Page 1 of 317 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI ON AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL-9926-55-OAR] RIN 2060-AS18 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alt ernatives Policy Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action changes the status from acceptable to unacceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable, s ubject to narrowed use limits for a number of substitutes, pursuant to the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency’s Significant New Alternatives Policy program. We make these ch anges based on information showing that other substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk overall to human health and the environment. Specifically, this action changes th e listing status for certain hydrofluorocarbons in various end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. This action also changes the status fro m acceptable to unacceptable for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased out of production under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This rule is effective on [ INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2014–0198. All documents in the docket are lis ted in the index. Although listed in thePage 2 of 317 index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restrict ed by statute. Certain ot her material, such as copyrighted material, is not plac ed in the electronic docket and w ill be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either elec tronically or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EP A/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C. The Public Readi ng Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343–9163; fax number (202) 343–2338, e-mail address: sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. Notices and rulemakings under EPA’s Significant New Alterna tives Policy (SNAP) program are available on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone website at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs

. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents
I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble? II. How does the SNAP program work? A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP program? B. What are EPA’s regulations implementing CAA section 612? C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work? D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program? E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP program? F. How are SNAP determinations updated? G. What does EPA consider in deciding whethe r to modify the listing status of anPage 3 of 317 alternative? H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program? III. What actions and information related to gr eenhouse gases have bearing on this final action to modify prior SNAP determinations? IV. What petitions has EPA received requesti ng a change in listing status for HFCs? A. Summary of petitions B. How this action relates to the Climate Action Plan and petitions V. What is EPA’s final action concerning the HFCs addressed in this rule? A. Aerosols 1. Background 2. What is EPA finalizi ng concerning aerosols? a) What other alternatives are available? (1) Aerosols with flammability and vapor pressure constraints (2) Aerosols for specific medical uses b) When will the listings change? 3. How is EPA responding to comm ents about this end-use? a) Timeline b) Sell-through period c) Use conditions d) HFC consumption and climat e impact of aerosols e) Small business impacts f) Imports B. MVAC systems for newly manufactur ed light-duty motor vehicles 1. Background 2. What is EPA finalizing regarding M VAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles? a) HFC-134a b) Refrigerant blends 3. MVAC servicing 4. Would this action aff ect EPA’s LD GHG Rule? 5. How will the change of status appl y to exports of MVAC systems? a) SNAP interpretation b) Narrowed use limit for MVAC 6. How is EPA responding to comments concerning this end-use? a) Timeline b) Interaction with EPA’s LD GHG Rule c) Environmental impacts d) Cost impacts of rule e) Servicing and retrofits f) Refrigerant blends for re trofits of MVAC systems g) Use conditions for HFC-134a h) Flexibility for exports C. Retail food refrigeration and vending machines 1. Background a) Overview of SNAP end-uses, e nd-use categories, and commonlyused refrigerantsPage 4 of 317 b) Terms and coverage c) The terms “new” and “retrofit” a nd how they apply to servicing 2. What is EPA finalizing for reta il food refrigeration (supermarket systems)? a) New supermarket systems (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? (2) When will the status change? b) Retrofit supermarket systems (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? (2) When will the status change? c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)? 3. What is EPA finalizing for retail f ood refrigeration (remote condensing units)? a) New remote condensing units (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? (2) When will the status change? b) Retrofit remote condensing units (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? (2) When will the status change? c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units)? 4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)? a) New stand-alone equipment (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? (2) When will the status change? b) Retrofit stand-alone equipment (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? (2) When will the status change? c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)? 5. What is EPA finalizing for vending machines? a) New vending machines (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? (2) When will the status change? b) Retrofit vending machines (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment?Page 5 of 317 (2) When will the status change? c) How is EPA responding to comments on vending machines? 6. General comments on the retail food refrigeration and vending machine end-uses a) Specific numerical limits for GWP b) Comments and responses concerning small businesses c) Suggestion regarding education and training 7. Energy efficiency considerations D. Foam blowing agents 1. Background 2. What is EPA finalizing for foam blowing agents? a) What other alternatives does EP A find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? b) When will the status change? c) Military and space- and aerona utics-related applications d) How will the requirements apply to exports and imports? 3. How is EPA responding to comments c oncerning foam blowing end-uses? a) Timeline b) Foam blowing agents changing status and other alternatives c) Environmental and energy impact s of foam blowing agents d) Cost impacts VI. What is EPA finalizing for th e HCFCs addressed in this rule? A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs and what is being finalized in this rule? B. How is EPA responding to publ ic comments concerning HCFCs? VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments? A. Authority 1. General authority 2. Second generation substitutes 3. GWP considerations 4. Takings 5. Montreal Protocol/International 6. Absence of petitions 7. Application of cr iteria for review of alternatives B. Cost and economic impacts of proposed status changes 1. Costs of proposed rule 2. EPA’s cost analysis and small business impacts screening analysis C. Environmental effects of proposed status changes 1. General comments 2. EPA’s benefits analysis 3. Energy efficiencyPage 6 of 317 4. The Climate Action Plan D. Potential exemptions E. Interactions with other rules F. Other comments VIII. Additional Analyses IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Pla nning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation a nd Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Ch ildren from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) X. References I. General Information A. Executive Summary Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (C AA), EPA reviews substitutes within a comparative risk framework. More specifically, section 612 provides that EPA must prohibit the use of a substitute where EPA has determined that there are other available substitutes that pose less overall risk to human health and the enviro nment. Thus, EPA’s Signifi cant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, which implements sec tion 612, does not provide a static list of alternatives but instead evolve s the list as the EPA makes d ecisions informed by our overall understanding of the environmental and human hea lth impacts as well as our current knowledge about available substitutes. In the more than twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated, EPA has modified the SNAP lists ma ny times, most often by expanding the list ofPage 7 of 317 acceptable substitutes, but in some cases by prohibiti ng the use of substitutes previously listed as acceptable. Where EPA is determining whether to a dd a new substitute to the list, EPA compares the risk posed by that new substitute to the ri sks posed by other alternatives on the list and determines whether that specific new substitute poses more risk than already-listed alternatives for the same use. As the lists have expanded, EP A has not reviewed the li sts in a broader manner to determine whether substitutes added to the lis ts early in the program pose more risk than substitutes that have more recently been added. EPA is now begi nning this process. Global warming potential (GWP) is one of seve ral criteria EPA considers in the overall evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. The President’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) states that, “to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as do mestic actions.” Furthermore, the CAP states that EPA will “use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low- emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting ce rtain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.” In our first effort to take a br oader look at the SNAP lists, we have focused on those listed substitutes that have a high GWP relativ e to other alternatives in specific end-uses. In determining whether to change the status of these substitutes for particular end-uses, we performed a full comparative risk analysis, based on our criteria fo r review, with other available alternatives also listed as acceptable for these end-uses. In an August 6, 2014, Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 46,126), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (her eafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) proposed to change the stat us of certain substitutes 1 that at that time were listed as acceptable

1 The terms “substitutes” and “alternatives” are used interchangeably.Page 8 of 317 under the SNAP program. After reviewing public comments and available information, in today’s action, EPA is modifying the listings from acceptable to unacceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits for certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC blends in various end-uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and refrigeration and air conditioni ng sectors where other alternativ es are available or potentially available that pose lower overall risk to human health and th e environment. Per the guiding principles of the SNAP program, this action do es not specify that any HFCs are unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. In stead, in all cases, EPA consider ed 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 specify ing that, for any sector , the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non-fluorinated (e.g., hydro carbons (HCs) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 )) substitutes may pose lower overall risk to human health an d the environment, depending on the particular use. Instead, consistent with C AA section 612 as we have histori cally interpreted it under the SNAP program, EPA is making these modifications based on our evaluation of the substitutes addressed in this action using the SNAP criteria for evaluation and considering the current suite of other available and potent ially available substitutes. On that basis, EPA is modifying the following listings by sector and end-use as of the dates indicated. EPA will continue to monito r the development and deployment of other alternatives as well as their uptake by industr ies affected by today’s action. If EPA receives new information indicating that other alternatives will not be available by the change of status dates specified, EPA may propose further acti on to adjust the relevant dates. 1) AerosolsPage 9 of 317  EPA is listing HFC-125 as unacceptable for use as an aerosol propellant as of January 1,
2016.

 EPA is listing HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as unacceptable for use as aerosol propellants as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ], except for those uses specifically listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.

 EPA is listing HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ], for use in metered dose inhalers (M DIs) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 EPA is listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ], until January 1, 2018, for the following specific uses:

o products for which new formulations require federal governmental review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military or space agency specifications, or FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and

o products for smoke detector functionality testing.

 EPA is listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ], for the following specific uses:

o cleaning products for rem oval of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics;

o refrigerant flushes;

o products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;Page 10 of 317 o sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment;

o duster sprays specifically for remova l of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specime ns under electron microscopes or for use on energized electri cal equipment;

o adhesives and sealants in large canisters;

o lubricants and freeze sprays for elec trical equipment or electronics;

o sprays for aircraft maintenance;

o pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pest icides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants;

o mold release agents and mold cleaners;

o lubricants and cleaners for spi nnerettes for synthetic fabrics;

o document preservation sprays;

o MDIs approved by the FDA for medical purposes;

o wound care sprays;

o topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and

o products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. 2) Refrigeration and air conditioning sector ; Motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems for newly manufact ured light-duty vehicles EPA is listing HFC-134a as unacceptable for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning in Model Y ear (MY) 2021 except as allowed under a narrowed use limit for use in newly manufactured light- duty vehicles destined for use in countries that do not havePage 11 of 317 infrastructure in place for servicing with othe r acceptable refrigerants. This narrowed use limit will be in place through MY 2025. Beginning in MY 2026, HFC-134a will be unacceptable for use in all newly manufactured light-duty vehicl es. EPA is also listing the use of certain refrigerant blends as unacceptable in newly manuf actured light-duty motor vehicles starting with
MY 2017. 3) Refrigeration and air conditioning sector ; Retail food refrigeration and vending machines EPA is listing a number of refrigerants as unacceptable in a number of retail food refrigeration categories and in the ve nding machines end-use, as follows:

 Retrofitted supermarket systems: R- 404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ]

 New supermarket systems: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of January 1, 2017

 Retrofitted remote condensing units: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ]

 New remote condensing units: HFC-227ea, R- 404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of January 1, 2018

 Retrofitted vending machines: R-404A and R-507A as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ]

 New vending machines: FOR12A, FOR 12B, HFC-134a, KDD 6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R- 410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-Page 12 of 317 422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A , RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E as of January 1, 2019

 Retrofitted stand-alone retail food refrig eration equipment: R-404A and R-507A as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ]

 New stand-alone medium-temperature uni ts with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded ev aporator: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R- 421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03 as of January 1, 2019

 New stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and st and-alone medium-temperature units containing a flooded evaporator: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a , HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R- 407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R- 422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03 as of January 1, 2020

 New stand-alone low-temperature un its: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R- 407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R- 422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 formulation) as of January 1, 2020 We are also providing clarific ation on several questions id entified during the comment period. Specifically, we are provid ing clarification of the terms we are using for the various end-Page 13 of 317 use categories covered by this rule, including “s upermarket systems,” “remote condensing units,” and “stand-alone equipment.” We are also provid ing clarification on certain types of equipment that do not fall within the categories and end-uses covered by this rule, including blast chillers, certain ice makers, very-low temperature refrige ration equipment, and equipment that dispenses chilled beverage or food (e.g., so ft-serve ice cream) via a nozzle. Finally, we are also providing clarification regarding ou r use of the terms “new” and “retrofit” and how those terms relate to service of existing equipment. 4) Foams EPA is listing a number of foam blowing agents unacceptable in each foams end-use excluding rigid PU spray foam, except as allo wed under a narrowed use limit for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications. Fo r military or space- and aeronautics-related applications, we are changing the listing status to acceptable, subject to a narrowed use limit, as of the status change date for the remainde r of each end-use (January 1 of 2017, 2019, 2020 or 2021) and then to unacceptable as of January 1, 2022. We are not taking fi nal action on rigid PU spray foam at this time. The unacceptable listi ng for all other end-uses is as follows:

 Rigid polyurethane (PU) appliance foam : HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2020

 Rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI , and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2020

 Rigid PU slabstock and othe r: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2019

 Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminate d boardstock: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC365mfc and blends thereof; as of January 1, 2017Page 14 of 317  Flexible PU: HFC-134a, HFC-245f a, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; as of January 1,
2017

 Integral skin PU: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and ble nds thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2017

 Polystyrene extruded sheet: HFC-134a, HFC- 245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2017

 Polystyrene extruded boardstock and bill et (XPS): HFC-134a, HF C-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2021

 Polyolefin: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2020

 Phenolic insulation board and bunsto ck: HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC365mfc, and blends thereof; as of January 1, 2017

 Rigid PU marine flotati on foam: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2020 While EPA proposed and requested comments on interpreting the S NAP unacceptability determinations to apply to the import of foam produc ts that retain the blow ing agents (i.e., closed cell foams), EPA is not finalizing th at change in this rulemaking. 5) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) As proposed, EPA is also modifying th e listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well as blends that contain these subs tances in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion protecti on agents, sterilants, and adhesi ves, coatings and inks. These modifications align the SNAP listings with othe r parts of the stratos pheric protection program, specifically section 605 and the implementing re gulations at 40 CFR pa rt 82 subpart A andPage 15 of 317 section 610 and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C. The modified listings will apply 60 days following publication of this final rule. 6) Overview of public comments EPA received over 7,500 comments on the propos ed rule. EPA requested and received comments on the proposed listing decisions as well as the proposed change of status dates. As noted in response to comments throughout this doc ument, the decision on modifying each listing is based on the SNAP program’s comparative risk framework. This includes information concerning whether there are altern atives available with lower ove rall risk to human health and the environment for the end-uses considered. As pa rt of our consideration of the availability of those alternatives, we consid ered all available informati on, including information provided during the public comment period, and information claimed as confidential and provided during meetings, regarding technical challenges that may a ffect the time at which the alternatives can be used safely and used consistent with other re quirements such as testing and code compliance obligations. We grouped comments together and responded to the issues raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate response to comments document which is included in the docket for this rule (EPA, 2015a). This fina l rule reflects some changes to our proposal, based on information and data receive d during the public comment period. The sections that follow describe EPA’s fina l action for each of the three sectors covered in this rulemaking – aerosols; foam blowing; and refrigeration and air-conditioning, including commercial refrigeration and motor vehicle air conditioning. For the end-uses addressed within each sector we explain the change of status determination and the dates when the change of status will apply. EPA has updated document ation for this rule including market characterizations, analyses of costs associated with sector transitions, estimated benefitsPage 16 of 317 associated with the transition to other alternatives, and potential small business impacts. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 These documents are available in the docket. EPA provided separate market characterizations by sector for the pr oposed rule but is pr oviding a single document consolidating this information, and updated to reflect information received during the public comment period, for this final action. The emissions avoided from this final rule are estimated to be 26 to 31 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO 2 eq) in 2020. The avoided emissions are estimated to be 54 to 64 MMTCO 2 eq in 2025 and 78 to 101 MMTCO 2 eq in 2030 (EPA, 2015b). B. Does this action apply to me? Potential entities that may be affected by this final rule include:
TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE

Category NAICS code Description of regulated entities Industry 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors Industry 324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing Industry 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing Industry 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing Industry 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing

2 ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. May 2014. 3 ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. May 2014. 4 ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. May 2014. 5 ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. May 2014. 6 ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives. June 2014. 7 EPA, 2014a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. 8 ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis for Re gulatory Options to Change Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives. June 2014. 9 ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air Conditi oning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July 2015 10 ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--Revised. July 2015. 11 EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Progra m Status Change Rule, July 2015. 12 ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. July 2015.Page 17 of 317 Industry 325612 Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods Industry 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing Industry 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing Industry 326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing Industry 326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing Industry 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing Industry 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing Industry 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing Industry 336611 Ship Building and Repairing Industry 336612 Boat Building Industry 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing Retail 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers Retail 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Retail 44511 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores Retail 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores Retail 445120 Convenience Stores Retail 44521 Meat Markets Retail 44522 Fish and Seafood Markets Retail 44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets Retail 445291 Baked Goods Stores Retail 445292 Confectionary and Nut Stores Retail 445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores Retail 4453 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores Retail 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores Retail 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores Retail 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters Retail 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores Services 72111 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels Services 72112 Casino Hotels Retail 72241 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) Retail 722513 Limited-Service Restaurants Retail 722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets Retail 722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding entities likely to use the substitute whose use is regulated by this action. If you ha ve any questions about whether this action applies to a particular entity, c onsult the person listed in the above section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble? Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble of this document:Page 18 of 317 AAM —Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
ACGIH —American Conference of Govern mental Industrial Hygienists
AGC —Asahi Glass Company
AHAM —Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
AHRI— Air-Conditioning, Heating, a nd Refrigeration Institute
AIHA— American Industrial Hygiene Association The Alliance —Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy
ARPI —Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute
ASHRAE —American Society of Heating, Refrig erating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
CAA —Clean Air Act
CAP— Climate Action Plan
CARB —California Air Resource Board CAS Reg. No. —Chemical Abstracts Service Regi stry Identification Number
CBI —Confidential Business Information
CFC —Chlorofluorocarbon
CFESA— Commercial Food Equipm ent Service Association
CFR —Code of Federal Regulations
CH 4

— Methane
CO 2

— Carbon Dioxide
CO 2 eq— Carbon dioxide equivalent
CRA— Congressional Review Act
CSPA —Consumer Specialty Products Association
DME —Dimethyl etherPage 19 of 317 DoD —United States Department of Defense
DOE —United States Department of Energy
DX —Direct expansion
EIA— Environmental Investigation Agency-US
EO— Executive Order
EPA —United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU— European Union
FDA— United States Food and Drug Administration
FM— Factory Mutual
FMI —Food Marketing Institute
FR —Federal Register
GHG— Greenhouse Gas Global Automakers— Association of Global Automakers
GWP —Global Warming Potential
HC— Hydrocarbon
HCFC —Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC —Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO —Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF —ICF International, Inc.
IGSD— Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IPAC— International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium
IPCC— Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCCP— Life Cycle Climate PerformancePage 20 of 317 LD GHG— Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
MAC Directive— Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning
MDI— Metered Dose Inhaler Mexichem— Mexichem Fluor, Inc.
MMTCO 2 eq— Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent
MVAC— Motor vehicle air conditioning
MY— Model Year
N

2

— Nitrogen
N

2 O

— Nitrous Oxide
NAA —National Aerosol Association
NADA —National Automobile Dealers Association
NAICS —North American Industria l Classification System
NAFEM —North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
NAM— National Associati on of Manufacturers
NAMA— National Automatic Merchandising Association
NASA —National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NFPA —National Fire Protection Association
NHTSA —National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIOSH —United States National Institute fo r Occupational Safety and Health
NMMA— National Marine Manufacturers Association
NPRM— Notice of proposed rulemaking
NRA— National Restaurant Association
NRDC— Natural Resources Defense CouncilPage 21 of 317 NSF— National Sanitation Foundation
NTTAA— National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OEM —Original Equipment Manufacturer
ODP —Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS —Ozone-depleting Substance
OMB —United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA —United States Occupational Safe ty and Health Administration
PEL —Permissible Exposure Limit
PFC

— Perfluorocarbons
PU— Polyurethane
RCRA— Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REACH— Registration, Evaluation, Authorizatio n and Restriction of Chemicals RfC— Reference Concentration
RRR— Recovery, Recycling and Recharging
RSC —Radiator Specialty Company
RSES— Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
SIP —State Implementation Plan
SAE ICCC —SAE International’s Interior Climate Control Committee
SF 6

— Sulfur Hexafluoride
SBREFA —Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SISNOSE —Significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
SNAP —Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES— Special Report on Emissions ScenariosPage 22 of 317 TEAP —Technical and Economic Assessment Panel
TEWI— Total Equivalent Warming Impact
TLV— Threshold Limit Value
TXV —Thermostatic Expansion Valve
UL —Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
UMRA— Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UNEP —United Nations Environmental Programme
VOC —Volatile Organic Compounds
WEEL —Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit
XPS —Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet
XPSA —Extruded Polystyrene Association II. How does the SNAP program work? A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP program? CAA section 612 requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances (ODS). This progr am is known as the SNAP program. The major provisions of section 612 are: 1. Rulemaking Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate ru les making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane ) or class II (HCFC) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identifi ed an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment a nd (2) is currently or potentially available.Page 23 of 317 2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a co rresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses. The list of “accepta ble” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists and the lists of “unacceptable,” “accep table subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. 3. Petition Process Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agen cy grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months. 4. 90-day Notification Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any pe rson who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for sign ificant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide th e Agency with the producer’s unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes. 5. Outreach Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to th e use of such substances in key commercial applications. 6. Clearinghouse Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public cleari nghouse of alternativePage 24 of 317 chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes th at are available for products and manufacturing processes whic h use class I and II substances. B. What are EPA’s regulations implementing CAA section 612? On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initi al SNAP rule (59 FR 13,044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA’s first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82, subpart G). These sectors are the following: refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppre ssion and explosion protection; st erilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These s ectors comprise the prin cipal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS. C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work? Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use sect ors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement typically applies to chemical manuf acturers as the person likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce, 13 it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end users 14 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review proces s begins once EPA receives the submission and

13 As defined at 40 CFR 82 .104 “interstate commerce” means the distri bution or tran sportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. 14 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 “end-use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ozone- depleting substance.Page 25 of 317 determines that the submission includes co mplete and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after a complete submission has been provided to the Agency. The Agency has identified four possible deci sion categories for substitute submissions: acceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable. 15 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use condi tions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. S ubstitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be us ed. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance w ith those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes. 16 After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the subst itute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the environment are not significantly greater than other available substitutes. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use c onditions are in violatio n of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regul ations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use within an end-use or

15 The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision. 16 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “use” means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the United States exclusively fo r export are subject to SNAP requiremen ts since the definition of use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing proces s, which occurs within the United States.Page 26 of 317 sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes ar e available for their sp ecific application. EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subj ect to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subj ect to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitute s in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lowe r risk alternative is available or potentially available 17 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute if such a change is justified by new informati on or changed circumstance. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register . EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the li st of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptabl e substitutes. In contrast, EPA publishes “notices of accepta bility” to notify the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no re strictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13,044; March 18, 1994 ) , EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list subs titutes that are acceptabl e without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.

