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 Ai r and Radiation Stratospheric Protection Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 204601 

## Introduction This document summarizes comments on the proposed rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substi tutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNA P ) 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 orga nizations (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 2 2 7 comments were submitted by 19 2 commenters. Thr ee 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 co mment 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 o f 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 commo n 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, W ashington, DC 20006.2 

## Table of Contents
1 AEROSOLS
.................................... ......................................................................................... 18 1.1 Change of Status Da te s ............... ...........................................................................................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 Imp acts 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 CO NDITIONING (MVAC) SYST EMS IN NEWLY MANUFACTURED LIGHT - DUTY VEHICLES
............................................................ ....32 2.1 Timeline ........................................................................... ......................................................... 33 2.1.1 Change of Status Date s ........................................................................... ......................33 2.1.2 Challenges Associated with Use of Lower

- GWP Alternativ e 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 Petit ion 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 Imp acts of Proposed Status Changes .................................................................. 53 2.6 Servicing, Repair, and Retrofits ........................................................................... .................. 54 2.6.1 Co ntinued Servicing with HFC

- 134a
........................................................................... ..54 2.6.2 Thermal Expansion Valves

........................................................................... ............... ... 553 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

........................................................................... ............5 9 

### 3 RETAIL FOOD AND VEND ING MACHINES
............................................................ ......... .. 61 3.1 Change of Status Dates ......................................................................................................... . 62 3.1.1 Retail Food Refrigeration (Supermarke t 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 Comp ounds

............................................................ ............................87 3.3.4 E nvironmental 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 Accepta ble 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 Applian ces Prior to the Change of Status Date
.............................................................................................................................. ... .96 3.6 Charge Size .............................................................................................................................. .98 3.7 Clarification Requests ........................................................................... ........................... ...... . 98 3.8 Other Suggestions or Requests ................................. .......................................... ................ 1004 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 Accep table 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 Chal lenges Associated with Product Research and Development, Testing, and Certification

............................................................ .......................................................111 4.2.3 Challenges Associated with Conversion, System Redesign, and Valid ation
...................................................................................................... .........119 4.2.4 Interactions with Other Rules

............................................................ ......................... . 123 4.3 Enviro nmental 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 Altern atives
.......................................... .................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 Limit ations ..................................................................... ........ ..................... .. 141 4.8 Exemption Requests ........................................................................... ............... .................... 144 4.9 Clarification Requests ................................................................................................ ......... .. 146 4.10 Other Suggestions or Requests....................................................................................... ....148 

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

### 6 OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT S
...... ...... ............................................................ .......................153 6.1 General Comments on the Proposed Status Listing Changes ......................................... 153 6.2 General Comments on the Proposed Status C hange 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 GW P Considerations

........................................................................... ......................... . 160 6.3.4 Montreal Protocol/International

........................................................................... ... . 163 6.3.5 Petitions
................................................................................................ .........................1655 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 Sugges tions or Requests ........................................................................ .................. . 184 6.7.1 Additional Status Change Requests

......................................................................... . 184 6.7.2 Comment Period Extension Requests

........................ .............................................. . 186 

### 7 REFERENCES
............................................. ............................................................ .................. ... 1876 

## 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

- Condition ing Engineers ASTM
— ASTM International CAA
— Clean Air Act CAP
— Climate Action Plan CCAC
— Climate and Clean Air Coalition CFR
— Code of Federal Regulations CH4
— m ethane CO 2 — carbon dioxide CO 2 eq — c arbon dioxide equivalent COPD
— chronic obstructive pulmonary diseas e CRE
— com mercial 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 D epartment 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 M utual 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
— hydroflu roolefin HVAC
— heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ICF
— ICF International, Inc. INDC
— Intended Nationally Determined Contribution7 IPCC
— Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISO
— International Organization for Standardization LD GHG Rule

— Light

- Du ty Greenhouse Gas Rule LP SPF
— low

- pressure spray foam MAC Directive
— Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning MDI
— metered dose inhaler MIE
— minimum ignition energy MMTCO 2 eq — million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MVAC
— motor vehicle air conditioning MY
— model year N 2 — n itrogen N 2 O
— nitrous o xide 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 r ulemaking ODS
— ozone - depleting s ubstance ODP
— ozone - depleting potential OEM
— original equipment manufacturer OSHA
— U.S. Occu pational Safety and Health Administration PFC
— p erfluorocarbons PU
— p olyurethane REACH
— Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals RRR
— Recovery, Recycling, and Recharging SBA
— United States Small Business Administration SF6
— sulfu r h exafluoride 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 compounds8 

## Table 1 : Index of Commenters Count Or ganization 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 River s 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

- 0037 m 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

- 0037 m 1 1 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) b Julie Becker EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 m 1 2 Giedrius Ambrozaitis EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0113
1 3 American Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA) Anonymous EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0132
1 4 American Panel Corporation (American Panel) Harmon S. Lewis EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0097 1 5 Paul Ramsbottom EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 1 6 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

- 003 7 m 19 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Joseph M. McGuire EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0065 2 0 Robert D. McArver EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0211 2 1 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037
2 2 Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. (AMS) Jim Collins EPA

- HQ

- O AR

- 2014

- 0198

- 01099 Count Or ganization Commenter Docket ID Number

2 3 Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute (ARPI) and Auto Care Association Michael J. Conlon EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0063
2 4 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 D efense, Space & Security (Boeing) Sheryl Sizelove EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0111 31 Bottleless Water Association Jim Booth EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0053 3 2 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Richard W. Corey EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0106
3 3 Center for Polyurethan es 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 Commerc ial 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 4 0 Continental Refrigerator Jeff Bauman EP A

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0122 4 1 CyCan Industries (CyCan) A. Monte McCall EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0135 4 2 Danfoss Mark Menzer EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0115 4 3 Christopher Nitz EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 4 4 Department of Defense (DoD) Donald R. Schregardus EPA

- HQ

- OA R

- 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

- 0038 j10 Count Or ganization 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 5 0 Michael Parr EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037

5 1 Effective Altruism at University of Maryland (Effective Altruism at UMD) Anonymous EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 201 4

- 0198

- 0052

5 2 Electrolux North America Inc. (Electrolux) George E. Hawranko EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0191

5 3 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

- 0037 m 59 Falcon Safety Products Philip M. Lapin EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0069 6 0 Federal Industries Jerry Sokol EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0138 6 1 Fomo Products, Inc. Dr. Thomas Fishback EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0139 62 Food Marketing Institute (FMI) Stephanie K. Barnes E PA

- 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 6 7 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 7 0 H&K International Bryan Tonn EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0024 7 1 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

- 020911 Count Or ganization Commenter Docket ID Number

73 Heating, Air

- Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) Jon Melchi EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0121

74 Helmer Scien tific (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

- O AR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 79 Ken Gayer; Amy Chiang EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0170 8 0 Hoshizaki America, Inc. Stephen Schaefer EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0217 81 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 m 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

- 0091 i EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0180 85 Hussman Corporation (Hussman) Ron Shebik EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0119 8 6 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 87 Anonymous EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 m 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 Ingers oll 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

- 0037 m

96 International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC) Maureen Donahue Hardwick EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0208 97 IP Moulding Inc. T y Scopel EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0088 98 ITW Global Tire Repair Ian Fletcher EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 021012 Count Or ganization 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 10 4 Lapolla Industries, Inc. (Lapolla) Douglas J. Kramer EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0096 10 5 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

10 7 Maersk Container Industry Morten Heide EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0089 10 8 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

- 0124 g EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0182 110 Mass

- mail Campaign Carrie Mann EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0177 n 111 Andrew Munao EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0178 o 112 Mike Lewan EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0179 p 113 Master

- Bilt Products (Master

- Bilt) Kenny Owen EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0092 11 4 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 m 115 Metl

- Span Karl 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

- 01 01 118 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

- 008213 Count Or ganization Commenter Docket ID Number
121 National Aerona utics 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 Eisen berg 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 Fr ank 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 Abshi re EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0123

13 1 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Institute for Governance Sustainable Development (IGSD) David Doniger; Benjamin Longstreth; Emily Davis EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0136 h

EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0108
132 New Era Gro up Peter Williams EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 m
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) C harlie Souhrada EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0137 136 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0026

137 NRDC Emily Davis EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 m 138 Owens Corning d Paul S. Lewandowski EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0035 139 Greg Mather EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0085 140 Pactiv B uilding Products Edward Bates EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 m14 Count Or ganization 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

- OA R

- 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 Privat e 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 Da na 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

- 01 98

- 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 Priva te 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 Priva te 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

- 015015 Count Or ganization 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 EP A

- 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 Ba rrett 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 18 8 RHH Foam Systems, Inc. (RHH) J. Bartell EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0112
1 89 SAE Interior Climate Control C ommittee (SAE ICCC) Timothy P. Mellon EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0114
19 0 Scotsman Ice Systems (Scotsman) Chris Salatino EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0186 19 1 System Development Integration, LLC (SDI) and No Climb Products d Stewart Pepper EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0110 1 9 2 Rick Heffernan EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 19 3 SEVO Systems, Inc. (SEVO Systems) Jon Flamm EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0095 19 4 Shecco America (Shecco) Kiara Skacanova EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0194 19 5 Keilly Witman EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 19 6 SNAP Coalition Request for Comment Extension (SNAP Coalition) f Anonymous EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0054 19 7 So

- Low Environmental Equipment Co., Inc. Walter Schum EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0086 19 8 William Berling EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0087 199 Solvay Fluorides, LLC (Solvay) Ma rk Looney EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0098 20 0 Southern Case Art Massoud Neshan EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0193 20 1 Stoner Incorporated Robert W. Sweger EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0128 20 2 Structural Composites and Compsys, Inc. (Structural Composites Inc.) Scott M. Lewi t EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 20 3 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0172 20 4 Structural Concepts David P. Geerts; Viktor Anderson EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 019916 Count Or ganization Commenter Docket ID Number 20 5 Viktor Anderson EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0195 20 6 Jason Paquette EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 m 20 7 Sub

- Zero Design Engineering (Sub

- Zero) Paul V. Sikir EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0187 20 8 Supermarket Company ABC Keilly Witman EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0200 2 09 Suterra , LLC Kari Mavian EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0079 21 0 Techspray Steve Cook EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0156 21 1 The rmo Fisher Scientific Bill McMahon EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0042 k EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0047 21 2 Thermo

- Kool/Mid

- South Industries, Inc. (Thermo

Kool) Lee Thames EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0084 21 3 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 21 4 Traulsen

- ITW Food Equipment G roup, LLC (Traulsen) Mary Dane EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0188 21 5 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 21 6 True Manufacturing Charles Hon EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0196 21 7 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) Randall J. Haseman; Dwayne E. Sloan EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0083

21 8 Unified Brands Rick Seiss; Dino Delorenzo; Tushar Kulkarni EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0049
2 19 Unisom Comfort Technologies Tim Chapp EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0020 22 0 United Refrigeration Inc. Richard Rosen EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0197 22 1 United Technologies John Mandyck EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0061 22 2 Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company (UTMC) Jeffrey J. Bennett EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0023 l EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0025 22 3 Vollrath Company, LLC (Vollrath) Bernie Goch EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0201 22 4 West Deve lopment Group Anonymous EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0045 22 5 Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) Nathan Mouw EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0198 22 6 EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0198

