any use conditions 

requiring labeling. 

Finally, as to the comment stating that EPA has not explained what is being regulated, we 

believe that the proposed and final rules are clear that EPA is regulating the use of specific 

alternatives in the end-uses addressed in the rule.

 Danfoss commented that the SNAP program has successfully identified alternatives to CFCs 

and HCFCs for refrigerants, but is concerned that the process to change the status of 

alternatives is unproven and that the order of “de-listing” is unclear. [0037]

EPA Response: This is not the first time the Agency has changed the status of an alternative, as 

noted in section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. The same comparative risk framework 

that the SNAP program has used for over 20 years was used for developing the final rule.

 Solvay commented that in determining whether to list certain HFCs and HCFCs as 

unacceptable, EPA should replicate the collaborative path of working closely with industry 

to identify technical constraints and to realistically evaluate overall public health and safety, 

similar to what was done in the last 20 years since EPA adopted the SNAP program. [0098]

EPA Response: This SNAP rulemaking was developed using the collaborative approach with 

stakeholders, including industry stakeholders, that the commenter notes have been highly 

successful in the past. Specifically, in the 15 months leading up to this proposal, the Agency 

held two broad stakeholder meetings and seven sector specific meetings in which the Agency 

and stakeholders discussed a wide range of topics including the availability of alternatives and 
156

the potential constraints to their adoption. In addition, the Agency engaged with interested 

stakeholders in many discussions which enabled it to better understand the detailed concerns

of stakeholders on both an individual and collective basis. We believe that these efforts have 

benefited the rule to a significant degree.

 Thermo Fisher Scientific commented that the focus of the proposed rule and the evaluation 

of the potential impact on industry have been around specific user groups including 

refrigerated household appliances, the MVAC industry, and commercial food retail industry, 

yet the current proposal does not segregate sub-users under the NAICS codes referenced in 

the proposed rule (section IX, references lists: ICF, 2014a-g). Thermo Fisher Scientific 

commented that the failure to segregate these sub-users will apply a blanket ban on HFC 

refrigerants as blowing agents, which would significantly impact a wide range of products 

not previously considered by EPA. Helmer also noted that the current proposal does not 

differentiate sub-user categories under the North American Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes, so products that support the clinical, medical, pharmaceutical, and scientific 

research industries are impacted by regulations aimed at the appliance industry. [0047, 

0218]

EPA Response: Since the publication of the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the SNAP program has 

used sector, end-use, and end-use categories to delineate the portions of industry covered by 

the program. EPA notes that the proposed and final rules are intended to cover the use of 

insulation foam broadly, and we are not separating out foam for retail food refrigeration 

equipment from foam for laboratory refrigeration equipment. EPA does not agree with the 

commenters’ views that the Agency’s proposal was aimed solely at foams used in appliances or 

that it specifies that any HFC is unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. Though the 

analyses conducted using NAICS code do not perfectly correlate to the end-uses in the 

proposal, in all cases, EPA considered the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend 

and the particular end-use and the availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses. EPA 

is also not specifying that, for any sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free; for 

instance, HFC-152a remains an acceptable blowing agent for use in commercial refrigeration 

foam. 

 One private citizen stated that EPA should delay issuing a final rule to allow researchers to 

learn more about the efficiency, cost, and any possible impacts (direct or indirect) the 

acceptable alternatives might have on the environment and human health. Additionally, the 

commenter stated that the Federal government should provide funding to research the 

flammability, toxicity, “law cost affective,” degradation in environment, GWP and ozonedepleting potential (ODP), ecotoxicity, and local air quality impacts of acceptable 

alternatives. The commenter also asserted that EPA does not have concrete data to enforce 

the rule. [0080]

EPA Response: In listing alternatives as acceptable, EPA evaluates them using the SNAP listing 

criteria, including flammability, toxicity, GWP and ODP to determine if an alternative poses 

significantly greater risk than other available alternatives. The comment regarding the research 
157

of the “law cost affective” of alternatives is unclear. Nonetheless, EPA is not adding any 

alternatives to the SNAP lists through this rulemaking and thus does not agree that additional 

research is needed regarding whether already acceptable alternatives can be used safely.

Additionally, we are not clear on what data the commenter is referring to relative to EPA’s 

ability to enforce the rule and we are unaware of any issues with the enforceability of SNAP 

listing decisions.

 DuPont agreed with EPA’s decision not to propose any status changes for HFCs used in fire 

suppression and explosion protection, which they said took into account the unique aspects 

of fire suppression. [0077]

EPA Response: EPA acknowledges DuPont’s views regarding HFC use in the fire suppression and 

explosion sector, a sector that is not addressed in this rulemaking action. 

6.2 General Comments on the Proposed Status Change Dates

EPA received general comments from NAFEM, NRDC and IGSD, and over 7,000 private citizens 

on the proposed status change dates. 

 Over 7,000 private citizens commented that EPA should enforce a more rigorous timeline 

for companies to transition to alternatives. Some commenters stated that immediate 

reductions are more important than future reductions, so it is essential that these sectors 

be made to switch products immediately. One private citizen, in particular, commented that 

the covered sectors should be required to switch permanently to climate-friendly 

alternatives more quickly than what is currently required. [0140, 0141, 0142, 0143, 0144, 

0145, 0146, 0147, 0148, 0149, 0150, 0151, 0152, 0153, 0155, 0157, 0158, 0159, 0160, 0161, 

0162, 0166, 0167, 0168, 0169, 0177]

EPA Response: EPA provides the basis for the status change dates in the preamble to the final 

rule. The status change dates vary by sector and by end-uses and we refer the commenters to 

the relevant sector sections for those discussions. 

 NRDC and IGSD commented that EPA appropriately suggests that it would only adopt an 

extended status change date for a subcategory or narrowed set of uses in extremely limited 

circumstances and that the proposed “waiver” structure correctly places the burden on the 

end-user to show that they cannot meet the timeline set for the sector. The commenters

believed that this approach is important in order to provide relief where it was needed in a 

sector, while still rewarding industry leaders by setting aggressive timelines for the bulk of 

the sector. Furthermore, NRDC and IGSD commented that they are encouraged that EPA is 

considering further dividing sector classes in order to ensure that each subclass within the 

sector transitions as quickly as possible. [0108]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the support from the commenter and has adopted narrowed 

use limits or use conditions in certain instances where a sub-portion of an end use has 
158

demonstrated that technical constraints support a finding that alternatives will only be 

available at a later date than the change of status date otherwise promulgated for the end use. 

6.3 Legal Authority and Application of SNAP Framework

A number of organizations submitted comments related to EPA’s legal authority and the 

application of the SNAP criteria as well as the SNAP guiding principles. Comments were 

submitted by AAM, The Alliance, Arkema, AHAM, AHRI, Bally, BASF, Continental Refrigerator, 

DuPont, Lennox, Mexichem, NRDC and IGSD, Owens Corning, Whirlpool, Solvay, and Zero Zone.

The specific comments relate to EPA’s general authority, topics such as second generation, the 

proposed amendment to phase down HFC production and consumption under the Montreal 

Protocol and other related international action, petitions to revise regulations implementing 

other CAA sections, EPA’s application of criteria in its review of alternatives, including the use of 

GWP as a criterion, and the SNAP program’s “guiding principles.” This section summarizes and 

responds only to those comments not addressed in the preamble to the final rule.

6.3.1 General Authority 

 Solvay commented that EPA has a much higher burden in changing the status of previously 

approved HFCs than it does to support a listing decision. Solvay cited many issues that they 

believed needed to be addressed, such as “critical safety demands for non-flammable 

blowing agents, refrigerants, and propellants in specific applications,” “lack of class I 

certified systems using alternative blowing agents for walk-in coolers and other insulation 

end-uses,” potential inability to meet building and fire code requirements using 

alternatives; interaction with DOE energy efficiency requirements that are based on HFCs 

proposed to become unacceptable; energy penalties of less energy-efficient alternatives; 

limited availability of alternatives, both now for testing and later for serving commercial 

needs; limited capacity to produce new components and equipment required to handle 

alternative refrigerants; limited ability of export markets to service vehicles made with 

alternatives and attendant safety issues for foreign consumers; the inability to evaluate, 

optimize, test, and commercialize products made with new alternatives with different 

physical properties in the allotted timeframe; limited laboratory capacity for testing and 

certifying products for refrigeration and foams; and cost impacts.

EPA Response: In issuing initial listing decisions and in changing the status of substitutes, we 

apply the same test – whether there are other alternatives currently or potentially available 

that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. However, in our analysis of 

whether and when other alternatives are available, we evaluate many of the factors 

enumerated by the commenter. Regarding flammability, that is one of the SNAP criteria for 

review and there are a number of examples in this rulemaking where we determined not to 

change the status of HFC-134a because flammability of other alternatives is a concern for a 

specific use. Other issues raised by Solvay are addressed in sections V.A.3.a, V.B.6.a, V.C.2.c, 

V.C.3.c, V.C.4.c, V.C.5.c, and V.D.3.a of the preamble and section 4.5.4 of this document.
159

 Several commenters urged EPA to grandfather existing uses as EPA did in a previous rule 

changing the listing status of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b for certain foam applications for an 

additional five years. BASF stated that grandfathering of such existing uses for periods of up 

to four years is fully justified based on EPA’s analysis under the four-part test that was 

established in Sierra Club v. EPA (719 F.2d 436 (DC Cir. 1983)) and as discussed on page 

13057 of EPA’s original SNAP rule (published March 18, 1994). BASF stated that when 

presented with similar circumstances in the past, EPA has never required PU foam 

producers to convert to acceptable alternatives without the benefit of a grandfather period. 