17 In addition to acceptable commercially available substitu tes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available substitutes. The SNAP program’s definition of “potentially available “ is “any alternative for which adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as requir ed for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonab ly believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.” (40 CFR 82.172)Page 27 of 317 Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “fur ther information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additiona l information is not pa rt of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for us e of the substitute unde r the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The “fur ther information” classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA en courages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “further information” column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to s ound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building co des or standards. Thus, many of the statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make signifi cant changes in existing operating practices. D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program? The seven guiding principles of the SNAP pr ogram, elaborated in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule and consistent with section 612, are discussed below.

 Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alte rnative compounds compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the ozone depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk factors that are considered include ozone depleti on potential as well as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and sa fety, and contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.

 Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found acceptablePage 28 of 317 Substitutes found to be acceptable must not pose si gnificantly greater risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk free. A key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of substitutes that minimize risks to human health a nd the environment relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may involve desi gnating a substitute acceptable even though the compound may pose a risk of some type, provided its use does not pose significantly greater risk than other alternatives.

 Restrict those substitutes t hat are significantly worse
EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely difficult. The Ag ency also does not want to intercede in themarket’s choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but a few substitutes for each enduse, and does not intend to do so unless a substitut e has been proposed or is being used that is clearly more harmful to human health or the en vironment than other av ailable or potentially available alternatives.

 Evaluate risks by use
Central to SNAP’s evaluations is the intersectio n between the characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use application. Secti on 612 requires that substi tutes be evaluated by use. Environmental and human health exposur es can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a subs titute. Thus, the risk characte rizations must be designed to represent differences in the environmental and huma n health effects associated with diverse uses. This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk to either the environm ent or to human health.

 Provide the regulated community with information as soon as possiblePage 29 of 317 The Agency recognizes the need to provide th e regulated community with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of acceptability and rules identif ying substitutes as unacceptable, acceptable to use conditions or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in the Federal Register . In addition, we maintain lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our website, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap

.

 Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies The Agency does not issue company-specific pro duct endorsements. In many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on individu al products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable list based on that analysis does not repr esent an endorsement of that company’s products.

 Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other st atutes that address potential environmental or human health effects that may result from the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances. For example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased use of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The SNAP program ta kes existing regulations under other programs into account when reviewing substitutes. E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP program? EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be f ound at §82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and environmen tal effects, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability, andPage 30 of 317 cost and availability of the s ubstitute. To enable EPA to a ssess these criteria, we require submitters to include various information including ozone depletion potential (ODP), GWP, toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human exposure. When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria in the following groupings:

 Atmospheric effects- The SNAP program evaluates the potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The S NAP program considers the ozone depletion potential and the 100-year inte grated GWP of compounds to a ssess atmospheric effects.

 Exposure assessments- The SNAP program uses exposure assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which workers, consumers, the general population, and the environment may be exposed ove r a determined period of time. These assessments are based on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases including: 1) Releases in the workplace and in homes; 2) Releases to ambient air and surface water; 3) Releases from the management of solid wastes.

 Toxicity data- The SNAP program uses toxicity data to assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to substitute s. We use broad health-based criteria such

as: 1) Permissible Exposure Limits (P ELs) for occupational exposure; 2) Inhalation reference concentrations (R fCs) for non-carcinogenic effects on the general population; 3) Cancer slope factors for car cinogenic risk to members of the general population.Page 31 of 317 When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the American Industrial Hygien e Association (AIHA), or threshold limit values (TLVs) set by the American Conferen ce of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). If limits for occupational exposure or exposure to the general population are not already established, then EPA derives these values following the Agency’s peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk characterizations.

 Flammability- The SNAP program examines flammability as a safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flamma bility risk using data on: 1) Flash point and flamma bility limits (e.g. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) flammability/combustibility classifications); 2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components; 3) Test data on flammability in consum er applications conducted by independent laboratories; and 4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.

 Other environmental impacts- The SNAP program also examines other potential environmental impacts like ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes are volatile organic compounds (VOC ). EPA also notes whenever a potentialPage 32 of 317 substitute is considered a hazardous or toxi c air pollutant (under CAA sections 112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C regulations. Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes lis ted as acceptable do not pose significantly greater risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current overall unde rstanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowl edge about available and potentially available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess th e potential environmental and human health impacts of these chem icals and alternative technologies. F. How are SNAP determinations updated? Three mechanisms exist for modifying the li st of SNAP determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and eith er grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision allows any person to petition the Administrator to a dd a substance to the li st of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a substanc e from either list. The second means is through the notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-day notifications are re quired by section 612(e) of the C AA for producers of substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all other cases, by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of the Act to implement section 612(c).Page 33 of 317 Finally, since the inception of the SNAP pr ogram, we have interpreted the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or unacceptabl e to include the author ity to act on our own to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lis ts. In determining whether to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists, we consider whet her there are other available substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. In determining whether to modify a listing of a substitute we undertake the same c onsideration, but do so in the light of new data not considered at the time of our original listing decisi on, including information on new substitutes and new information on substitutes previously reviewed. G. What does EPA consider in deciding wh ether to modify the listing status of an alternative? As described in this document and elsewh ere, including in the initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13,044), CAA section 612 requires EPA to list as unacceptable any substitute substance where it finds that there are other substitutes currently or potentially available that reduce overa ll risk to human health and the environment. The initial SNAP rule included submission re quirements and presented the environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers in its comparative risk framework. Environmental and human health exposures can va ry significantly depend ing on the particular application of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes decisions based on the particular end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in ma ny cases, found certain substitutes acceptable only for limited end-uses or subject to use restrictions. It has now been over twenty y ears since the initial SNAP ru le was promulgated. In that period, the menu of available alternatives has expanded gr eatly and now includes many substitutes with diverse characteristics and vary ing effects on human health and the environment.Page 34 of 317 When the SNAP program began, the number of subs titutes available for consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited. While the S NAP program’s initial comparative assessments of overall risk to human health and the envi ronment were rigorous, often there were few substitutes upon which to apply the comparativ e assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too would be phased out and were onl y an interim solution. Ot her Title VI provisions such as the section 610 Nonesse ntial Products Ban and the section 605 Use Restriction made clear that a listing under the SNAP program could not convey permanence. Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 19 rules and 30 notices that generally expand the menu of op tions for all SNAP sectors and end-uses. Comparisons today apply to a broader range of op tions – both chemical and non-chemical – than was available at the inception of the SNAP pr ogram. Industry experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of the progr am. This varies by s ector and by end-use. In addition to an expanding menu of substitu tes, developments over the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global envi ronmental issues. With regard to that information, our review of substitutes in this rule includes comparative assessments that consider our evolving understanding of a va riety of factors, including cl imate change. GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our evaluation framew ork, but as is the case with all of our review criteria, the amount and qua lity of information has expanded. To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing manage ment of the SNAP program considers new information and improved understanding of the ri sk to the environment and human health. EPA previously has taken several actions revisi ng listing determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to unacceptable ba sed on information made available to EPAPage 35 of 317 after a listing was issued. For example, on January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant blend known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable fo r all refrigeration and air conditioning enduses. EPA previously listed this blend as an ac ceptable substitute in vari ous end-uses within the refrigeration and air conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 30,275). Based on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals in the blend, EPA subsequently removed MT–31 from the list of acceptable substitutes and lis ted it as unacceptable in all refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3,861). Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in 2007 when EPA listed HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as unacceptable for use in the foam sector (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14,432). These HCFCs, which are ozone de pleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP than the substances they were replacing a nd there were no other availabl e substitutes that posed lower overall risk at the time of EPA’s listing decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and end-uses at a time when substitutes were far more limited. In light of the expanded availability of other substitutes with lower overall risk to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and taking into acc ount the 2010 class II ODS phase-down step, EPA changed the listing for these HCFCs in relevant end-uses from acceptable to unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA established a change of status date that recognized that existing users needed time to adjust their ma nufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes. H. Where can I get additional info rmation about the SNAP program?Page 36 of 317 For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap . For more information on the Agency’s process for administering the SNAP progr am or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rule published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13,044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete chronol ogy of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found

at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html

. III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on this final action to modify prio r SNAP determinations? GWP is one of several criteri a EPA considers in the overall evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program

. During the past two decades, the ge neral science on climate change and the potential contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change have become better understood. On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66,496, the Admini strator issued two distinct findings regarding GHGs 18 under section 202(a) of the CAA:

 Endangerment Finding: the current and projected con centrations of the six key wellmixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs) , and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) — threaten the public health and welfare of cu rrent and future generations.

 Cause or Contribute Finding: the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threat ens public health and welfare.

18 The relevant scientific and technical information summarized to support the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding can be found at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdfPage 37 of 317 Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs. 19 Although they represent a small fraction of the current total volu me of GHG emissions, their warm ing impact is very strong. The most commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-134a is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate system than carbon dioxide. HFC emissions are pr ojected to increase substantially and at an increasing rate over the next seve ral decades if left unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly than t hose of any other GHGs, and globally they are increasing 10-15% annually. 20 At that rate, emissions are pr ojected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030. 21 HFCs are rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a, the most abundant HFC, has increas ed by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen over 13% and 16% per year from 2007-2011, respectively. 22

, 23 Annual global emissions of HFCs are proj ected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 Gt CO 2 eq in 2050, 24 which is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO 2 eq between 1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is projected to increase radi ative forcing by up to 0.4 W m ‐ 2 . This increase may be as much as onefifth to one-quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of CO 2 since 2000, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Special Report

19 IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: Safeguarding the Oz one Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York). 20 UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Clim ate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme. 21 Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013. 22 Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. 23 NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/. 24 Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954.Page 38 of 317 on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011). To a ppreciate the significan ce of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of al l GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 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. 25 , 26 Additional information concerning the p eer-reviewed scientific literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this rulemaking. IV. What petitions has EPA received requestin g a change in listing status for HFCs? A. Summary of petitions EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain acceptability listings of HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends. Th ese petitions are more fully described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The first petition was submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Enviro nmental Investigation Agency-US (EIA). The petition requested that EPA remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes in multiple end-uses and move it to the list of unacceptable s ubstitutes in those end-uses. In support of their petition, the petitioners id entified other substitutes that they claimed were available for use in those end-uses and they claimed these other subst itutes present much lower risks to human health and environment than HFC-134a. On February 14, 2011, EPA found the petition complete for MVAC in new passenger

25 HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp 26 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.Page 39 of 317 cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it was incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. EPA noted in its response that, at a future date, the Agency would initiate a notice-and-comment rulemaking in response to the one complete aspect of the petition, noting in particular that EPA would evaluate and take comment on many factors, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for introduction of newer substitutes for MVAC systems into the automotive market and potential lead time for manufactur ers of motor vehicles to a ccommodate such substitutes. On April 26, 2012, EPA received a second petiti on submitted by EIA. EIA stated that, in light of the comparative nature of the SNAP pr ogram’s evaluation of substitutes and given that other acceptable substitutes are on the market orsoon to be available, EPA should remove HFC134a and HFC-134a blends from the list of ac ceptable substitutes for uses where EPA found chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and HCFCs to be nonessential under secti on 610 of the Act. EIA also requested that the sche dule for moving HFC-134a and HFC- 134a blends from the list of acceptable to unacceptable substitutes be based on the “most rapidly feasible transitions to one or more of the” acceptable substitutes for each use. The petitioner noted that initial approvals of HFC-134a for a number of end-uses occurred in the 1990s and were based on the assessment made then that 1) HFC-134a does not contribut e to ozone depletion; 2) HFC-134a’s GWP and atmospheric lifetime were close to those of othe r substitutes that had b een determined to be acceptable for the end-uses; and 3) HFC-134a is not flammable, and its toxicity is low. 27 The petitioner stated that the analysis used in the listing decisions ma y have been appropriate in the 1990s but was no longer so today given the range of other available or potentially available substitutes at present. On August 7, 2012, EPA notified th e petitioner that this petition was incomplete. EPA

27 See, e.g., 60 FR at 31,097.Page 40 of 317 and the petitioner have exchanged further corr espondence that can be found in the docket. A third petition was filed on April 27, 2012, by NRDC, EIA and IGSD. They requested that EPA:

 Remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for CFC-12 in household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers;

 Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed refrigeran ts to all except certified technicians with access to service tools required under existing EPA regulations;

 Adopt a standardized procedure to determine the speed of transition from obsolete highGWP HFCs to next-generation alternatives and substitutes;

 Remove, in addition to HFC-134a, all other re frigerants with 100-year GWPs greater than 150 from the acceptable list for household refri gerators and freezers and stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers. On August 7, 2013, EPA found this petition to be incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found in the docket. B. How this action relates to the Climate Action Pl an and petitions This action is consistent with a provision in the President’s CAP announced June 2013: Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sectorinvestment in lowemissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harm ful chemical alternatives. The CAP further states: “to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as we ll as domestic actions.” This rule is also consistent with that call for leadership through domestic actio ns. As regards internationalPage 41 of 317 leadership, for the past five years, the Unite d States, Canada, and Me xico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global benefits of the amendment proposal wo uld yield significant reductions of over 90 gigatons of carbon diox ide equivalent (CO 2 eq) through 2050. This action also addresses certa in aspects of the three petitio ns referred to above. First, this action responds to the one aspect of the th ree petitions that EPA found complete, namely petitioners’ request that EPA cha nge the listing of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable in new MVAC systems. (See section V.B.) Second, re garding the remaining aspects of the three petitions, which EPA found to be incomplete , EPA has independently acquired sufficient information to address certain other requests made by the petitioners. EPA’s action in this final rule may be considered responsive to certain as pects of those petitions such as: changing the listing of certain HFCs used in specific ae rosol uses from acceptable to unacceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions; changing the lis ting of certain HFCs used in specific foams end-uses from acceptable to unacceptable for mo st uses; changing the lis ting of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable for new stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers; and changing the listing of a number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs from acceptable to unacceptable for new and retrofit stand-alone re tail food refrigerators and freezers. Specifically, as explained in more detail in the sector-specifi c sections of this docum ent, we are revising the listings for substitutes in the aerosols, foams, a nd refrigeration and air conditioning sectors that pose significantly greater overall risk to human health and the environment as compared with other available or potentia lly available substitutes in the specified end-uses. Throughout the process of our di scussions with the regulated community, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the role that certainty plays in enabling the robustPage 42 of 317 development and uptake of alternatives. Unfortuna tely, some of the key strengths of the SNAP program, such as its chemical and end-use spec ific consideration, its multi-criteria basis for action, and its petition process, tend to militate ag ainst some measures that could provide more certainty, such as setting specific numerical cr iteria for environmental evaluations (e.g., all compounds with GWP greater than 150). That being said, we be lieve that the action we are taking today, and future action we may take, doe s provide additional certainty in the specific cases addressed. In addition, we remain committed to continuing to actively seek stakeholder views and to share our thinking at the earliest moment practicable on any future actions, as part of our commitment to provide greater certaint y to producers and consumers in SNAP-regulated industrial sectors. V. What is EPA’s final action concerni ng the HFCs addressed in this rule? A. Aerosols 1. Background The SNAP program provides listings for two aerosol end-uses: propellants and solvents. Aerosols typically use a liquefied or compressed gas to propel activ e ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder form. In the case of duster sprays used to blow dust and contaminants off of surfaces, the propellant is also itself the active ingredie nt. Some aerosols also c ontain a solvent, which may be used in manufacturing, maintenance and repair to clean off oil, grease, and other soils. Historically, a variety of prope llants and solvents have been available to formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) and compressed gases (e.g., CO 2 , N 2 , N 2 O, and compressed air) have long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the aerosol industry predominantly used CFCs. In 1978, in response to evidence regarding de pletion of the earth’s oz one layer, the United States banned CFC propellants, with few exceptions.Page 43 of 317 Many consumer products that previously us ed CFC propellants were reformulated or replaced with a variety of altern atives, including not-in-kind substi tutes, such as pump sprays or solid and roll-on deodorants. Aerosol propell ant substitutes included HCFCs, HCs, HFCs, compressed gases, and oxygenated organic co mpounds. However, since the 1990s HCFCs have been controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA, as amended in 1990, including a phaseout of pr oduction and import under section 605(b)-(c) and use restrictions under section 605(a). 2. What is EPA finalizing concerning aerosols? For aerosol propellants, EPA proposed to list, as of January 1, 2016:

 HFC-125 as unacceptable;

 HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditio ns, allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical aerosols (e.g., MDIs) and

 HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use condi tions, allowing its use only in MDIs. 28 Today’s action changes the status of HF C-125; HFC-227ea; blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea; and HFC-134a, as follows:

 We are changing the status of the aeros ol propellant HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.

 We are changing the status of HFC-134a , HFC-227ea, and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea from acceptable to unacceptable fo r use as aerosol propellants as of [ insert date one year after publicat ion in the Federal Register ] except for those uses specifically listed as acceptab le, subject to use conditions.

28 EPA did not explicitly state in our proposal whether blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea would also be acceptable subject to use conditions. However, in genera l in the SNAP program, bl ends of acceptable aerosol propellants are also acceptable and do not require separate approval.Page 44 of 317  We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-227ea and for blends of HFC227ea and HFC-134a from acceptable to accepta ble, subject to use conditions, as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ], for use in MDIs approved by FDA.

 We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to us e conditions, as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ], until January 1, 2018, for the following specific uses: products for which new formulations require federal govern mental review, includ ing: EPA pesticide registration, military (U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)) or space agency (National Aeronautics and Space Administ ration (NASA)) specifications, or FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and products for smoke detector functionality testing.