- 0037 22 7 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 Polyurethanes17 Industry, Combs Gas, Daikin Applied, Danfoss, DuPont, Dynatemp International, Emerson Climate Technologies, E.V. Dunbar Co., Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association, Falcon Safety Products, FP Intern ational, Golden Refrigerant, Halotron, Heating, Air

- conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International, Honeywell, Hudson Technologies, Hussmann, ICOR International, IDQ Holdings, International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium, Johnson Controls, Lenn ox 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 Compan y, 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, M cLaren, 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, America n 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 Associatio n 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 Automati c 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

- 0 124 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 E PA

- 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 secti ons. m. In addition to oral comments, w ritten comment s 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 rec eived 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 med ical 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 commenter s 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 s tatus 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 menti oned 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), Consum er 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 Incorporat ed, 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 A merica, 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 C ontrol 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 no t 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, MicroCar e, 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 p roducts, 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 indi cated 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 wit h 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 variabl es, 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 fro m 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 HFO

1234ze(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 over come 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 ae rosol 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 com mented 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 com ply with the fi nal 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 ab out 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 e mergency use tire inflators, dusters, tissue freeze, and smoke detector calibrators can20 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 be en 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 th at 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 produ cts 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 H FC

- 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 tha t 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 progra ms 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 alt hough 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 va gue 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 app rovals 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 add ition, 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 tes ting 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 chang e 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 commenter s stated that i n 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 det ector 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 month s (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 de tector 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 Regis ter 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 sec tions 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 Po lymers 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 patie nt 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 HFC

227ea 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 othe r 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” aer osol 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, f astest, and safest roadside emergency solution,” greater exposures occur when trained23 service technicians repair tires. These trained professionals must consider safety factors, such as the product’s flammability. [0210]  Falcon Safety Products commented t hat 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 con sumers 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 industria l 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 l anguage 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 exis t 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 broa d 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 pro ducts 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 H FC

- 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 cond itions, 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. Honeywell24 commented that there are multiple, wide

- ranging low

- global warming potential ( GWP ) comme rcial 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 temperature s 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 an d verified as non - flammable under the conditions where these products are used. The final rule lists HFC

134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for mold release agents, as proposed. For the other uses that Honeywell mentioned, see the response in s ection 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 coul d 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; howeve r, 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 s oils 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 tha t 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 a ny 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, actua tors, 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 compo nents seen to date, or the additional time they believe is required. Comments from Honeywell, the producer of HFO

1234ze(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 final25 rule in the Federal Register , sufficient to ensure compatibility of HFO

- 1234ze(E) with components. Moreover, we note that o ther alternatives are also listed as acceptable and are being sold and used for tire inflators. 1.2.5 Clarification Requests  CSPA and MicroC are requested a clarification to Table 2, Appendix T “Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Condit ions” for the use of HFC

- 134a in “mold release agents .” CSPA and MicroC are 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 ] EP A 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 co nsider 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. Duste r 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 , LP S Laboratories, CSPA, Aeropres , NAA, RSC, ITW Gl obal 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 medical26 aerosols) as of January 1, 2016 . EIA commented that while hydrocarbons ( HCs ) (e.g., propane, isobutane, ethane, and blends) are ordin arily 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 abou t flammability or volatile organic compound (VOC) limitat ions, CO 2 , nitrogen oxide ( NO ) , and HFO

- 1234ze(E) are available as non

flammable 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 HFC

134a 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 flammabil ity is a concern. They commented that propellants are selected based on flammability and HFC

134a is the preferred propellant when a non

- flammable product is required and other non

flammable propellants, such as CO 2 and nitrogen, are inappropriate. LPS Lab oratories 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 cove red 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, saf ety 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 commente r did not submit any information to support the statement. EPA’s understanding is that nitrogen and CO 2 are used as fire suppressants and at sufficiently high concentrations could suppress flammability and flames. However, it is possible that the concentra tions of nitrogen or CO 2 from an aerosol can are not sufficiently high. These two compounds suppress a flame by reducing oxygen, rather than by removing heat, as HFC

134a 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 energ ized 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 t he substitute under review

. We n ote, however, that i n 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 o f 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 ( MMTCO 2 e q) . NRDC an d 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” agai nst 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 inc luding the Eur opean 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 a re estimated t o be 28 to 36 MMTCO 2 eq 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 factual28 information pr ovided 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 com menter 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 ec osystem 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 Rep air, NAA, and Honeywell commented on the conversion costs associated with the proposed status change listing for HFC

134a 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, 003 7] 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 aerosol s 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 cos t of the substitute under review

. 1.5.2 Cost Associated with Aerosol Tire Inflators  NRDC and IGSD comme nted 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 the29 aerosol sector is for tire inflators. NRDC and IGSD commented that there are four manufacturers i n 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 plant s 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 th e substitute under review

. However, based on a screening analysis EPA performed to meet its oblig ations 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 approximatel y $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 o f 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 Aer osol 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 di scussions 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 HFO

1234ze(E). Honeywell further commented that in some instances, a nominal expense might30 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 t ubes, 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 specia lly 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 S NAP 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 m atter, 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 o f status date for HFC

- 134a to one year from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register , will have the effect of allow ing 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 che mical 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 va rious 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, Stone r 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 s ection. 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 o r other non

- HFC31 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 n ot 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 space s involved, the potential for sparking in close quarters with an operating fan, flammability is a concern. This use would be allo wed 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 aer osol products repr esent about five percent of annual consumption based on CO 2 - 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 tot al 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 produ cts 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, s ee 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 ha rms 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 submit ted 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 manufa cturers 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 acc ount 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 inc lude the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), Automotive Refrigeration Pro ducts 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 cit izen. 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 ra nging 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 environme ntal 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 receive d 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 summari zed 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 Charact erization technical support document (ICF, 2015a). 2.1.1 Change of Status Date s  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 t o 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 “practica ble” 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.  CAR B 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 a n 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 ref rigerants. [0077] EPA Response: EPA agrees that an earlier change of status date would reduce emissions of HFC

134a 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 interna tional community regarding the continued use of high

- GWP alternatives.” It is unclear whether an earlier change of status date would speed the rate of34 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. A s 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 ea rlier than MY 2021.  Arkema commented that, “the earliest that HFC

- 134a should be delisted in the MVAC sector, assuming any such delisting is warrant ed under CAA section 612, is 2025. This is to be expected given other ongoing changes in the automotive in dustry, 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 Automake rs, 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 stat us of HFC

- 134a in MY 2021. CAA s ection 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 informatio n 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 produ ction after MY 2021, based on confidential one

- on - one discussions with many manufacturers regarding their individual product plans. [0207] EPA Response: CAA s ection 612(c) directs EPA to publish lists of alternatives for specific uses, not individual piec es 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 a nd 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 t echnically 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 man ufacturers 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 tra nsitioned 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 ab le 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

. S ufficient information was not submitted to support a claim that transition by MY 2021 will not be possible due to technical feasibility. EPA has consid ered 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 transiti on 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 confiden tial. 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 le ast 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 t o 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 MVA C 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 mid

redesign cycle. A 2015 presentatio n b y 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 w ell as new compressor oil and A C plumbing packaging, calibration of the thermal expansion valves (TXV) and HVAC control so ftware, 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 trans ition 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 CO 2 requires major design changes to vehicle hardware and technologies. AAM also commented that b ecause 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 CO 2 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 alternativ es 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 an d 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 HFC

134a in MY 2018. Honeywell state d 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 ( A SHRAE) 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 HFO

1234yf and HFC

- 152a in secondary loop systems 3 , the HFO

- 1234yf systems being incorporated into vehicles today in the United States, European Union ( EU ) a nd 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 i n the future if automobile manufacturers decide a secondary loop is necessary to comply with the SNAP use conditions and sufficiently mitigate flammability. R esponses 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 concern ing 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 accept able 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 HFO

1234yf 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 . W e 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 State s , addressed in the preamble, EIA commented that HCs have been proven to be an effective MVAC refrigerant in Australia and in owner conversions. [013 4] 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 subjec t 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 w elcomes 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 alte rnative 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 an d 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 alternati ve refr igerants 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 incenti ve 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. The39 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 CO 2 , 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 Clea n 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 und er CAA Title II

. EPA responds to many of these co mments 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 wi ll be adequate supplies of altern ative 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 altern ative 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 conc erns 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 8 6.1818

- 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 ad equate for a transition in MY 2021, if not sooner. Also, the other refrigerants acceptable subject to use conditions for MVAC, HFC

- 152 and CO 2 , are used for other purposes and supply should not be limited. 2.2.2 Petition to Classify MVAC System as an Emi ssion Control Device  NRDC and IGSD commented that the HFC requirements of the LD GHG Rule were established under CAA s ecti on 202(a)(1) , which provides: “The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with th e 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 antic ipated 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 “a ir pollutants” regulated under CAA s ection 202 because they endanger public health an d 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 wou ld 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 forma l peti tion 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 t his 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 comment s 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 tampe ring 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 i n 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 M VAC 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 p roduction 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 that41 EPA’s authority under the CAA does not extend to the prohibition of equipment or systems capable o f 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 sig nificantly 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 pot ential 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 n ot 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 chargi ng 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 saf er 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 b oth 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 p rogram 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 vehic les 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 not42 subject to the require ments 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 whi ch 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 Unite d 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 p roducts manufactured for export : the r equirement 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 H FC

- 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 m anufactured 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 Euro pe, 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 A utomakers opposed th e 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 refrigera nts 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 Adminis trator, in judging substitute substances, must determine whether the “alternative ... reduces the43 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 b e 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 pa rticular end

- use where a substit ute is to be used.” 79 FR 46 , 132 (emphasis added)” and claimed that g iven that the technology available and training on handling automotive refrigerant substitutes vary dramatically among nations, EPA would act in an arbitra ry 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 co mmented 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 diffe rent 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 obl igation 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 veh icles 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. W e do not agree that we should differ entiate 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 manufactur ed 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 househol d 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 those44 situations, manufacturers could unilaterally produc e 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 comment ed that what EPA has proposed regar ding 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 fro m 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 distingu ishing 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 thos e produced for export for 40 years. AAM note d EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR 85.1709(a) and 1068.230 that provide an exempti on from the requirement in CAA s ection 203(a) that all vehicles be covered b y a certificate of conformity. AAM stated that t he certific ation 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 t he exemp tion 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 o ffered for sale in the United States. AAM concluded that EPA has a pre

- existing and extremely strong mechanism for enforcing a regulatory45 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 a t 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 u se 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 cu rrently 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 som e 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 th e 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 re quirements 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 e xist 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 consist ent 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 model s, 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 vehicles46 manufactured for sale in the United States and ve hicles 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 202 1, 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 subje ct 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, wit h 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 transit ional 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 e stablishing 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 infrastructu re 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 tec hnology 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 lim it can be justified for certain export vehicles, by MY 2026.  Global Automakers commented that i t is likely that many developing countries have legislative and/or regulatory barriers that must be addressed prior to allowing the use of alternative refriger ants. 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 t he 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 storag e, 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 t his 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. regulat ory 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 whe re issues could not be resolved thr ough 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 prohi bitions 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 c ommercial stakeholders. Add i tionally, 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 t hese 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 com mittees 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 low

GWP 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 t o be used. [0101]  AAM commented that other nations may be reluctant to attempt a transition to HFO

1234yf 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 a lso 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 yea rs after this was48 proposed in a NPRM. AAM also noted that CO 2 had received SNAP approval in 1994 but, in response to ongoing research, an update to CO 2 Use Conditions was proposed in September 2006. In June 2012, after much deba te, the new, more restrictive use c onditions for CO 2 were issued. SNAP approval for HFO