BASF stated that because Congress may not have intended for GWP to be part of the risk 

assessment for alternatives, it is clear that there is not a compelling statutory interest in 

applying the new rule immediately without grandfathering periods; therefore, EPA should 

adopt the grandfathering periods proposed by BASF. Mexichem and BASF commented that 

the proposed January 1, 2017, change of listing status for HFC-134a would be highly 

detrimental to PU foam systems houses, but its adverse impact could be mitigated by 

grandfathering certain existing uses. Mexichem noted that commenters on the proposal for 

that previous rule largely agreed with EPA’s assessment of the amount of time it takes to 

transition to alternatives in many foam applications. They stated that the recent change of 

listing status of HCFC-141b and the implementation of alternatives in those foam 

applications in which HCFC-141b was previously used has further demonstrated the 

accuracy of that four-year transition timeline. Mexichem noted that grandfathering allows 

those who had made a good-faith transition to a SNAP-approved alternative sufficient time 

to transition to a different alternative while prohibiting new investment in an alternative 

that is no longer SNAP-approved. Mexichem and BASF proposed the following status change 

schedule:

o Walk-in cooler panel foams – not before January 1, 2020;

o Continuously produced insulated metal panels – not before 2019;

o Marine Flotation – not before July 1, 2019;

o Commercial Refrigeration – not before July 1, 2019;

o Garage door applications and refrigerated transport – not before July 1, 2018

o Domestic Refrigeration – not before July 1, 2017;

o Integral Skin – not before July 1, 2017;

o HVAC panels and residential entry door applications – not before July 1, 2017. [0093, 

0101]

EPA Response: While EPA is not applying “grandfathering” in this rulemaking, we have 

established status change dates for different sectors and end-uses that reflect the date by 

which we expect alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment 

will be available, both for existing and new users of certain substitutes. In considering when 

alternatives will be available for these other end-uses, we have considered the technical 

challenges that the end users are facing with the transition. Under both the approach used in 

this rule and the grandfathering approach, we consider whether there is a basis to establish the 

change of status later than the effective date of the rulemaking and thus the approaches result 

in a similar outcome.
160

For the reasons discussed in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule, EPA 

is establishing the following status change dates for these specific uses identified by Mexichem 

and BASF:

o Walk-in cooler panel foams (rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels 

end-use) – January 1, 2020;

o Marine Flotation (rigid PU marine flotation foam) – January 1, 2020;

o Commercial Refrigeration (rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels 

end-use) – January 1, 2020;

o Garage door applications and refrigerated transport – (rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels end-use) – January 1, 2020;

o Domestic Refrigeration (rigid PU appliance foam) –July 1, 2020; and 

o Integral Skin – January 1, 2017.

Concerning HVAC panels and residential entry door applications and continuously produced 

insulated metal panels, EPA considers these applications to fall within the rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panel end-use. EPA has established a status change date of January 

1, 2020, for this end-use in the final rule.

6.3.2 Second Generation Substitutes

 Arkema commented that it is not the role of the Agency to create a new permanent 

structure for regulating industrial sectors that historically once used CFCs and HCFCs.

Arkema commented that EPA’s attempt to change the status of HFC-134a and other 

substances covered in the proposed rule is unlawful because EPA has repeatedly 

acknowledged that it does not review substitutes for non-ozone depleting substance (ODS). 

The commenter cited as an example EPA’s response to a petition from OZ Technology for 

use of HC-12a, in which EPA said: "under the March 18, 1994 SNAP rule, EPA does not 

review substitutes for non-ozone depleting refrigerants like HFC-134a.” [0131]

EPA Response: As discussed in section VII.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule, in this rule EPA 

is reviewing the status of HFC-134a and other substances that the commenter acknowledges 

are direct replacements for ODS. 

6.3.3 GWP Considerations

 Honeywell and Arkema noted that some of the GWP values used for comparison purposes 

in this rulemaking differ from the GWP values listed in the IPCC AR5. Honeywell and Arkema 

commented that the use of “out of-date” GWP values in such an important rule can cause 

confusion, especially among those trying to evaluate and compare low-GWP technologies. 

Additionally, Honeywell and Arkema commented that EPA should adopt the IPCC AR5 GWP 

values in the final rule for all sectors. [0131, 0170]

EPA Response: GWPs from the peer-reviewed scientific literature are periodically consolidated 

and published by the IPCC. EPA used the GWP values in the IPCC AR4 in the NPRM and 
161

continues to use these in this final rulemaking to maintain consistency with other rules and 

facets of the SNAP program and with other U.S. domestic programs. Using consistent GWPs 

allows for more efficient operation of U.S. climate programs and facilitates integration with 

other public and private sector programs on international, national, state, and local levels. It 

also reduces the burden on stakeholders of keeping track of separate GWPs when interacting 

with these programs. Use of the AR4 GWPs will also ensure compatibility with the Climate 

Action Report and other reporting requirements under the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries –including the United States - that submit 

GHG inventories under the UNFCCC have decided to use AR4 GWPs for the GHGs that have AR4 

GWPs, beginning with the inventories submitted in 2015.6 Adoption of AR5 GWPs while other 

EPA and international programs are using AR4 GWPs likely would cause stakeholder confusion, 

create an ongoing need to explain the distinction in GWPs in subsequent actions, and 

complicate decision-making. Also, use of AR4 GWPs ensures that the SNAP program uses widely 

relied on, published, peer-reviewed GWP data. EPA may consider adoption of AR5 GWPs or 

other GWP values in the future. In any event, use of AR5 GWPs would not result in a change in 

EPA’s conclusions about the comparative risk posed by the substitutes addressed in this rule.

 Arkema commented that nowhere in the NPRM does EPA attempt to explain any GWP 

difference in the context of actual environmental harm. Arkema stated that there is a 

difference between GWP and actual risk for purposes of the SNAP program that the NPRM 

fails to address. Arkema noted that in the past, the Agency has explained that a physical 

characteristic alone, taken by itself without considering risk, would not justify a change of 

status. Arkema commented that the NPRM abandons that risk-based approach to focus 

solely on the characteristic of GWP. Arkema further commented that EPA makes no effort 

to link GWP and actual risk. Arkema commented that EPA’s assumption that GWP without 

any context is equal to risk, and that a larger GWP must automatically equal a larger risk 

that must be controlled for purposes of SNAP, would appear to be born of convenience. 

[0131]

EPA Response: Arkema cites the distinction between physical characteristics, hazard and risk, 

and refers to examples that the Agency has used in the past. However, we note that the 

distinction being referred to is more meaningful in cases such as flammability and toxicity, 

where there is a specific concentration or threshold that it is important to remain below to 

avoid risk, such as the lower flammability limit of a flammable substance or the exposure limit 

for a chemical. In the case of climate change impacts, the environmental risks of substitutes are 

due to the collective global impact of emissions released over time from a variety of sources 

rather than the specific amount of emissions coming from an individual user. EPA has 

determined that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs in 

the atmosphere — CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

 6 The IPCC publishes Scientific Assessment Reports, including updated and expanded sets of GWPs, approximately 

every six years. The countries that submit annual GHG inventories under the UNFCCC update the GWPs that they 

use for those inventories less frequently. For example, the GWPs from the IPCC Second Assessment Report have 

been used for UNFCCC reporting for over a decade.
162

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — threaten the public health and welfare of current and future 

generations.”(74 FR 66,496, 66,517, 66,539) The Agency has not determined a specific amount 

of HFC or all GHG emissions that must be reduced in order to mitigate climate risks. However, 

because emissions of HFCs have grown significantly since the early 1990s and are anticipated to 

continue to grow significantly,

7 any HFC emissions avoided will reduce environmental risk 

compared to “business as usual” in the absence of this rule. 

 A private citizen commented that HFC-134a has 15 years of atmospheric lifetime, whereas 

other substitutes have less than 15 years atmospheric lifetime and some as short as hours. 

The commenter stated that EPA has made the right choice to list HFC-134a and blends 

thereof as unacceptable in all foam-blowing end-uses since there are other substitutes 

available that have less environmental impacts. [0080]

 Arkema commented that GWP is an unsuitable metric for changing the SNAP status of 

previously approved substitutes and EPA should have asked for comment on using GWP as 

a risk metric for SNAP status changes as well as “ignoring” atmospheric lifetimes. Arkema 

stated that the “fallacy of logic” underlying the NPRM is easily seen in its comparison of 

HFC-134a to CO2. Arkema asserted that the NPRM treats HFC-134a (GWP 1300, AR5) as 

posing a greater risk than CO2 (GWP 1), yet CO2 causes the greatest radiative forcing 

because of its overwhelming abundance. In addition, Arkema noted that CO2 is 

exceptionally long-lived in the atmosphere (i.e., thousands of years), whereas HFC-134a 

only has an atmospheric lifetime of 13.4 years according to AR5. Arkema also stated that 

that the NPRM utilizes a SNAP metric that is inherently biased against short-lived HFCs, 

especially in any comparison to longer-lived GHGs such as CO2. [0131]

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the support for the proposed rule and the change of status for 

HFC-134a in a number of end-uses. EPA has included GWP as a risk metric since the SNAP initial 

rule was promulgated in 1994 and thus disagrees that GWP is an inappropriate metric to 

consider in determining whether to change the status of a substitute. Further information and 

explanation on use of GWP as a metric is provided in section VII.A.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule and in the following response. The existing SNAP regulations require submission of GWP 

values and the SNAP criteria for review include “atmospheric effects and related health and 

environmental impacts.” EPA did not propose to revise its regulations to abandon consideration 

of GWP in this rule. 

The IPCC states that “GWPs remain the recommended metric to compare future climate 

impacts” of GHG emissions (Section 2.10.1 of IPCC, 2007). The IPCC notes that GWPs can

provide a tool for countries “so that multi-gas emitters” can compare and compose mitigation 

measures. GWP considers both radiative forcing and atmospheric lifetime, with different GWP 

values based upon the amount of impact a substance is anticipated to have over 20 years, 100 

years, or 500 years. In this rule, we have used the 100-year integrated GWP, which is the value 

the SNAP program has typically reported in its listings of acceptable substitutes and is the value 

 7 Akerman, 2013.
163

most commonly used by policymakers as well as for UNFCCC reporting. We note that the 500-

year GWP of HFC-134a of 435 is still significantly higher than the GWP of 1 of CO2 (IPCC, 2007), 

indicating that even when longer-term climate impacts are considered, HFC-134a still has a 

greater impact. EPA disagrees with Arkema that CO2 should be of greater concern than HFC134a due to the longer atmospheric lifetime of CO2. Action on short-lived climate pollutants, 

including HFC-134a, will quickly lower their atmospheric concentrations, yielding a climate 

response in several years, compared to action on CO2 that will have impacts a century or more 

in the future. We note that action on short-lived climate pollutants (e.g., HFCs) must 

complement and supplement, not replace global action to reduce CO2. To this end, the United 

States is taking a comprehensive approach to addressing climate change. Additional 

information is available in the President’s CAP (CAP, 2013) and the Intended Nationally 

Determined Contribution (INDC) the United States submitted as its target to cut net GHG 

emissions to the UNFCCC (INDC, 2015). The INDC is a formal statement of the U.S. target to 

reduce U.S. emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and to make best efforts to reduce 

by 28%.