 We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ], for the following specific uses: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical eq uipment or electronics; refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity testing of smoke de tectors; lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the main tenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pest icides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold release agents and mold cleaners; lubricants and cleaners for spi nnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for use on removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductorPage 45 of 317 chips, specimens under electron microscope s, and energized el ectrical equipment; adhesives and sealants in large canisters; document preservation sprays; MDIs approved by FDA for medical purposes 29 ; wound care sprays; topical cool ant sprays for pain relief; and products for removing banda ge adhesives from skin. The change of status determinations for aer osols are summarized in the following table: Table 2. Change of Status Decisions for Aerosols End-use Substitutes Decision Uses that Ar e Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions Propellants HFC-125 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 None

Propellants HFC-134a Unacceptable as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ] except for uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions From [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ] to January 1, 2018 : products for smoke detector functionality testing; products for which new formulations require governmental review, including: EPA pesticide registra tion, military or space agency specifications, or FDA approval (other than MDIs) As of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ]: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment; refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft mainte nance; sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold release agents and mold cleaners; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical equi pment; adhesives and sealants in large canisters ; document preservation sprays; FDA-approved MDIs for medical purposes; wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. Propellants HFC-227ea and blendsof HFC227ea and HFC-134a Unacceptable as of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ] except for uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions As of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ]: FDA-approved MDIs for medical purposes

29 I ncludes veterinary purposes.Page 46 of 317 a) What other alternatives are available? EPA is changing the listing decisions for HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, with some exceptions, b ecause, as discussed in more detail in this section, for the uses for which we are listing these substitutes as unacceptable, alternatives (i.e., chemical compounds and technologi cal options) are available or pot entially availabl e that reduce the overall risk to human health and the envi ronment. Other substitutes listed as acceptable propellants include HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze( E), butane, propane, isobutane, CO 2 and other compressed gases, and dimethyl ether (DME). In addition, technological options include not-inkind alternatives such as finger/ trigger pumps, powder formulations , sticks, rollers, brushes, and wipes. These alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 124 compared with HFC-134a’s GWP of 1,430, HFC-227ea’s GWP of 3,220 and HFC-125’s GWP of 3,500. 30 All of these alternatives, both the ones rema ining acceptable and those for wh ich we are changing the listing, have an ODP of zero, are relatively low in toxi city, and are capable of remaining below their respective exposure limits when used as aerosol propellants. In addition to GWP, some of the other environmental and health attributes that the SNAP program considers that differ for these alternatives include impacts on local air quality and flammability. For example, butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are VOC as well as being flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are not excluded from the definiti on of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the developmen t of state implementation pl ans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. Thus, these propellants are subject to federal,

30 GWP values cited in this final rule are from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 ) unless stated otherwise. Where no GWP is listed in AR4, GWP values shall be de termined consistent with the calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and referenced materials.Page 47 of 317 state, and local regulation that may prevent their use as a propellant in aerosols in some states and counties that have nonattainment areas fo r ground-level ozone and re strict their use under this action. HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HF C-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and the compressed gas CO 2 are exempted from the definition of VOC under these regulations and their use is expected to have negligible impact on ground- level ozone levels. As well as HFC-152a, HFO1234ze(E), and CO 2 , compressed N 2 and not-in-kind alternatives are not VOC. The aerosols industry is genera lly familiar with how to addr ess flammability risks. The aerosols industry has been using flammable compounds, including flammable propellants, for decades, consistent with OSHA requirements addressing flammability. There may be greater flammability risks for some specific uses of aeros ol products because of th eir use in situations where there is a source of heat or electrical energy that could cause a fire (e.g., use on energized electrical equipment). Concerns with flammability occur more with industrial products, often referred to as “technical aerosols.” For furthe r discussion on consumer aerosols, technical aerosols, and medical aeroso ls, see the NPRM at 79 FR 46,136 through 46,138 (August 6, 2014). There are a number of alternatives with GWPs lower than the GWPs for the substitutes that we are listing as unacceptable and that are not defined as VOC for purposes of SIPs, including: HFC-152a with a GWP of 124, HFO-1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6, and CO 2 with a GWP of 1. CO 2 and HFO-1234ze(E) are nonflammable unde r ambient temperature conditions, while HFC-152a is flammable, but less so than hydrocarbons or DME. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those of the HFCs for which we are ch anging the listing (range of GWPs from 1,430 to 3,500 for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and HFC-125). (1) Aerosols with flammability and vapor pressure constraints Aerosols for industrial and commercial uses often require nonflammability and in somePage 48 of 317 cases, specific vapor pressure criteria. For ex ample, nonflammable aerosols are needed for use on energized electrical circuits, where sparking can create a fire or explosion hazard. Of the different alternatives that have previously been listed as acceptable, th e nonflammable options at room temperature include HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFO-1234ze(E), compressed gases including CO 2 and N 2 , and not-in-kind products. At slightly higher temperatures (30 °C or 85°F), HFO-1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher flammab ility limits, and thus in theory could catch fire under specific conditions of concentra tion and applied energy. Some aerosol product formulators have expressed conc ern that the lower vapor pre ssure of HFO-1234ze(E) and the significantly higher va por pressure of CO 2 and other compressed gases may not provide adequate performance in propelling the contents of a can fo r technical aerosols or may exceed Department of Transportation pressure requirements under el evated temperatures (ITW Polymers Sealants, 2014). For comparison, the vapor pressu res of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-134a, and CO 2 at 20 °C are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5,776 kPa, respectively. Based on the information available today, EPA believes it cannot list HFC-134a as unacceptable for all aerosol uses. Thus, we are crea ting a use condition that would restrict use of HFC-134a to specific uses for which alternatives are not currently or po tentially available.Both HFC-227ea and HFC-125 have significantly higher GWPs than HFC-134a (HFC227ea’s GWP is 3220 and HFC-125’s GWP is 3500) or other substitutes that could be potentially used where flammability is a concern, and there is not a significantly different level of risk based on the other factors that we consider. Thus, EPA has determined that HFC-227ea and HFC-125 pose significantly more risk than other availa ble substitutes and EPA is changing their listing from acceptable to unacceptable in most uses where HFC-134a may be used to mitigate flammability risks. We note that we are not aw are of any use of HFC-227ea or of HFC-125 inPage 49 of 317 industrial aerosols to mitig ate flammability risks. (2) Aerosols for specific medical uses For medical aerosols, there are special needs to address safety and toxicity. Furthermore, in order for a substitute to be available for use in medical devices, the de vice using the substitute must first be reviewed and approved by the FDA. FDA has approved medications for use in MDIs using HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of these two HFCs as propellants. No medications have been approved for use in MDIs using other propellants. Although so me dry powder inhalers that are not-in-kind substitutes are approved by FDA, these alternatives do not work for some situations. Thus, we cannot conclude that there are other alternatives available for use in MDIs that pose lower risk than HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, or blends of these two. In addi tion, it is our understanding that because of differences in the solubility of water in HF C-134a and HFC-227ea, there are some medications that are sensitive to the presence of water fo r which only HFC-227ea may be used in an MDI. For other medical uses, EPA is aware of medical aerosols that currently are using hydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, as well as not-in-kind alternatives for uses such as antifungals, calamine sprays, freeze sprays for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 2014a). However, EPA does not have information that al ternatives other than HFC-134a are available and are approved by FDA as propellants in wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. The available substitutes for medical devices are limited to thos e approved by FDA, and the available substitutes differ by the type of product and medical conditions treated. For these reasons, we are listing HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditi ons, for specific uses for which other alternatives that posePage 50 of 317 lower overall risk to human health and the enviro nment are not currently or potentially available. The use conditions limit use of HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-227ea and HFC-134a to MDIs approved by FDA and limit use of HFC-134a to MDIs approved by FDA and the other medical uses listed above. HFC-125 has a GWP of 3,500, which is higher than the GWP of all other alternatives that are available for use as aerosol propellants (HFC-227ea has a GWP of 3,220; HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430; HFO-1234ze(E) has a GWP of 6). Like HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, CO 2 and HFO1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, nonflammable and lo w in toxicity. We are not aware of any medical or other aerosols currently using HF C-125, or of any FDA approval for aerosols using HFC-125. For these reasons, we have determined th at there are other ava ilable substitutes that pose lower overall risks to human health and the environment in this use and we are changing the listing of HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable. For more information on the environmental and health properties of the different aerosol substitutes, please see the proposed rule at 79 FR 46,137-46,138 and a technical support document that provides the additional Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d) in the docket. b) When will the listings change? On or after January 1, 2016, aerosol produc ts may not be manufactured with HFC-125 and on or after [insert date one year after publi cation in the Federal Regi ster], aerosol products may not be manufactured with HFC-134a or HFC-227ea, or blends thereof except for the specific uses allowed under the use conditions. In addition, as of January 1, 2018, HFC-134a will be unacceptable for certain uses, and aerosol products for those uses may not be manufactured with HFC-134a as of that date:

 products for which new formulations require U.S. federal government review, including:Page 51 of 317 EPA pesticide registration, military or sp ace agency specifications, and FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and

 products for functional tes ting of smoke detectors. In the case of HFC-125, EPA is unaware of any products using HFC-125, and no public commenters mentioned the existence of such pr oducts or requested a date other than the proposed date of January 1, 2016. We are setting [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] , as the date on which the status of HFC-134a, HFC- 227ea, and blends thereof will change to unacceptable, or to acceptable, subject to use cond itions, for certain specific uses. For those uses that would no longer be allowed as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] , this timeframe will allow formulators and p ackagers of aerosols to make the necessary changes. (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 2014a). A numbe r of formulators have already been testing, and in many cases introducing, new formulations w ith alternatives that remain listed acceptable. This timing will provide affected aerosol manufac turers and packagers sufficient time to change and test formulations and, to th e extent necessary, to change th e equipment in their factories. For two aerosol uses, continued use of HFC-134a will be allowed under the use conditions until January 1, 2018. EPA is providing this longer transition time for these two uses because of additional safety precautions and a pprovals outside of the control of the aerosol formulator that must be addressed before tran sitioning. The first categor y is those that must undergo specific federal governmental reviews: EPA pesticide registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roden ticide Act, military or space agency specifications, and FDA approval. The second category is aerosol products for functional testing of smoke detectors, which have National Fire Protection Associat ion (NFPA) 72 requirements adopted in buildingPage 52 of 317 codes. These types of aerosols must be tested not only for performance but also reviewed by third parties for compliance with regulatory or code requirements or military specifications. Given both the safety implications of insuffici ent testing and the additional time required for third-party testing and/or gove rnmental approval that is not required for other aerosol formulations, we have determined that alternativ es that reduce overall risk will not be available for these uses until January 1, 2018. As of the change of status dates, produc ts cannot be manufactured with HFC-134a or HFC-227ea or blends thereof except for the aeros ol product types that are listed under the use conditions. Products manufactured prio r to the change of status da te may still be sold, imported, exported, and used by the end-user after that da te. As discussed below in the responses to comment, restricting use of aerosols by the end-user, as well as rest ricting the sale of previously manufactured aerosols, may disr upt the market and may not result in environmental benefits. 3. How is EPA responding to comments about this end-use? a) Timeline
Comment : EPA received comments from a number of commenters on the status change date of HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-125 as an aerosol propellant. Members of the aerosol industry proposed alternate years ranging from 2018 to 2021, always in reference to HFC-134a or to “technical” aerosols. Reasons provided for these dates included alig ning with the European Union’s (EU) timeline of January 1, 2018; a need fo r at least one to two more years to complete reformulation and all testing requ ired; and additional time of tw o to five years to complete approval processes: e.g., Underwr iters Laboratories (UL) approvals to meet NFPA requirements, EPA pesticide registration or testing for confor mance with military specifications. Members of the aerosol industry also suggest ed that January 1, 2016, is too soon to transition away fromPage 53 of 317 HFC-134a because of the need for coordination w ith other regulatory requirements, because of business considerations including the timing of th e need for budgeting for capital expenditures, developing and implementing worker educatio n, negotiating contracts between aerosol formulators and retailers, and fo r technical reasons such as stab ility issues with HFO-1234ze(E), one of the alternatives that remains acceptable for use. NRDC and IGSD stated that EPA must maintain its 2016 timeline for transition to ensure that important climate reductions are realized. Response : In determining when alternatives that reduce overall risk wi ll be available for use, EPA considers technical c onstraints on the use of other a lternatives, including when other alternatives may be used consis tent with safety requirements. Unlike some end-uses, such as some of the refrigeration end-uses, there are a mu ch wider variety of uses with a much broader range of considerations under th e aerosol propellant e nd-use. While there are exceptions, as we address in this action, for most of these wide -ranging uses, we do not anticipate significant hurdles to transitioning to alternatives. Base d on information provided by the manufacturer of HFO-1234ze(E), a number of their customers have been able to develop and introduce aerosol products using HFO-1234ze(E) in a matter of months rather than ye ars. Except in limited cases, as discussed below, commenters requesting a lo nger transition period di d not provide concrete support for why more time for specific uses is needed, resting only on ge neral statements that time is needed for “formulation” and “testing.” Based on the information available showing that manufacturers have been able to transition relatively quickly, but also recognizing that there may be some variation in the time needed for specific uses, we are establishing a change of status date of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] –roughly seven months later than the proposed date of January 1, 2016. This will allow approximately one year from the time this rule is issued in which manufacturers should be able to address thei r generalized testing andPage 54 of 317 reformulation concerns. Also, HFC-134a remains acceptable, subject to use conditions, for many uses, reducing the number of products for which companies must refo rmulate, test, and transition to other alternatives. For certain aerosol products using HFC-134a that must go through a federal government or other third-party approval proc ess for new formulations, we are establishing a cha nge of status date of January 1, 2018. These produ cts include those needing EPA pesticide registration, testing to U.S. military or space agency specificati ons, and FDA approval (aside from MDIs). In addition, we are establishing a change of stat us date of January 1, 2018, for a product that requires extensive testing to NFPA standards, specifically for smoke detector functional testing. Based on information received during the public comment period, we have determined that for these specific uses, alternatives that pose le ss risk are not available until these testing and registration processes are complete. EPA disagrees that we should align the timelines in this rule with the EU timelines. The EU regulations rely upon different authority th an the SNAP program, and reflect the European context. We believe it is appropr iate for EPA decisions to base timelines upon when alternatives that reduce overall risk are av ailable in the United States.
Comment : National Aerosol Association (NAA), Radiator Specialty Company (RSC), LPS Laboratories, Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), and Aeropres commented that there is currently no industry consensus on the safe handling of HFO-1234ze(E) (and “any alternative products”) in aerosol plants. CSPA st ates that the C SPA Aerosol Propellants Safety Manual will need to be updated to include new propellants li ke HFO-1234ze(E), and that the consensus guidelines will then be used to assu re that fire and buildi ng codes are updated to properly cover new propellants. The commenter also states that while they seek consensus onPage 55 of 317 updating their safety manual, companies are able to proceed using the guidance provided by the supplier, but many CSPA memb ers prefer to await industr y consensus standards. LPS Laboratories comments that applicab le codes need to be updated before other alternatives can be used and suggests that a January 1, 2018, date for listing HFC-134a as unacceptable is more appropriate. Response : In the absence of industry consensus guidance, a number of aerosol formulators are already manuf acturing products safely using HFO-1234ze(E) relying upon safety guidelines developed by the chemical producer. No commenters raised, and we are unaware of, any specific safety concerns th at are not addressed in this guidance issued by the chemical producer. CSPA mentioned updating fire and build ing codes using the consensus guidelines, but did not state how these are related and also indi cated that some companies have been able to move ahead without updates to fire and buildi ng codes based upon the guidance. For that reason, we do not believe there is a basis for determinin g that HFO-1234ze(E) is not available for safe use until January 1, 2018, as suggested by commenters. b) Sell-through period
Comment : Honeywell stated that there should be a limited sell-through period to prevent stranded inventories for aerosol products, while avoiding delays in the transition to low-GWP substitutes. The commenter suggested that EPA prohibit the sale, import and export of aerosol products manufactured with unacceptable subs titutes by no later than January 1, 2017. The commenter also suggested that the sell-through period should appl y only to products that were manufactured prior to January 1, 2016, and th at have entered the distribution channel. Response : EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion that a limited sell-through period would be sufficient. Based on past e xperience with implementing a limited sell-throughPage 56 of 317 period for certain kinds of aerosols containing CFCs and with implementing an unlimited sellthrough period for other aerosols, we found that a limited sell-through can result in market disruption and can strand invent ory. Further, a limited sell-thr ough period does not necessarily preclude emissions of HFCs to the environmen t because while manufacturers and distributors would need to dispose of stranded inventory, ther e is no current requirement prohibiting venting of the contents to the atmosphere (unlike for refrigeration or MVAC). In this rule, we allow new cars or new stand-alone refrigeration equipment manufactured with HFC-134a before the change of status date to be used and se rviced after the change of status date to avoid market disruption, creation of stranded inventory, and perverse incentives for releasing refrigerant to the environment; a closely analogous treatment fo r aerosols is to allow manufacturers and distributors to sell and end users to use aerosol products manufactured before the relevant change of status date. Finally, because of the relatively short period from issuance of EPA’s final rule to the compliance date, we do not expect that th ere will be a large accumulation of inventory. Accordingly, this rule allows for an unlimite d sell-through and use period for covered aerosol products manufactured before the change of status date. c) Use conditions
Comment : Honeywell, the producer of HFO-1234ze( E), stated that there are either commercially available products or shelf-ready products that have not yet been commercialized that do not contain HFC-134a for some of the uses for which EPA proposed to change the status of HFC-134a, to acceptable, subject to us e conditions, including cleaning products for electronics, sprays for aircraft maintenance, and dusters. Response : EPA agrees, and we note that the us es identified in the use conditions encompass a variety of highly specific uses. While products without one of these substitutes or aPage 57 of 317 blend of these substitutes might be used in one sp ecific use, this does not hold true for the entire range of uses in the use category. In particular, this is the case fo r uses where flammability is of concern, such as for electronics cleaning and sp ecialty dusters that ar e used on high-voltage equipment. In the future, additional testing may indicate that other alternatives, such as HFO1234ze(E), can be used safely even under conditi ons where flammability is of concern, but the information available to date is not currently su fficient. Thus, we agree with other commenters from the aerosol industry, such as CSPA, that HFC-134a continues to be necessary in specific uses where other alterna tives that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment are not available.
Comment : Arkema asked whether EPA is proposing that HFC-227ea continue to be acceptable for MDIs because of “the volumes or a record of unique suitability for a particular purpose,” when HFC-134a might pose lower overall risk compared to HFC-227ea, since its GWP is less than half that of HFC-227ea. Response: Arkema’s comment seems to suggest that we should list HFC-227ea as unacceptable for use in MDIs, because it has a higher GWP than HFC-134a; we disagree. Although the GWP for HFC-227ea is significantly higher th an that for HFC-134a, our understanding is that there are te chnical reasons why HF C-134a may not perform adequately as a propellant in MDIs using certain kinds of medi cations. For example, because some medications could react or degrade in the pr esence of moisture, a nd water is much more soluble in HFC-134a than in HFC-227ea, further technical work is needed to determine if HFC-134a is able to serve as a propellant in all MDIs. Current ly, it is our understanding that for those types of medications, there are no alternatives to HF C-227ea that pose lower overall ri sk to human health and the environment.Page 58 of 317 Comment : The International Pharmaceutical Ae rosol Consortium (IPAC) and Mexichem Fluor, Inc. (Mexichem) suggested using the sa me language for the lis ting for MDIs for HFC227ea as for HFC-134a. IPAC, Mexichem, and King & Spaulding suggested revising the language to apply to a wider group of medical us es, including the treatment of conditions or diseases of other organs (for example diabetes) wh ere aerosols can be used for systemic delivery through the lung or nose, or that HFC-134a a nd HFC-227ea should be allowed for any medical MDI that has been FDA-approved regardless of disease condition treated. One of the commenters also stated it should be made clear that blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea are also acceptable for such use. Response : EPA agrees with the commenters that the lists of medical conditions treated with MDIs should be consistent for HFC-134a and HFC-227ea. Additionally, we agree that the language should more clearly specify our intent, which is to cover all MDI uses for which FDA has approved HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, or blends of these HFCs. This would include the wider group of medical uses suggested by King & Spauld ing, including the treatment of conditions or diseases of other organs (for example diabetes) wh ere aerosols can be used for systemic delivery through the lung or nose. It is our understanding that HFC-134a and HFC-227ea are the only available alternatives for MDIs approved by FDA, with dry powder inhalers as an additional possible not-in-kind alternative in limited cas es. Thus, we believe th at there are no other alternatives available or potentially available for all MDIs approved by FDA that pose less risk overall to human health and the environment. We have revised the word ing of the regulatory listing decision to make clear that the use c ondition for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea applies to all MDIs approved by FDA.
Comment : HSI (Fire & Safety Group, LLC), Honeywell, DuPont, and EIA commentedPage 59 of 317 that there are available a lternatives and there is sufficient supp ly of these alternatives to support EPA’s proposed change of status decisions for the aerosol prope llants end-use. Response : EPA agrees with the commenters that, for the most part, there is a sufficient supply of alternatives that will support a transi tion away from the substitutes that we have concluded provide a greater risk to human health and the environm ent. However, as discussed in more detail above and in res ponse to other comments, in some specific cases we received information that demonstrates the existence of technological challenges th at support a later date for the change in status. In those ca ses, we are providing a later date.
Comment : Commenters in the aerosol industry commented on situations where some alternatives other than HFC-134a are not eff ective or feasible. NAA commented that if CO 2 were feasible, it would already be us ed. LPS Laboratories commented th at formulators must consider chemical compatibility with formulations; for example, CO 2 cannot be used with water-based formulations due to the formation of carbonic aci d. LPS Laboratories commented that nitrogen has very limited uses due to its la ck of solubility and the substant ial pressure drop that occurs as the product is used. Response : EPA recognizes that not all alternative propellants work in every particular formulation. The commenters have desc ribed specific situations where CO 2 and nitrogen may not be appropriate propellants. However, other a lternatives are also listed as acceptable. HFO1234ze(E) and HFC-152a have some physical si milarities with HFC-134a and the commenters do not claim that these other alternatives are not available.
Comment : NRDC and IGSD urged the Agency to deny any requests in the aerosols sector for additional exemptions. Response : EPA has considered the comments and information submitted during thePage 60 of 317 comment period and is adding a limited number of uses to the use conditions that would allow continued use of HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, or blends thereof for the reasons provided elsewhere in this preamble.
Comment : Honeywell, NAA, and CSPA commen ted on the nonflammability of HFO1234ze(E). NAA indicated that HFO-1234ze(E) was found to be nonflammable by a number of standard tests (e.g., ASTM E-681) and aerosol fl ammability test methods (e.g., flame extension, enclosed space ignition), as well as by a non-stan dard test including a test that found no ignition up to temperatures greater than 900 °F. Honeywe ll commented that while it is accurate to say that HFO-1234ze(E) may exhibit vapor flame limits at elevated temperatures, that is only one of many properties that must be taken into consid eration when characterizing HFO-1234ze(E) and its usefulness in formulating nonflammable aer osol products. This commenter also provided additional information about other tests on the flammability of HFO-1234ze(E). CSPA said that there is still some concern about the potential for flammability at higher ambient temperatures, and that CSPA member product marketers, formul ators and manufacturers are working to assure that specific products in various categories can be formulated, ma nufactured and used safely and effectively. Response : Based on the information available to EP A at this time, we agree that HFO1234ze(E) is nonflammable in most situations that aerosols will be used. However, we have not seen results of testing that cover all of the types of products for which there are concerns about the need for a nonflammable aerosol propellant, such as aerosol products used on energized circuits or other electrical equipment. For other uses, where we have evidence of productspecific testing on HFO-1234ze(E) showing nonfla mmability (e.g., tire inflators), we have concluded that the flammability risks of HF O-1234ze(E) are not a significant concern.Page 61 of 317 Comment : Several commenters discussed flammabil ity concerns for tire inflators, with some suggesting that they should be added as a use for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions, others suggesti ng a later change of status date, and others supporting the proposal. NAA and RSC stated that due to past accidents traced to flammability of tire inflators, it is necessary to test all aspects of the inflator s to ensure that there are no flammability issues with HFO-1234ze(E). RSC and Honeywell commented on the specific testing required to ensure that new tire inflators using HFO-1234ze(E) ar e nonflammable, because of the possibility of ignition sources such as application of a torch to the rim of the tire or sparking from metal tools contacting a steel belt during ti re repair. ITW Global Tire Repa ir commented that previous Aerosol Tire Inflators were flammable and ther e were several accidents in which tire repair professionals were injured when a spark ignited the product. This commenter also stated that EPA should not dismiss the need for a nonflammab le product because other aspects of motor vehicles are flammable; tires a nd wheels have not been design ed and engineered to contain flammable products, unlike many other flammable products in motor vehicles. CSPA referred to a March, 1999 recall from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recall for 32 million units of an aerosol tire inflat or due to injuries caused by the product’s flammability. Mexichem comments HFO-1234ze( E) requires further evaluation before implementation for emergency tire inflators and sealers because of its flammability and uncertainty regarding its compatibility with se alants. Honeywell, the manufacturer of HFO1234ze(E), commented that third-party testing of aerosol tire inflat ors using HFO-1234ze(E) found them to be nonflammable. Response : We acknowledge that there have been re ports of accidents associated with use of flammable tire inflators in the past, particul arly affecting tire repa ir professionals. Not allPage 62 of 317 manufacturers of tire inflators agree that a nonflammable propellant is necessary, given there are tire inflators using hydrocarbons already on th e market. Although HFO-1 234ze(E) can ignite under higher temperature conditions using the standard test ASTM E 681, a relevant question is whether data indicate that an aerosol tire inflator using HF O-1234ze(E) would be flammable under the pressure, temperature, and likely ignition s ources specific to this use. This will ensure a relevant risk comparison and will not compare to other flammable substances used in other parts of a motor vehicle. One manufacturer of aerosol tire inflators has test ed a formulation using HFO-1234ze(E) and has found it is nonflammable under the conditions that ex ist for use of a tire inflator (RSC, 2014). Therefore, other altern atives are available besides HFC-134a that sufficiently mitigate flammability risks for this use. Concerning RSC’s suggestion for a change of status date of January 1, 2018, to give sufficient time for additional testing, the commenter provided insufficient information on the types of testing or timeframes involved to warrant providing additional time. Further, in this fina l rule, we are providing roughly an additional seven months beyond the date in the proposal to meet commenters’ general comments about requiring additional time for testing. Based on the information available, HFO-1234ze(E) is an option that other manufacturers of aerosol tire inflators are using to formulate products that are not flammable under the conditions expected for that use.
Comment : Commenters from the aerosol industry requested that EPA include additional uses for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions. These uses include certain aerosols used for testing smoke detector sensit ivity and “emergency safety horns exclusively used for marine emergency situations and/or i ndustrial emergencies and evacuations.” Reasons cited include allowing time for developing and a pproving new smoke detector sensitivity testing equipment and the need for nonflammability because emergency safety horns function wherePage 63 of 317 flames or other ignition sources are present. An environmental group states that it disagrees with comments that request continued use of HFC- 134a in freeze sprays, tissue freezes, portable safety horns and personal defense sprays, as these applications can use other lower-GWP alternatives such as dimet hyl ether, HFO-1234ze(E), and CO 2 . Response : For aerosols used for smoke detector sensitivity testing, EPA received information from a manufacturer of such products that this use require s redesign of equipment for testing smoke detectors, and not just reformul ation of the aerosol. This information indicates that the equipment for such testing is designe d based on the vapor pressure of HFC-134a and would not work with another prop ellant. Therefore, we are adding aerosols for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors to th e list of use conditions. For portable safety horns, personal defense sprays, and freeze sprays for wastes (as opposed to electronic freeze sprays), there are other alternatives that are available or potentially available that reduce overall risk to human h ealth and the environment. Products using HFO1234ze(E) already exist or are in developmen t for these uses. EPA received no information indicating that alte rnatives other th an HFC-125, HFC-134a or HFC-227 ea, or blends thereof, cannot be safely used in tissue freeze sprays.
Comment : ITW Polymers Sealants requested that EPA either clarify that canister adhesives and sealants are not considered to be aerosols, or else that EPA add this use to the list of use conditions for HFC-134a. ITW Polymers S ealants provided inform ation indicating that flammability of the propellant is of concern in the fabrication facilities with this use, and that use of hydrocarbon propellants would exceed VOC limits set for these products in many areas of the country. The commenter also in dicated that HFO-1234ze(E), CO 2 , and N 2, the only other propellants that would address flammability con cerns for this use besides HFC-134a, have vaporPage 64 of 317 pressures outside of the range that would provi de sufficient performance. In the absence of sufficient vapor pressure, as with HFO-1234ze(E) , the commenter claims that there will be performance problems such as lower bond strength or bumps and mounds in furniture surfaces; with the higher pressure propellants N 2 and CO 2 , the commenter states that these will result in exceeding Department of Transportation internal pressure limits at elevated temperatures. Response : We do consider canister a dhesives and sealants to be aerosols because they are pressurized containers and they use a propellant, as opposed to solely mechanical means, to expel the other ingredients of the formulation from the container. The information provided by the commenter on vapor pressure concerns is plau sible, based on the relative vapor pressures of the different propellants. It is possible for fabr ication facilities to use flammable adhesives and propellants safely, but it would require time to make the necessary upgrades to address these risks. It is also of concern that in VOC nonattainment areas, large amounts of hydrocarbons in these large canister adhesive containers would cause canister adhesives and sealants to exceed their VOC limits. Of the available propellant options that are not VOC or are exempted from the definition of VOC—HFC-134a, HFO-1234ze(E), CO 2 , and N 2 —to date, only HFC-134a has been shown to be in a pressure range that provide s sufficient performance. Thus, it is likely that HFC-134a is the only available prop ellant for canister adhesives and sealants in many areas of the country. Therefore, this final ru le adds adhesives and sealants in large canisters to the list of uses where HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions.
Comment : A number of members of the aerosol industry requ ested that EPA consider adding aerosols for use on energized electri cal equipment as a use for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditi ons. Specific products mentioned include dusters for use on live electric circuits, cont act cleaners for energized circuits, mold cleaners, and electronic freezePage 65 of 317 sprays. Response : EPA agrees that, given the high temp eratures and high electrical energy present on energized electrical equipment, it is n ecessary to retain the option of a propellant that remains nonflammable at high temperatures. As described elsewhere in the preamble, compressed gases such as CO 2 and N 2 may be nonflammable but ar e not appropriate in some situations, due to pressure drop-off and reacti ons with other formulation ingredients. HFO1234ze(E) is nonflammable in many situations, but it is not yet clear if it remains nonflammable in the presence of the high temperatures and high electrical energy in the specific uses mentioned by the commenters. If additional information becomes available showing that HFO-1234ze(E) remains nonflammable in such situations, we may revi sit this decision in the future. In this final rule, we are adding mold cleaners, electronic freeze sprays, and dusters for use on energized electrical circuits to the list of aerosol products that may continue to use HFC-134a under the use conditions. We consider electrical contact cleaners for en ergized electrical equipment to be part of the use “cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics” and ther efore covered by th e use condition.
Comment : MicroCare, a company specializing in cleaning, and Traulsen, a manufacturer of commercial refrigeration equipm ent, request that refrigeration sy stem flushes be added to the use condition specifying which end-uses may still use HFC-134a. They explain that after removing refrigerant and flushing any oils or partic ulates left, the lines are brazed, soldered or welded back together at high temperatures well above the level at which HFO-1234ze(E) becomes flammable (e.g., above 1,995 °C). CSPA stated that it should be clarified that “Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux, and other soils from electri cal equipment or electronics” incl udes cleaners for refrigerationPage 66 of 317 coils because of similar requirements for nonfla mmability. NAA stated that its members did not reach consensus on whether refrigerant flushes should be added to the acceptable list. This commenter states that it is co mmon practice in the industry to re move flushing agents from lines and blowing them dry with nitrogen or compre ssed air after flushing, wh ich eliminates risks posed by welding lines after flushing. Response : Because of the extremely high temperat ures cited by MicroCare and Traulsen that may be present in a refriger ant line after flushing, EPA agrees that it is necessary to have a nonflammable propellant available fo r refrigerant flushes. The term “refrigerant flushes” also refers to cleaners for refrigeran t coils. Although n itrogen can be used to purge refrigerant lines to remove refrigerant flushes prior to brazing or weld ing, it is not clear that this is a universal practice in the industry. Therefor e, we are adding refrigeran t flushes to the use condition specifying uses that may c ontinue to use HFC-134a.
Comment : SAE International and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) commented that there are aerosol products available for servicing MVAC systems which contain additives in a can propelled by HFC-134a which the commenters believe should be acceptable, subject to use conditions. The commenters stated that the use of propella nts other than HFC-134a could cause technical problems, could contaminat e refrigerant so that EPA-approved Recovery, Recycling and Recharging (RRR) equipment cannot be used, or could be incompatible with SAE standards if the propellant goe s into the MVAC systems. Response : EPA considers an aerosol can contai ning HFC-134a used to recharge an MVAC system to fall under the MVAC end-use a nd not the aerosol propellant end-use. Under the SNAP lists for the MVAC end-use, HFC-134a remains an acceptable substitute for servicing existing systems. An aerosol can containing HFC-134a refrigerant and oil or leak sealant, whichPage 67 of 317 is used to inject oil or repair leaks and to then recharge MVAC systems, would also fit in the MVAC end-use and remains acceptable for use on existing systems. These cans must have the unique fittings required by SNAP for HFC-134a as a motor vehicle air conditioner refrigerant. However, an aerosol can primarily intended to inject additives, e.g., dye, rather than to add HFC134a as a refrigerant would be considered an ae rosol, and use of HFC-134a as the propellant would not be allowed as of [ insert date one year after pub lication in the Federal Register ], under this final rule. We do not consider this type of produc t to fit under the commenter’s request for products for servicing. Further, we disagree wi th the commenter that it is necessary to have a propellant that is the same as the refrigerant used in MVAC. We note that in the future, HFO1234yf or other refrigerant substitutes will be used as a refrigerant in many vehicles; thus, in the future, automotive products will need to be fo rmulated to include propellants other than HFC134a, as well as formulated with propellants that are different from the refrigerant used in the MVAC system.
Commen t: DuPont recommended that EPA establish use conditions rather than narrowed use limits in implementing any changes of status for HFCs used in aerosols. The commenter stated that acceptable conditions of use are a relatively straightforward, self-implementing regulatory approach that would limit the burden on aerosol companie s, most of which are small businesses, in complying with the changed stat us. DuPont commented that narrowed use limits are a much more administratively intensive ap proach for both the Agency and the regulated community, and would impose significant burdens on th ese small businesses, as well as on EPA. Response : We agree with the commenter that narrowed use limits are more administratively burdensome. We are establis hing use conditions in the final rule. d) HFC consumption and climate impact of aerosolsPage 68 of 317 Comment : DuPont, Mexichem and the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) commented on the relatively small contribution of non-medical aerosols to HFC consumption, stating that it represents betw een 1 and 2% of all HFC consump tion. A producer of tire inflators noted that tire inflators make up less than 0.2% of the current us e of HFC-134a. Mexichem stated that the continued availabili ty of HFC-134a for the small businesses and consumers that produce/rely on aerosol products, will make no appr eciable difference to EPA’s goal of reducing GHG emissions, because aerosol products acco unt for only five percent of total HFC consumption, and of that portion, on ly 24% serve non-medical purposes. This commenter suggested that 