- 1234yf was pro posed 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 legisl ative 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 t o 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 th e 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 prog rams 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 pos sible 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 c ommented that Si ngapore 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 Resp onse: 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 MV AC alternatives are HCs. Singapore’s ban on HC refrigerants aligns with EPA’s unacceptabili ty 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 H FC

- 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 timing49 requirement for HFO

- 1234yf in Japan. How ever, HFO

- 1234yf is regulated by high

- pressure gas safety la w. When it comes to servicing A C refrigerants (discharge and refill), workshops must have anti

- explosive facility. According to AAM, the Japanese auto industry is requesting deregulation of handli ng 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 light

duty vehicles as of MY 2021, with a narrow ed 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 dom estic 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 t hat these new U.S. regulations were overlaid on a foundation of extensive pre

existing regulations that are also needed for safe and effective usage of the new refrigerants. For example, intentional venting of refrigerants during servicing or vehicle end

o f

- 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 addr ess 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 u ndertaken 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 u sing 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 serv icing 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 preven t 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 intr oducing 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 refri gerants. [0113]

4 Masafumi, 2014.50 EPA Response: AAM is correct that CAA s ection 608 prohibits knowingly venting refrigerants during service, maintenance, repair and disposal and that the SNAP use conditions under CAA s ection 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 s ection 609 directs the EPA to establish standards and requirements regarding the servicing of MVACs. EPA doe s 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 section s 608, 612, and 609 to ensure the safe use of the alternat ive 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 Europ e 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 standard s s etting 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 accommodat e 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 ma nner that would conform to the use c onditions 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 time frame. [0113]  Mexichem noted that export markets other than Canada and Europe do not have conditions to use the approved low

- GWP refrige rants 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 distribute d 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 st ill 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 pr ovisions, EPA could monitor developments internationally and, when conditions in51 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 fi nalizing 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 res ults 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 unl ikely 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 CO 2 , also hinders a near

- term transition in other nations. [01 13, 0101]  Arkema commented that it is unreasonable for EPA to assume without support that HFO

1234yf 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 i n 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 a dditional 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 d evelopment 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 releas e 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 Br anch and/or the52 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 DuPon t, 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 t o unacceptable for use in new light

- duty MVAC systems
. EPA summarizes and re sponds 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 t he automobile manufacturers and likely result in net additional CO 2 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 d ate 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 u nder 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 alternati ve 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 CO 2 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 n ot MY 2017 or MY 2019. F or the reasons provided in the preamble to the final rule, EPA has determ ined 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 transi tion 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 sys tem 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 condi tions 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 gree nhouse 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 pr ovide mechanical power to the A C system. The regulations allow vehicle manufacturers to generate AC leakage credits of up to 13.8 and 17.2 g/mi CO 2 eq and AC efficiency credits of up to 5.0 and 7.2 g/mi CO 2 eq for cars and trucks, respectively, in complying with the industry fleet

- wide average standard projected to be 163 g/mi CO 2 eq in model year 2025 (77 FR 62,624). Those ince ntives 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 re sponse 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 cre ate competition and economies of scale that contribute to a declining price. Also, EIA commented that Daimler has made public statements that their CO 2 MVAC systems will be installed in 2017 cars, and that will provide additional market pressure for the co st of HFO

1234yf 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: Se e 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 th is 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: Th e 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, incl uding TXVs and closed cell foam products, can continue to be made domesticall y 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 end

use as addressed by this rule is limited to refrigerant used in MVAC systems, a nd does not extend to other parts of the vehicles. Other uses covered by this rule include aerosols, foams and commercial refrige ration. 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 th e 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 isol ated 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 c an be a proprietary blend. AAM commented that it is not clear if the proposed rule is intended to eliminate t he 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 contai n 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 charac teristics 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 Respons e: 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 light

duty vehicles.56 2.6.3 Retrofit of HFC - 134a and HFO - 1234yf MVAC  DuPont suggested th at EPA clearly state on the SNAP website that any low

- GWP MVAC refrigerant system can only be serviced with the OEM refr igerant listed in the vehicle AC manual and A C 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 a nd 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 sy stems.  A AM 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 CO 2 . [0113] EPA Response: HFC

- 152a and CO 2 , as well as HFO

- 1234yf, cannot be used to re trofit 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

. Herei n 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 listi ng 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 ref rigerant 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 customer s,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 refrige rant 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 fin alizing 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 relate d 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 industr y 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

- 12 34yf 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, NR DC 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 th at the purchase58 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 sepa rate authority u nder 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 proce ss we have indicated plans to issue a proposed rule to make changes t o portions of the existing CAA s ection 608 implementing regulations taking into consideration the merits of a petition submitted in January 2014 asking EPA to extend those implementing re gulations 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 commente d 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 consumer s outreach material, such as a point

- of

- sale brochure on the new lower

- GWP alternatives, on th e portion of our website that concerns servicing motor vehicle air conditione rs and the requirements of CAA s ection 609.  DuPont recommended that EPA require that all HFC

- 134a MVAC service containers be clearly marked that it is a legal violation to use t he 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 conditio n 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 of59 environmental benefits an d 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 sho uld 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 H FO

- 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 regul ations 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 awa reness of the regulations. DuPont also noted that while there are no

- venting r egulations 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 R esponse: EPA agrees on the importance of technician training on safe handling of refrigerants. The Agency is curre ntly working with the approved CAA s ection 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 pro perties, current regulatory requiremen ts for MVAC under CAA section 609, s ection 612 (SNAP) , and s ection 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 additio nal 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 partici pates 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 Refrigera nt 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 that60 much has changed in the world of MVAC, including transitioning from non

- flammab le 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 wi th 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 proce ss. Technician certification requirements for MVAC s ystems are addressed under CAA s ection 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 REFRIGER ATION AND VENDING MA CHINES
EPA received a number of comments on the proposed change of listing status for refrigerants in the three main r etail 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, 2 016; 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 c omponents . 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 (FM I)), 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 equip ment 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 F oodservice (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 dat e. 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 Refrigera tion, 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 ( Auto mated Merchandising Systems), a purchaser of such equipment (Coca

- Cola North Americ a 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 tha t submitted comments on this section of the proposed rule included E merson Climate Technologies (Emerson), EIA, Grindmaster

- Cecilware Corporation (Grindmaster

- Cecilware), Hatco Corporation (Hatco), Shecco America (Shecco), Commercial Food Equipment Service A ssociation ( CFESA ), Minus Forty, Traulsen, Structural Concepts, V ollrath Company (Vollrath), Danfoss, Parker Hannifin Corporation’s Division Sporlan (Parker Hannifin), H&K International , United Refrigeration , InterMetro Industries Corporation (InterMetro I ndustries), 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 Ra nd , Maersk Container Industry, CARB, National Refrige rants, 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 o f these comments in section V.C of the preamble to the final rule. T his section summarizes and responds only to those comments not addressed in the preamble. 3 .1 Change of Status Dates EPA received comments related to t he 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 end

use covered by thi s 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 Walk

Ins, Ma nitowoc, 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), V ollrath, Emerson, Danfoss, Parker Hannifin, H&K International , United Refrigeration , UL, and So

- Low Environmental Equipment

. A few c ommenters supported the proposed 20 16 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 re tail 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 concer ns 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 facil ities 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 a nd would take five to six years to go through its entire product line. Another estimated three to five years for63 testing its products. Many commenters requested that any change of status for refrigerants in remote condensing units occur after compliance w ith 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 chan ge 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 an d R

- 407F) and the high condensing temperatures required for ou tdoor 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 othe r 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

- 4 07A, 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 indicate d that R

- 410A i s a possib le 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 di scussed 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 sup port 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 compon ents 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 conve rt 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. H oneywell advocated for a 2016 change of status date and indicated these blends are “nearing commercialization” and were already undergoing64 numerous field trials A major component supplier was quoted as saying they would be devoting resources to approving c omponents 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 o f 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 Januar y 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 stat us 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 identifi ed 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 Ret ai l Food Refrigeration (Stand
- Alone Equipment)  Kairak, KeepR ite 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 un its 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 techn ology was just becoming available on a sample basis to support the development of HFC/HFO blends. EIA stated that the necessary components for stand

alone equipment are already being manufactured by companies including Danfoss, Tecumseh, Cubigel, and Seco p. 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 c omponents 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 t he supply of refrigerant

- grade substances

. Commenters stated additional65 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 on ce components were available. Coca

- Cola estimated that some of its R

744 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 c omponents, 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 pr ocedures 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 b e listed as acceptable, noting an improvement in energy efficiency compared to R

404A, 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 ava ilable, 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 c ompress or 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” (Hoshiz aki 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 comp arison 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 b e 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, incl uding AHRI , Nor

- Lake, H oshizaki America, V ollrath, L ennox, Hussmann, Hillphoenix, S upermarket Company ABC, E merson, and D anfoss, claimed that flammable and other alternative refrigerants were not allowed based on current mechanical, fire, and building code s 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 . [0 0 21 , 00 24 , 00 26 , 00 28 , 0031, 00 33 , 00 37 , 00 39 , 00 40 , 0048, 00 49 , 00 62 , 0068, 00 74 , 00 76 , 00 77 , 0082, 00 83 , 00 92 , 0 102 , 0 115 , 0 119 , 0 120 , 0 122 , 0123, 0 134 , 0 137 , 0 138 , 0 170 , 0 173 , 0 174 , 0 174 , 0176, 0 183 , 0 188 , 0 190 , 0193, 0 194 , 0 195 , 0 196 , 0 199 , 0 200 , 0 201 , 0 209 , 0 212 , 0 215 , 0 216 , 0 217 ] 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 manu facturers 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 des igned 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 m ore 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 sim ilar 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 l ow - 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 HFC

134a (R

- 513A). In addition, another nonflammable HFC/HFO blend s imilar 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 fina l 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 us ing 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 developm ent 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 R51 3 A.” 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 challenge s 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 componen ts become available. In addition, commenters have noted less design problems with HFC/HFO blends, g iven th e 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), wh ereas 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 ch ange 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 informati on that building codes prohibit the use of alternative refrigerants, and did not provide an explanation of how such codes affected the R

744 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 DuPon t 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.racpl us.com/news/

- emerson - climate

- technologies

offers

- 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 ti me 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 con currently 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 c an 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 maj or 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 wi ll 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 o f 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 t ime 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 “CO 2 can be an environmentally friendly refrigerant in this application. Parker

- Hannifin and other manufacturers are actively developing products to support both subcritical and transcritical CO 2 .” 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 e quipment, and is listing R

- 448A and R

449A 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 devel op alternative69 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. Cont inental Refrigerator claimed that i n 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 E PA 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 cha nge 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 Refrig eration 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, a lternatives 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 sin gle 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 alt ernatives 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 bo th 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 f ace 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 the re 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 informat ion that70 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 O ther 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 refrigera nts 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 addr ess 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 s tand

- 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 p ostpone setting a date to change the status of HFC

- 134a or R

- 404A for stand

- alone commercial refrigerators until non

- flammabl e choices are available as drop

- in replacements. [0049, 0137 , 0217 ]  Commenters , including NAMA, NAFEM, Traulsen, Duke Manufacturin g, 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 in71 stand

- alone equipment. Many noted that adopting other avai lable 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 stand

alone 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 s tatus 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 non flammable acceptable alternatives include: R