 Owens Corning asserted that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the intent of Congress 

as revealed by the legislative history of Title VI of the 1990 CAA Amendments. The 

commenter states that while the original Senate bill contained numerous provisions 

addressing climate change, the conference version of the bill omitted all such references 

except for the requirement in CAA section 602(e) to provide information about GWP. The 

commenter concluded that Congress considered but rejected the approach of addressing 

climate change under Title VI. [0035, 0085]

EPA Response: We disagree that the deletion of provisions that were specific to climate change 

during the development of the 1990 CAA Amendments means that EPA cannot consider climate 

effects under section 612. The “Statement of Understanding – Title VI” included in the record of 

the House debate on the conference report states, “the Administrator shall base risk estimates 

on the total environmental risk (toxicity, flammability, atmospheric, etc.) that is perceived to 

exist, not just the risk as it relates to ozone depletion.” 136 Cong Rec H 12911 (Oct. 26, 1990).

Thus, the legislative history for CAA section 612 indicates that EPA is to consider atmospheric 

impacts and other impacts in addition to risks from ozone depletion. Also see section VII.A.3 of 

the preamble to the final rule. 

6.3.4 Montreal Protocol/International

 Solvay commented that an appropriate tool to respond to global warming concerns is 

through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to establish a phaseout schedule for such 

substances, and then to follow the same type of gradual, orderly transition that assures that 

valuable consumer products will be preserved that meet all applicable performance, safety 

and regulatory standards, along with the businesses that provide them. Solvay requested 

that EPA either amend this rulemaking proposal or withdraw the proposal altogether.

[0098]
164

 DuPont commented that they agree with the goal of the proposed rule, but stated that an 

amendment to the Montreal Protocol is a better tool for long term reductions. DuPont 

noted that a series of national and regional efforts is a less effective regulatory model, but 

that EPA’s SNAP authority does provide a “reasonable down payment” by focusing on areas 

where technology transitions are already underway in the marketplace; alternatives are 

already available, or will soon be; and action under SNAP can accelerate those transitions.

[0077]

 Arkema commented that the North American HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol is 

the best way to ensure an effective and efficient HFC regulation, but the proposed rule 

offers none of the advantages of the amendment. Arkema stated that they have serious 

misgivings about going outside the Montreal Protocol process to address HFCs and that the 

Administration’s Climate Action Plan does exactly that by directing EPA to reduce HFC 

emissions pursuant to the SNAP program. Arkema also commented that unlike the 

Montreal Protocol, the proposed rule is not a phasedown, but rather a ban of particular 

uses of specific chemicals without allowing sufficient time for market transitions as in prior 

successful phasedowns under the CAA. Arkema asserted that the proposed rule makes EPA

the arbiter of chemical efficiency, restricts business judgments, frustrates investment 

decisions, renders the market unpredictable, and imposes unreasonable, uneconomic 

deadlines. [0131]

 AHRI commented that the provisions of the proposed rule that modify the listing status of 

certain HFC refrigerants and foam blowing agents by January 1, 2016, or 2017 are

inconsistent with EPA’s stated position at Montreal Protocol meetings as well as its support 

for an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that would achieve a gradual phasedown of 

HFCs to allow for the development of low-GWP alternative technologies. AHRI stated that 

they support the North American Amendment Proposal to the Montreal Protocol which 

calls for a gradual phasedown of HFCs. [0037]

 Sub Zero commented that the proposed status change date for HFC-245fa is unrealistic, and 

that “a gradual phaseout is much more doable than an outright ban.” [0187]

 Continental Refrigerator believed that HFC-134a should remain an acceptable alternative 

for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines. Continental 

Refrigerator stated that this is consistent with the position stated in EPA’s proposed North 

American 2014 HFC phasedown amendment to the Montreal Protocol. [0122]

 The Alliance commented that they support EPA’s goal to achieve a gradual phasedown of 

HFCs on a GWP-weighted basis, as part of the proposed North American Amendment to the 

Montreal Protocol. The Alliance believes that the gradual phasedown approach is important 

in order to allow for effective technology development and introduction, to allow for the 

building codes and safety standards process to catch up with the newly available low-GWP 

compounds and technologies and to ensure continued improvement of energy efficiency 

performance where relevant, which the current SNAP proposal does not allow. [0202]
165

EPA Response: See section VII.A.5 of the preamble to the final rule. In response to comments 

from AHRI, Solvay, Arkema, and the Alliance that a gradual production and consumption 

phasedown approach, as in the proposals for an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 

provides more time for development and introduction of new technology; for updating and 

meeting building codes, safety standards and regulatory requirements; and for ensuring energy 

efficiency improvements, EPA notes that how much time would be available to address these 

concerns under a production and consumption phasedown would depend on the schedule 

adopted. There is no specific timing inherent in the concept of a production and consumption 

phasedown. EPA notes that currently, there is no HFC amendment, only amendment proposals. 

Nonetheless, section 612 calls on EPA to restrict substitutes for ODS where the Agency has 

identified other available or potentially available alternatives that reduce overall risk to human 

health and the environment. In this rule, EPA is acting under section 612 and its implementing 

regulations. In response to Continental Refrigerator’s assertion that continuing to find HFC134a acceptable for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines is 

consistent with the position stated in EPA’s proposed North American 2014 HFC phasedown 

amendment to the Montreal Protocol, EPA notes that the North American proposal says 

nothing about specific uses or specific HFCs. Finally, EPA notes that we have modified the status 

change dates in the final rule in specific cases to address technical barriers. 

6.3.5 Petitions

 The Alliance noted that EPA has not responded to a petition filed earlier this year to extend 

CAA section 608 rules to HFCs. The Alliance stated that the environmental benefits of 

preventing emissions from servicing existing equipment are likely greater than the benefits 

of the proposed rule. The Alliance commented that promoting effective refrigerant 

management practices, including recovery, reclamation, and reuse, is an important 

immediate element of reducing the GHG footprint associated with the use of HFCs, and will 

allow production to be focused primarily for use in new equipment. [0202]

 Arkema commented that if EPA believes additional controls for refrigerants are needed, it 

should grant the Alliance's January 31, 2014, petition to extend the CAA section 608 

regulations to HFCs. Arkema commented that the petition would maximize recapture and 

recycling of HFC refrigerants by having EPA expressly regulate recovery and evacuation 

during servicing and repair, technician certification, refrigerant reclamation and recovery, 

leak repair, certification of recovery and recycling equipment, and associated reporting and 

recordkeeping. Arkema pointed out that a fact sheet released by the White House states 

that “EPA recognizes that refrigerant management is an important way to reduce climatedamaging emissions from equipment used for air-conditioning and refrigeration.” Arkema 

stated that acting on that petition would further reduce risks from HFCs. [0131]

 Arkema also commented that nowhere does the NPRM consider how existing regulations 

are controlling climate effects, as EPA has done for other SNAP acceptability

determinations. Arkema cited several cases where they believe EPA approved a variety of 
166

alternatives where, even at the high end, the GWPs were acceptable because the emissions 

would be limited given the venting prohibition under CAA section 608 and required 

practices under CAA section 609. They commented that before EPA can change the status of 

any covered substance, it must explain why CAA sections 608 and 609 together with current 

industry practices do not adequately control climate risks for each substitute in question. 

Arkema requested that the Agency explain what has changed since its prior SNAP analyses 

with respect to climate, and why those restrictions cannot adequately control risks. They 

specifically pointed to the following statement in the initial SNAP rule: "In considering the 

framework of existing regulatory constraints, the Agency's evaluation of alternatives will 

assume compliance with their provisions." (59 FR 13,044, 13,064). [0131]

 Arkema commented that in banning the use of certain substitutes based on potential 

climate hazards, the NPRM implicitly assumes that controls do not work. Further, Arkema 

stated that the NPRM then directs users to use other chemicals such as ammonia or HCs

that pose toxicity and flammability risks. Arkema speculated that rather than weighing one 

risk against another, the NPRM assumes that the non-climate risks are fully controlled, but 

the climate “risks” are not. [0131]

 New Era Group commented that they disagree with the intent of the proposed rule and 

believe that in order to create a sustainable path forward for the reclamation of high-GWP 

gases, there must be a requirement of recovery for all refrigerants. New Era Group noted

that when refrigerants are recovered and reclaimed, it causes less demand for the 

production of future refrigerants. [0037]

EPA Response: Action on the Alliance’s petition or on requirements to recover refrigerants 

generally is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The current regulations under section 608 and 

609 do not set requirements for HFCs except for a prohibition on intentional venting or release 

of refrigerant into the environment. EPA recognizes that refrigerant management is an 

important way to reduce climate-damaging emissions from equipment used for air-conditioning 

and refrigeration, even assuming compliance with existing requirements, and is actively 

considering the merits and environmental benefits of this petition under a separate 

process. EPA held an initial public stakeholder meeting on November 12, 2014, and announced 

that we intend to issue a proposed rule concerning changes to the existing CAA section 608 

implementing regulations. However, EPA also recognizes that CAA section 612 can address risks 

posed by emissions of high-GWP refrigerants in some circumstances by ensuring they will not 

be used when alternatives are available that pose less overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

In evaluating the change of status for substitutes in the MVAC, retail food refrigeration and 

vending machine end-uses, EPA did consider the prohibition at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1) on the 

knowing venting or release of non-exempt substitutes during maintenance, servicing, repair or 

disposal of an appliance (the “venting prohibition”), which is designed to implement CAA 

section 608(c)(2). Consistent with our approach in previous SNAP actions, in this action, EPA 

assumed compliance with the regulatory venting prohibition. Nonetheless, that prohibition 
167

addresses only knowing venting or release, and thus does not account for all HFC refrigerant 

emissions. For instance, we note that there are emissions of HFCs that occur due to appliance 

leaks. For purposes of this rule, EPA did not assume that such leaks are knowing releases. Using 

refrigerants with lower GWPs will therefore reduce climate impacts of the refrigerants when 

leaked. In addition, because the venting prohibition applies only to refrigerant in appliances, we 

did not consider it for our decisions regarding a change of status in the aerosols and foams 

sectors. In some products in these sectors, HFCs are used with a specific intent to release the 

HFC and without any controls (e.g., aerosols). Other products, such as flexible foams, could emit 

HFCs during the manufacturing process while rigid foams typically release HFCs when they 

reach their end of life.

Concerning use of other alternatives, such as ammonia or HCs, we note that 1) there is a suite 

of available alternatives in each end-use, many of which are low in toxicity or nonflammable, 

and we do not direct the end user to any specific alternative, and 2) we acknowledge in the 

preamble that ammonia has a potential toxicity hazard and ammonia and HCs present a 

flammability hazard. However, as described in the preamble, in those uses where we have 

found these substitutes acceptable, we have done so for specific types of equipment (e.g., 

ammonia in secondary loop supermarket systems which assures consumers would not be 

exposed to any risk) or with use conditions (e.g., limits on charge size of HCs and adoption of 

relevant industry standards for construction, testing, and labeling) to mitigate potential hazards 

so that overall human health and environmental risks are not significantly greater than those of 

other acceptable substitutes for the same uses. 