### EPA should accommodate these uses through exemptions or a delay in the “delisting” of HFC-134a. In contrast 

### , Honeywell mentions that its ne w technologies in the aerosol
sector could reduce GHG emi ssions by more than 6 MMTCO 2 eq per year in 2016. Response : EPA agrees that the aerosol sector comprises a small portion of the total consumption of HFCs. However, we disagree that we should not change th e status of HFCs for the aerosol propellant end-use because GHG emissions from that end-use are small. We note that any given end-use within the 50- some SNAP end-uses may be relatively small compared to the whole. Section 612(c) of the CAA directs EPA to publish lists of substitutes prohibited for specific uses and safe alternatives for specific uses. Thus, we make our decision by considering the overall risk to human health and the envi ronment posed by the av ailable or potentially available substitutes within each end-use, rather than comparing risks in different end-uses to each other. We disagree with the commenter’s suggestion that EPA provide a later change of status date for aerosol uses because of th eir relatively low GHG emissions. Instead, EPA considers the time in which altern atives are available for use, wh ich involves the feasibility of implementing alternatives with lower overall impacts on human health and the environment.Page 69 of 317 EPA appreciates the information provided by one co mmenter that indicates that for the aerosol sector, the change in status for HFC- 134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-125 could reduce GHG emissions by more than 6 MMTCO 2 eq per year. e) Small business impacts
Comment : Falcon Safety Products comments that th ey transitioned from HCFCs to HFCs in 1993, after which it began transitioning fr om HFC-134a (with a GWP of 1,430) to HFC-152a (with a GWP of 124) in compressed gas dusters, at a significant cost to it s company, in terms of retooling and installing new gas tanks and filing lines. Falcon Safety Products supports the EPA’s high-GWP emissions reduction efforts, but believes that they should not negatively impact small businesses or have a detrimental im pact on the safety, affordability, or efficacy of its product categories. Falcon Safety Products co mments that transitioning to HFO-1234ze(E) is very expensive for small businesses like itself, in terms of changing tanks, filling lines, and revising labels and marketing materials. Response : EPA did not propose and is not finalizi ng a change in status for HFC-152a in aerosols. See preamble section V.A.3 for EPA’s stat us changes for HFCs in the aerosols sector, and supporting document Economic Impact Screen ing Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives (ICF, 2014f; ICF, 2015b). f) Imports
Comment : CSPA expressed concern about noncompl ying products from offshore, which they state has been a large problem in the past. C SPA stated that for retail products, more time is needed to adjust contracts and to work with EPA to ensure that CSPA member complying products are not displaced by non-comp lying products from offshore. Response : For aerosol products, the rule applies to imported products as well as toPage 70 of 317 manufacture of products in the Un ited States. By providing a full year after fina lization of the rule before a change of status is required for the HFCs cove red by this action known to be in current use for aerosol product manufacture, there is now additional time to adjust contracts and work with retailers. EPA welcomes the suggestion that we should work together with the aerosol industry and retailers to avoi d sale of non-complying products that might be imported. B. MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles 1. Background MVAC systems cool passenger cars, light-dut y trucks, buses, and rail vehicles. CFC-12 was the refrigerant historically used in th e manufacture of MVAC systems. HFC-134a, along with a number of other substitutes, was found acc eptable for use in light-duty vehicles in 1994 and at the same time, CFC-12 was being phase d out of production. By the mid-1990s, use of CFC-12 in manufacturing new light-duty vehicles ceased in the United States and manufacturers of light-duty vehicles uniformly decided to adopt HFC-134a for use in MVAC. Today, while MVAC systems in some older vehicles may still be using CFC-12, HFC-134a remains the dominant refrigerant used in light-duty ve hicles worldwide. More recently, additional
alternatives for MVAC have been listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 31 including HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, a nd carbon dioxide (CO 2 or R-744). Manufacturers are currently manufacturing or are activel y developing light-duty models using HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and
CO 2. The development of MVAC systems using lowe r-GWP refrigerants has been encouraged by MVAC refrigerant requirements in Europe, wher e the European Union Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC Directive) mandates transi tion to a refrigerant with a GWP below 150 by

31 Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.Page 71 of 317 January 1, 2017, 32 and in the United States by the availa bility of credits under the Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) Rule, desc ribed in further detail below. Neither HFC-134a nor any of the refrigerants listed more recently is ozone-depleting. HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO 2 have much lower GWPs than HFC-134a. HFO-1234yf has a GWP of 4, HFC-152a has a GWP of 124, and CO 2 (by definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC134a has a GWP of 1,430. HFC-134a and CO 2 are nonflammable; HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are flammable. All of the gaseous refrigerants can cause asphyxiation at high concentrations.
CO 2 concentrations that could pot entially result from refrigerant leaks into the passenger compartment without mitigation measures could reduce a driver’s attentiveness and performance. HFC-134a and the three lower-GWP a lternatives are exempt from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing th e development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air quali ty standards. As discussed in the NPRM, EPA has created use conditions for HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO 2 that establish unique fittings and labeling requirements, and where appropriate, mitigate flammability and toxicity risks. HFO-1234yf is being used in cars on the road today in the United States. At the time of the proposal for this rule, EPA was aware that HFO-1234yf was in use in MVAC systems in approximately nine 33 models in the United States produced by several manufacturers of lightduty vehicles. EPA expects, and several commenters indicated that, additional models have or will be introduced using HFO-1234y f systems over the next several years. The results of a 2014 industry survey submitted by AAM and the Association of Global Automakers (Global

32 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is accessible at: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS erv.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML

. 33 Nelson, 2013. Gabe Nelson. Automa kers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate. Automotive News. Available online at www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01 /312309996/warming-to-the-idea.Page 72 of 317 Automakers) as a public comment to this rule found that automob ile manufacturers who responded to the survey had plans in place to tr ansition 90% of light-duty models sold in the United States by or before MY 2021. 34 According to comments submitted by Honeywell, there are approximately 28 different automobile brands selling around 60 different models designed to use HFO-1234yf globally. 35 DuPont stated that more than 7 million vehicles using HFO-1234yf
are estimated to be on the road by the end of 2015 globally, and in addition to infrastructure being in place at vehicle assembly plants, eq uipment suppliers are al ready producing the under hood, in factory, and service equipment. 36
While EPA was aware in the 1990s that CO 2 might be a feasible alternative in this application, the state of research and development indicated that it was not yet available because a design had not yet been devel oped that would allow safe use in MVAC systems in light-duty vehicles. More than 20 years later, EPA is s till not aware of current commercial use of CO 2 in MVAC systems. However, significant research and development are occurring in order to design a system that will ensure CO 2 can be used safely as an MVAC refrigerant. At least one global manufacturer of light-duty vehicl es has announced its intention to commercialize vehicles that
use CO 2 as the MVAC refrigerant in the next fi ve years, and perhaps as early as 2016. 37 In 2008, EPA found HFC-152a acceptable subj ect to use conditions. MVAC systems using HFC-152a have not been commercialized to date; however, EPA is aware of a demonstration project in India with a major Indian motor vehi cle manufacturer considering HFC152a in secondary loop MVAC systems. 38

34 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113 35 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0170 36 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077 37 Daimler, 2014. 38 Andersen et al., 2015. “ Secondary Loop Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL--

‐ MACs). Using Low-Page 73 of 317 In addition to the use and development of HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO 2 MVAC systems, EPA is aware of ongoing research and development which could ultimately result in future listings of additional alternatives for light-duty MVAC systems. For example, since the publication of the proposed rule , the SNAP program received a new submission for another lowGWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP below 150. There are also several blend refrigerants that have been listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions, since 1994, but that have never been de veloped for use in MVAC or used in manufacture of new vehicles. Today’s action will change the status of these refrigerant blends to unacceptable as of MY 2017 for use in newly manufactured li ght-duty vehicles. These substitutes include HFC blends SP34E and R-426A (also known as RS-24) with GWPs of 1,380 and 1,508, respectively, and the HCFC blends, R- 416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP), with GWPs ranging from 1,480 to 2,340 and ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. For simplicity, we refer to these substitutes as “the refrigerant blends” in the following discussion. As noted above, none of these are currently used by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) nor are we aware that a ny models are being developed for use with these substitutes. All of these refrigerant blends have GWPs that are significantly higher than the GWPs for HFO1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO 2 and the blends containing HCFCs have ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. As discussed, there are alte rnatives with lower overall ri sk to human health and the

Global Warming Potential (GWP) Refrigerants in Leak-Tight Systems In Climates with High Fuel Prices and Long, Hot and Humid Cooling Seasons. Building on the Previous Success of Delphi, Fiat, General Motors, Volvo, Red Dot, SAE Cooperative Research Projects, And Other Engineering Groups.” MACS Briefing, 2015.Page 74 of 317 environment that are available for this use. 2. What is EPA finalizing regarding MVAC systems 

### for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles? The change of status determinations for M VAC are summarized in the following table: Table 3. Change of Status Decisions for MVAC