- 450A, R

- 513A, and R

- 744 for stand

- alone medium

temperature units and R

- 448A, R

- 449A, R

- 450A, R

- 513A and R

- 744 for stand

- alone low

temperature units. EPA finds the t erm “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, R

449A, R

- 450A a nd 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

- 1 34a 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 ounce s) in each circuit to be unacceptable as of January 1, 2022; for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration remote condensing units, R

404A charge size exceeding 500 grams (17.64 ounces) in each circuit to be unacceptable as of January 1, 2021; for new, st and

- alone retail food refrigeration , R

- 404A charge size exceeding 500 grams (17.64 ounces) in each circuit to be unacceptable as of Jan uary 1, 2023; and for new, stand

- alone retail food refrigeration, HFC

- 134a charge size exceeding 1,000 grams (35.27 ounce s) 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 end

uses because other alternatives pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. N o 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 po se lower overall risk. Likewise, no information provided indicates that stand

- alone equipment currently72 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 cha nge 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 flamm able 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. Inst ead, 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 need ed 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 t he 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 refrigera nts, 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 refrigera tion 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 Fo rty Technologies commented that with the proposed effective date and the date73 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 necessar y 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 t hat 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 t he 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 tr ansition, 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

- al one equipment would allow time for chemical manufacturers, component manufacturers and OEMs to develop alternative non flammable or slightly flammable low

GWP 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 fo r 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 c hange 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 Merchan dising 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 thes e 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 int eract 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

- 29074 in particular for its vending machines, the commenter generally concluded that “a reasona ble 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 non

flamma ble 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 , In ternational 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 refri geration 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 alter natives; 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, i n 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 docum ent , 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 adop ting 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 under75 the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitut e under review

.  UL estimated that le ss than 5% of the currently UL

- l isted commercial refrigerators, fr eezers, 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 su bstantial 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 o n 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 of ten 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 uni ts 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 air

conditioners is not relevant for de termining 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

- si zed 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 low

temperature 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 on76 an interim basis “where the 150 g limit cannot be accomplished with a singl e 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 t han 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 15 0 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 f or “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 gra ms 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, 201 6, 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 st and

- 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 th at 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. Th ose 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 rese arch 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 t o 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 . T he equipment mentioned by So

- Low Environmental Equipment that is “used in the health care and research industry” might not be part of the ref rigeration 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 cafe teria 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 R

407F 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 Hannifi n 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 R esponse: 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 acce ptable in new vending machines, R

- 513A acceptable in new stand

- alone medium

- temperature units, and R

448A, 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 use78 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 pub licly 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. 0 9004

- 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 Refrigeran ts
- 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 Per formance 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, Park er Hannifin, Minus Forty, N. Wasserstrom & Sons, Hillphoenix, Nor

- Lake, and True Manufacturing , AHRI, NAMA, NAFEM , FMI, Honeywell, Grindmaster

Cecilware, InterMetro Industries , Aladdin Temp

- Rite , Howe, NRA, Hussmann, Master Bilt, Lennox, So

- Low Environment al 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 availab le 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 finis hed 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  Mult iple 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 , al ong 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 faciliti es 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 conv ert 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 ru le 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 t he 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 transiti on 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 s ection VII.B.1 and 2 of the preamble to the final rule for a discuss ion of the cost and economic impacts of the rule. EPA recognizes that transitioning to other a lternatives 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 as sumptions 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 Al ternatives
– April 2015” ( ICF , 2015 b ) and ”Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High

GWP Alternatives Revised

– April 2015” (ICF, 2015 c )

.  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 includ es 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 comm enters , 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 refriger ants. 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 usin g hydrocarbons, raising prices. Several commente rs suggested that the limited availability of components could result in increased prices. Commenters also pointed out80 that additional costs would be incurred during the design process as equipment or prototy pe 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 econom ic 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 testin g 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 t ime 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 alternativ es 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 compl y 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 fi nal 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 Environment al 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 dat e 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 o f 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 criter ia 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. W e note that te chnical 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 ve nding 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. CFES A’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 ed ucated, and the re 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 manuf acturing 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. T hese safety trainings would involve significant in vestment 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 technician s 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 maki ng 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 t o the82 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 altern atives 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 commenter s, in cluding 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 incu rred 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: E PA 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 th is document

. 3. 2 .7 Reduction in New Product Development  Several manufacturers of stand

- alone equipment , including Hussmann, Hillphoenix, Master Bilt, Lennox, Aladdin Temp

- Rite, Vollr ath, 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 wo uld 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 take83 resources from non

- refrigerated product development. [0026, 0037, 0076, 0086, 0087, 0102, 0120, 0123, 0201, 0215]  FMI believed that without ad equate implementation time many of the models available t o 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 sta nd

- 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 refrigerati on tools while continuing to serve our customers .” [0173] EPA Response: We note that the change of status dates that we are establishing for new stand

alone equipment are three or four years later (January 1, 2019 and January 1, 2020) than proposed. Alth ough 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 modific ations 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 alternativ es . 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 th e 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 Manufacturin g, 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 note s 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. T he change of status dates established in the final rule will address the technical concerns of ensuring that manufacturers have sufficient time to convert their producti on 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 t he 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 compon ents 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 eq uipment 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 res ponse 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 cour se 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 ther e 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 b e 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 serv icing should be. These costs are considered transition costs and as noted EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives85 in making listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of co st is limited to cost of the substitute under review

. .  Continental Refrigerator believed that small busi nesses (including manufacturers, servicers , and end

- users, such as restaurants) that produce, support , and purchase many of the stand

alone systems are impacted significantly by regulations that affect the ability and cost to produce them , which in turn af fects 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, 2 015c). 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 cost s 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 econ omic 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 r efrigeration 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 preamb le 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 statu s 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 of86 c ertain 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 an d addressed below

. 3. 3 . 1 Energy Efficiency of New Equipment  Some commenters believe d 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 ; othe rs believe d 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 wou ld offer better energy efficiency than other lower

- GWP alternatives. Coca

Cola 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 hi gh 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 d evelop 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 res ults 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 al ternatives 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  Hudso n, 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 a nd 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 rulemaki ng 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 alternativ es 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 reg ulations , 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 stud ies 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

- us e 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 end

uses. 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. I nformation 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, 2015 a and 2015 b ; IPCC, 2007 and 2013; IPCC/TEAP 2005; Montzka, 2 012; 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 r eleased to atmosphere are known to contribute to the production of ground level ozone88 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 red uce 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, 2014 a ). 3.3.4 Environmental I mpacts 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 be cause 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 be cause 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 use rs to retain older systems. T he possible supply of HCFC

- 22 and other ozone

depleting 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 driv e 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 contr ibution of CO 2 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 p roposed r ule, as the single

- loop or primary

- loop of an R

407X 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 casca de system using R

- 404A in the top side refrigeration loop with a CO 2 secondary loop results in approximately 90% lower equivalent CO 2 emissions than a single loop R

- 407A system. [0120]  AHRI noted that as part of the re

- design effort that started a few yea rs 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 frac tion 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, R

407B, R

- 421B R

- 422A, R

- 422C, R

- 4 22D, 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 c ertain 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 n ot guarantee lower overall emissions. If catastrophic losses occurred in a system employing R

404A, R

- 507A or other high

- GWP refrigerants, the emissions in CO 2 - equivalent terms could be twice or more than if a lower

- GWP refrigerant were used in the same de sign. 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 secondar y loop or cascade system operating on R

404A or R

- 507A would result in lower CO 2 - 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 s tatus 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, KeepRit e 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 citi zen 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 acc eptable 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: W e 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 mac hines. 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 th at 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 o f 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 Acce ptable 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 th e 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 a vailable 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 alternative s. 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

- 513 A 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 s uch 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 e ither 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 HF C/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 medium

temperature 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 flooded92 evaporator. Furtherm ore, the comments indicate that other acceptable refrigerants, such as R

450A 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 large

footprint supermarket installations may be able to use a remote condensing unt il 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 usin g 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 exi sting 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 us ed. 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 t o 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 Jan uary 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 no t 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 t hat it has a similar GWP to HFC

- 134a, and thus believe d 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 us e 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, R

448A had not been listed as an acceptable alternat ive; 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 CO 2 and Hydrocarb ons  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 t hat because R

744 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 ve nding 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

- 4 41A and R

- 600a) or R

744 in any type of equipment. S ome manufacturers have already introduced products that meet applicable DOE requirements and that utiliz e the se acceptable alternatives. O ther manufacturer s may choose a different path. For instance, tho se 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

- Ri te 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

. A HRI, 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 r elatively 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 a cceptable 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 be yond 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 conditions94 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 7 8,846). 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

- f lammable alternatives exist, such as R

- 448A, R

- 449A, R

- 450A, R

513A 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 ( C A NENA ) W orking G roup 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 commente d 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 v ersion 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 Austral ia , 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 stand

alone retail food ref rigeration 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 abou t95 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 t o 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 notin g 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 an d 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 t he 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, a ccess 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 pu rchasers 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 Refrige rants, 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 ma chines 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, Lenn ox, 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 charge d 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 th e 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 servic ing such equipment . Coca

- Cola n oted 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 Respo nse: EPA reiterate s 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 in cludes 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 s upermarkets 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 t o request that we prohibit the use of virgin material for servicing, we note that m any 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 a ctions 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 equipment97 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 a ny 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 HCFC

22 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

. EP A 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 Ja nuary 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 alternati ve 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 anti cipate that pre

- charged appliances could be manufactured before reach ing 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 ‘s ell

- 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 invent ory prior to the January 1, 201 9, 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. Furth ermore, equipment operating on a refrigerant subject to a status change may continue to be serviced with that refrigerant. S uch service can include the use of components or parts , possibly pre

- charged, designed for that particular refrigerant. Thus, compon ents 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 manufac ture 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 t o 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 circumve nt 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 sup port 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 ad dition 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 “large

sized 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 c hange of status for “large” stand

- alone units but would be subject to a status change for “small” stand

alone 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 fina l 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 believe d 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 fo od 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 condensi ng 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 ins talled 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 classifica tion. 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 compres sor, 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 a nd packaged walk

- in refrigeration systems may meet that definition. As EPA reads the comment s , 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 compresso r. 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, superm arket 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 modi fication to the refrigeration system. As such, this would be considered stand

alone 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 hermitically

sealed 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 rul e, 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 s hould 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 s ection V.C.1.c of the preamble to the final rule, EPA explains these terms and in particular how they apply to supermarket system s , and notes that we have made a distinction between “new” and “retrofit” since the inception of the SNAP program. While the regula tory text do es not define these terms, the public had an opportunity to com ment 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 Du Pont 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 c omments 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 c ommented that the refrigerants HFC

- 227ea, R

- 407B, R

- 421B, R

- 422A, R

422C, 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 ha ving 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 - ozone depleting refrigerants for retrofitt ing 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 a ny technical justification for why changing the status101 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 an d 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 f ound 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 altern atives 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 sign ificant 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 comment er (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 establishin g 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, ASHR AE 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 i nterpreted 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 low

temperatu re 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 tha n 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 o ccurs 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 service d 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 accomm odate 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 a chievable 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 w ith 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, an d 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 in dicates 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.  Lenn ox 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 F R 46,156) in the context of the proposed S NAP 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 con sidered ‘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 subs tances 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 refrige ration 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 actio n. 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, s tand

- 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 MVAC s to allow export of vehicles using HFC

134a 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 t he 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 to104 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 t echnicians servicing retail food refrigeration equipment are already accustomed to working with a variety of refrigerants including some f lammable 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 remain s 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