6.3.6 Application of SNAP Criteria and Guiding Principles

 Arkema commented that in the 20 years of the SNAP program, EPA has never ”delisted” in 

any application a substitute that is not an ODS-based on climate considerations. [0131]

EPA Response: We disagree with Arkema that we are departing from past practice by changing 

the status of a substitute where GWP or climate is identified as the sole factor responsible for 

the significant difference in risk as compared to other substitutes. While EPA has never changed 

the status of a substitute on the basis of the risk posed by a high GWP, EPA has previously 

changed the status of a number of substitutes from acceptable to unacceptable under SNAP 

where it found a significant difference in risk attributable to a specific factor, such as toxicity 

and exposure concerns or ODP. Also see section II.G of the preamble to the final rule. In 

addition, EPA has restricted substitutes or found them unacceptable under SNAP during initial 

review of a substitute based primarily on concern about the high GWP of the substitute under 

review. Thus, the approach taken here, where GWP or climate concerns are the primary basis 

of an unacceptability determination and where there are not significant differences in risk for 

the other factors, is not new to the SNAP program.

 Arkema stated that in its current form, the NPRM can be said to be based on climate “risks” 

only by ignoring SNAP’s second and seventh principles. For example, Arkema commented 
168

that under the second SNAP principle, EPA is not to limit the list of acceptable substitutes to 

those posing zero risks. [0131]

 Arkema stated that “at several points, the NPRM rationalizes the proposed delistings by 

citing to supposed new information or changed circumstances” and “in numerous cases, 

including especially retail food refrigeration, EPA does not bother to attempt to explain 

precisely what has changed.” Arkema also stated that the Agency listed HFC-134a as 

acceptable for retail food refrigeration in 2010 even though ammonia and CO2 were already 

listed and have GWPs of zero and one, respectively. [0131]

 Arkema commented that the NPRM violates the third SNAP principle --“restrict those 

substitutes that are significantly worse” -- by proposing to regulate products that pose little 

to no risk given that they have short atmospheric lifetimes, have low usage rates, are 

subject to existing regulatory controls, are managed with appropriate industry practices, 

and are subject to replacement by less efficient alternatives. Arkema noted that the NPRM 

compares GWPs without explaining the significance of the differences for any effect on 

climate. [0131]

 Arkema commented that the NPRM does correctly apply the fourth SNAP principle

“evaluate risks by use” since it treats servicing of existing equipment separately from new 

equipment and from “replacement” (retrofit). Arkema suggested that EPA should continue 

to analyze servicing separately from other uses. [0131]

 Arkema commented that a “blatant failure” of the NPRM to apply the seventh SNAP 

principle arises from the combination of the LD GHG Rule and other market incentives. 

Arkema noted that EPA previously admitted that the industry is moving away from HFC134a in new vehicles. Arkema commented that the changeover means that any concern 

over climate is already mitigated, that there is no significant risk reduction to be had from 

any SNAP delisting of HFC-134a in the MVAC sector, and that no further control is 

necessary. In accordance with its SNAP principles and practices, Arkema believed that EPA 

must defer to the LD GHG Rule and not change the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable for 

the MVAC sector. [0131]

 Arkema commented that the NPRM fails to analyze the effect of DOE's efficiency standards 

as further GHG risk reduction measures. [0131]

 Dow Chemical was concerned that there is an implied endorsement by EPA for HFO-1234ze 

which will be single-sourced and manufactured in one plant during the proposed conversion 

timeframe. Dow Chemical remarked that this view is supported by other foam blowing 

agent suppliers in this industry. Owens Corning commented that once one eliminates the 

alternatives that cannot be used to conform to current XPS standards, are flammable, or are 

VOCs, the proposed rule effectively endorses products manufactured by a specific company, 

because the only substitute left is HFO-1234ze(E). [0035, 0085, 0204]
169

EPA Response: See section 6.3.3 of this document for a discussion of how risk compares to 

hazard in the case of our evaluation of GWP and climate impacts. Further, we believe the 

proposed and final rules are consistent with the SNAP guiding principles:

1. First guiding principle: Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework. As 

suggested by the first guiding principle, in all of the actions that EPA proposed and is 

today finalizing, EPA evaluated the risk of substitutes compared to available or 

potentially available alternatives. In that effort, a range of risk factors are well 

described in this action. They include ODP, flammability, toxicity, exposure, and 

contributions to climate change and other environmental factors. 

2. Second guiding principle: Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found 

acceptable. EPA has not required substitutes to be risk free. We acknowledge in the 

proposed and final rules that both the substitutes changing status and the other 

available alternatives have risks. In this rule, as in past SNAP rules, we have 

considered whether there are alternatives that are available or potentially available 

that pose a lower overall risk to human health and the environment in specific enduses and end-use categories.

3. Third guiding principle: Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse. EPA 

has based our decisions on substitutes that have significantly greater risk than other 

available substitutes for the same uses. For example, we have found a number of 

HFCs unacceptable for aerosols, but have not changed the status of HFC-152a from 

acceptable to unacceptable. This is because HFC-152a has a significantly lower GWP 

than the HFCs changing status to unacceptable in the related end-use and its GWP is 

not significantly higher than those of other available alternatives, while having 

similar toxicity risks and local air quality and ozone depletion risks to other HFCs and 

less local air quality risk than some other available. Except in certain aerosol uses 

where we are listing HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions, because of 

greater flammability risks with HFC-152a and other alternatives in those uses, we 

expect the flammability of HFC-152a is addressed by industry practices and existing 

regulations (e.g., OSHA, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC)). We did 

not propose and are not finalizing today changes in status where there is only a 

marginal difference in risk between two alternatives available or potentially 

available in the same end-use. As regards to comments suggesting that the HFCs 

subject to a status change pose little to no risk, this is discussed in response to a 

related comment below. Regarding the comment that HFCs have short atmospheric 

lifetimes, see the third response above in section 6.3.3 of this document. As 

described in the preambles to the proposed and final rules, the Agency carefully 

considered the HFCs addressed in this action on the basis of the SNAP criteria, and 

concluded that other alternatives presented a degree of reduced overall risk 

sufficient to warrant the actions being taken in this rulemaking. Regarding the 

commenter’s assertion that EPA does not explain the “new information and changed 

circumstances” that support the status changes, particularly for the retail food 
170

refrigeration sector, see section V.C of the preamble to the proposed and final rules 

and section 3 of this document. With respect to the comment that usage rates are 

low, HFC emissions are projected to accelerate over the next several decades; if left 

unregulated, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030 (CAP, 

2013). The effect of existing regulatory controls is addressed above in section 6.3.5

of this document with respect to other stratospheric ozone regulations and below in 

this section of this document in the context of the seventh guiding principle. 

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that emissions are managed by appropriate 

industry practices, see the fourth response in section 6.3.6 of this document on 

industry practices. Regarding the comment that less efficient alternatives may be 

used as a result of this rule, see related discussion on energy efficiency

considerations in sections 3.3.1 and 4.3.1 of this document and sections V.C.7 and 

V.D.3.b of the preamble to the final rule. In response to the comment that the NPRM 

compares GWPs without explaining the significance of the differences for any effect 

on climate, we acknowledge that EPA did not estimate differences in temperature 

change or other physical climate metrics due to the impacts of the rule. EPA has not 

used these metrics in the past as measures of climate impact for other SNAP 

decisions. See third response in section 6.3.3 above of this document on the use of 

GWP as a metric for climate impact and the next response below in this section 6.3.6

concerning the significance of the rule for climate.

4. Fourth guiding principle: Evaluate risks by use. EPA evaluated substitutes for specific 

uses and reached different conclusions for the same substitute in different uses, 

depending on the specific risks and other available or potentially available 

alternatives in the relevant uses. For example, we considered the flammability risks 

to be greater in rigid PU spray foam than in other foam uses, and therefore did not 

propose to change the status of certain non-flammable substitutes for that end-use 

even though they had higher GWPs than other available alternatives. No action was 

taken to ban any one HFC or other alternative across all end-uses. Additionally, as 

noted by the commenter, we considered the potential risks of alternatives used for 

servicing of MVAC or commercial refrigeration apart from new equipment or from 

retrofits of existing equipment. For further discussion on the fourth guiding 

principle, see the next response below in this section 6.3.6.

5. Fifth guiding principle: Provide the regulated community with information as soon as 

possible. EPA provided the regulated community with information as soon as 

possible by holding a series of workshops and public meetings concerning this action 

and other regulatory issues relevant to various industrial sectors over the course of 

more than a year before we issued our proposal. In response to Arkema’s other 

points concerning the fifth guiding principle, see the fifth response in this section 

6.3.6 below. 

6. Sixth guiding principle: Do not endorse products manufactured by specific 

companies. Our change of status decisions reflect the availability of multiple 
171

alternatives for each end-use. Regarding endorsements, see section V.B.6.a of the 

preamble to the final rule.

7. Seventh guiding principle: Defer to other environmental regulations when 

warranted. We note that this reads “Defer to other environmental regulations when 

warranted” (emphasis added). Other regulations may not ensure that substitutes 

that pose significantly greater risk are prohibited where safer alternatives are 

available because those regulations do not address all or address sufficiently the risk 

posed. EPA has considered the potential impacts of other environmental, health,

and safety regulations. EPA carefully considered these and other existing regulations 

under other programs when reviewing substitutes. For example, we considered the 

presence of OSHA regulations in addressing flammability risk in factories where 

foam is blown. EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a change in how this 

principle is applied. EPA continues to consider other environmental, health and 

safety regulations and notes these regulations where appropriate in our decisions.

See section 6.3.5 in this document regarding EPA’s consideration of other 

stratospheric ozone regulations. Concerning the suggestion that EPA’s SNAP 

program must defer to EPA’s light-duty vehicle GHG standards, we disagree.

Although that regulation provides significant incentives for automobile 

manufacturers to reduce the leakage of AC equipment and to switch to lower-GWP 

refrigerants, we note that the AC credits in that rule are voluntary. Also, the credits 

are available until MY 2025 and could be subject to review during the Mid-term 

Evaluation of that rule. Further, the LD GHG Rule does not apply to vehicles that are 

exported. While EPA’s analysis conducted in support of the LD GHG Rule projected 

100% transition by MY 2021, the 2014 industry survey submitted as a comment on 

this rule indicated that, of those surveyed, manufacturers planned to transition 10% 

of vehicle models after MY 2021. As a result of this final rule, all vehicle models will 

now be required to transition by MY 2021. Thus, the LD GHG Rule does not address 

the same risks addressed by this rulemaking and cannot stand in its place.