End-use Substitutes Decision Motor vehicle air conditioning (newequipment in passenger cars and lightduty trucks only) HFC-134a Unacceptable as of Model Year (MY) 2021, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit through MY 2025. Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for vehicles exported to countries with insufficient servicing infrastructure to support other alternatives, for MY 2021 through MY 2025; Unacceptable for all newly manufactured vehicles as of MY 2026. Motor vehicle air conditioning (newequipment in passenger cars and lightduty trucks only) R-406A, R-414A (HCFC Blend Xi, GHG-X4), R-414B (HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, HCFC Blend Lambda (GHG-HP), R-416A (FRIGC FR-12, HCFC Blend Beta), SP34E, R-426A (RS-24, new formulation) Unacceptable as of MY 2017

a) HFC-134a In the August 6, 2014, proposal, EPA proposed to change the listing st atus of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable for use in air conditioning systems in newly manufactured passenger cars and light-duty trucks beginning in MY 2021. 39 This final action adopts the proposed approach, but with one exception. Spec ifically, we are including a narrowed use limit for HFC-134a in MVAC systems of newly manu factured passenger cars and light-duty trucks

39 Because the MVAC system used is so closely related to vehicle design, we are using model years and not calendar years.Page 75 of 317 destined for use in countries that do not have infrastructure in place fo r servicing with other acceptable refrigerants. This narrowed us e limit will be in place through MY 2025. This change of status applies to MVAC sy stems for passenger cars and light-duty trucks as defined at 40 CFR 86.1803-01, referred to jointly in this FRM as light-duty vehicles. As discussed in the NPRM and above, three alterna tives currently on the SNAP list of substitutes that are acceptable, subject to use conditions—HFC-152a, CO 2 , and HFO-1234yf—are in use or under various stages of development and have significantly lower GWPs than HFC-134a. Use conditions for these substitutes mitigate flammability and toxicity risks, as relevant, and thus for the other factors EPA evaluates, there was not an appreciable differen ce in risk. Because HFC134a has a significantly higher GWP than HFC-152a, CO 2 , and HFO-1234yf, and because the use conditions for these three refr igerants ensure that other risk s are not appreciably higher than for HFC-134a, we are listing HFC-134a as unaccep table for use in MVAC systems in new lightduty vehicles in MY 2021. Without the use conditions these other subs titutes do not pose overa ll lower risk than HFC-134a. Thus, in deciding when the unaccep tability determination should apply, we considered when it would be feasible for manuf acturers to develop systems meeting the use conditions. We proposed MY 2021 while also requesting comment on MY 2017, MY 2019 and MYs later than 2021. As explained in the NPRM , EPA considers MY 2021 the date by which automobile manufacturers will be able to redesign all vehicle models (including design of the MVAC systems) for use with a lower-GWP altern ative, consistent with the use conditions. EPA previously considered the model year by which manufacturers of light-duty vehicles would be able to transition away from use of HFC-134a in support of the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for MY 2017-2025 light- duty vehicles issued jointly by EPA andPage 76 of 317 NHTSA on August 28, 2012. 40 As part of that rulemaking, EPA established the av ailability of credits for the use of alternative refrigerants wi th lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a towards meeting the LD GHG standards. For today’s ac tion, EPA relied on the analysis conducted in support of the LD GHG standards for MYs 2017- 2025. The analysis considered the practices used by the automobile manufacturing industry in introducing new technologies into their vehicles through manufacturing redesign changes and refresh cycles. For each vehicle model, manufacturers establish a product development cycle over which they plan any significant technological changes or “redesi gns” to that vehicle. Between the major redesign model years, they may make only minor “refresh” changes. 41 At any point in time, a manufacturer may have some vehicles at or approaching a major redesign point and others that ar e earlier in their product cycle. In developing the LD GHG standards, EPA a ssumed that the transition to alternative refrigerants would generally need to occur during manufacturer model redesigns because of changes to the system design that are needed to a llow the safe use of these alternatives consistent with the regulatory use conditions. 42 EPA used the overall typical industry redesign cycle of five model years to estimate how the expected indu stry-wide transition to new refrigerants might occur. Thus, EPA projected that the industry, in or der to safely make use of the credits offered for use of lower-GWP refrigerants, would fully transition to these refrigerants over the time between MY 2017 and MY 2021, beginning with 20 percent transition in MY 2017, to be followed by a 20 percent increase in substituti on in each subsequent model year, completing

40 77 FR 62,624, 62,807-810 (October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR 25,325, 25,431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue for MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles) 41 See 77 FR 62,712 and 75 FR 25,407, 25,451 for a more detailed discussion of this practice. 42 As previously noted, HFO-1234yf, CO 2 and HFC-152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and many of the use conditions addres s the design of systems to account for flammability or exposure.Page 77 of 317 transition in MY 2021. 43 EPA continues to rely on the proj ections made in support of the LD GHG Rule as well as all other in formation currently available to the Agency to support the decision in this action that MY 2021 is the MY by which it will be feasible for manufacturers to safely, but expeditiously, tr ansition MVAC systems for a ll light-duty vehicle models. EPA proposed to modify the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable as of MY 2021 for light-duty vehicles, and sought comment on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs later than 2021. Some commenters argued that full transition cannot occur until after MY 2021 because a limited number of models do not currently have pl ans in place to transition by MY 2021. For these models, commenters claimed that two full design cycles, which could take 10 years, will be necessary in order to transiti on. Commenters also provided inform ation that the vehicle redesign is not “locked-in” until two years before the model year. EPA understands that because MY 2016 vehicles are being produced in the 2015 calendar year , this means most manufacturers have “locked-in” their planned product designs for MY 2016 and MY 2017, or potentially even out to
MY 2018. 44 EPA did not receive information on why manufacturers cannot redesign models that are not yet locked-in or why MVAC system re design cannot occur durin g a product refresh for those models that are locked-in. According to the 2014 survey of the automobile industry, manufacturers who participated in the study in dicated that they already expect to have transitioned 90% of the fleet by MY 2021. We did not receive a ny information indicating it was not technically feasible to also transiti on the remaining 10% of models by MY 2021. EPA expressly requested specific information supporting claims that a transition by MY

43 77 FR 62,720 44 Global Automakers, in their comments on the NPRM, stated, “These major model re-designs typically occur every five or six model years, and are staggered year-by-year so that the manu facturer’s full product line is refreshed over time rather than all at once. Because of the need to lock in suppliers to support production well in advance, vehicle designs are usually locked in about two years before the model year.” EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207Page 78 of 317 2021 would not be technically feasible because sp ecific model vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative refriger ants by MY 2021. No such information was forthcoming. Although one manufacturer did provide information on the in crease in cost to transition for a particular type of vehicle that was or iginally not planned for a refrigerant change by MY 2021, 45 commenters did not submit specific information, conf idential or otherwise, that showed it would not be technically feasible for any specific model vehicles to ad just their redesign cycle, switch refrigerants mid-cycle, or switch during a re fresh. After thoroughly reviewing all of the information in the possession of the Agency, EP A did not find a technica l basis for extending the change of status date beyond MY 2021. We believe the informati on in the record supports a conclusion that it is feasible for vehicles and the associated MVAC systems to be redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by MY 2021. EPA also received comments on this rule reque sting an earlier change of status date based on the availability of alternative refriger ants and the fact that transition is already occurring in the United States and globally. The available information indicated that many of the models that have already transiti oned are being sold in Europe ra ther than in the United States. There is no information showing that it is technically feasible for all or most models to transition to alternatives safely by MY 2017 or MY 2019, which begin in 2016 and 2018 respectively. As discussed below in the responses to comments , MY 2021 is the earliest year that we find provides sufficient time to transition refrigerant during vehicle redesign cycl es or to plan a midcycle transition to alternatives that ensures sa fety through compliance with SNAP use conditions. We also considered the supply of the alte rnative refrigerants in determining when

45 As explained in more detail in the responses to comments, under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only cost information that EPA considers as part of its SNAP review is the “cost and availability of the substitute.”Page 79 of 317 alternatives would be available. At the time the light-duty GHG rule was promulgated, there was a concern about the pote ntial supply of HFO-1234yf. Some comm enters indicated that supply is still a concern, while others, including two pr oducers of HFO-1234yf, commented that there will be sufficient supply. Moreover, some automotive manufacturers are devel oping systems that can safely use other substitutes, including CO 2 , for which there is not a supply concern for the refrigerant. If some gl obal light-duty motor vehi cle manufacturers use CO 2 or another acceptable alternative, additional volumes of HFO-1234yf that would have been used by those manufacturers will then become available. Base d on all of the information before the Agency, EPA believes production plans for the refrigerants are in place to make available sufficient supply no later than MY 2021 to meet current an d projected demand domestically as well as abroad, including, but not limited to, the EU. Based on information the Agency possessed at the time of the proposal and additional information submitted during the comment period regarding the technical feasibility of transitioning the fleet of light-d uty vehicles and refrigerant su pply, we conclude that MY 2021 represents the time by which other alternative refr igerants that pose less overall risk than HFC134a can be used in all light-duty vehicle models consistent with the use conditions. Thus, MY 2021 is the time at which those a lternative refrigerants will be “a vailable” within the meaning of CAA section 612(c)(2). b) Refrigerant blends In today’s action, EPA is also finalizing ch anges to the listing status of SP34E, R-426A, R-416A, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Bl end Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (a lso known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) from acceptable to unacceptable for use inPage 80 of 317 newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning in MY 2017, as proposed. The GWPs of HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and CO 2 are significantly lower than t hose of the refrigerant blends and all but two of these blends have ODPs, whereas HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and CO 2 do not. Moreover, if used consistent with the es tablished use conditions , the three lower-GWP refrigerants do not pose greater overa ll risk than any of the refriger ant blends. At the time of the proposal, EPA was not aware of current or projected future use of these refr igerant blends in any MVAC systems in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles. We did not receive any comments providing information suggesting cu rrent or projected use of thes e refrigerant blends in any newly-manufactured light-duty MVAC systems a nd received several comments supporting this aspect of the proposal. EPA is changing the li sting status for the refrigerant blends to unacceptable for use in new light-duty vehicles as of MY 2017, the next model year in production after this rule is issued. 3. MVAC servicing EPA did not propose and is not making any change s that would alter the ability to service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC-134a or a refrigerant blend. 46 MVAC systems designed to use lower-GWP su bstitutes and installed in vehicles will need to be serviced. Some stakeholders and co mmenters have expressed a concern that the price differential between HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO-1234yf with HFC-134a during servicing. 47 HFC-134a is listed, and will remain listed, as an acceptable refrigerant for retrofit of existing syst ems designed to use CFC-12, but because of the use restrictions for refrigerants listed as accepta ble, it cannot be used as a retrofit for MVAC systems using other alternatives. Specifically, the SNAP listings for all MVAC refrigerants

46 EPA is also clarifying that thermostatic expansio n valves (TXVs) are not impacted by today’s action

. 47 See also 77 FR 62,807.Page 81 of 317 require the use of unique fittings for each altern ative refrigerant. These fittings are found at attachment points on the car itsel f, on all recovery and recycling equipment, on can taps and other charging equipment, and on al l refrigerant containers. The pur pose of these fittings is to prevent cross-contamination. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of these us e conditions. If used properly, the unique fittings will not allow for the introduction of HFC- 134a refrigerant to an HFO-1234yf system. Furthermore, the SNAP regulations prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to ‘top-off’ a system that uses another refrigerant and the SNAP use conditions for refrig erants in this end-use require that the original refrigerant be recovered, in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of the CAA, prior to charging with a s ubstitute (40 CFR 82.34). Thus, the SNAP use conditions prohibit adding a new refrigerant to the system without first r ecovering the refrigerant already in the system. For vehicles for which the manufacturer coun ts air conditioning credits toward its LD GHG compliance, the MVAC systems (or elements of those systems) are considered emissionrelated components as defined in 40 CFR 86.180 3. This designation includes provisions for emission-related warranty, requirements that they operate properly for the specified useful life, as well as tampering restrictions. For example, if a manufacturer claims air conditioning credits for an MVAC system that uses a lower-GWP refrig erant on a particular vehi cle as part of the LD GHG program, removing and replacing that refriger ant with any other refrigerant that has a higher GWP, including HFC-134a, would be cons idered tampering with an emission-related component under Title II of the CAA. 4. Would this action affect EPA’s LD GHG Rule? In their comments, AAM stated that “EPA s hould state clearly and unequivocally in thePage 82 of 317 final rule that EPA is committed to conti nuing the A/C credits through MY 2025 and beyond.” Global Automakers made a similar request. EPA in fact stated in the NPRM, and reiterates here, that nothing in this final rule changes the re gulations establishing the availability of air conditioning refrigerant credits under the GHG standards for MY 2017-2025, found at 40 CFR 86.1865-12 and 1867-12. Those standards and credits are established by rule and EPA did not reopen that rule in this proceeding. Thus, manufa cturers can generate credits from use of lowerGWP alternative refrigerants through MY 2025, and the ability to generate and use those credits towards compliance with the LD GHG standard s will not change unde r this final rule. 48 We do note further, however, that the LD GHG standa rds do not require any specific means of compliance, so that manufacturers have the flexibili ty to either switch refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means. If a manu facturer chooses to comply with the LD GHG standard by a strategy not involving refrigerant substitution, for MY 2021 and later vehicles, this final rule would still require the manufacturer to use refr igerant other than HFC-134a. 5. How will the change of status a pply to exports of MVAC systems? a) SNAP interpretation Under 40 CFR 82.174, no person may introduce a refr igerant substitute into interstate commerce without notifying EPA 90 days in adva nce. Our longstanding in terpretation of this regulatory provision is that the notification requirement applies to products manufactured in the United States and exported. EPA has defined inters tate commerce in our la beling regulations at 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: “The distri bution or transporta tion of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another stat e, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manu facture of any product in more than one state,

48 See 77 FR 62,804-809.Page 83 of 317 territory, possession or the Distri ct of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is introduced into interstate commer ce are the release of a product fr om the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a ware house from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance.” While this definition appears in EPA’s labeling regulations, EPA’s practic e is to use it for purposes of the SNAP program as well. See e.g., 76 FR 78,846, December 20, 2011 (“This definition applies to any applian ces produced in the United States, including appliances that will be exported.”) In addition, under the SNAP regulations EPA regulates “use” in the United States and “use” is defined at 40 CFR 82.172 to include “use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end user, or in intermediate us es, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses.” Charging a MVAC system wi th refrigerant during th e manufacturing of a vehicle in the United States is considered a “u se” under the SNAP program. This is consistent with our statement in the initial SNAP rule that “Substitutes manufactured within the U.S. exclusively for export are subject to SNAP since the definition of us e in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs with in the United States.” (59 FR 13,052; March 18, 1994) b) Narrowed use limit for MVAC Based on comments received, we understand that certain countries to which vehicles are exported do not, and may not for some period of time, have in place the infrastructure for servicing MVAC systems with flammable refrigerants. Because this raises concerns with the safe usage of HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf, we have dete rmined that there may be circumstances in which alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment will not bePage 84 of 317 available for MVAC systems in those vehicl es by MY 2021. Therefore, EPA is providing a narrowed use limit for MVAC systems that applies to vehicles being exported to countries that do not have infrastructure to service vehicles containing the alternatives found to pose less overall risk. Under a narrowed use limit, the manufacturer needs to ascertain that these other alternatives are not technically f easible because of the lack of infrastructure for servicing with the alternative refrigerants and document the resu lts of their analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Users are not required to report the results of th eir investigations to EPA, but must retain the documentation in their files for the pu rpose of demonstrating compliance. Documentation should incl ude descriptions of: • Products in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected for the destined country; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives; and • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Based on the comments received, EPA does not anticipate that a significant number of countries will lack the necessary infrastructur e needed to service MVAC systems with the alternatives for which the equipment is de signed by MY 2021. Also, based on the comments received, we do not believe that an extensive a dditional amount of time will be needed before the necessary infrastructure is in place. Therefore, under this final rule, the narrowed use limit will no longer be available beginni ng with MY 2026 vehicles. 6. How is EPA responding to comments concerning this end-use? a) TimelinePage 85 of 317 Comment : EPA received several comments on the current and projected pace of adoption of alternative refrigerants. Se veral commenters stated that tr ansition to HFO-1234yf is already occurring. Honeywell commented that there are approximately 28 different automobile brands selling around 60 different models designed to use HFO-1234yf globally and that more than a dozen models are being manufactured by U.S. manufacturers. Other commenters provided similar statistics. One of these commenters, DuP ont, estimated that globally, more than 7 million vehicles using alternatives other than HFC- 134a will be on the road by the end of 2015. They also commented that in addition to infrastructu re being in place at vehicle assembly plants, equipment suppliers are alrea dy producing the under-hood, in-fac tory, and service equipment necessary for the transition. AAM and Global Automakers “conducted an industry survey to create a ‘nonconfidential’ blinded summary of individual manufacturer re frigerant changeover plans.” 49 Ten automobile manufacturers, representing 85% of li ght-duty vehicles sold in the United States in MY 2013, submitted information. The survey f ound that out of 139 vehicle platforms, manufacturers currently plan to tr ansition 90% of the models by MY 2021. Response : EPA recognizes some manufacturers have already transitioned to use of HFO1234yf in a limited number of models. In the United States the transition began in a small number of MY 2013 vehicles, and increased in MY 2014 50 and MY 2015. As of the beginning of 2015, the U.S. fleet was continuing on a trajectory that we expect to achieve 20% adoption by MY 2017, which aligns with EPA’ s projection in the supporting documents for the light-duty
GHG rule. 51 While adoption is occurring in the United States, most of the estimated 7 million

49 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113 50 Nelson, 2013 51 77 FR 62,720Page 86 of 317 vehicles mentioned by DuPont are in Europe where the EU MAC Directive mandates transition to refrigerant with a GW P below 150 by January 1, 2017. The Agency recognizes and appreciates the factual information supplied by the commenters, including the information shared as a result of the 2014 industry-led survey conducted by AAM and Global Automakers. EPA’s responses to the comments submitted by AAM and Global Automakers within the context of the survey ar e provided below. EPA relied on all of the information in our possession as we made our decision on the change of status for
HFC-134a.
Comment : Several commenters noted that the tr ansition from CFC-12 to HFC-134a was achieved in about three to four model years and claimed that th e transition from HFC-134a to lower-GWP alternatives could also happen in the same timeframe. Response : Regarding the comments suggesting that the current transiti on could occur in a similar period of time to the transition from CFC-12 to HFC-134a for MVAC, EPA disagrees because the system changes required for this tran sition are more extensive than those required for the transition from CFC-12 to HFC-134a. It is EPA’s understanding, as confirmed by comments, such as those from the automobile associations, that many models will need to transition during a redesign cycle. EPA understands that many model types will require hardware changes that normally occur during a redesign, unlike the transition from CFC-12 to HFC- 134a. HFO-1234yf has a slightly lower cooling efficiency than that of HFC-134a; offsetting this efficiency difference usually requires hardware change s, specifically the incorporation of an internal heat exchanger and potentially other system adjustments, which in some cases could result in changes to overall air conditioning system design and layout. CO 2 MVAC systems will require significantly morePage 87 of 317 hardware changes, which in many cases is expected to result in changes to the system design and layout. This transition contrasts with the case of the transition in the 1990s from CFC-12 to HFC-134a, where the systems did not require cha nges to the components of the MVAC system, besides the fittings, a llowing manufacturers to switch many ve hicles mid-cycle. Some models were already being manufactured using HFC-134a as early as 1992, with a significant proportion already being manufactured with HFC-134a by th e time that EPA listed it as acceptable in the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13,044; March 18, 1994).
Comment : EPA received several comments related to the proposed time for changing the listing status of HFC-134a in MVAC. Severa l commenters support accel erating the proposed transition to earlier than MY 2021, and recommended implementation dates of MYs 2017, 2018, and 2019. Many cited the progression of transition in the EU, as well as the transition already seen in the United States as a result of EPA’s LD GHG Rule in support of an earlier transition timeframe. Honeywell, a producer of HFO- 1234yf, commented “that given manufacturers’ experience in the EU and United States there is already an understand ing and capability to transition vehicles for U.S. car production” and they recommende d a transition date of MY 2018. DuPont, another producer of HFO-1234yf, stat ed “there are no technology, supply or engineering barriers to rapid transition” and recommended a tr ansition date of MY 2019. EIA commented that there is no reason to delay th e change in status and recommended MY 2017 as the implementation date. Two commenters, NR DC and IGSD, jointly commented that EPA should adopt MY 2017, a deadline that would be set based on the le aders in the industry that are already using safer chemicals, rath er than the laggards. Effective Altruism at the University of Maryland commented that HFC-134a should be listed as unaccep table as of January 2017, andPage 88 of 317 the California Air Resource Board (CARB) commen ted that MY 2018 is a reasonable timeframe for the unacceptable listing to apply. Some commenters stated that aligning with the EU transition by January 1, 2017, will signal to the international community that the Unit ed States is taking step s to “promote the rapid deployment of climate-friendly and safe alternativ es in motor vehicle air conditioning” as agreed to in the Leaders’ statement at the G-7 Su mmit in June 2014. Some co mmenters suggested an accelerated transition date is needed to achieve the President’s environmental goals, and would have a significant trickle- down effect in other market s around the world, specifically commenting that selecting MY 2017 would encour age Japan to “set the same global motor vehicle air-conditioning phaseout schedule for HF C-134a.” Also, NRDC and IGSD commented that “matching the MY 2017 European schedule is protecting against American automakers finding themselves unprepared when other market s close their doors to automobiles made with
HFC-134a.” Some commenters stat ed that the transition can be achieved by an earlier date and that greater environmental be nefits would be achieved with an earlier transition. These commenters stated that MY 2021 would not provide benefi ts beyond those achieved under “business as usual.” Response : EPA agrees with the commenters that s uggested that an earl ier transition year would result in greater environmen tal benefits to the extent that it would result in earlier reduction of use of HFC-134a in MVAC. Howeve r, in considering whether other listed alternatives are available that pose lower overall risk, EPA needs to consider whether there are any technical challenges that would prevent use of those alternatives consistent with the use conditions which are necessary to ensure that they pose lower risk than HFC-134a. EPA does not agree that a safe, smooth transition in complian ce with the use conditions required for the lower-Page 89 of 317 GWP alternatives can be made for all vehicles prior to MY 2021 in the United States. This is based on the need to transition most vehicles during redesign cycles, which in many cases requires hardware changes, as discussed above. EPA has also considered the potential benefits to aligning our domestic transition to the EU’s, in light of the fact that the transition to MVAC systems using one of the three alternatives began earlier than we predicted, and in light of the adequate supply of alternatives. Based on our current understanding and the information provided by commenters, especially the automob ile manufacturers, the Agency has concluded that MY 2021 is the earliest date by which all model vehicles can be safely transitioned to lowerGWP alternatives in accordance with the use conditions. We note that even though we are establis hing MY 2021 as the date by which HFC-134a will be unacceptable, 52 EPA expects health and safety bene fits will be realized sooner, as manufacturers will be designing new models each year using lower-GWP refrigerants for MVAC. The benefits analysis provided with the NPRM (EPA, 2014) and the analysis associated with this final action (EPA, 2015b) use a “business as usual” scenario that assumes a transition in refrigerant for MVAC will occur for vehicles ma nufactured and sold in the United States, in order to be consistent with the LD GHG Rule, and that assumes no regulatory action, and thus no benefits, under SNAP. However, our analysis of the effects of a cha nge of status for MVAC as of MY 2021 shows some benefits beyond the “busine ss as usual” scenario, reflecting the use of lower-GWP refrigerants in exported vehicles. While not relevant to EPA’s decision rega rding the appropriate date for changing the status of HFC-134a for use in MVAC, EPA also ag rees its action to change the status of HFC-