- alon e 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 wi thout 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

- acceptab le 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 suppor ted 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 competitive105 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 In ternational, NAFEM, NAMA, Hussmann, Traulsen , and Hillphoenix , stated that because the SNAP requirements apply to exported product s , 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 pr oducts 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 di sadvantage 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 eva luation 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. 3.1 0 General Comments EPA received general comments from Eppen orf, 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

- us es 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 coola nts with GWPs . [0081] EPA Response: EPA appreciates Eppendorf ’s support of the proposed rule. 3.1 0. 2 General Comments on Acceptable Refrigerants  Vollrath and Master

- Bilt were concerned that some alternatives that remain acceptable in certain end

- use ca tegories, 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 refrige rant change in two years

. Howe, InterMetro Industries, and Lennox expressed a need for106 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 particu lar 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 evaluat e 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 com menters, 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 trans port. [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 pro pose 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 tha t 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 p rompt 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 th at ensures patients and researchers are not jeopardized. [0073] EPA Response: T his 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 ch anging 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 addr essed 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 R

410A 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 sugge stions 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 equipm ent. 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 reco very 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. [010 3] 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 Progra m, 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, an d 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 c ommenters noted challenges of compliance due to the increased demand for testing; federal, sta te, 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 o f 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, C ARB, Arkema, All Weather Insulated Panels ( AWIP ) , Bally Refrigerated Boxes ( Bally ) , BASF Corporation ( BASF ) , Boeing Defense, Space, & Security ( Boeing ) , CFESA, Clayton Co rporation (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 M oulding, 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 Me rchandising 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 Comps ys (Structural Composites) , Solvay, Sub

- Zero Design Engineering (Sub

Zero) , Supermarket Company ABC, ThermalRite Walk

- Ins, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Thermo

Kool/Mid

- South Industries ( Thermo

- Kool ) , Traulsen, True Manufacturing, United Brands, UL, Utility Tr ailer 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 fi nal rule. This section summarizes and responds only to those comments not addressed in the preamble.109 4.1 Status Listing Changes EPA received several comment s on the proposed change of listing status for foam blowing agents in the various end

- uses, includin g 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 thi s 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 a uthorized, to classify foams or products as unacceptable, only the foam blowing agents used to create those foams. They believe that u sing the program in ways that it is not intended or authorized significantly reduces any certainty for the regulated indus trials sectors

. [0037, 0198] EPA Response : EPA is not taking final action on this aspect of the proposal as part of this fi nal rule. See section V.D.2.d of the preamble to the final rule.  CPI comment ed that the potential impact of the proposed rule is br oad. CPI comment ed 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 l aboratories, and downstream end users and cus tomers. CPI encourage d 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 consid ered information from a range of individual businesses in developing this final rule, including information about specific types of products.  Pactiv Building Products comment ed that the proposed status change for HFC

- 134a in XPS insulation is not consiste nt 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, state d that there is already a lo w - 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 HFC

134a use in spray foams, as their difference in GWP is not significant. They requested that EPA de monstrate consistency and extend the “narrowed use acceptance” to both HFC

245fa 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 n ot 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 Date s 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, Hoshi zaki America , Huntsman, Hussma n , Imperial Brown, Ingersoll R and, InterMetro, IP Moulding , Kairak, LaPolla, LPA, Manitowoc, marine products manufacturers, Master

- Bilt, Metl

- Span, M exichem, NAFEM, NAM, NMMA, Nor

- Lake, NRDC and IGSD, Owens Corning, Pacti v Bui lding Products, Pregis, Premium Spray Products , RHH, Structural Composites, S olvay, Sub

- Zero, Supermarket Compan y 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 section s 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 state d 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 investme nts 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 t he 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. Wh ile the change of status dates were based111 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 comment ed that EPA should c onsider 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 dif ferences between previous transitions and the transitions co ntemplated in the proposed rule when determining the status change date for the final rule

. In the past, RHH note d , the phase

- outs were at least five years, and there were drop

- in replacements com mercially 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 propos al 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 t he 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 Grou p , 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 quanti ty), but they ultimately used standard “off the shelf , ” catalysts in their new system. Premium Spray Products believe d EPA should not rush and establish arbitrary deadlines, but ensure proper testing is done, so the best alternatives are allowed to materia lize. [ 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 So lvay, 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 u nderway by many companies, but additional time will be necessary before low

- pressure two
- part PU spray foam can effectively transition. Fomo112 Products believe d the process of learning and combining new catalysts, flame retardants, and surfactants puts a str ain on R&D’s ability to develop a high qua lity products in the short time frame proposed by the draft rule. Fomo Products comment ed the proposed status change date for HFC

- 134a (January 1, 2017) actually b ecomes January 1, 2016, for low

pressure spray foam (LP SPF ) and low

- pressure pour - in place applications, because they are typically sold through distribution. Fomo Products comment ed that a one year shelf

- life is an absolute necessity in order to account for time spent in the distribution chain and storage b y 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 b y Honeywell . [0077, 009 8, 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 ma nufacturer, 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 the y 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 cer tifications 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 fo am 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 applaud ed EPA’s efforts to change the listing status of high

- GWP HFCs, but believe d the timeline is unreasonable because they would need an estimate d 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 d ate of January 1, 2020 , for rigid PU113 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 alternativ e 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 a fter this action is finalized. While it is true that the end users cannot b e 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 alread y 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 p rovide the end user four and a half years to make the transition.  Kairak comment ed 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 literatur e 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 comment ed 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 S cientific comment ed 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 o f 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, ro ller 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 comment ed 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 formulati ons with alternative foam blowing agents in order to achieve stable foam before an end user can114 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 commerc ial 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 prov ided 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. Im perial Brown estimated the time frame could range from several mo nths to over a year

. Metl

- Span suggested a status change date five years beyond that in the proposed rul e . Metl

- Span commented that HFC

- 152a and HCs are flammable and may require national and local fire safety restrictions for storage and processing and ad ditional 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 HFC

152a and HCs con stitute 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 solution s. 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

- hexaflu oro - 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 i n 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) d oors, 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 fl ammable 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 store s, these cycles typically run two to three years, meaning that stores are already designed that will open115 after January 1, 2017. Changes to panel dimensions and methods of construction will require building design changes for these projects. That will resu lt in increased store design fees and can negatively impact space available for other uses within if increase d refrigerated storage space is needed . Extending this deadline to 2020 would allow changes to be accounted for in the earliest design phases of fu ture 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 wil l 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 comment ed that changes to the insulation system used on its vending machines will require review by its safety app roval 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 OS HA 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. R igid 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 Whirl pool 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 ap provals to ensure all product requirements are116 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 allow s “ 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 app liance 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 tran sitioning 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 basi s 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 alte rnative 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 comment ed 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 sur factants), 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 activiti es 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 fina l 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 a bility 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 comment ed that virtually all recreational boats manufactured today that employ fiberglass compos ite hulls utilize HFC

134a for insulation . ACMA remarked that HFC

- 1 34a is certifi ed by the USCG for this117 purpose, and their industry does not currently have a commercially available USCG approved alternative

. ACMA asked EPA to delay, until 2020, the phase o ut 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 accep table 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 test ed and approved, HFC

- 134a replacement , the commenter support ed the NMMA’s request that EPA establish a change of status date of 2022. A dditionally, a private citizen commented that their fiberglass small business boat builder members will have to stop buil ding boats if they ca nnot use HFC

- 134a to meet the USCG safety requirements for flotation foam. The commenter also stated that i f a suitable alternative exists, they are not opposed to working with EPA on a phase out of HFC

- 134a , but they need to do it in a n 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 dat e 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 pro duce 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 t he 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 t echnical challenges found to date with integral skin PU with HFOs. We note that there are already alternative blowing agents used in this end

use, primarily CO 2 , and other blowing agents in addition to HFOs are accepta ble, including light saturated HCs , wa ter, 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 comment ed that seismic and wind tests, which ar e required in roofing and other applications, are need ed to assess long

- term in

- situ performance. Solvay comment ed that additional time to conduct testing and maintain fire safety approvals may be necessary, and modifications of building and fire codes the mselves may be necessary to accommodate alternatives. S olvay comment ed 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 Mater ials

. ” 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 con struction 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 comment ed 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 note d 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 comment ed that this presents a huge ba rrier 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 th at 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 date s for the final rule, we considered this as part of the time needed to develop fo rmulations. 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 an d 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 s amples, 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 cou ld 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

- us es 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 date s adopted in the final rule.  DuPont stated that while foam producers h ave continued to evaluate lower

- GWP foam expansion age nts, many of these manufacturers have been unable to find the next technical solution that is anticipated to b e commercially available by EPA’s proposed status change date

. DuPont comment ed 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 alternati ve. 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 J anuary 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 m ore difficult than the change of status listing for HCFC

- 22
. Clayton stated that the proposed status change date of Ja nuary 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 co mmented 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 time frame to comply with the SNAP Program. They stat ed that it can take up to 12 months to successfully field t rial and approve a new product. In addition, Clayton comm ented 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 an d requalify each of their 2K LP SPF products. Clayton commented that its testing demonstrates that HF O

1234ze(E) does degrade and cause issues with stability, toxicity, corrosion and storage. [0133]120  RHH comment ed that , for low

- pressure two
- component spray foam systems, the determining factors to implement replacement blowing agents include the time neede d to reformulat e 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 agai n reformulate and retest. RHH no te d 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 believe d there will be a large influx of products submitted f or 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. F omo Products state d 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 pro posed status change date of January 1, 2017 , would need to be extended by at least two years if HFC

- 134a is listed as un acceptable for use in spray adhesive applications. The commenters note d that their products need specific bonding properties to withstan d high wind and heavy precipitation during roofing applications. The y also note d 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, Te xas 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 t hat 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 wit h 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 ti me, EPA is not taking final action on a change of status for HFC

- 134a as a foam blowing agent in spray foam applications, including l ow - 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 Rigi d 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 ne ed 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 reg ulatory agencies, such a s 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 cap ital tooling for each model group to make size

specific 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. Si milarly, 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 d esign 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 us e. They suggested a minimum of six years will be needed to make conversions. Thermo

- Kool believed that there ar e 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 s andwich panels , in light of the technical concerns raised by the se and other commenters and the information they submitted to support these concerns. While some commenters suggested periods of time for certain activitie s they did not place those time frames in context. Fo r example, while Helmer suggested a lead time of 12 to 18 months is needed per fixture, the y 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 neede d to make conversions. See also sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule

.122  Bally note d that international building c ode s 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 need ed 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 comment ed that combining the design efforts for the phys ical implementation with the re

- registration of regulated products opens the severe risk of limiting product availability. Helmer noted that whe n the current EPA proposed time line comes into effect, if the regulated product has not completed the required d esign a nd 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 establish ing 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

- B ilt, 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 I nternational Building Code IBC s ection 2603.4.1.3 states that when panel thicknesses increase beyo nd 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 approx imately 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 blo wing agents to allow for availability of foam blowing agents that w ould 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 ackno wledges that different foam blowing agents have different insulation values, and some of the alternatives (e.g., CO 2 , 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 chan ge date of January 1, 2020 , for rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel. T his change of status date will123 allow time to increase the supply of alternatives that result in better insulation values, for optimization of other alternatives to reduc e 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 co ntaining HCs or HFO