Regarding the suggestion that EPA should consider, and by implication defer to, DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for various types of equipment for climate risk reductions, 

we disagree that the GHG risk reductions made by DOE’s standards can replace those in this 

rule. We note that the standards for certain types of equipment have considered 

commonly-used HFC refrigerants and foam blowing agents and do not reflect additional 

potential GHG mitigation from using lower-GWP refrigerants or foam blowing agents. We 

are taking this action under CAA section 612 to address the fact that there are alternatives 

available or potentially available that reduce overall risk to human health and the 

environment. However, DOE’s standards do ensure that appliances addressed in the energy 

conservation standards (e.g., household refrigerators and freezers, commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and walk-in coolers) will not increase in overall GHG emissions due to indirect 

emissions. 
172

 Arkema stated that because of EPA’s fourth guiding principle (i.e., SNAP is applied on an 

end-use by end-use basis), the agency must break down the emissions savings by sector and 

then again by each individual substance that it proposes to list as unacceptable. Arkema 

also requested that the Agency compare the quantity emitted to the total quantity of GHGs 

released in the United States and the world, just as it has compared VOC emissions of other 

SNAP substances to the VOCs from all sources, and explain its significance (or lack thereof) 

to climate change. Arkema claimed that when this is done, there is no risk from the covered 

substances to address under the SNAP program. Arkema commented that rather than 

presenting that information, the NPRM defaults to estimates of aggregate emission 

numbers across sectors for all substances to be delisted. Arkema stated that such 

aggregation itself is inconsistent with the SNAP principles and disguises the absence of any 

benefit to the NPRM. Arkema also commented that an evaluation of what EPA does provide 

in the rulemaking record shows that the NPRM’s proposed reductions are insignificant to 

climate change. Arkema provided evidence that, according to the commenter, confirms that 

“HFCs currently represent a very small portion of the total GHG emissions.” [0131]

 Arkema commented that the NPRM does not apply EPA’s usual tests for deciding whether 

or not SNAP substitutes have acceptable atmospheric effects. Arkema noted that in each 

instance, the level of emissions was critical, not solely the physical characteristic of the 

substance under consideration. Further, Arkema commented that EPA must set a standard 

of comparing SNAP substitute emission levels to objective measures of environmental harm 

for each covered substance in each of the affected applications. Arkema stated that this 

point is particularly true here, given EPA’s recognition in the preamble to the initial SNAP 

rule that “actual contributions to global warming depend upon the quantities emitted.” 

(March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13,044) For the purposes of status changes, Arkema recommended 

that EPA consider the comparison for each substitute in each sector because “EPA considers 

the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use.” [0131]

EPA Response: Arkema has taken the quotation from EPA’s initial SNAP rule out of context. The 

full statement reads: “The principal environmental characteristic of concern for PFCs is that 

they have long atmospheric lifetimes and high GWPs. Although actual contributions to global 

warming depend upon the quantities of PFCs emitted, the effects are for practical purposes 

irreversible.” The substitutes so described were listed as acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits, where the substitute may be used “only where reasonable efforts have been made to 

ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety 

requirements.” EPA did not provide an estimate of total GHG emissions anticipated for these 

substitutes as a justification for restricting them. In other words, since the inception of the 

SNAP program, EPA has consistently considered high GWPs as a reason for restricting certain 

substitutes, without calculating total GHG impacts.

Concerning the commenter’s suggestion that EPA must break down the emissions savings by 

each individual substance within each sector, we disagree. EPA’s analysis mirrors the 

unacceptability determinations, which cover a group of substitutes in an end-use. They are 

intended to avoid creating an incentive to switch from one high-GWP HFC to another that can 
173

be used for the same use when there are other alternatives available that pose lower overall 

risk to human health and the environment compared to all of the substitutes changing status. 

As the commenter indicates, HFCs represent a portion of total GHG emissions. EPA has found 

that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key, well-mixed greenhouse gases in 

the atmosphere — CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6— threaten the public health and welfare 

of current and future generations.” (74 FR 66,496; December 15, 2009). The commenter 

appears to be saying that this rule should not be pursued because it does not address “climate 

change” fully on its own, and that it may only address “a very small portion of the total GHG 

emissions,” with the term ‘very small’ being undefined by the commenter. EPA does not agree 

with such a conclusion. In the first instance, we are taking this action under CAA section 612 to 

address the fact that there are alternatives available or potentially available that reduce overall 

risk to human health and the environment. As it relates to climate change more broadly, EPA 

has been clear that, as stated in the Endangerment Finding, “the global nature of the air 

pollution problem and the breadth of countries and sources emitting GHGs means that no 

single country and no single source category dominate or are even close to dominating on a 

global scale.” (Id.) As noted in section III of the preamble to the proposed and final rules, 

emissions of HFCs are growing faster than other GHG emissions. According to IPCC’s Special 

Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011), HFCs would be equivalent to five to 12% of 

the CO2 emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC’s highest CO2 emissions scenario and equivalent to 

27 to 69% of CO2 emissions based on the IPCC’s lowest CO2 emissions pathway (IPCC, 2013, 

UNEP, 2011). Thus, although HFCs may today constitute approximately two percent of GHG 

emissions, this situation is likely to change dramatically in the absence of actions to curb use 

and emissions of HFCs, such as this rule. Further, HFCs are particularly potent GHGs, with GWPs 

hundreds to thousands of times that of other GHGs such as CO2 or CH4, as well as GWPs 

significantly higher than a number of available alternatives in the end-uses addressed in this 

rule. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to change the listing status of HFCs in a variety of 

end-uses where alternatives with lower overall risk to human health and the environment are 

available. 

The situation for HFCs, with rapidly increasing emissions and significantly higher GWPs than 

other GHGs, is in contrast to the situation for VOCs. For VOCs, the amount of VOCs from 

alternatives is not likely to change to become a significantly larger fraction of total VOC 

emissions, nor are the VOCs used as alternatives significantly different in their reactivity from 

VOCs used for other purposes/outside the SNAP sectors. In addition, in some cases where VOCexempt compounds have been used and VOC emissions of newly listed substitutes could be 

adopted, EPA has analyzed the direct impact on ground-level ozone concentrations for 

comparison against the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (e.g., ICF, 2014a). Thus, EPA 

does not see that the same types of risk analyses are necessarily appropriate for GHG emissions 

as for VOC emissions.

EPA believes that the action it is taking in today’s rule is not dependent on whether the 

reductions in each sector and for each substitute are, in the commenter’s view, a small or large 

portion of total GHG emissions. However, together, consumption from some of the sectors 

considered (e.g., refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing agents) composed more than 
174

90% of total HFC consumption in 2010 (UNEP, 2011). EPA evaluated which end-uses within the 

sectors considered have available alternatives that would significantly reduce overall risk to 

human health and the environment. Regardless of whether the emissions from one end-use are 

greater than or lower than the emissions from another end-use, EPA evaluates a given 

alternative compared to other available or potentially available alternatives in a particular enduse. Thus, we believe we have made relevant comparisons of GHG emissions, in terms of total 

GHG emissions, in terms of HFC emissions, and in terms of relative impacts within each enduse. 

 Arkema commented that EPA must defer to other private sector initiatives to limit HFCs.

Specifically, they noted a portion of the NPRM that mentioned how private sector initiatives 

are already reducing risks and the transition to alternatives is already occurring due to other 

regulations and social responsibility initiatives. Arkema also commented that aside from 

government controls, EPA has looked to the ability of standard practices within the 

regulated industry to control risk. Arkema noted that for HFC-134a in the MVAC sector, EPA 

previously has specifically found that industry practices to control risk would limit climate 

effects. Arkema also pointed to the words of one automaker, who said: “replacement of 

CFC-12 with HFC-134a, together with improvements in AC systems, has led to a dramatic 

decrease in the climate impact of refrigerant emissions per vehicle.” Arkema points to a 

figure on an automaker’s website that shows the predicted annual GHG emissions in 2016 

from a car equipped with HFC-134a and a car equipped with HFO-1234yf to be nearly the 

same. [0131]

 Arkema commented that in evaluating the extent of risk, the Agency must follow its seventh 

principle by deferring “to other environmental regulations when warranted.” Arkema 

commented that in listing actions, EPA takes into account the role of industry standards in 

controlling risk, and assumes compliance with both regulations and industry practices. 

Arkema further commented that the NPRM ignores these steps in changing the status of

the covered substances, thereby arbitrarily treating the covered substances differently than 

other SNAP substances. [0131]

EPA Response: EPA is not required to defer to private sector initiatives and industry practices 

that would limit HFCs. EPA’s authority under section 612 is not contingent on private sector 

action or inaction. As a practical matter, while private sector initiatives do exist and 

improvements in industry practices do take place, the scientific literature indicates that HFC 

emissions continue and that atmospheric abundances of HFCs have increased. Government 

action can play an important role in a number of end-uses where private sector initiatives are 

not sufficient on their own to address practices that may result in increased overall risk. We 

also note that where private sector initiatives are not picked up across an industry, there is an

“uneven playing field,” where companies that choose not to adopt more climate-friendly 

options may have a competitive advantage over those companies that do adopt them.

Further, EPA notes that in most of our listings of acceptable alternatives, we have referred to 

standard industry practices in the context of mitigating risks from toxicity, exposure, and 
175

flammability. These industry practices are often related to standard operating procedures and 

employers’ obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and OSHA’s regulations, 

which require safety data sheets and training for workers exposed to risks of chemicals, among 

other things. We have referred to these industry standard practices, both for alternatives and 

for the substitutes undergoing a change of status in this rule. For example, in the NPRM’s 

description of the ten refrigerant blends proposed as unacceptable for retail food refrigeration 

for new supermarket equipment, we stated that, “These refrigerants are relatively low in 

toxicity, and practices common in the refrigeration industry ensure that their workplace 

exposure limits are not exceeded. These practices include adhering to those specified in the 

material safety data sheets and others common in the commercial refrigeration industry.” (79 

FR 46,126, 46,144, August 6, 2014).

In response to Arkema’s comment regarding the replacement of CFC-12 with HFC-134a leading 

to climate benefits in the MVAC sector, EPA agrees. The GWP of CFC-12 is over 10, 000 which is 

significantly greater than HFC-134a. EPA also agrees that industry practice to minimize 

emissions have reduced the potential greater climate impacts that would be associated with 

leaky systems and poor servicing practices. However, since the listing of HFC-134a, additional 

safer alternatives have been listed as acceptable and these too can be used in ways that limit 

emissions.