52 As noted elsewhere, we are creating a narrowed use limit for vehicles exported to countries without adequate facilities for servicing vehicles with the other acceptable alternatives.Page 90 of 317 134a will send a valuable signal to the internatio nal community regarding the continued use of high-GWP alternatives.
Comment : NRDC and IGSD suggested that EPA se t a status change date as of MY 2017, and address any sub-sectors that have problems meeting a transition date earlier than MY 2021 through a narrowed use limit. EIA recommende d transition in MY 2017 and suggested EPA grant a limited exemption until MY 2021 for compan ies who publicly pledge to convert to CO 2 systems. Response : EPA is not finalizing today’s rule with a change of status for HFC-134a as of MY 2017, as recommended by these commenters. As discussed above, it is our understanding that because of the necessary changes to hardwa re, manufacturers will ne ed to transition most vehicles during a redesign cycle. Although in so me cases where less extensive hardware changes are required, it will be possible to transition mid-cycle, it is not reasonable to expect that most manufacturers will be able to do so. Achieving a transition by MY 2017, approximately one year from now, would not be feasible for any manufact urers that had not alre ady started transition planning before issuance of the NPRM, and in such a circumstance, we do not consider it reasonable to require compliance based on actions that would have been necessary before issuance of the NPRM. Rather than setting a change of status date that we expect manufacturers may have difficulty meeting, we are setting the cha nge of status date at the earliest model year by which the best information indicates that all mode l vehicles can be safely transitioned to lowerGWP alternatives in accordance with the use conditions. Concerning EIA’s suggestion for a limited exemption until MY 2021 for companies who publicly pledge to convert to CO 2 systems, because we have set MY 2021 as the status changePage 91 of 317 date for all vehicles, there is no need fo r an exemption related to adoption of CO 2 MVAC systems. Comment : A private citizen commented in s upport of a MY 2021 change of status. Response : EPA is finalizing a MY 2021 transition da te for the reasons previously stated.
Comment : Several commenters supported transi tion in MY 2025 or later, including AAM, Global Automakers, NADA and Mexichem. The ma jority of these commenters stated that reengineering and system design re quirements for alternative refrigerants require significant lead time and necessitate transition duri ng a vehicle redesign cycle. Co mmenters stated that two full design cycles lasting beyond MY 2021 may be necessa ry in order to complete the transition due to timing of publication of the pr oposed status change rule, and th e relationship of that to where manufacturers are in the redesi gn cycle for each model. Global Automakers commented that the vehicle redesign cycle is usually locked in about two years be fore the model year. Commenters supporting a transition date of MY 2025 or later also commented that a later date would align with the existing LD GHG Rule with no measurable environmental impact at stake, and address supply concerns. With regard to the 10% of ve hicle platforms identified in the 2014 industry survey as planning to transition after MY 2021, AAM, and Global Automakers commented that those are not all small volume platforms and the production will account for a small, but not insignificant percentage of production after MY 2021. Response : Regarding comments by AAM, Glob al Automakers, and Mexichem suggesting that two full design cy cles, extending past MY 2021, w ould be needed to transition all vehicle models to alternativ e refrigerants, the commenters failed to provide any specific, technical support for such a claim. EPA appr eciates the submission of 2014 survey data indicating that automobile manuf acturers have plans in place to transition 90% of vehicle modelsPage 92 of 317 to alternative refrigerants by MY 2021. However, the commenters did not provide support or an explanation of why it will not be technically f easible to transition each of the remaining individual models by MY 2021. Acco rding to commenters, the vehicl e redesign is locked in two years before the model year; theref ore, time still exists to make the necessary alterations to MY 2017, MY 2018 and later vehicles. While we believe it would be possible for the majority of models to transition by MY 2021 during a redesign cycle, EPA is aware that sometimes it is technically feasible to transiti on between redesign cycles during a mid-cycle redesign, or refresh. A manufacturer shared with EPA information claime d as confidential that more than one vehicle model in the United States has been transitione d to HFO-1234yf, in compliance with the SNAP use conditions, between scheduled redesign cycles. Although it would not be feasible to expect most models to transition mid-redesign cycle, for such a small number of models, this is likely to be feasible. EPA did not receive any inform ation that provides specific and sufficient information to show that transition by MY 2021 is not technically feasible for any specific model vehicle. One automobile manufacturer provided information claimed as confidential concerning vehicles used for a specific purpose but did not pr ovide sufficient justific ation that transition by MY 2021 was not feasible for technical reasons. EPA is aware of two automobile manufacturers that will have the majority of their U.S. fl eet transitioned by MY 2016. EPA is also aware of several automobile manufacturer s intending to transiti on all of their vehicle models by MY 2021. While the AAM and Global Automakers surv ey does not indicate the impetus for the transition plans for the various manufacturers an d models, EPA assumes the plans were adopted in response to the credits offered under EPA’s LD GHG Rule. EPA further assumes these transition plans were based on strategic utilizatio n of credits available under the rule as aPage 93 of 317 flexibility measure, rather than technical feasibilit y of transition, and EPA did not receive any information to the contrary.
Comment : AAM stated that a MY 2025 transiti on date would accommodate “run-out”
models. “Run

‐ out” models are defined as models that, for a variety of reasons, will continue to be produced and marketed without any updates to major vehicle sub

‐ systems, including AC systems. Commenters indicated that to requ ire an early end of production for such run

‐ out models would increase the levels of stranded investment associ ated with ending the production of such models prematurely. Response : Commenters did not indicate what por tion of the vehicle models with current plans to transition in MYs afte r 2021 is made up of “run-out” mode ls, if any, as compared to other models captured in the results of the indus try survey. In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on changing the status of HFC-134a in a MY later than 2021, “including specific information supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021 would not be technically feasible because specific model vehicles cannot be redesi gned to safely use alternative refrigerants by MY 2021.” EPA did not receive this type of information. EPA is not aware of any technical barriers that preclude transiti on of “run-out” models by MY 2021 given the time available between now and MY 2021 to implement a transition for these models.
Comment : Commenters indicated the challenge s associated with designing MVAC systems to use alternative refrigerants, especially CO 2 . AAM provided information on the hardware changes and component supply, as we ll as industry standards needed for MVAC systems to use CO 2 . AAM commented that “a MY 2025 date would allow extra time for commercialization of CO 2 MVACs.”Page 94 of 317 Response : EPA is aware that CO 2 systems require significantl y more complex redesign and hardware development than HFO-1234yf systems, primarily because the operating pressures of these systems will be signifi cantly higher than that of a HF C-134a system. Therefore, EPA understands that incorporation of CO 2 MVAC systems would most likely need to occur during product redesign, not product refresh. At least one manufacturer has stated that it plans on using
CO 2 systems. These systems are currently in pr ototype phase, and we unde rstand that there may be significant technical hurdles yet to overcome. However, those pursuing this option have announced plans to introdu ce cars in Europe with CO 2 MVAC systems as early as MY 2017. This timing allows for several years after ini tial deployment of these systems for automobile manufacturers to redesign models prior to the MY 2021 date in the United States. Given the transition plans in place, EPA disa grees that other alternatives, including CO 2 , cannot be used consistent with the use conditi ons by MY 2021. However, even if a particular alternative could not be used in some or any ve hicles consistent with the use conditions by MY 2021, for the reasons already provided, we have determined that other alternatives can be safely used consistent with the use conditions by MY 2021. Because alternatives that pose lower risk than HFC-134a will be available by MY 2021, we do not believe there is a basis for selecting a later date for changing the status of HFC-134a.
Comment : AAM raised concerns about the transi tion of manufacturing facilities and the need to modify or upgrade refrigerant storage fa cilities and charging stations on assembly lines. Also, the commenters stated that because many manufacturing facilities produce multiple vehicle models, some plants may not have the space nece ssary to accommodate in frastructure for both refrigerants.Page 95 of 317 Response : EPA understands that there are challe nges associated with transitioning refrigerants. EPA is also aware that prior to issuance of the NPRM, manu facturers were planning a gradual, model-by-model transition, in which some models would be filled with HFC-134a while others are filled with HFO-1234yf or anothe r alternative refrigerant at the same plant.
Comment : In the proposed rule EPA requested specific information supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021 would not be technical ly feasible because specific model vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely use altern ative refrigerants by MY 2021. AAM commented stating that “EPA did not properly consider conf identially submitted information that alternatives will not be available until after MY 2021.” Response : EPA has considered information provi ded to the Agency and claimed as confidential as support for this and other decision s that are part of this action. As described elsewhere in this section, EPA did not rece ive sufficient information, whether claimed confidential or not, to co nclude that other altern atives cannot be used c onsistent with their use conditions by MY 2021.
Comment : Many commenters provided comments about the impact the supply of acceptable alternatives could ha ve on the timeline for transition. Several commenters believe there is enough supply of alternatives to tran sition prior to MY 2021. The comments submitted by Honeywell and DuPont, current suppliers of HFO-1234yf, indicate that both companies are confident in their ability to supply enough HFO-1234yf to support a full transition by MY 2018 and MY 2019, respectively. According to comments submitted by Honeywell “there is one commercial scale HFO-1234yf production plant operating today in China, a second one is expected to be commissioned in the first half of 2015 in Japan via a strategic supply relationship between Hone ywell and Asahi Glass Company Ltd, and a thirdPage 96 of 317 world-scale plant will be commissioned by Honeywell by the end of 2016 in Geismar, Louisiana.” DuPont submitted similar comments on announced or planned production capacity in Asia, the United States and Europe by multiple producers, including DuPont, Honeywell, and Asahi Glass Co. (AGC), indica ting that production will begin in 2015-2017 at most of these facilities. CARB commented that they understand that chemical manufacturers expect to be capable of providing a sufficient supply of HFO- 1234yf for complete U.S. transition away from HFC-134a starting with MY 2018. In support of a MY 2017 transition date, NRDC and IGSD commented that the supply of alternatives (HFO-1234yf and othe rs) is not a constraint; they believe EPA correctly recognizes th at “production plans for the refrig erant appear to be in place to make it available in volumes that meet current and projected domestic auto industry demand.” Response : EPA appreciates information pr ovided by commenters supporting EPA’s understanding at the time of the proposal that su fficient supply will be available to support a transition in MY 2021. The companies produc ing HFO-1234yf commente d that sufficient supplies should be available for MY 2018 or 2019, indicating that there will be sufficient supplies prior to MY 2021. In addition, the comm enter submitted additional information to the Agency that they claimed as confidential and that further supports that adequate supply will be available by MY 2021.
Comment : Several commenters supported MY 2025 or later, expressing concerns about ongoing uncertainty in sufficient supply of HF O-1234yf for a full U.S. transition by MY 2021 due to limited production, as well as lack of comp etition, artificial constrai nts, and other factors. Arkema commented that they estimate th e global demand for HFO-1234yf in 2021 will be around 45,000 metric tons and they believe Honeyw ell and DuPont will only be able to supplyPage 97 of 317 half that amount. Arkema commented that the su pply shortage would cause a serious dislocation in supply and demand (i.e., willing buyers w ould be unable to find willing sellers of HFO1234yf) and having only two suppliers would create highly restri cted competitive conditions. Arkema also commented that the manufacturer has not publicly announced production capacities for the coming years and EPA has not provided relia ble evidence, and none exists, that adequate volumes of HFO-1234yf are or will be available to "meet curren t and projected domestic auto industry demand." Global Automakers commented that it is too soon to conc lude that there will be adequate supplies of alternat ive refrigerants to meet U.S. demand as well as other possible demands for alternative refrig erants worldwide by MY 2021. Respons e: Based on EPA’s understanding of refrig erant supply at the time of the proposed rule, the information received from co mmenters in response to the proposed rule, and information claimed as confidential and provide d during meetings, EPA remains confident that sufficient supply of alternatives will exist to transition MVAC systems in all new light-duty vehicles manufactured in the United States by MY 2021. EPA is fully aware of delays with the launch of some production facilities prior to the implementation of the European Union regulations. However, EPA notes that those fa cilities are now online a nd are producing supplies well in excess of what is needed to meet EU demand. They are not currently operating at full capacity. Moreover, Honeywell and DuP ont, two producers of HFO-1234yf, provided information regarding plans to launch additional f acilities, one of which will be a joint effort between Honeywell and a thir d chemical manufacturer, AGC. 53 For these reasons, EPA does not agree with commenters that there will be an insufficient supply of alternatives by MY 2021.

53 AGC, 2014. “AGC to Supply Honeywell with HFO-1234yf—New-generation Automobile Refrigerant,” 23 January 2014. This document is accessible at : https://www.agc.com/english/news/2014/0123e.pdf.Page 98 of 317 Further, EPA is also aware of public announ cements by Arkema indicating planned production in 2017 of HFO-1234yf. 54
Comment : Commenters indicated concern beca use available supply of HFO-1234yf will need to go to Europe for the January 1, 2017, tr ansition before automobile manufacturers will have access to supply to transition in the Unite d States. These commenters believe a MY 2025 or later transition date would allow sufficie nt time to alleviate supply concerns. Response : EPA does not agree that the January 1, 2017, transition in the EU will limit supply in the United States. The SNAP transition da te is several years afte r the transition in the EU will be complete and, as noted above, the manufacturers of HFO-1234yf have provided information supporting that supply will be adequate by MY 2021. EPA does acknowledge that supply in the United States would likely not be adequate by MY 2017. The main suppliers of HFO-1234yf stated as much in their comments.
Comment : Mexichem commented that the “p ending re-examination proceedings involving sham patents registered by Honeywell, continue to be a barrier to the effective development of HFO-1234yf.” Arkema commented that EPA overlooks the considerable efforts that Honeywell has undertaken to maintain its exclusive control over th e manufacture of HFO1234yf. Arkema commented that “Although legal pr oceedings and invest igations regarding Honeywell and DuPont's exclusive control of HFO-1234yf are underway at the European Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, th e U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and elsewhere, those proceedings and investigations ar e not yet resolved.” Arkema stated that “until those investigations are resolved, Honeywell a nd DuPont will control th e manufacture of HFO-

54 Arkema, 2013. “Arkema is announcing the construction of production capacities for new refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf,” September 4, 2013. This document is accessible at: www.arkema.com/en/media/news/news-d etails/Arkema-is-announcing-the- construction-of-production-capacitiesfor-new-refrigerant-fluorinated-gas-1234yf/?back=true

.Page 99 of 317 1234yf and will impose restrictive supply conditions, all with the apparent de facto endorsement of the EPA in violation of the Sixth Principle to “not endorse products manufactured by specific companies”. Arkema adds that this will slow th e transition to HFO-1234yf and add to its cost. Response : EPA is aware that proceedings and inve stigations are occurring related to the patents on HFO-1234yf; however, EPA is not involved and cannot comment on these proceedings

. EPA believes that based on the information available today, sufficient supply will be available of HFO-1234yf for a full transiti on in MY 2021 for new light-duty MVAC systems even if all manufacturers choose to use HFO-1234yf . Regarding the comment that this action is in violation of the “Sixth Principle,” we disagree that EPA endorsed HFO-1234yf or the companies producing it by its inclusion on the li st of acceptable substitutes for the MVAC enduse at issue in this action. HF O-1234yf is one of three acceptable lower-GWP alternatives and EPA does not believe it is appropriate to a ssume manufacturers will use only HFO-1234yf. In addition to HFO-1234yf, CO 2 and HFC-152a are listed as acceptable and the manufacturers can choose which substitute they wish to use in their product. EPA does not recommend or require the use of a specific refrigerant and does not endorse products ma nufactured by specific companies. At least one global motor vehicle manufacturer has announced plans to have cars with MVAC systems using CO 2 on the road in Europe by MY 2017; we are not aware of any reason why such models would not be introduced into the United States by MY 2021. EPA is also aware of a demonstration project planne d by a major Indian motor vehicle manufacturer considering HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf in MVAC systems using secondary loops (Andersen et al., 2015). As noted elsewhere in this final action, EPA is aware of ongoing research and development which could ultimately result in future listings of additional alternatives and notes that since the issuance of the proposal the Ag ency received a submission for one additionalPage 100 of 317 MVAC alternative. b) Interaction with EPA’s LD GHG Rule
Comment: EPA received several comments related to the interaction of this rulemaking with EPA’s LD GHG Standards. Commenter s requesting a MY 2025 or later transition, including AAM, Global Automakers, the Nationa l Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and Mexichem, commented that the later date would preserve the integrity and commitments made under the GHG program, preserve the complian ce flexibilities granted to automakers and provide the same environmental benefits. Commen ters stated that a MY 2025 transition allows for full compliance flexibility, in addition to cred its, allotted to manufacturers in the vehicle GHG rulemakings throughout MYs 2012-2025. AAM re quested that EPA “state clearly and unequivocally that EPA is committed to cont inuing the A/C credits through MY 2025 and beyond” and asked EPA to include this certainty in the regulatory text of the final SNAP rule and not just in the preamble. Response : Nothing in this final rule changes the regulations establishing the availability of air conditioning refrigeran t credits under the GHG standa rds for MY 2017-2025, found at 40 CFR 86.1865-12 and 1867-12. The stringency of th e standards remains unchanged. As stated above, manufacturers may still generate and uti lize credits for substitution of HFC-134a through the 2025 model year. Further, this final rule is also not in conflict with the Supplemental Notice of Intent (76 FR 48,758, August 9, 2011) that de scribed plans for EPA and NHTSA’s joint proposal for model years 2017-2025, since EPA’s GHG program conti nues to provide the level of air conditioning credits availabl e to manufacturers as specified in that Notice. Specifically, the Supplemental Notice of Intent states that “(m)a nufacturers will be able to earn credits for improvements in air conditioning ... systems, both for efficiency improvements...and forPage 101 of 317 leakage or alternative, lower-GWP refrigeran ts used (reduces [HFC] emissions).” 76 FR at 487,613. These credits remain availabl e under the light-duty program at the level specified in the Supplemental Notice of Intent, and using the same demonstration mechanisms set forth in that Notice. Moreover, the supporting assessment for this rulemaking is consistent with the assumptions set forth in the 2017-2025 LD GHG Ru le that automakers would switch to lowerGWP refrigerants by MY 2021. Indeed, the stan dards’ stringency was predicated on 100% substitution beginning in MY 2021. 55 We are not adding a statement to the regulatory text in the final SNAP rule. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, and reiterated here: “The light duty st andards do provide that manufacturers can generate credit s from use of alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a through MY 2025, and the ability to generate and use those credits towards compliance with the light duty sta ndards will not change if this act ion is finalized as proposed.” (79 FR 46,142) c) Environmental impacts
Comment : Several commenters addressed the clim ate impacts of the proposed HFC-134a unacceptability determination for MVAC. The vast ma jority of commenters on this section of the rule support a transition to c limate-friendly alternatives in MVAC due to HFC-134a’s high global warming potential. Several commenters supporting transition prior to MY 2021 related these impacts to the proposed timeline for the transition and we addressed those comments above (e.g., that if an earlier change of status date were adopt ed, there would be additional environmental benefits). Commenters request ing a transition date of MY 2025 or later commented that the environmental benefits of a delayed change of st atus date will be