1234ze(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 fac tors. 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 temperature s 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 inves tment 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 consid ers 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 manufactur ing plants. They comment ed that EPA and OSHA regulations, and their inte rnal ru le s , all govern their manufacturing facilities, and that these regulations require a specific process for safety testing and trai ning when they make changes in their manufacturing facilities. Clayton stated that once production issues have been resolved , field tr ials can be initiated, and an estimate to convert their equipment and performing pilot batches is 180 days. [0133] EPA Re sponse: 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 comment ed that many of the la b products utilizing blown foam are listed/approved by regulatory bodies both domestically (e.g. , the FDA) and globally (e.g. , t he Ministry of Health, World Health Organization ), and more time will be needed to validate the design changes and maintain the registrations than the current pro posed 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 t he 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 e nd

- use. See sections V.D.2.b of the preamble to the final rule. Rigid PU Marine Flotation Foam  A private citizen com ment ed 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 U SCG , American Bureau of Shipping, American Boat and Yacht Council , and DoD , depe nding 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 conversi on. 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, 01 72, 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 th at 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 al ready 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 agent s, 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 Composite s, 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 t he preamble to the final rule. EPA also received comments concerning the energy e fficiency, 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 stat ed 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 eq ual 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 CO 2 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 perspectiv e, 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 applyin g 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 th ere 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 b uilding materials. In response to the comments from Hillphoenix, Master

- Bilt, Continental Refrigerator, NRDC and IGSD, and CPI , see section s 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 Mas ter
- B ilt’s comment about CO 2 and Ecomate , EPA notes that other alternatives are acceptable for this end

- use that are able to provide comparable or better R

values than those from HFC

- blown foam, such as trans
- 1

- chloro

- 3,3,3

- trifluoroprop

- 1

- ene, HFO

1234ze(E), a nd 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 isolat ion. 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 a nd 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 not es that f or all foam end

- uses affected by this rule, there are mu ltiple 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 Hill phoenix’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 p anel 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 t hat 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 PU127 commercial re frigeration and sandwich panel is subject to various ener gy 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 w here 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 valu es through foam reformulation, including the foam blowing agent, and through increasing foam thickness, where that is a viable option. S ee se ctions V.B.6.a, V.C.7, and VII.C.3 of the pre amble to the final rule where EPA further discuss es energy efficienc y concerns. 4.3.2 ENERGY STAR Requirements  Helmer and Thermo Fisher Scientific comment ed that they ha ve been working with DOE and EPA in developing ENERGY STAR requirements for refrigerated laboratory products since 2010, and a change in the cabinet ins ulating 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 comment ed that manufacturers of lab products utilizing blown foam need time to accommodate ENERGY S TAR requirements while transitioning to an alternate blown foam technology. [ 0047, 0218] E PA 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 appreciat ive 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. W e disagree that it is necessary for EPA to move the status change d ate 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 propose d 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 would128 impact energy usage. NAMA urged EPA to request a formal opinion from the ENERGY STAR office on p otential 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 , t he ENERGY STAR p rogram consider s performance requirements under DOE’s energy conservation standards. DOE is in the pro cess 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 state d that spray foams are not a viable alte rnative to XPS foam du e 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 th e 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 alternat ive blowing agents for foam end

- use s 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 industr y 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 demonstr ated 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 C ycle 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 state d that if EPA is going to leave efficiency and design considerations, to manu facturers, 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 going129 to limit engineering innovation and market choice by s pecifying 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 alte rn atives, “ 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 speci fic 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 cond uctivity 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 mor e or less energy efficient or will result in grea ter or less thermal efficiency ( e.g., see discussion on comparison of efficiency of HFO

1234ze and HFC

- 134a in section V.D.3.c of the preamble. ) Second, we are not aware of any industry or scientific agreeme nt 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 life

cycle 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 ind irect emissions ( e.g., thickness of the foam ) . EPA did qualitative ly 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 Age ncy. 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 o f HFC foam blowing agents. In addition, the performance of cyclopentane and methyl formate is not expected to be significantly different from that of HFC

134a. 4. 4 Cost Impacts EPA received comment s on the cost impacts of the proposed status change l istings 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 In dustries, 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 G roup, 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 anticipate d the cost of the newer technology would significantly increase the cost of all XPS products. XPSA d id 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 th e 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 comment s, 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, M exichem, 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 i n 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 chemi cal cure (low

- pressure spray foam and pour

- in

- place). [0139]  BASF support ed 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 fl ammability concerns .” BASF also support ed 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 t here is only on e substitute identified in the proposed rule as a replacement for HFC

- 134a, the non

- flammable gaseous blowin g agent currently used in 2K LP SPF. Clayton commented that the substitute, HFO

- 1234ze(E) , has not been sufficiently laboratory teste d or field tested in order to demonstrate that it would make a viable replacement for HFC

- 134a. [0133]  RHH believe d that w hile som e 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 comment ed that the proposed rule does not identify a viable , low

- GWP blowing agent solution for spray foam.  NAM note d that two ver y 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 comment ed that they have produced and sold 757,000 lbs o f 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 applicatio ns, 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 Re frigeration and Sandwich Panels  A number of commenters raised concern about the commercial availability of formulate d 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 blowi ng132 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 commercializ ed.  Master

- Bilt also stated that no commercially available drop

- in replacement exists for HFC

134a 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 HF C 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

- ch loro

- 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 hydroca rbons, EcomateTM, CO 2 , 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. Ba lly 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 explosion

proofing production facilities (e.g., light hydrocarbons). [ 0104, 0037, 0067, 0213] EPA Response : Concerning the cost of explosion

- proofing production facilities, a s described in section VII.A.7 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other al ternatives 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, w e 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), CO 2 and water. Con cerning R

values , 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 sandw ich 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 sandw ich panel end

- use, providing more options. XPS Foam  XPSA comment ed that HFO

- 1234ze(E) is not commercially available in the United States ; and thus XPSA‘s members ha ve not conducted testing to confirm it can be used to produce133 products that provide compa rable thermal efficiency or if there are any other issues that would make it an unacceptable alternative to HFC

- 134a. XPSA comment ed that suppliers do not currently have an alternative that is both functional and cost equivalent. Owens Corning commented th at, 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 seve ral 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 inform ation 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 N orth 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 H F C 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 XP S 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 BTU

in/br

- ft2

- °F @ 25°C) and low permeability (< 0.4 cm3

- mil/day

- 100in2

- at m@ 25°C) blowing agent . Dow Chemical commented that none of the proposed alternatives identified in the propos ed rul e , with the sole exception of HFO

- 1234ze(E) , meet these requirements for maintaining the performance standards specified by ASTMC578. Dow Ch emical 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 formula tions. 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 c annot 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 ins ulation 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 availabilit ies. 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 u nderstanding, confirmed by the commenters, that it meets necessary requirements for134 insulation (e.g., R

- value based on thermal conductivity and permeability). In response to the concern from DiversiFoam Products, we note that HFC

- 152a, CO 2 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 i s now commerci ally 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 refrige rant 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 vario us 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 grea ter 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 comment ed that SNAP approval does not mean a given alternative is a viable commercial solution. They stated that m ost 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

- use rs . However, we are aware of at least two alternative foam blowing agents already successfully implemented by some manufacturers of household appliances

— saturated ligh t HCs and tr ans - 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 agent s 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 concer n for a numbe r of the foam blowing end

- uses (XPS, rigid PU slabstock, rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich135 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 p roducts and manufacturing platforms, and due to the flammability of these products, significant capital investment would be required to make manuf acturing 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 currentl y 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 requi red. [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 comment ed that the foam ind ustry 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 portio n of the foams sector is using HCs and CO 2 . 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 a nd we are setting different change of status dates for the different end

uses. 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 w ith supply cons iderations. 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 St ates. 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 bl o wing agent in s pray 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 believe d the current capacity of the single manufacturing plant for HFOs cannot handl e 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 manuf acturing plant that could be either built in the states or possibly in Asia. Thermo

- Kool believe d 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 comment e d 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 manufactur ers, is Honeywell. Whirlpool comment ed that an unintended outcome of the proposed regulation may be a narrow choice of sup pliers for the alternatives that could very possibly result in a monopolistic supply situation, inadequate supply for the indu stry, an d business disruption. Whirlpool stated that e ven 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 efficien t 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 DuP ont 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

- t rifluoroprop

- 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 widel y 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

. T rans - 1

- chloro

- 3,3,3

- trifluoroprop

- 1

- ene is not the only available alternative that can be used in this end

- use. Additionally, w e note that since137 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 and f urther 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

- 1234 z e(E) on a temporary basis from a different facility in the case of a temporar y 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 Pr oducts , RHH, Dow Chemical and Solvay comment ed that flammable blowing agents are problematic in rigid PU spray foam, including both high

- pressure and LP SPF
. West Development Group comment ed 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 th e 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 str uctures, such as refrigerator warehouses. American Panel comment ed 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 C lass I certified s ystems 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 e nergy efficient. AWIP comment ed FM qualification for Class 1 fire rating of Solstice w ould be complete by 2015. Honeywell comment ed that their Solstice LBA for foam insulation in U.S. manufactured household refrigerators and freezers is non

- flammable

. Sub

- Zero note d that using HC blowing agents is138 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: S e veral 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), CO 2 and water. At least one commenter, AWIP, indi cated 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 refrige ration, 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. XP S Foam  DiversiFoam, IP Moulding, and XPSA commented that the substitutes for this end use are flammable. IP Moulding note d that their manufacturing facility was not designed to accommodate these types of chemicals and would require a complicated and costl y 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 Che mical 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 blow ing agents, and Ecomate TM 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 l isting 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 o f foam manufacturing facilities ( e.g., facilities for flexible PU foam ) have been changed to use HC blowing agents and ar e now able to use them safely. Also, t here are other, non

- flammable alternatives for this end

- use.  Owens Corning comment ed 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 ar e 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 th is 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 i n general and XPS in particular ” (UNEP, 2014). Mexichem suggest ed 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 UNE P 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 in troduction of unsaturated HFCs ( e.g., HFO

- 1234ze(E)) will certainly avoid such a controversy, but the availability of such technology in Artic le 5 Parties is uncertain

– particularly when the technology is yet to be commercially adopted elsewhere. ” S ince publication of the UNEP FTOC 2014 report, Honeywell has begun operating a c ommercial scale plant in the United States

. EPA has established a st atus 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 note d that the substitutes have higher exothermic temperatures that may or not be problematic, presenti ng 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 comment ed that the entire foam secto r 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 blo wn material is maintained. Solvay note d 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 conce rns. 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 f oam end

- uses, such as flexible PU, polystyrene sheet, PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, and phenolic, flammable substitutes are commo nly used, including HCs . EPA recognizes that transitioning from a non

- flammable blowing agent to a flammable bl owing 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 CO 2 in all end

- uses; HFO

1234ze(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, a nd polyolefin. Concerning VOC emi ssions of HCs, w e note that water, CO 2 , methyl formate, HFO

- 1234ze(E), and trans
- 1

- chloro

- 3,3,3

- trifluoroprop

- 1

- ene are either not VOC or are VOC

exempt. 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 su ch 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 unaccep table

. 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. Some141 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 comment s on this aspect of the proposal from AAM, AHAM, Bally, DuPont, EIA, Hone ywell, 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 produc ts 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/ ae ronautics 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 p rivate 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 th e 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 ne w 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 HFC

245fa 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 certif y 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 support ed EPA’s proposed narrowed use limit, and suggest ed that the time EPA proposed and is142 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 propose d, 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 aer onautics