 Arkema commented that, contrary to the fifth principle (“provide the regulated community 

with information as soon as possible”), EPA’s action provides no objective, discernable 

standard for determining SNAP acceptability. As an example, Arkema asked why the use of 

HFC-227ea, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc in spray foams would reduce overall risks, 

particularly because one has a larger GWP and longer atmospheric lifetime. In addition, 

Arkema asked if it is related to the quantity emitted and if so, what is the standard. Arkema 

commented that if it is on a mass basis, then HFC-134a would pose less climate risk than the 

three other substitutes. [0131]

EPA Response: EPA’s actions relating to application of the fifth principle are discussed above in 

this section. The fifth principle does not require the Agency to articulate a specific standard for 

acceptability. In the preamble to the original SNAP rule, the Agency made clear that the intent 

of the fifth principle was related solely to timeliness of SNAP acceptability decisions, not their 

underlying rationale. In response to the comment about setting an objective standard for 

determining SNAP acceptability, please see section VII.A.7 in the preamble to the final rule. 

Concerning rigid PU spray foam, we note that HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea, on their own, are 

not listed as acceptable in that end-use, nor did we propose to list them as acceptable. 

Although HFC-227ea’s GWP of 3,220 is higher than HFC-134a’s GWP, HFC-227ea is only listed as 

acceptable in specific commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea, with seven to 13% 

HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc. HFC-245fa and blends of HFC-365mfc with at least 

four percent HFC-245fa are listed as acceptable and EPA did not propose to change the status 

of those blends for spray foam. The blends have GWPs that range from 740 to 1,100, whereas 

the GWP of HFC-134a is 1,430. As discussed in sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to 
176

the final rule, for rigid PU spray foam, we are not taking final action in this rule. We intend to 

conduct additional comparative risk analysis of the substitutes available before taking final 

action. Thus, the substitutes currently listed as acceptable for spray foam are not affected by 

this rule but may be the subject of future rulemaking.

 Arkema stated that unreasonable transition dates will impose unreasonable costs on the 

covered sectors and referenced EPA’s 1996 response to a December, 1995 petition from OZ 

Technology as support for a claim that EPA had concluded that transition costs are 

particularly relevant when changing the status of an already acceptable substitute to 

unacceptable:

“[C]ost data are relevant only when a new substitute is so much better than an 

existing one that the latter would more appropriately be unacceptable; in that 

case, EPA will consider whether the new substitute is too costly to justify moving 

the already acceptable substitute to the unacceptable list.” [0131]

EPA Response: In 1995, OZ Technology petitioned EPA to change the status of HFC-134a from 

acceptable to unacceptable and change the status of the flammable refrigerant Hydrocarbon 

Blend B (HC-12a) from unacceptable to acceptable. EPA did not propose a status change in 

response to OZ Technology’s 1995 petition for a number of risk-related reasons. Although EPA 

made the quoted statement in the 1996 response to the OZ technology petition, we have since 

changed our position on that issue. For example, in determining whether to change the status 

of the refrigerant MT-31 in 1999, EPA took the position that we do not consider cost of 

switching to another alternative as part of our evaluation. In addition, in defending a status 

change rule for HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the foams sector (July 22, 2002; 67 FR 47,703), EPA 

took the position that it had not considered economic factors. The D.C. Circuit Court disagreed, 

finding that EPA had considered economic factors and vacating the rule because EPA had not 

justified its reliance on economic factors. Honeywell v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363, 1372, 1373. As 

explained in more detail in the preamble, under our SNAP regulations the consideration of cost 

is limited to the cost of the substitute under review; this is distinct from consideration of costs 

associated with the use of other alternatives to which the substitute is being compared. See the 

second response in section VII.A.7 of the preamble to the final rule. 

In addition, we disagree that this final rule establishes “unreasonable” transition dates. EPA 

considered comments from a wide variety of commenters regarding the technical challenges of 

a transition. In the final rule, EPA has established change of status dates that reflect these 

technical concerns and for many end uses are later than the proposed date. 

6.4 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Status Changes

EPA received comments from EIA, NRDC and IGSD, DuPont, MicroCare Corporation, Danfoss, 

Bally, CARB, Arkema, NAFEM, the Alliance, Mexichem Flour, Solvay, Honeywell, Maersk 

Container Industry, Dow Chemical, International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, ThermalRite Walk-
177

Ins, AHAM, AHRI, Continental Refrigerator, Southern Case Art, KeepRite Refrigeration, CocaCola, RHH Foam Systems, Hoshizaki America, Traulsen, CFESA, Unified Brands, Unisom Comfort 

Technologies, and private citizens related to the environmental impacts of the proposed status 

changes and the transition away from HFCs to more climate friendly alternatives. In addition, 

EPA received a number of comments from the commercial refrigeration and home appliance 

industries concerning the feasibility of using other alternatives to meet DOE energy 

conservation standards, and the time and design changes needed to meet both EPA and DOE 

requirements. EIA, NRDC, DuPont, Honeywell, Maersk Container Industry, Solvay, Dow 

Chemical, International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite Walk-Ins, and Arkema also 

submitted comments on the President’s Climate Action Plan. EPA responds to many of these 

comments in sections V.D.3.c, VII.C.1, VII.C.2, VII.C.3, VII.C.4, and VII.E of the preamble to the 

final rule. The remainder are summarized and addressed in this section.

6.4.1 EPA’s Benefits Analysis

 Honeywell commented that EPA’s proposal to list as unacceptable high-GWP substances 

will quickly yield carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) reductions and set an example for other 

countries around the world to follow. Honeywell provided estimates of benefits for the 

MVAC, retail food refrigeration, foam, and aerosol sectors to support their claim. [0170]

EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the changes in status will result in avoiding 

emissions of substances that contribute to climate change. Other countries around the world 

may follow EPA’s lead in determining whether safer alternatives are available for certain end 

uses. See section VII.C.2 of the preamble to the final rule for information on EPA’s benefits 

analysis (EPA, 2015a).

 Unisom Comfort Technologies requested a response on whether EPA considered the 

extreme rate of population growth, which doubles the human population every 55 years 

when deciding to allow for many refrigerants with a non-zero GWP. Unisom Comfort 

Technologies requested a response on whether EPA considered the upward mobility of the 

developing world, which Unisom Comfort Technologies believed continues to invest in the 

luxuries that we in the “First World” have been enjoying for so long, without falling subject 

to anywhere near the same level of regulation. [0020]

EPA Response: EPA notes in section IV.B of the preamble to the final rule that the U.S. 

government is working cooperatively with other countries to reduce global HFC consumption 

and emissions. See section II.E of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s criteria for evaluating 

substitutes under the SNAP program. 

6.4.2 Energy Efficiency

 Arkema commented that the proposed rule fails to account for the indirect climate effects 

of the other identified alternatives (e.g., changes in energy efficiency). Arkema stated that 

the proposal does acknowledge indirect climate effects for refrigerants and foams, but does 
178

not analyze the issue. Arkema pointed out that the proposed rule says that “energy 

efficiency has not historically been a criterion by which a refrigerant is analyzed under the 

SNAP program.” Arkema stated that this statement is not true and alleged that EPA 

considered energy efficiency in SNAP Notice 16, 67 FR 13,272, 13,273 (March 22, 2002), and 

a recent SNAP proposal (subsequently finalized), 79 FR 38,811, 38,820-21 (July 9, 2014). 

Arkema further commented that it is unusual to neglect energy use and other indirect 

emissions for a comparative assessment of climate risks. Arkema referenced instances 

where they believed that EPA demonstrated that the Agency knows how to calculate 

indirect emissions and questioned why there isn’t a similar analysis in the docket. Arkema 

also pointed out several references that are already in the docket that appear to indicate 

that the Agency can’t guarantee that every low-GWP substitute will out-perform each HFC 

in a particular use when indirect effects are included in the risk analysis. Arkema directed 

EPA to their original comment submission for references, which point to the testimony at 

the public meeting, the CCAC Technology Forum on Climate-Friendly Alternatives, and 

others. Arkema commented that it is doubtful that EPA even has in hand the information 

needed to compare indirect emissions. Arkema stated that the Agency has, in the past, left 

indirect impacts of refrigerants up to the manufacturers of refrigeration equipment and 

continues this pattern today. Arkema also stated that EPA cannot have it both ways, and if 

EPA is going to leave efficiency and design considerations to manufacturers, then EPA 

should leave them a complete array of options, including the choice to use HFCs, so they 

can balance risks while considering efficiency. [0131]

 Arkema commented that if EPA is going to limit engineering innovation and market choice 

by specifying particular aspects of equipment designs (as in the proposed rule), then EPA 

must analyze the effect of its decision on indirect emissions and compare the performance 

of the various alternatives. Additionally, Arkema commented that EPA cannot assume 

optimal circumstances for one substance and everyday conditions for another; otherwise 

the Agency cannot say which options would actually reduce overall risks, as the SNAP 

guiding principles require. [0131]

 Solvay commented that energy efficiency has an effect on “ecosystem risks” and 

"atmospheric effects,” which are among the criteria for SNAP review. [0098]

EPA Response: See sections V.B.6.a, V.C.7, V.D.3.c, and VII.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule 

where we discuss energy efficiency concerns. 

The SNAP regulations for review of substitutes include both a list of “information required to be 

submitted (section 82.178) and “criteria for review” of SNAP submissions (section 82.180). The 

list of required information includes global warming impacts and mentions changes in energy 

efficiency as an example of indirect contributions to global warming. The criteria for review do 

not mention energy efficiency. While EPA uses all information submitted to inform its general 

understanding of the substitute, the end use, and the sector, the Agency does not use all the 

information for listing decisions. In particular, EPA has not typically based its decisions on the 

energy efficiency that products using the various alternatives may or may not achieve, except 
179

to the extent that technical needs for energy efficiency are relevant to the determination of

whether alternatives are “available.” Regardless, EPA views the energy efficiency of products 

using alternatives as important information for both the Agency and the regulated community. 

Where EPA does have non-confidential information on energy efficiency, we can and do share 

that through our outreach efforts.

One commenter suggested that energy efficiency could be taken into account under either the 

“ecosystem risk” or “atmospheric effects” criterion; however, EPA has not typically included 

energy efficiency in the overall risk analysis and EPA did not propose to adopt a new approach 

in this rulemaking. The two SNAP actions cited in Arkema’s comment do not establish a practice 

of using energy efficiency as part of the overall risk analysis. In SNAP Notice 16, EPA listed 

several HFC blends for very low temperature refrigeration. EPA omitted any mention of energy 

efficiency from the paragraph devoted to climate impacts of these refrigerants. In comparing 

overall risk, EPA did indicate that certain other alternatives have lower energy efficiency.