55 See id. at 62,779/2; see also id. at 62,778/2 and 62,805/3.Page 102 of 317 substantially the same as a MY 2021 transition becau se the majority of ve hicles will transition by MY 2021 as a result of the LD GHG Rule. These commenters stated that any benefits of a MY 2021 or earlier transition may be averaged out ag ainst tailpipe emissions, and could result in automobile manufacturers slowing other flee t GHG reductions. DuPont commented that it is unlikely that any additional credits achieved under the LD GHG regulations from a MY 2019 transition date would be fully offset and instead there would likely be net additional CO 2 reductions over those achiev ed by current regulations. Arkema commented that there is no significant climate risk reducti on to be had from any SNAP action on HFC-134a in the MVAC sector, and that no further control, beyond that imposed by the LD GHG Rule, is necessary. Response : EPA anticipates that if a change of status date earlier than MY 2021 were shown to be feasible and thus were adopted, a dditional environmental benefits would be gained beyond those accounted for under EPA’s anal ysis to support the LD GHG Rule. 56 In EPA’s analysis of the environmental benefits associated with the proposed and final change of status rule, EPA assumed no environmental benefits fr om domestic transition of MVAC systems in light-duty vehicles given that th e environmental benefits resulti ng from a full transition by MY 2021 were accounted for in the LD GHG Rule. The LD GHG Rule anticipated that transition for MVAC systems manufactured for use in the United States, while continuing to provide flexibility to manufacturers until MY 2025. This rule, however, ensures a complete transition away from HFC-134a by MY 2021 to a refrigerant th at reduces the overall risks to human health and the environment for all MVAC systems manu factured in the United States, including those

56 See Chapter 7 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-12-016, August 2012.Page 103 of 317 exported to other countries, 57 and those imported into the United States. The benefits analysis includes these benefits. Also, the analysis was updated to reflect the potential impact of the narrowed use limits in this final rule that allow continued use of HFC-134a for vehicles exported to countries with inadequate infrastructure to support safer alternat ives. For additional information on environmental benefits analys is conducted for this rule, see the supporting document “Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule” (EPA, 2014; EPA, 2015b).
Comment : Arkema commented that the NPRM depr ives U.S. plants of existing global business in HFC-134a without yiel ding any environmental benefit. Arkema also noted that EPA said, as part of its regulations for HCFCs, that production of HC FC-22 for export from the U.S. might displace production in other co untries that do not control thei r emissions as stringently as U.S. chemical producers. Arkema stated, “if U.S. production of HCFCs reduces overall environmental risks, then so does U.S. produc tion of HFC-134a, and EP A should not be using the risk-based SNAP program to restrict auto exports.” Response : This rule does not directly regul ate production of HFC-134a, unlike the rulemaking on the phaseout of HCFCs that Arkema cited; rather, we are regulating use of HFC134a as a substitute in specific uses. Further, we disagree with Arkema’s assertion that U.S. production of HFC-134a would poten tially reduce overall environmental risks if U.S. production of HCFCs reduces environmental ri sks. EPA’s HCFC allocation rule specifically mentioned that HCFC-22 production (and not production of HCFCs in general) results in byproduct emissions of HFC-23, a gas with a very high GWP of 14,800. The commenter has not provided any information indicating that emissions from pr oduction of HFC-134a, with a GWP of 1,430, or its

57 Except those vehicles subject to the narrowed use limit.Page 104 of 317 byproducts would have a similar high environmenta l impact. We disagree with the commenter’s assumptions as well as the conclusion that th e SNAP program should not regulate exports of vehicles.
Comment : AAM stated that the MVAC-related clim ate benefits of this rulemaking have been incorrectly calculated and that “the envi ronmental benefits of a MY 2025 change of listing status date are substantially the same as in MY 2021 date.” AAM also commented that the cessation of exports of vehicles containing HFC

‐ 134a to EU countries should not be included in
the benefits calculation because the EU already prohibits the use of HFC

‐ 134a and that subtracting exports to EU count ries and to Canada would reduce the climate benefit due to exports by half to 1 MMTCO 2 eq. Response : EPA directs commenters to the benefits analysis associated with the final rule and in particular to the anticipated long term change in the trajectory for high-GWP HFCs and alternatives. The benefits analysis is available in the docket and reflects the final decisions in this action. It has been updated since the issuance of the NPRM to reflect changes between the NPRM and the final rule. The benefits analysis fo r the final rule does not include vehicles sold into the EU or Canada, given the EU’s existi ng F-gas regulations and MAC Directive, and for Canada, the relationship between their market and ours. d) Cost impacts of rule
Comment : EPA received several comments concerning the cost impact of this rulemaking for the MVAC end-use. AAM, Global Automake rs, and Mexichem commented that delaying transition to MY 2025 or later would avoid co sts and engineering bur dens on manufacturers resulting from making adjustments to their refr igerant change-over plan s for both vehicles and manufacturing plants. NRDC a nd IGSD commented that a tran sition date of MY 2017 wouldPage 105 of 317 align the U.S. and EU markets and erase these co mpetitive disadvantages with minimal impact to industry. The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute (ARPI) and Auto Care Association commented that a change from HFC-134a to lo wer-GWP refrigerants should not cause any substantial economic hardship to car owners. Additional comments relating to EPA’s economic analysis are included in secti on VII.B of the preamble, “Cost and economic impacts of proposed status changes.” Response : EPA understands that there are challe nges associated with transitioning refrigerants, including costs to manufacturers in redesigning e quipment and making changes to manufacturing facilities. However, as explained in more detail in the response to comments later in this preamble, 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, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition when a subs titute is found unacceptable. More over, we note that during model redesigns, many other engineeri ng changes are being made and th at changing the MVAC system during a planned redesign cycle could reduce costs when compared to MVAC system changes mid-redesign cycle. We anticipate that a change of status in MY 2021 will allow manufacturers to make changes to the MVAC systems for most vehicle models as part of the model redesign
process. Comment : A few commenters noted the high pric e of HFO-1234yf relative to HFC-134a. One commenter, referring to the NPRM, stated that EPA continues to believe that HFO

‐ 1234yf is unlikely to ever be as inexpensive as HFC

‐ 134a is currently. Commenters stated that the high price of HFO-1234yf is likely to slow the transi tion away from HFC-134a in the United States. Response : As explained in more detail in the re sponse to comments later in this preamble, under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 8 2.180(a)(7), the only cost information that EPAPage 106 of 317 considers as part of its SNAP re view is the cost of the substitu te under review. As part of EPA’s cost analysis conducted in support of this rule making, the potential cost s to manufacturers were estimated based on per-system costs of alterna tive systems, as identified in EPA’s report on Global Mitigation of Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030 (EPA, 2013a), and converted to 2013 dollars. The incremental per-system cost of an alternative MVAC system compared to an HFC-134a system is estimated to be about $62/un it. EPA previously analyzed these costs in documents supporting the LD GHG Rule and in that analysis accounted for the cost of 100% of domestic vehicles to transition to use of HFO-1234yf by MY 2021. These incremental costs are
less than 1% relative to the total direct manufacturing cost for a light-duty vehicle. 58 EPA does not believe an incremental cost of less than 1% of the total direct manufacturing cost will slow the transition away from HFC-134a. EPA understands that often new alternatives have higher initial costs, but this is not al ways true. In addition, over time th e cost of the alternative often drops as demand and supply increase.
Comment : Global Automakers and AAM commented th at if EPA includes exports in this regulation, EPA would be placing U.S.-based ma nufacturers of export vehi cles at a competitive disadvantage compared to automakers producing vehicles outside of the United States. Global Automakers stated in their comment that “thi s rulemaking will unnecessarily cause substantial economic harm to the U.S. economy, U.S. jobs, and balance of payments if exports are included in the regulatory provisions.” Arkema, Mexich em, and BMW also commented on the potential economic impacts of regulating exports. Response : An inability to export vehicles ma nufactured with HFC-134a could be a

58 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2012. Joint Technical Support Document: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. August 2012. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ota q/climate/documents/420r12901.pdf.Page 107 of 317 competitive disadvantage in any countries where ve hicles manufactured with other alternatives cannot be supported. However, as discussed above, the additional cost of a vehicle manufactured using an alternative (e.g., HFO-1234yf) is anticipa ted to be approximately $62 more per vehicle; this is not sufficient to create a competitive di sadvantage in countries where both HFC-134a and other alternatives are supporte d. Further, EPA is providing a na rrowed use limit in this final action that would allow vehicles destined for expo rt to a country with insufficient infrastructure to be manufactured with HFC-134a through MY 2025. Thus, U.S. manufacturers should not experience a competitive disadvantage. e) Servicing and retrofits
Comment: EPA received comments related to the continued servicing of MVAC systems manufactured to use HFC-134a. Two commenter s support the continued acceptability of HFC134a for servicing, and one commenter requests assurance that conti nued servicing will be permitted. ARPI and the Auto Care Associati on, representing the automotive aftermarket industry, jointly commented that they support th e change of status of HFC-134a in MVAC provided that systems using replacement refrigera nts are available at the time at a reasonable price and that the “phase out” does not adversely affect the use of HFC-134a in the millions of vehicles which will then still have MVAC systems designed for that refrigerant. Response: EPA did not propose and is not finali zing a change of status for HFC-134a used for servicing MVAC systems designed to use HFC-134a. Thus, vehicles manufactured to use HFC-134a may, consistent with this rule , continue to be se rviced with HFC-134a.
Comment : EPA received a comment requesting clarif ication on the ability to retrofit or service an HFO-1234yf system with HFC-134a. Response : As discussed elsewhere in the preamb le, the SNAP regulations include usePage 108 of 317 conditions and other requirements that limit the ability to service an MVAC system designed to use an alternative with a refrigerant other than the one the system was designed to use. See section V.B.3 for a detailed description. Also, as discussed in more detail in se ction V.B.3, for vehicles for which the manufacturer counts air condi tioning credits toward its LD GHG compliance, the MVAC systems (or elements of those systems) are cons idered emission-related co mponents as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803. This designation includes prov isions for emission-related warranty, requirements that they operate properly for the speci fied useful life, and ta mpering restrictions. f. Refrigerant blends for ret rofits of MVAC systems
Comment: Two commenters requested that EPA also list the refrigerant blends as unacceptable for use in retrofits in the final rule as well as in new equipment. SAE Interior Climate Control Committee (SAE ICCC), the leading standards writing body in the United States for MVAC, commented that they support the exte nsion of the unacceptability finding to retrofits because they have never written any standard s for these refrigerants. The other commenter, DuPont, recommended that because the refrigerant s are not currently in use and it would be undesirable to have them used, EPA should al so change the SNAP status for the blend refrigerants to unacceptable for retrof it (in addition to new) MVAC uses. Response : EPA has not undertaken the full analysis necessary to determine whether to list these refrigerant blends as unacceptable for retr ofits. Accordingly, EPA did not propose to find the refrigerant blends unacceptable for retrof its. Additional information, as well as an opportunity for public comment, woul d be necessary before we would be able to potentially find the refrigerant blends unacceptable for use in retr ofits (e.g., information on the extent of use ofPage 109 of 317 the refrigerant blends). EPA appreciates the commen ts submitted on this topic and will take them into consideration when preparing additional status change rules. g) Use conditions for HFC-134a
Comment: Arkema commented that it is “arb itrary and capricious” for EPA to find acceptable substances that could compete with HFC-134a in MVAC only because those other substances are subject to use conditions, a nd then to find HFC-134a unacceptable based on comparisons to those other substances without considering any comparable use restriction on HFC-134a. The commenter referred to a discussion in the proposed rule concerning establishing charge limits through use conditions for a number of high GWP refrigerant blends for use in supermarket systems and condensing units as an example. Response : EPA has not proposed additional use conditions for HFC-134a comparable to those for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO 2 because the ways of addressing risks for these substitutes are not comparable. The use c onditions unique to HF O-1234yf and HFC-152a address flammability risks through engineeri ng strategies that w ill keep refrigerant concentrations below the lower flammability limit in each vehicle and by requiring labels providing information on the flammability risk. The use conditions unique to CO 2 address toxicity and consumer exposure risks through requiring engineeri ng strategies that will keep refrigerant concentrations at safe levels in the passenger compartment of the vehicle. In contrast, the environmental risks from HFC-134a are due to the collective global impact of refrigerant emissions released over time from the entire automotive industry. In past cases where the SNAP program has regulated other substitutes that posed high environmental risk due to collective global emissi ons, we have taken thre e different approaches. One approach has been to restrict the substitu te to a niche use thr ough a narrowed use limit,Page 110 of 317 where it was particularly difficult to find any feasible substitute and the niche use was unlikely to result in significant total emissions (e.g., na rrowed use limit on high-GWP fire suppressant SF 6 for use only as a discharge agent in military applica tions and in civilian aircraft at appendix B to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G ) . A similar approach has been to restrict the substitute through a narrowed use limit to use only “whe re other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements” (e.g., narr owed use limits on perfluorocarbon solvents for precision cleaning and C 6 F 14 as a total flooding agent for fire suppression at appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G). The third approach EPA has used to address environmental risks from global emissions of a substitute, and the only approach we have taken to date for such a substitute that is already widespread in i ndustry, is to find the substitute unacceptable (e.g., HCFC-141b in solvent cleaning at appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G and HCFC-141b in foam blowing at appendix M to 40 CFR part 82, s ubpart G). MVAC is not a niche use, and there are clearly other technically feasible substitutes th at will be available by the status change date specified in this final rule for use in vehicles that will be sold domestically, so it is not reasonable to provide a narrowed use limit for HFC-134a beyond th at established in this final rule for export to nations with insufficient infrastructure for other alternatives. Concerning Arkema’s reference to a discussi on on use conditions for charge size limits, we note that in the proposed rule we also st ated, “However, given the high GWP of these refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are available in these end-uses, we do not believe that use with a small charge size adequately addr esses the greater risk th ey pose.” This is even more so in MVAC than in commercial refrigerat ion products, due to the more widespread use of MVAC in hundreds of millions of vehicles a nd the greater difference in GWP between thePage 111 of 317 unacceptable substitute and other, lower-GWP alte rnative, compared to supermarket systems and remote condensing units. h) Flexibility for exports
Comment : NRDC, IGSD, and DuPont suggested th at if EPA finalizes MY 2017 or MY 2019, respectively, EPA could consider narrowed use limits to address any sub-sectors that have problems meeting a transition date earlier than MY 2021, if, for example, the Agency believed there was a basis to claims of country-specific performance barri ers (e.g., due to high ambient temperatures) or lack of infrastructure for safer alternatives. Response : As discussed further in this section, EP A has finalized a narrowed use limit for certain vehicles to be exported to countries that have not yet developed sufficient infrastructure for using safer alternatives. EPA has receiv ed no documentation supporting a narrowed use limit related to ambient temperature conditions, and therefore, has not included such a narrowed use limit in this final action.
Comment: EPA received comments from several co mmenters related to the servicing infrastructure for lower-GWP alternatives outside the United States. Some details are provided below and the remaining details can be found in the Response to Comments document. Arkema, Mexichem, BMW, AAM, and Global Automakers raised concerns including whether destinations for exported vehicles will have sufficient service sector support and refrigerant distribution networks for HFO-1234y f; and the ability to conform to SNAP use conditions, given the large proportion of automobiles manufactured in the U.S. for export (up to one-fourth). Commenters question whether the al ternatives are truly “available” for use in export markets if there is a lack of service s ector support and comment that this regulation could lead to manufacturers having to limit expor t production at U.S. assembly plants. Commenters are alsoPage 112 of 317 concerned about the time needed to overcom e regulatory and legislative barriers. AAM suggested that EPA designate cert ain export markets that can stil l receive U.S. exports of HFC

‐ 134a vehicles, which they believe currently shou ld be all export markets except Canada and Europe. In contrast, DuPont and Honeywell, manufact urers of HFO-1234yf, a sserted that service supply follows demand and the equipment for low GW P refrigerant service is readily available. These commenters stated that dealers and service shops can be expected to acquire the necessary equipment and materials to serve the market de mand and that it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to ensure th at their authorized dealers in t hose countries are able to provide all the necessary service to th ese exported cars under warranty. Honeywell and DuPont both stated that they have already developed an extens ive network of distributo rs that are capable of supplying HFO-1234yf globally. DuPont stated that based on demand from the motor vehicle aftermarket, they have distribu tion covering more than 40 countries, 11 more than the combined EU member states and the United States, and including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Response : EPA is aware that many countries, in a ddition to Canada and those in the EU, already have servicing infrastruc ture in place, and anticipates that the number will grow by MY 2021. However, EPA also recognizes that there ma y be some markets where additional time may be needed to ensure servicing infrastructure is available. EPA is providing a narrowed use limit for HFC-134a in new MVAC systems destined for use in countries that do not have infrastructure in place for servicing with othe r acceptable refrigerants. This narrowed use limit will remain in place through MY 2025. The remaining information in this response explains why EPA believes it is not necessary to have a na rrowed use limit in place indefinitely. EPA isPage 113 of 317 particularly encouraged to learn that ther e is currently distribution for HFO-1234yf in 40 countries, 11 more than the combined EU member states and the United States and, that these countries include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and the United Ar ab Emirates, which indicates that infrastructure is already being put in place in a significant number of countries. EPA does not agree that every country in th e world would need as much time as was needed in North America and Europe to resolve barriers to transition. Ma ny countries look to the SNAP program and the EU’s REACH program as a source of information to inform their domestic programs and, thus transition for t hose countries should proc eed more quickly. EPA notes the widespread use of flammable refrigerant s for various end-uses in other countries (more so than in the United States) as well as the inclus ion of such refrigerants for projects considered by the Executive Committee of th e Montreal Protocol’s Multila teral Fund. We anticipate that many countries that do not have adequate infrastr ucture in place in 2015 w ill have it in place in time to service MY 2021 vehicles. In many cases international agencies, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), have been working with de veloping countries to fa cilitate changes in domestic regulations to allow for the use of lowe r-GWP solutions. This has been particularly true since 2007 when the Parties to the Montreal Pr otocol adopted a more aggressive phaseout schedule for HCFCs, for end-uses using HCFCs su ch as stand-alone commercial refrigeration appliances. Thus there are systems in place fo r communicating information on new refrigerants and for sharing experience. Further, the experien ces of the United States and Europe are being shared widely. We have provided information to the Montreal Protocol ’s Secretariat and to UNEP. We already are also seei ng information shared through a range of mechanisms by the Secretariat and UNEP as well as included in repo rts of the Montreal Pr otocol’s Technical andPage 114 of 317 Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), SAE, and other bodies. In addition, EPA notes that the G-7 leader s committed in June 2014 to promote the rapid deployment of climate-friendly and safe alterna tives to HFCs in motor vehicle air-conditioning and to promote public procurement of climate- friendly HFC alternatives. EPA notes that many countries already are committed to take action to promote public procurement of climate-friendly lower-GWP alternatives whenever feasible and would likely c onsider MVAC as a potentially feasible end-use. For the reasons above, we be lieve that sufficient progr ess is being made and will continue to be made such that the narrowed use limit need not apply beyond MY 2025.
Comment : Global Automakers commented that it is imperative to have trained technicians and shops equipped with the necess ary equipment to service and repair MVAC systems using flammable refrigerants, and special equipment is needed to recover, recycle, and re-charge flammable refrigerants before vehicles using such refrigerants can be marketed in a specific country. AAM commented that on average, every vehicle gets completely recharged with new refrigerant at least once during its life time, and therefore, the unique need for such widespread service support for MVAC differe ntiates this situation from past SNAP considerations of export mark ets for other appliances. Response : EPA agrees with the value of providing information and training to technicians. In the United States, we are curren tly working with technici an certification programs to include information on HFC-152a, R-744, a nd HFO-1234yf. EPA agrees with commenters that there is value in technician training and e ducation on a global basis. International agencies such as UNEP could potentially be a source of such training in develo ping countries. EPA does not agree that it is necessary to ensure such trai ning is in place in all ma rkets worldwide in order to fully accommodate U.S. exports with the new refrigerants. EPA has already developedPage 115 of 317 information on the newer alternative refrigerants acceptable in the United States that is available on our website and could be a resource for othe rs. In addition, the use conditions requiring labeling and unique fittings for refrigerants for MVAC for service equipment and vehicle service ports serves as a means for informing technici ans as to what refrigerant is being used. EPA understands that the commenters are suggest ing that there still may be markets that do not have infrastructure in place by MY 2025. Based on the speed of transition that we are seeing, EPA does not agree. However, the Agency could consider proposing a change in the future if needed. C. Retail food refrigeration and vending machines 1. Background a) Overview of SNAP end-uses, end-use categories and commonlyused refrigerants EPA refers readers to section V.C.1 of the pr eamble to the proposed rule for a detailed discussion of the end-uses with in the refrigeration sector co vered by this rule as well as information on some of the refrigeran ts used within those end-uses. In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to change the listing for certain refrigerants for two end-uses within the “commercial refrigeration” sector – retail food re frigeration and vending machines. Retail food refrigerati on, as affected by today’s rule , is composed of three main categories of equipment: stand-alone equipmen t; remote condensing units; and supermarket systems. Stand-alone equipment consists of refri gerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open or with doors) where all refrigeration component s are integrated and, fo r the smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded. These systems are termed “stand-alone” within the SNAP program because they are fully charged with refrigerant at the factory andPage 116 of 317 typically require only an electr icity supply to begin operation. Condensing units, called remote condensing units in this final action as discussed below, exhibit refrigerating capacities th at typically range from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons) and are composed of one (and sometime s two) compressor(s), one condenser, and one receiver assembled into a single unit, which is no rmally located external to the sales area. The modifier “remote” indicates that the condenser (and often other parts of the system) are not located in the space or area cooled by the evapor ator but are instead lo cated outside the room, typically ejecting heat to th e outdoor ambient environment. Remote condensing units are commonly installed in convenience stores and specialty shops su ch as bakeries and butcher shops, as well as in supermarkets, restaurants and other locations where food is stored, served or sold. Typical supermarket systems are known as mu ltiplex or centralized systems. They operate with racks of comp ressors installed in a mach inery room. Two main design classifications are used: direct and indirect syst ems. At least 70% of supermarkets in the United States use centralized direct expansion ( DX) systems to cool their display cases. 59 In these systems, the refrigerant circulates from the machin ery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in display-case heat exchangers, and then return s in vapor phase to the suction headers of the compressor racks. Another direct supermarke t design, often referred to as a distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of separate compressor racks located near the display cases rather than having a central compressor rack system. Indirect superm arket designs include secondary loop systems and cascade refrigeration. Indirect systems use a chiller or other refrigeration system to cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated th roughout the store to the