- related applications is based on information indicating that f or the military, there are several unique performance requirements related to weapon systems that require extensive testing prior to qualifying alternati ves 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 require ments 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 challengin g 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 5 8,269 ). EPA p ropos ed that the narrowed use limit for these unique applications would be available through January 1, 2022
. While Boeing suggested that the narrowed u se 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 sam ples, 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 suffi cient. ( Concerning EIA’s suggestion that EPA should revise this date to no later than Jan uary 1, 2018, one year after the proposed date for other foam blowing applications, EPA disagrees. Given the unique challenges for military, space and aeronautics appl ications , 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 b e required where technologically feasible and exemptions should only be granted on a demonstration of need , we note that u nder the narrowed use limits, users of a restricted agent must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or alterna tives are not technically feasible. Thus, u nder 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 analy s is. 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 documen t 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, pharmaceutica l, 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 eq uipment 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 u nacceptable by January 1, 2020.  XPSA urged EPA to consider narrowed use limits for high

- performance insulation using HFC

134a ( 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 Administratio n 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 limit s 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. D ow 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 in dicated 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 for144 certain foam blowing end

- uses, (July 22, 2002; 67 F R 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 est ablished narrowed use limits. ( S eptember 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 refrige ration 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 beli eve 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, an d 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 a pplications, 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 a ny se rious 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 chang e 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 addres sed 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 C omposites 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 b e 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 their145 technology compared to standard refrigerated trailers an d boat. For example, they calculated an 860% reduction in GHG over the life cycle of a refrigerated trailer based on fuel savings and described Do D craft that are 40% more payload fuel efficient and refrigerated trailers that are over 25% more thermally ef ficient. 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 wha t 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 a vailable for the same use that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. The commenter appears to be proposing that the SNAP list ing 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 spe cific 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 complia nce 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 Admi nistration’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 i n sections V.D.2.b and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule. W e considered this issue in establishing the status change date and believe that there will be more than adequate supplies of alternatives

.  Metl

- Span request ed that EPA establish a change o f 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 establis hed 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 reasons146 discussed in sections V.D.2 and V.D.3.a of the preamble to the final rule. This timeframe is consistent w ith Metl

- Span’s requ est 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 addresse d 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 commerc ial 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 refrigeratio n.  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 limitatio ns as spray foam. BASF indicated that many o f these applications still use HFCs as foam blowing agents, processing aids, or to maintain physical propertie s in the application. BASF noted that these applications include (but are not limited to) the following: industrial piping applications; slab jack ing 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 b y 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 r ule 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 o r 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 i s 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 r igid PU slabstock and other e nd

- 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 low

GWP add itions listed as acceptable [i.e., SNAP Determinatio n 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 o ptions 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

- 134 a 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 thei r 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 an d 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

- se tting 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. Fo r 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, E PA148 has reviewed and listed a few blends with specific compositions (i.e., commercial blends of HFC

365mfc 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

- 152 a 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 notificatio n and review (March 18, 1994, 59 FR at 13,044, 13,084

- 13,085). EPA could in the future consider sp ecific blends of HFCs and lower

GWP foam blowing agents, review them, and amend the decisions in this rule to allow for such blends, if the specific blends re duce 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 sp ray 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 r equesting 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 comm ents are summarized and addressed below.  DuPont commented that EPA is not proposing to change the status of the relatively high

GWP foam expansion agents HFC

- 365mfc, HFC

- 227ea, and HFC

- 245f a, and blends thereof, for high

- pressure spray foams. DuPont comm ented 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 multip le low

- GWP alternatives available in sufficient quantities for high

- pressure spray foams and other low

- GWP liquid and semi

liquid applications globally by 2020. DuPont commented that, consistent with EPA’s proposal to transition foam segments when effectiv e low

- GWP alternatives become available and allow foam manufacturers sufficie nt 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 h igh

- 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 , comme nt ing 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 unacceptabl e 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 no t 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 HFC

227ea 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 availab le 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 st ated that listing HFC

- 227ea and blends containing HFC

- 227ea as unacceptable would have little negative impact to foam customers because of it s limited use to date in the United States

. [0170] EPA Response : EPA has not listed HFC

- 227ea as an acceptable foa m 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 HF C

- 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 chlor ide , 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 fina l 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 th e 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 n ot 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 in to the final rule to allow for a more compl ete and accurate accounting of relevant technical requirements. In particular, CPI commented that r igid PU foam systems include four distinct and separate PU foam systems: (A) high

- pressure two
- component spray foam systems, (B) low

- pressure two
- component s pray 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 pr eamble 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 stat us changes for two

- component pour
in

- 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 r efrigeration 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 a pplications , 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 M oulding 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 tech nical 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 r eason 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 t hat EPA offer wider flexibility in the use of mixtures of HFCs (other than HFC

- 13 4a) 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 only151 these t hree non

- flammable foam blowing agents could be used. BASF also recommended that EPA modify th e preamble language and propose the following revisions: “Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC

– 134a and blends thereof and Formacel TI unacceptable in this applic ation. 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 r igid PU appliance foam since wat er 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 commen ts 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 o ut 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 ru le. [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; environmen tal 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 comment ers 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, Cont inental 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, H oneywell, GE, NRI, DuPont, Sub

Zero, 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, Grindm aster
- 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 Techn ologies, 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 t he 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 app roach 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 managemen t, the Alliance commented that it supports concerted global action to avoid significant future growth in GHG emissions associated with HFCs, but it is154 important that those emissions are avoided in a manner that ensures industry is able to continue to deliv er the critical societal benefits that HFCs provide today. The Alliance encouraged EPA to t ake 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 adoptin g 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 e nsure 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 availab ility 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 alt ernatives, 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 summ arized 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/endangerm ent/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 fa cts, 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 fo r a new class of chemicals. The commenter noted that there were no studies in the docket th at 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 ide ntify 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 rec ordkeeping 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 transit ion from the use of certain ODS , the alternatives used do not pose significantly greater risk than other alternat ives. EPA does not require recordkeeping under the SNAP program of the quantities of alternatives that are sold or used. That said, it is impor tant 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 MMTCO 2 eq are not required to report that data unless such imports or ex ports 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 s afe use of those refrigerants. In this action , EPA did not propose and is not finalizing any use conditions requirin g labeling

. Finally, as to the comment stating that EPA has not explained what is being regulated, we believe that the proposed and fi nal rules are clear that EPA is regulating the use of specific a lternati ves in the end

- uses addressed in the rule.  Dan foss 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 developi ng the final rule.  Solvay comment ed 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 o verall public health and safety, similar to what was done in the last 20 years since EPA adopted the SNAP program. [0098] EPA Response: T his 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 and156 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 o n 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 rul e (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 p reviously 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 retai l food refrigeration equipment from foam for laboratory refri geration 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 sh ould provide funding to research the flammability, toxicity, “law cost affective,” degradation in environment, GWP and ozone depleting 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 signifi cantly greater risk than other available alternatives. The comment regarding the research157 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 ag ree 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 i ssues 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 suppressi on. [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 gen eral 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 comment ers 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 switc h 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 R esponse: 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 commen ted 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 t imeline set for the sector. The commenters believe d 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 has158 demonstrated that technical constraints support a finding that alternatives will only be available a t 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 crit eria as well as the SNAP guiding principles. Comments were submitted by AAM, The Alliance, Arkema, AHAM, AHRI, Bally, BASF, Conti nental Refrigerator, DuPont , Lennox, Mexichem, NRDC and IGSD , Owens Corning , Whirlpool, Solvay, and Zero Zone. The specific com ments 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 addre ssed, 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,” potent ial 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 availa bility 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 alter natives 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 testin g and certifying products for refrigeration and foams; and cost impacts. EPA Response : In issuing initial listing decisions and in changing the status of substitute s , we apply the same test

– whether there are other alternatives currently or potentia lly 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 add ressed 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 establish ed 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 t o 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 inter est 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 tim e 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 demon strated 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 i nvestment 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 Fl otation
– 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 reflec t 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

- us es, 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.16 0 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 specifi c 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 Flot ation (rigid PU marine flotation foam)

– January 1, 2020 ; o Commercial Refriger ation (rigid PU co mmercial 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)

– J uly 1, 20 20 ; and
o Integral Skin

– J anuar y 1, 2017
. Concerning HVAC panels and residential entry door applications and c ontinuously produced insulated metal panels , EPA considers these applications to fall within the rigid PU commercial refrigeration an d 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 do es 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 dire ct replacements for ODS. 6.3 . 3 GWP Considerations  Honeywell and Arkema note d that some of the GWP values used for comparison purposes in this rulemaking differ from the GWP values listed in th e IPCC AR5 . Honeywell and Arkema comment ed 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 comment ed 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 and161 continues to use these in this final rulem aking 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 sect or 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 R eport 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 deci ded to use AR4 GWPs for the GHGs that have AR4 G WPs, 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 act ions, and complicate decision

- making. Also, u se of AR4 GWPs ensures that the SNAP program uses widely relied on, publish ed, 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 cons idering 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 comment ed 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 th e 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

— CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and

6 The IPCC publishes Scientific Assessment Reports, including updated and expanded sets of GWPs, approximately every six years. The countri es 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 (SF 6 )

— 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 g row 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 s ince there are other substitutes available that have le ss environmental impacts . [0080]  Arkema commented that GWP is a n 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 “ igno ring ” atmospheric lifetimes. Arkema stated that the “ fallacy of logic ” underlying the NPRM is easily seen in its comparison of HFC

- 134a to CO 2 . Arkema asserted that t he NPRM treats HFC

- 134a (GWP 1300, AR5) as posing a greater risk than CO 2 (GWP 1), yet CO 2 causes the greatest radiative forcing because of its overwhelming abund ance. In addition, Arkema noted that CO 2 is exceptionally long

- lived in the atmosphere (i.e., thousands of years), whereas HFC

- 134a only has an atmospheric lifetime of 13.4 years accor ding 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 t o longer

- lived GHGs such as CO 2 . [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 chang e 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 t he 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 t o 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 typic ally 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 CO 2 (IPCC, 2007 ), indicating that even when longer

- term climate impacts are considered, HFC

- 134a still has a greater impact. EPA disagrees with Arkema that CO 2 should be of greater concern than HFC

134a due to the longer atmospheric lifetime of CO 2 . Action on short

- lived climate pollutants, including HFC

- 134a, will quickly lower their atmospheric concentratio ns, yielding a climate response in several years, compared to action on CO 2 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 CO 2 . To this end, t h e United States is taking a comprehensive approach to addressing climate change

. Additional information is available in the Presid ent’s CAP (CAP, 2013) and the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) the United States submitted as its target to cut net GHG emissions t o 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 st ates 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 commente r 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 e nvironmental 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 w arming concerns is through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to establish a ph ase out 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 busine sses 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 les s effective regulatory model, but that EPA’s SNAP authority doe s 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 com mented 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 Pro tocol, 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 comment ed that the provisions of the proposed rule that modif y 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 P rotocol meetings as well as its support for an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that would achie ve 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 phase down of HFCs. [0037]  Sub Zero comm ented that the proposed status change date for HFC

- 245fa is unreali stic, and that “a gradual phase out is much more doable than an outright ban.” [0187 ]  Continental Refrigerator believed that HFC

- 134a should remain an acceptable alternative for new stand

- a lone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines. Continental Refrigerator stated that this is consistent with the position stated in EPA’s propose d North American 2014 HFC phase down 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 allo w 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 performan ce where relevant, which the current SNAP proposal does not allow. [0202]165 EPA Response: S ee 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 ph asedown 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 productio n and consumption phasedown. EPA notes that c urrently, 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 alter natives 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 HFC