However, a single mention of energy efficiency in a 13 year old notice does not indicate an 

established Agency practice of including energy efficiency in the overall risk analysis. In the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes 

for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Certain 

Refrigerant Substitutes,” EPA discussed the GWPs of the refrigerants and then noted that the 

climate impacts of the refrigerants “also depend upon the energy use of appliances, since the 

‘indirect’ GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption typically exceed those from 

refrigerants over the full lifecycle of refrigerant-containing products.” 79 FR 38,820-21. EPA 

clarified that the rulemaking did not include a “comprehensive assessment of all sources of 

GHG emissions.” Id. at 38,821. The brief discussion regarding likely energy use in that notice 

was general in nature; EPA did not attempt to analyze energy efficiency impacts. 

While energy efficiency is not part of our overall risk analysis, EPA notes no information 

provided suggests that all of the alternatives that remain acceptable result in lower energy 

efficiency. In fact, in the preamble to the rule we point out information that indicates that the 

opposite can be true—that the acceptable alternatives not subject to a status change have 

been used in equipment or used to produce insulating foam that provide for better energy 

efficiency. As indicated in the proposal and several comments, equipment within the retail food 

refrigeration and vending machine end-uses is subject to various energy standards set by the 

DOE. These standards must be met regardless of the refrigerant used. We have no information 

that indicates those refrigerants that are not subject to a change in status for the various enduses affected by this rule cannot be used in equipment that would meet the applicable 

standard. 

In addition, an analysis of indirect emissions as suggested by the commenter would not be a 

simple matter. Such an analysis would be dependent on many assumptions, and the specific 

assumptions could determine the outcome. For example, given an assumption that a particular 

equipment type operating on a high-GWP refrigerant would meet the same level of efficiency 

of one operating on a low-GWP refrigerant, and the assumption that the mass of direct 

emissions would also be the same, then the total CO2eq emissions for the low-GWP refrigerant 
180

would always be lower. Furthermore, it would not be feasible to fully analyze such indirect 

effects for every alternative in every application of every model of every manufacture of 

equipment that falls within the scope of the end-uses covered by today’s rule. In contrast, an 

assessment of known factors, such as the GWP of a particular chemical, is feasible and when 

combined with other factors, provides the basis for our analysis of the comparative risk to 

human health and the environment of alternatives. 

6.5 Cost and Economic Impacts

EPA received comments from Solvay, NAFEM, NRDC and IGSD, the Alliance, DuPont, Arkema, 

Mexichem, Crown Tonka, Minus Forty Technologies, N. Wasserstrom & Sons, NAMA, H&K 

International, Southern Case Art, Grindmaster-Cecilware Corporation, Duke Manufacturing, 

Hatco, HC Duke/Electro-Freeze, Falcon Safety Products, Federal Industries, NAM, Traulsen, and 

AHAM on the cost and economic impacts of the proposed status changes and dates. EPA 

responds to many of these comments sections VII.B of the preamble to the final rule. The 

remainder are summarized and addressed in this section.

6.5.1 Costs of the Proposed Rule

 SDI, a manufacturer of aerosols that test the sensitivity of smoke detectors, commented 

that prohibiting HFC-134a for their type of product will cost companies due to loss of the 

use of expensive smoke detection equipment. [0037]

EPA Response: As described in section V.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA is changing 

the status of HFC-134a to acceptable, subject to use conditions, for certain end-uses. The use 

conditions allow the continued use of this substance for aerosols that test the sensitivity of 

smoke detectors. This decision is based upon technical grounds—i.e., there is a lack of other 

available alternatives for this particular use, because it requires non-flammability and a specific 

vapor pressure.

 NRDC and IGSD recommended that the proposed rule be implemented as quickly as 

possible to achieve maximum cost effectiveness, and that the true social benefits created by 

the proposed rule be included in all final rule calculations. NRDC and IGSD commented that 

of all HFC emissions, 32% come from use as refrigerants in motor vehicles. They commented 

that EPA has found that the costs associated with transitioning a vehicle from HFC-134a are 

“less than 1% relative to the total direct manufacturing cost” for a light duty vehicle. 

Further, NRDC and IGSD commented that EPA estimates that impacts to all small businesses 

in the automobile manufacturing industry will be “less than 0.1% irrespective of the 

regulatory timeframe considered.” NRDC and IGSD believed that the benefits associated 

with the rapid introduction of a HFC-134a substitute are significant, and that based on the 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon’s estimates, using a three percent

discount rate, the total social cost of each vehicle produced using HFC-134a is slightly 

greater than $800 for each annual carbon-ton equivalent of emissions. NRDC and IGSD 
181

commented that recent analyses make clear that if the Social Cost of Carbon is considered 

in assessing the cost to transition a motor vehicle, it is well worth it to transition. [0108]

EPA Response: EPA recognizes that there are benefits associated with reductions of HFC-134a 

and has quantified the expected reductions in Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status 

Change Rule (EPA, 2015a). EPA currently does not have directly modeled estimates of the social 

cost of HFC-134a or any other F-gases. 

 One private citizen commented that the proposed rule will provide substantial net 

economic benefits with modest costs. The commenter noted that reducing HFC use would be 

an important step towards providing enough time for the global economy to transition to lowcarbon solutions. Another private citizen commented that there must be a consideration of the 

impact on the industries being regulated and the loss of jobs that increased regulation would 

cause, and that it is “counterproductive to economically destroy the people the regulations are 

supposed to protect.” [0145, 0154]

EPA Response: Regarding the comment on the economic benefits of the rule, EPA agrees and 

thanks the commenter for the comment. Sections VII.B.1 and 2 in the preamble to the final rule 

discuss the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also placed in the docket for the 

final rule an analysis of the costs to comply with the rule and a screening of the economic 

impacts of the rule. Also see response in section 3.5.1 of this document for additional 

information.

 NAMA commented that the proposed rule would increase the cost of vending machines and 

could lead to less new machines being introduced into the marketplace. NAMA said this 

would require operators to incur costs for retrofits and repairs, as well as educating 

employees and upgrading equipment and/or trucks. [0183]

EPA Response: EPA does not believe there will necessarily be fewer new vending machines 

being introduced into the marketplace, given the status change date of January 1, 2019, in 

today’s final rule and the availability or potential availability of multiple alternatives, including 

non-flammable refrigerants, such as R-450A and R-513A, which perform similarly to HFC-134a.

Owners and operators may continue to decide for themselves whether to purchase new 

equipment, retrofit existing equipment, or repair such equipment and continue to operate it 

with the use of the existing refrigerant it was designed to use. Section VII.B.1 and 2 in the 

preamble to the final rule discusses the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA has also 

placed in the docket to this rule an analysis of the costs to comply with this rule and a screening 

of the economic impacts of the rule. Also see responses in section 3.5.1 of this document for 

additional information.
182

6.5.2 Small Business Impacts

Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines

 NRA commented that profit margins are low in the restaurant industry, and that small 

businesses are particularly vulnerable to increased equipment prices, which could result in 

the delay of purchasing new equipment. [0123]

EPA Response: Based on consultation with industry and available market information, the 

Agency determined that cost increases for self-contained units are unlikely to be passed on to 

end-users. A case study conducted by Unilever Foods on the conversion of ice cream cabinets 

to natural refrigerants states that “In Unilever’s case, the capital cost for a HC cabinet was 

virtually neutral. Service costs and product quality were identical to the previous HFC 

refrigerated cabinets. Operating costs for Unilever’s customers were actually reduced due to 

the lower amount of electricity consumed.” In addition, a major manufacturer of self-contained 

units similarly indicated that the manufacturing costs associated with R-290 self-contained units 

are about the same as the manufacturing costs associated with HFC units. While the 

manufacturer did indicate capital costs associated with transitioning to R-290, the 

manufacturer plans to absorb these costs and not pass them through to their customers.

 Shecco commented that while current manufacturers of self-contained units and vending 

machines can deliver HC and R-744 units to cover the entire market demand in 2016, many 

of the smaller manufacturers lag behind the larger companies in the switch away from R134a. [0194]

EPA Response: We recognize that some smaller manufacturers of vending machines will 

require additional time to adopt new alternatives. We also note that EPA is listing multiple new 

non-flammable refrigerants (April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19,454)) (Notice of Acceptability 30 signed 

[insert date of signature] and available of EPA’s website prior to publication) with lower GWP 

than HFC-134a, which may allow for quicker adoption than with CO2 or flammable refrigerants. 

In this final rule, the final change of status date for new vending machines is January 1, 2019.

Non-Sector Specific

 International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite Walk-Ins jointly commented that 

the proposed status changes for certain HFCs and mixtures used in the commercial 

refrigeration industry directly contradicts the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which was 

signed into law on September 27, 2010, to provide resources for small business economic 

recovery through job creation and loan availability. [0206]

EPA Response: The commenters seem to imply that because the rule would impose 

requirements that affect small businesses, it contradicts a law that provides more resources for 
183

small businesses. EPA disagrees, because the proposed and final rules do not affect the ability 

of small businesses to obtain those resources made available in the 2010 Small Business Jobs 

Act. As noted in the preamble in section VII.B.2, changes in the final rule, particularly with 

respect to change of status dates, are based on availability but should also reduce the costs on 

small businesses compared to the proposed rule.

6.6 Availability and Acceptability of Acceptable Alternatives 

EPA received comments from the Alliance and Solvay concerning the availability and 

flammability of some acceptable alternatives. 

 The Alliance noted that at a workshop organized by the Ozone Secretariat and held 

immediately prior to a Montreal Protocol meeting, there was information shared and 

documented on the significant progress over the last several years towards the 

development and deployment of low-GWP alternatives. The Alliance stated that the 

involved industries have already accepted the challenge and made rapid progress towards 

minimizing climate impacts. [0037] 

EPA Response: The Agency agrees with the Alliance that there has been documented 

information over the past several years concerning the increasing availability of alternatives 

and the valuable role industry has played. EPA notes that its own actions under the SNAP 

program to list additional safer alternatives remove barriers. In addition, since this rule was 

proposed, the Agency issued two listing notices and finalized a rule that further expands the 

menu of options.

 Solvay commented that EPA must address potential conflicts with the unique U.S. 

product safety litigation landscape that presents significantly greater concerns about use 

of flammable substances as refrigerants, blowing agents, and propellants than exist 

elsewhere in the world. [0098] 

EPA Response EPA does not agree that the Agency must address potential for product safety 

litigation in the context of this rulemaking action. At the time that EPA listed the flammable 

substitutes as acceptable, EPA established, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, use 

conditions to ensure that these substitutes can be used as safely as other alternatives. Any 

concerns about whether those use conditions were sufficient should have been raised at the 

time of those listing decisions. In each of the end uses addressed in this rulemaking, 

alternatives that are not flammable are also listed as acceptable. Manufacturers will weigh a 

number of factors when selecting an alternative. Moreover, manufacturers may also establish 

additional safety measures beyond those in the regulatory use conditions.
184

6.7 Other Suggestions or Requests

EPA received comments from EIA, 3M, CARB, United Technologies, SEVO Systems, Maersk 

Container Industry, DuPont, and Honeywell requesting status changes to end-uses and 

alternatives that were not included in the proposed rule. Also, the SNAP Coalition, Bottleless 

Water Association, Master-Bilt Products, Traulsen, Pure Water Technology of Mid-Michigan, 

Pure Water Innovations, Owens Corning, IMC Water Coolers, and Nor-Lake requested an 

extension of the 90-day public comment period for the proposed rule. 

6.7.1 Additional Status Change Requests 

 EIA encouraged EPA to find R-404A and R-507A unacceptable in cold storage rooms and 

warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport, industrial process refrigeration, and 

ice skating rinks. EIA also recommended that EPA consider listing HFC-134a and 

perchloroethylene as unacceptable in adhesives, as many lower-GWP alternatives are 

available in this end-use. Additionally, EIA requested that HFC-23 be included in the final 

rulemaking and removed as an acceptable substitute for use in total flooding fire 

suppression systems, very low temperature refrigeration, and industrial refrigeration. EIA 

stated that with a GWP of 14,800 and multiple commercially available lower-GWP 

alternatives, there is no excuse to allow HFC-23 to continue to be used in processes 

where it is continuously released to the atmosphere. [0134]

 SEVO Systems commented that it is important to consider that suppliers of HFC systems 

sold into total flooding fire suppression have mature system technology utilizing either 

Novec 1,230 fluid and/or other sustainable solutions, such as inert gases that substitute for 

HFCs and dramatically reduce emissions of GHGs from the fire suppression sector. SEVO 

Systems commented that HFCs are no longer needed in total flooding fire suppression 

applications unless they meet the narrowed use limits and suggested that the status listing 

be changed from “acceptable” to “subject to narrowed use limits.” 3M also requested that 

EPA change the status of HFCs sold into total flooding fire suppression from acceptable to 

“subject to narrowed use limits,” similar to how SNAP addressed the narrowed use of other 

high-GWP alternatives to halon 1,301, (i.e., "acceptable for nonresidential uses where other 

alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance requirements"). [0095, 0117]

 CARB encouraged EPA to strengthen the proposal by including additional high-GWP 

refrigerants on the list of unacceptable HFCs in end-uses including stationary AC, residential 

refrigerator-freezers, refrigerated shipping containers, and refrigerated transport units. 

CARB also suggested status changes in the following additional end-uses: non-retail food 

commercial and industrial refrigeration (HFCs with GWP>1,500 by 2018, GWP>150 by 

2023); commercial and residential stationary air conditioning (GWP>1,000 by 2020); 

residential refrigerator-freezers (all HFCs by 2018); refrigerated shipping containers 

(GWP>150 by 2018); and transport refrigerated units (GWP>1,000 by 2025). [0106]
185

 In response to EPA’s request for information on R-404A and R-507A use in ice machines and 

refrigerated transport. United Technologies commented that R-404A and R-507A could be 

found unacceptable in new and retrofit refrigerated transport applications used on trailers, 

rail cars, domestic container trucks, and other vehicles such as small vans as of January 1, 

2020, if suitable new low-GWP alternatives are classified as acceptable as of January 1, 

2016. DuPont recommended that EPA change the status of currently acceptable 

alternatives with GWPs generally above 2,500 in refrigerated transport, including R-404A 

and R-507A, to unacceptable as of January 1, 2017. [0061, 0077]

 Maersk Container Industry commented that they have begun development of international 

safety standards for reefer machines using flammable fluids or high-pressure refrigerants 

(R-744) to ensure a common and sustainable approach to the safe and energy-efficient use 

of alternative refrigerants due to replace the currently most prevalent HFCs, namely HFC134a and R-404A. [0089]

 Honeywell commented that EPA’s proposal does not include any change in status for 

refrigerants used in chillers, such as HFC-134a. Honeywell encouraged EPA to list HFC-134a 

as unacceptable in new chillers effective January 1, 2019, because alternatives such as R1233zd(E) and HFO-1234ze(E) are both commercially available, SNAP-approved, and have 

comparable or higher efficiencies to HFC-134a, and much lower GWPs. [0170]

EPA Response: These comments go beyond the scope of the current rulemaking as they 

concern end uses and or substitutes not addressed in this action. EPA appreciates receiving this 

information and will consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions.

 Nor-Lake suggested that EPA control release of HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-125) and R-404A 

into the environment by taking into account the amount that would be emitted in the 

commercial refrigeration, automotive, aerosol, and foam blowing industries. Nor-Lake 

provided estimates of the percentage of these HFCs that would be released in each sector. 

Nor-Lake suggested gathering information from refrigerant suppliers regarding the market 

sectors and end-uses to which chemicals are sold, and then evaluate the environmental 

effect of regulating the use of HFC-134a and R-404A in the different sectors and end-uses, 

rather than regulating all uses the same way. [0076]

EPA Response: Under the SNAP program, EPA reviews substitutes in specified major industrial 

use sectors. Thus, for example, a person who wishes to introduce a substitute into interstate 

commerce in one of the specified sectors must submit a notice of intent 90 days in advance (40 

CFR 82.176). This requirement applies regardless of the amount of the substitute that will be 

released into the environment due to the nature of the use. In this rulemaking, EPA reviewed 

substitutes on a sector-by-sector and end-use by end-use basis rather than comparing 

emissions from the various sectors addressed.
186

6.7.2 Comment Period Extension Requests 

 Commenters, including Master-Bilt Products, Traulsen, NAFEM, a private citizen, Bottleless 

Water Association, Pure Water Innovations, IMC Water Coolers, and Pure Water 

Technology of Mid-Michigan, and Owens Corning requested that EPA extend the public 

comment period by 60-90 days. Commenters requested the extension for various reasons, 

such as the need to provide additional information and data in their comments, time to 

consider impacts on small businesses, and the time needed to consider how their industry 

would be affected by the proposed rule. [0026, 0035, 0037, 0039, 0041, 0043, 0044, 0053, 

0060, 0137, 0164]

 The SNAP Coalition requested that EPA extend the public comment period by another 45 

days, beyond the 14-day extension provided by EPA. The commenter stated that the 14-day 

extension was not an adequate period to allow stakeholders to fully analyze how the ruling 

would impact small businesses or evaluate measures to prevent job loss, ensure worker 

safety, and avert limitation of product type and availability. They also stated that in light of 

other active pending rulemaking actions from the DOE, EPA should extend the comment 

period for the proposed rule. [0054]

EPA Response: In response to these requests, EPA extended the public comment period for 14 

days to provide the public additional time to review and comment on the proposed rule.

Additionally, for many of the end-uses in the proposed rule, EPA proposed to change the listing 

status of various HFCs and HFC-containing blends by January 1, 2016. EPA did not extend the 

comment period for longer than than 14 days to ensure that the Agency would have sufficient 

time to address public comments and finalize the rule in a timely way, in order to provide those 

affected by the most near term dates a reasonable time to prepare.
187

7 REFERENCES

This Response to Comments document references the following documents. Unless 

specified otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the Federal Docket 

Management System, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198.

Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific 

and Papers, 2013.

Andersen, S.O., Sherman, N.J., Craig, T., Baker, J., 2015. Secondary Loop Motor Vehicle 

Air Conditioning Systems (SL---MACs). February, 2015.

CAP, 2013. Climate Change and the President’s Climate Action Plan. June, 2013. This document

is accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan. 

Emerson Climate Technologies, 2015. “Emerson Climate Technologies offers to help 

supply chain move to lower-GWP refrigerants.” Refrigeration and AirConditioning Magazine, January 28, 2015. This document is available at 

http://www.racplus.com/news/-emerson-climate-technologies-offers-to-helpsupply-chain-move-to-lower-gwp-refrigerants/8677708.article.

EPA, 2006. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases, EPA Report 430-R-06-005, 

at p. I-2. June, 2006.

EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 

section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act. Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009.

EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule. June, 2014.

EPA, 2015a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule. July, 2015.

EPA, 2015b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2013, EPA Report 430-

R-15-004. April 15, 2015. This document is accessible at: 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

EPA, 2015c. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of

Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. July, 2015. 

FCA, 2015. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles R-1234yf A/C Update. MACS 2015 Training Event and 

Trade Show. February, 2015.
188

Honeywell, 2014. Honeywell International Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of 

Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. October 20, 2014. 

Honeywell, 2015. Honeywell Starts Full-Scale Production of Low-Global-Warming Propellant, 

Insulating Agent, and Refrigerant. January 6, 2015. This document is accessible at: 

honeywell.com/News/Pages/Honeywell-Starts-Full-Scale-Production-Of-Low-GlobalWarming-Propellant-Insulating-Agent-And-Refrige.aspx.

ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.

ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014e. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. Prepared 

for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status 

of High-GWP Alternatives. June, 2014.

ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost-Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of 

High-GWP Alternatives. June, 2014.

ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, 

U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration 

Industry. July, 2015.

ICF, 2015b. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives. July, 2015.

ICF, 2015c. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of 

High-GWP Alternatives--Revised. July, 2015.

INDC, 2015. U.S. Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. March, 2015. This document is 

accessible at: 

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx. 
189

IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues 

Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. 

Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible 

at: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. 

IPCC, 2013. Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C.

Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, 

M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Masafumi, 2014. New Policy Measures in Japan that Manage HFCs and Promote Alternatives. 

Workshop on Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Management. July, 2014. This document is 

accessible at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/workshops/presentationsopening/default.aspx.

Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST 

Conference 2012.

Shaw, 2013. Propellants and Solvent 2012 and Beyond. This document is accessible at 

http://www.southernaerosol.com/Power%20Point/Spring%20'13%20pdf's/Spring%20'13

%20101%20.pdf's/Propellants%20and%20solvents%202012%20and%20beyondDavid%20Shaw.pdf.

UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations 

Environment Programme. November, 2011. This document is accessible at: 

http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf. 

UNEP, 2014. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee, 2014

Assessment. This document is accessible at: 

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2014-AssessmentReport.pdf.

Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009). “The large 

contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing.” Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954.