134a acceptable for new st and

- alone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines is consistent with the position stated in EPA’s propose d North American 2014 HFC phase down amendment to the Montreal Protocol, EPA notes that the North American proposal says nothing about specif ic 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 respond ed to a petition fil ed earlier thi s year to extend CAA s ection 6 08 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 e ffective 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 equipme nt. [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 regu lations to HFCs. Arkema commented that the petition would maximiz e 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 equipme nt, 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 climate

damaging emissions from equipment used for air

- co nditioning 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 accept ability determinations. Arkema cited several cases where they believe EPA approved a variety of166 alternatives where, even at the high end, the GWPs were acceptable because the emissions would be limited given the venting prohibition under C AA s ection 608 and required practices under CAA s ection 609. They commented that before EPA can change the status of any covered subs tance, it must explain why CAA s ections 608 and 609 together with current industry practices do not adequately control clim ate 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 followi ng 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 flammabi lity 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 p roposed 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 re frigerants. New Era Group noted that when refrigerants are recovered and reclaimed, it caus es less demand for the production of future refrigerants. [0037] EPA Response: Action on th e Alliance’s petition or on requirements to recover refrigerants generally is beyond the scope of this rulemaking

. T he 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 ai r - 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 1 2, 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 s ome 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 mac hine 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 prohibition167 addresses only knowing venting or release, and thus does not accoun t 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 there fore 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 t oxicity hazard and ammonia and HCs present a flammability hazard. However, as described in the preamble, in those uses where we have found these subs titutes 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 re levant 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 Applic ation 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 Ar kema 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 fact or, 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 a bout 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 n ew 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 commented168 that under the second SNAP principle, EPA is not to li mit 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, includin g 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 CO 2 were already l isted 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 t hat 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 compare s 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 separatel y 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 not ed that EPA previously admitted that the industry is moving away from HFC

134a in new vehicles. Arkema commented that the changeover means that any concern over climate is already m itigated, 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 t he 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 con cerned 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 i n this industry. Owens Corning commented that o nce 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, beca use 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 a nd 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 th e substit utes 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 end

uses 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 unac ceptable 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. E xcept 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 addre ssed 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 a vailable 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 a tmospheric lifetimes, see the thi rd 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 co ncluded 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 food170 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 proje cted 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 s ection s 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 te mperature 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. S ee third response in section 6.3.3 above of this document on the use of G WP as a metric for climate impact and the next re sponse 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 co nclusions 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 ac ross 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 re sponse 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 h olding 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 th e fifth guiding principle, see the fi fth 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 multiple171 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 thos e regulations do not address all or address sufficiently the risk posed. EPA has consi dered 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 i n 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 w here 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 disagre e. Although that regulation provides significant incentives for automobile manufacturers to reduce the leakage of AC e quipment 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 20 21, 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 transiti on 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 variou s 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. W e are taking this action under CAA section 612 to address the fact that there are alternatives available or potentially av ailable 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 wal k

- 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 a n end

- use by end

- use basis), the a gency must break down the emissions savings by s ector and then again by each individual substance that it proposes to list as unacceptable . Arkema also requested that the A gency compare the quantity emitted to the total quantity of GHGs released in the United States and the world, just as it has compare d 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 principle s 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 provide d ev idence 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 atmo spheric effects. Arkema noted that in each instance, the level of emissions was critical, not solely the physical characteristic of the substance under conside ration. Further, Arkema commented that EPA must set a standard of comparing SNAP substitute emiss ion levels to objective measures of environmental harm for each covered substance in each of the affe cted applications. Arkema stated that this point is particularly true here, given EPA’s recognition in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule that “actual c ontributions 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 interse ction 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 fo r PFCs is that they have long atmospheric lifetimes a nd high GWP s. Although actual contributions to global warming depend upon the quantities of PFCs emitted, the effects are for p ractical 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, w ithout 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 in centive to switch from one high

- GWP HFC to another that can173 be used for the same use when there are other alternatives available that pose lower overall risk to human health an d 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

— CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 — threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” ( 74 FR 66 , 496; December 15, 2009). The commenter appears to be say ing that this rule should not be pursued because it does not a ddress “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 s cale.” (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 CO 2 emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC’s highest CO 2 emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO 2 emissions based on the IPCC’s lowest CO 2 emissions pathway (IPCC, 2013, UNEP, 2011)

. Thus, although HFCs may t oday constitute app roximately 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 th at of other GHGs such as CO 2 or CH 4 , 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 VOC

exempt 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 Ambie nt Air Qua lity Standards (e.g., ICF, 2014a ). Thus, EPA does not see that the same types of risk analys es 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 whet her 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 blow ing agents) composed more than174 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. R egar dless of whether the emissions from one end

- use are greater than or lower than the emissions from another end

- use, EPA evaluate s a given alternative compared to other available or potentially available alternatives in a particular end

use. 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 end

use.  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 com mented 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 em issions 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 eva luating 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 SNA P 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, wh ile private sector initiatives do exist and improvements in industry practices do take place , the scientific liter at ure indicates that HFC emissions continue and that atmospheric abundances of HFCs have increased. Government action can play an important ro le 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 r eferred to standard industry practices in the context of mitigating risks from toxicity, exposure, and175 flammability. These industry practices are often related to standard operating procedures and employers’ obligations under the Occupational Safety and He alth 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, an d 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 le a d ing 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 a lternatives 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 o bjective, 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 l ifetime . 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 princip l e are discussed above in this section

. The fifth principl e does not require the Agency to articulate a specif ic standard for acceptability. In the preamble to the original SNAP rule, the A gency mad e clear that the intent of the fifth princip l e was related solely to time l iness of SNAP acceptability decisions, not their underlying rationale

. In response to the comment about setting an objective standard for determining SNAP acceptability, please see s ection 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 o f 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 wi th 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 pr eamble to176 the final rule, f or 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 acc eptable 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 i s 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] E PA 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 Hydrocar bon Blend B (HC

- 12a) from unacceptable to acceptable. EPA did not propose a stat us 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 determ ining 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. T he D.C. Circuit Court disagreed, finding that EPA had considered economic factors and vacating the rule because EPA had not justified it s 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 con sideration 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 additi on, we disagree that this final rule establishes “unreasona ble” 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, MicroCa re Corporation, Danfoss, Bally, CARB, Arkema, NAFEM, the Alliance, Mexichem Flour, Solvay, Honeywel l, Maersk Container Industry, Dow Chemical, International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, ThermalRite Walk

-177 Ins, AHAM, AHRI, Continental Refrigerator, Southern Case Art, KeepRite Refrigeration, Coca

Cola, RHH Foam Systems, Hoshizaki America, Traulsen, CFESA, Uni fied 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, Ho neywell, 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 substa nces will quickly yield carbon dioxide equivalent ( CO 2 e q) 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 t heir 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 safe r 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 o f 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 I V.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 un der 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 ack nowledge indirect climate effects for refrigerants and foams, but does178 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 pro gram.” 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). Ar kema further commented that it is unusual to neglect energy use and other indirect emissions for a comparative assessment of climate risk s. Arkema referenced instances where they believed that EPA demonstrated that the Agency knows how to calculate indirec t 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 ea ch 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 A lternatives, 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 r efrigeration 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, inclu ding 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 r ule), 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 amon g 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 contr ibutions 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 f or 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 , except179 to the extent that technical needs for energy efficiency are relevant to the determination of whether alternatives are “available

. ” Regardless, EPA view s the energy efficiency of products using alternatives as important information for both the Agency and the regulated community. Where EPA does have non

- confide ntial 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 effici ency 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 thes e 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 e nergy 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 Sub stitutes,” 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 th ose 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 regardin g 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 o f 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 bee n 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 st andards 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 end

uses affected by this rule cannot be used in equ ipment 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 determi ne 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 wo uld also be the same, then the total CO 2 eq emissions for the low

- GWP refrigerant180 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 manufact ure 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 analys is 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. Wass erstrom & 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 pr oposed 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 t est 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 u se 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 int roduction of a HFC

- 134a substitute are significant, and that based on the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon’s estima tes, 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 IGSD181 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 mode led 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 s tep towards providing enough time for the global economy to transition to low

carbon 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 impa cts 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 vendi ng machines and could lead to less new machines being introduced into the marketplace. N AMA 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 intr oduced into t he marketplace, given the status change date of January 1, 20 1 9 , 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 simi larly to HFC

- 134a. O wners 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 us e. 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 response s 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 o n 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 actual ly 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 manufactur ers 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 R

134a. [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 list ing 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 CO 2 or flammable refrigerants. In this final rule, the final change of status date for new v ending 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 contradict s 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 th e rule would impose requirements tha t affect small businesses, it contradicts a law that provides more resources for183 small businesses. EPA disagrees, because the proposed and final rules do not affect the ability of small businesses to obtain those resourc es 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 business es 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 informa tion 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 addit ional safer alternatives remove barriers. In addition, s in ce 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 prese nts 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 liti gation 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 al ternatives. 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 accept able. 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 commen ts 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 Associ ation, 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 E PA 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 multip le 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 suppressio n 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 f rom 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 perfor mance requirements"). [0095, 0117]  CARB encouraged EPA to strengthen the proposal by including additional high

- GWP refrigerants on the list of unaccep table 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 statio nary 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  I n 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 tr ucks, 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 commen ted 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 refriger ants due to replace the currently most prevalent HFCs, namely HFC

134a 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 unacceptab le in new chillers effective January 1, 2019, because alternatives such as R

1233zd(E) and HFO

- 1234ze(E) are both commercially available, SNAP

- approved, and have comparable or higher efficiencies to HFC

- 134a, and much lower GWPs. [017 0] 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 futu re 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 indus tries. 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 ev aluate 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 indus trial 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 amoun t 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 Corn ing 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

- d ay 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 a ffected by the most near term dates a reasonable time to prepare.187 

### 7 R EFERENCES This Response to Comments document references the following documents. Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available electronically throug h 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 M otor 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 Techn ologies , 2015. “ Emerson Climate Technologies offers to help supply chain move to lower

- GWP refrigerants.” Refrigeration and Air

Conditio ning Magazine, January 28, 2015. This document is available at http://www.racplus.com/news/

- emerson - climate

- technologies

- offers

- to
- help

supply

- chain

- move - to
- lower

- gwp - refrigerants/8677708.article

. EPA, 2006. Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 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 Tra de 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. Hon eywell, 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

- Global

Warming

- Propellant

- Insulating

- Agent

- And

- Refrige.aspx. ICF, 2014 a . 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 t he 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 Refrigerati on 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 Impa ct 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. Ma rket 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, 2015 b . Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High

- GWP Alternatives. July , 2015. ICF, 2015 c . 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. T his 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 Perfluoroca rbons (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: Cli mate 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 Interg overnmental 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/presentations

opening/default.aspx. Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. Shaw, 2013. Propellant s and Solvent 2012 and Beyond. This document is a ccessible at http://www.southernaerosol.com/Power%20Point/Spring%20'13%20p df's/Spring%20'13 %20101%20.pdf's/Propellants%20and%20solvents%202012%20and%20beyond

David%20Shaw.pdf. UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme. November, 2011. This document is acc essible at: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf

. UNEP, 2014 . Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams T echnical Options Committee, 2014 Assessment. This document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC /FTOC

- 2014

- Assessment

Report.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: 10 949
– 10954.