59 www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigerationPage 117 of 317 cases. Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge (i.e., the amount of refrigerant a system is designed to contain under normal ope rating conditions), the product temperature required, energy efficiency, system performance, ambient temperatures, operating conditions, potential impact on community safe ty, potential risk to personal safety, cost, and minimization of direct and indirect environmental impacts, am ong other things. In addi tion, federal or local regulations may also affect re frigerant choice. For instance, regulations from the OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R-717). Building codes from local and State agencies may also incorporate lim its on the amount of particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a number of factors that retailers must consider when selecting the refrigerant and operating system design. While a number of approaches exist, there is no uniformly accepted ho listic analysis of the multiple factors listed above. EPA recognizes that there must be a range of options, and that the decision as to which option to select must remain with the owner and operator of the system. b) Terms and coverage During a meeting with EPA just prior to publ ication of the proposed rule, an industry trade organization representing manufacturers of refrigeration equipment, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), rais ed concerns that in some situations the definitions and categories used in the SNAP program differ from those used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and/or the indus try and they submitted a document identifying those definitions and categories (see EPA Meeting on Commercial Refrigeration Equipment - June 10, 2014 under Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0005) . They indicated that the term “commercial refrigeration” is of ten first divided by the type a nd location of the condensing unit,Page 118 of 317 using two broad terms. “Remote condensing” is used to indicate systems where the condensing unit and compressors are located remotely from wh ere food is stored or di splayed and instead the refrigerant or secondary-fluid is piped to the ca ses or rooms where the food is located. “Selfcontained” is used to indicate that the condensing unit (along w ith the compressor and evaporator) is integrated into the case in which the food is stor ed and displayed. These units are generally initially charged by the case manufacturer at the manufacturing plant. EPA notes that the term “self-contained” is synonymous with the SNAP end-use category “stand-alone” and we are retaining use of the te rm stand-alone for this rulemaking action. The term “remote condensing” applies to the SNAP e nd-use categories of “supermarket systems” and “condensing units.” For the latter end-use category, in this final rule we are revising the term “condensing units” to be “remote condensing units.” EPA draws a distinction between “supermarket systems” and “remote condensing units” based on the number of compressors in the remote condensing system. Supermarket system s generally have more than two compressors arranged in a “rack” whereas remote condens ing units typically have only one or two compressors linked to a single condenser. For pur poses of this rule, we are keeping these two categories separate. The AHRI document (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0005) also attempts to draw an additional distinction regarding commerc ial walk-in coolers and freezers. We note that we do not treat such units separate from the categ ories described above. Rather such units would fall within the end-use category “s upermarket system” if the refrigerant is supplied on the same multi-compressor circuit used to cool food elsewher e in the store or within the end-use category “remote condensing unit” if only a one- or two-co mpressor system is used (generally dedicated to just the individual walk-in cooler or freezer).Page 119 of 317 AHRI further notes that both supermarket sy stems and remote condensing units can be connected to various types of display cases designed to maintain products at various temperatures, often subdivided as “medium- temperature”—roughly between 32°F (0°C) and 41°F (5°C)—and “low-temperature”—roughly be tween -40°F (-40°C) and 32°F (0°C). EPA notes that within the SNAP end-uses and categor ies described above, no di stinction is currently made based on application temperature (medium or low) and so the decisions finalized in today’s rule apply to all equipment fitting within the supermarket and remote condensing units end-use categories as described; however, based on comments received, within the stand-alone equipment end-use category a distinction is made between equipment designed for “low” temperatures and other equipment. During the comment period on the proposed ru le, we received additional questions and comments about whether certain types of equipmen t were included in the end-uses addressed in this action. We are clarifying here that specific types of equipment used in the food industry do not fall within the end-uses and end-use categories affected by this rule: blast chillers, ice making machines not connected to a supermarket system, very low temperature re frigeration, and certain food and beverage dispensing systems. A “blast chiller” or “blast freezer” is a type of equipment in which cold air is supplied and circulated rapidly to a food product, generally to quickly cool or freeze a product before damage or spoilage can occur. Such units are ty pically used in industria l settings (e.g., at a factory or on a large fish-catching vessel) a nd fall under the SNAP end- use “Industrial Process Refrigeration” and hence are not subject to this rule. “Ice makers” are machines designed for the sole purpose of producing ice, in various sizes and shapes, and with different retrieval mech anisms (e.g., dispensers or self-retrieval fromPage 120 of 317 bins). Under SNAP, “commercial ice machines” are identified as a separate end-use not part of the retail food refrigeration end-use (e.g., not a “stand-alone” unit) . See e.g., 59 FR 13,070 (March 18, 1994) where EPA clearly designated “commercial ice ma chines” as a separate enduse than “retail food refrigeration.” Thus, both self-contained ice makers, as well as ice-making units solely connected via piping to a dedica ted remote condenser, do not fall under the retail food refrigeration end-use and hen ce are not subject to this rule . In contrast, ice-making units that are connected to a supermarket system are subj ect to this rule. For instance, if a supermarket rack system supplies refrigerant to a unit to ma ke ice, such as for use in meat and seafood storage, display and sales, and that refrigerant and compressor rack are pa rt of a larger circuit that also provides cooling for other products in th e store, the entire system would be classified as a “supermarket system” and hence would be subject to today’s rule. EPA would like to clarify that since remote condensing ice makers designe d solely to be connected to a supermarket remote rack are not sold or manu factured with a condensing unit, they do not meet the definition of automatic commercial ice maker used by DOE in the automatic commercial ice maker energy conservation standards. Several commenters, including Master Bilt Products and Thermo Fisher, identified products they manufacture to reach temperatures of -50°F (-46°C) or even lower. These products fit under the end-use “very low temperature refriger ation” and hence are not covered by this rule. EPA also notes that it recently found R-170 (ethan e) as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the very low temperature refrigeratio n end-use. (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19,453) Other commenters, such as Em erson, HC Duke/Electro-Freez e, and United Technologies, mentioned equipment designed to make or proces s cold food and beverages that are dispensed via a nozzle, including soft-serve ice cream mach ines, “slushy” iced beverage dispensers, andPage 121 of 317 soft-drink dispensers. Such equipment can be self -contained or can be co nnected via piping to a dedicated condensing unit located elsewhere. EPA does not consider this equipment to fall under either the “stand-alone” or “remote condensing unit” categories of re tail food refrigeration. While our definition of retail food refrigeration includes “cold storage ca ses designed to chill food for commercial sale,” these un its generally do more than just store food or beverages. For instance, United Technologies stat es such equipment “transform[s ] a liquid product into a frozen beverage or confection with the incorporation of air to provide uniformity and specific customer requirements. These products are transformed and manufactured within the equipment, held in a frozen state and ultimately dispensed into a serv ing vessel that is provided to an end customer.” Hence, these types of products are in a cat egory separate from the three “retail food refrigeration” end-use categorie s addressed in today’s rule. We also received several comments a nd questions regarding energy conservation standards established by DOE and ho w the equipment subject to this rule is also subject to the DOE standards. While EPA is not making any decisions on the applicability of the DOE standards to specific equipment, we see that at least three such standard s and perhaps more apply to types of equipment that are also subject to this rule. Thes e three standards are titled Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration E quipment (79 FR 17,725; March 28, 2014), Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers (79 FR 32,049; June 3, 2014) and Energy Conservation Standards for Refr igerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines (74 FR 44,914; August 31, 2009). These are referred to in this rule using shortened names or a generic name such as “DOE Standards.” The Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards have an effective date of May 27, 2014 and a compliance date of March 27, 2017. The Walk-In Coolers and Freezers StandardsPage 122 of 317 have an effective date of August 4, 2014 and a compliance date of June 5, 2017. The Beverage Vending Machines Standards have effective dates of October 30, 2009 and August 31, 2011 and a compliance date of August 31, 2012. DOE posted a notice of a public meeting and availability of the Framework document for an expected proposed rule to amend the standards for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (78 FR 33,262; June 4, 2013). Material in the docket for that act ion indicate DOE’s plans for a fi nal rule with a compliance date three years later (see EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022). EPA’s review indicates that equipment de signated in the Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards may fall under the supermar ket systems, remote condensing units, and stand-alone equipment end-use categories. Spec ifically, equipment classes designated in the DOE Standard as XXXX .RC. T , where XXXX is the equipment class, RC specifies a remote condensing operating mode code, and T indicates a rating temperature (e.g., M and L for medium and low temperature, respectively), may fall unde r either the supermarket system or remote condensing unit end-use category, depending on how that equipment is applied. In addition, equipment classes designated as XXXX .SC. T , where SC specifies a self-contained operating mode code, may fall under the stand- alone equipment end-use category. EPA’s review indicates that equipment desi gnated in the Walk-In Cooler and Freezers Standards may fall under the supermarket system s, remote condensing units, and stand-alone equipment end-use categories. Specifically, equi pment within the class descriptor Multiplex Condensing (either Medium or Low Temperature) may fall under the supermarket systems enduse category, i.e., if such a walk-in cooler or freezer utilizes refrigerant from a larger, multicompressor (rack) system. In addition, equipment w ithin the class descript or Dedicated System, Outdoor System (regardless of temperature and capacity) may fall under the remote condensingPage 123 of 317 units end-use category, i.e., if connected to a re mote condensing unit and not integrated into a larger, multi-compressor (rack) system. Furthermore, equipment falling in the class descriptor Dedicated System, Indoor System (regardless of temperature and capacity) may fall in the standalone equipment end-use category, i.e., if the equi pment is manufactured and fully charged with refrigerant at the factory. EPA’s review indicates that equipment covered by the Beverage Vending Machine Standards (including Class A, Class B and Combination vending machines) falls under the vending machines end-use. In all cases, the DOE Standards apply to new equipment, not retrofitted equipment. Also, any foam used in such systems or components that are also covered (e.g. various panels and doors within the Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Standard), may fall under the rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel end-us e and be affected by the changes of status discussed in section V.D below. c) The terms “new” and “retrofit” an d how they apply to servicing Several commenters, including the Food Ma rketing Institute (FMI), Supermarket Company ABC, and Hussmann sought clarification of the terms “new” and “retrofit” and how these terms might affect store remodels and the use of cases or other equipment that in the future are added to or replaced for existing cases or equipment. For the refrigeration and air-conditioning se ctor, the SNAP program has, since the inception of the program, made a distinction betw een new equipment and retrofitted equipment. In some cases, a particular refrigerant is accep table or acceptable subject to use conditions only in new equipment, not in retrofits. In other case s, a particular refrigeran t is only acceptable in retrofits, not new equipment. In the NPRM, EP A evaluated whether to change the status ofPage 124 of 317 refrigerant substitutes for retrofits separate from its evaluation of whether to change the status of refrigerant substitutes for new equipment in each of the four end-uses and categories— supermarket systems, remote condensing units, stand-alone equipment, and vending machines— addressed. Since the inception of the SNAP program, EPA has made separate determinations for refrigerants used in “new” equipment and as a “r etrofit” to existing equipment. We are likewise today making separate decisions for new a nd retrofit equipment w ithin the retail food refrigeration and vending machines end-uses. EPA uses the term “retrofit” to indicate the us e of a refrigerant in an appliance (such as a supermarket system) that was designed for and or iginally operated using a different refrigerant 60 and does not use the term to apply to upgrades to existing equipment where the refrigerant is not changed. For instance, we drew this distincti on when we found R-290 acceptable for use in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone uni ts) subject to use conditions (76 FR 78,832; December 20, 2011) stating “none of these substitute s may be used as a conversion or ‘retrofit’ refrigerant for existing equipment designed for ot her refrigerants” (40 CFR part 82, subpart G, appendix R). Some alternative refr igerant providers describe their retrofit products as “drop-ins” but EPA does not use that term interchangeably with retrofit (see 79 FR 64,270). We recognize that some changes typically would be required fo r equipment to use a refrigerant other than the one for which it was designed. In many cases, lubr icants need to be changed (for instance, changing from a mineral oil to a polyolester lubricant when retrofitting from a CFC to an HFC). Due to different performance characteristics, othe r changes may need to occur when retrofitting, such as adjustments to or replacement of thermost atic expansion valves (TXVs) and filter-driers. In addition, gaskets and other materials may need to be replaced due to different compatibility

60 A chemical or mixture that is not the same as that used before the retrofit, typically denoted by different “R” numbers under ASHRAE Standard 34.Page 125 of 317 properties of the different refrigerants. Such chan ges could occur as part of maintenance as well as during a retrofit. In addition to drawing a distinction betw een new and retrofit for the SNAP program, EPA also included a distinction between new and existing equipment in its regulations implementing the HCFC phaseout an d use restrictions in section 605 of the CAA. As of January 1, 2010, use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b was largely restricted to use as a refrigerant in equipment manufactured before that date ( 40 CFR 82.15(g)(2); 74 FR 66,412). Similarly, as of January 1, 2015, use of other HCFCs not previously controlled was la rgely restricted to use as a refrigerant in equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020 (40 CFR 82.15(g)(4); 74 FR 66,412). In that context, EPA defined “manufactured,” for an appliance, as “the date upon which the appliance’s refrigerant circui t is complete, the appliance can function, the appliance holds a full refrigerant charge, and the appliance is ready for use for its intended purposes” (40 CFR 82.3, 82.302). We provided further explanations and example scenarios of how the HCFC phaseout and use restrictions apply to supermarkets in the fact sheet Supermarket Industry Q & A on R-22 Use ( www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout /Supermarket_Q&A_for_R-22.html ). Under today’s rule, existing systems may conti nue to be serviced and maintained for the useful life of that equipment us ing the original refrigerant, wh ereas new systems (including new supermarket systems) manufactured after the change of status date will not be allowed to use refrigerants for which the status has changed to unacceptable. Consistent with the definition in subparts A and I of part 82, quoted above, EPA will consider a system to be new for purposes of these SNAP determinations as of the date upon which the refrigerant circuit is complete, the system can function, the system holds a full refrige rant charge, and the system is ready for use for its intended purposes. As explained in the fact sheet referenced above, a supermarket mayPage 126 of 317 undergo an expansion and continue to use the existing re frigerant “if there is sufficient cooling capacity within the system to support the expansion” as EPA would consider that in such a situation “the store is not cha nging the intended purpose of the system.” As pointed out by FMI, the replacement of existing disp lay cases with ones that operate at a higher evaporator temperature, but still provide the same purpose of maintaining products at required temperatures, is one way in which a system may be remodele d without changing the intended purpose of the system. On the other hand, if a supermarket re model or expansion changes the intended purpose of the original equipment, for instance by addi ng additional cases, compressors, and refrigerant that were not supported by the original compre ssor system, EPA would consider the expanded system a “new” system. In that situation, a superm arket would not be allowed to use a refrigerant that was listed as unacceptable as of the date that new system was expanded or remodeled, even if the system had been using that refrigerant before the expansion or remodel. 2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)? The change of status determinations for retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems) are summarized in the following table: Table 4. Change of Status Decisions for Reta il Food Refrigeration (Supermarkets Systems) End-use Substitutes Decision Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)(new) HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)(retrofit) R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A Unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register]

a) New supermarket systemsPage 127 of 317 For new supermarket systems, EPA had proposed to change the status, as of January 1, 2016, for nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea to una cceptable: the HFC blends are R-404A, R407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A , and R-507A. In today’s final rule, we are changing the status of these ten refrigeran ts to unacceptable in new supermarkets as of January 1, 2017 (i.e., one year later than proposed ), based on information the Agency received concerning timelines for planning new stores; this information implied that contractual arrangements for specific equipment purchases c ould have already been in place at the time the proposal was issued but that new systems will not be completed by January 1, 2016. A January 1, 2017, status change date will address this concer n. We note that systems not ready for use by January 1, 2017 would not be able to use a subs titute listed as unacceptabl e as of that date. (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for new supermarket systems: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-448A, R- 449A, R-450A, R-513A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formul ation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. 61 In addition, R-717 is listed as acceptable in new supermarkets when used as the primary refrigerant in a secondary loop system. Several of these alternatives , such as R-407A, R-407F, and R-744, are in widespread use today in supermarket systems in the United St ates. EPA considers this widespread use as indicative of the availability of these acceptable alternatives. HFC/HFO blends are also entering

61 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also liste d as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.Page 128 of 317 the market. For instance, R-448A and R-449A are being used in supermarkets in the United
States and R-450A is in use in a supermarket in Spain. 62 The producer of R-450A, Honeywell, indicated in their comments that supply of this acceptable alternat ive was “soon to become available.” They indicated that they have invest ed in their U.S. facility “to ensure high-volume manufacturing capability for HFO-1234ze(E) ,” one component of R-450A. The other component, HFC-134a, is widely available from multiple producers and refrigerant suppliers. Honeywell noted that “commercial quantities of HFO-1234yf and HFO-1 234ze [are] available today.” Likewise, DuPont indicated an incr easing supply of HFO-1234yf, a component in a number of acceptable refrigerants for new s upermarket systems, specifically R-448A, R-449A and R-513A, amongst other applications discussed below. In the preamble to the NPRM, 79 FR at 46,144, EPA provided information on the risk to human health and the environment presente d by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable as compared with other available a lternatives. In addition, EPA listed as acceptable R-450A on October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62,863) and incl uded information on its risk to human health and the environment. Concurrently with this rule, EPA is al so listing R-448A, R-449A and R-513A as acceptable in this end-use category and is including information on their risk to human health and the environment. A technica l support document that provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, the other available s ubstitutes all have zero ODP and have GWPs ranging from 0 to 2,630. The refrigerants we ar e finding unacceptable through this action also have zero ODP, but they have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. With the exception of R-717,

62 Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test new R404A “drop-in.” October 5, 2014. Available online at www.coolingpost.com/world-news/spanish- store-first-to-test-new-r404a-drop-in /Page 129 of 317 the other available refrigerants have toxicity lo wer than or comparable to the refrigerants whose listing status is changing from acceptable to unac ceptable. Also, with the exception of R-717, the other available refrigerants, as we ll as those that we are finding unacceptable, are not flammable. R-717 is classified as B2L (higher toxicit y, lower flammability, low flame speed) under the American Society of Heating, Refrigerat ing and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34-2013. However, since it is acceptable only for use as the primary refrigerant (i.e., the one housed in the machine room and limited- access condensers) in secondary loops systems, potential exposure is limited to technicians and operators who are expected to have had training on its safe use. Because of this limited access, the fact that R-717 has been used successfully as a refrigerant for over 100 years, and because build ing codes and OSHA regulations often apply specifically to the use of R-717, EPA previously de termined that in this end-use the risk posed with regard to toxicity and flammability is not significantly greater than for other available refrigerants or for the refrigerants we are listi ng as unacceptable. Some of the refrigerant blends listed as acceptable, as well as some of the substitutes that we are finding unacceptable include small amounts (up to 3.4% by mass) of VOC su ch as R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane). These amounts are small, and EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon refrigerants show that even when used neat (i.e., as the sole refrigerant, not as a component within a blend) they are not expected to contribute significantly to gr ound level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e ). In the original actions listing these refrigerants as acceptable or accep table subject to use conditions, EPA concluded none of these refrigerants pose significantly greater risk than for the refrigerants that are not or do not contain VOC. Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other available alternatives than for those we proposed to list as unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable is significantly higher and thusPage 130 of 317 poses significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable: HFC227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C , R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. (2) When will the status change? As explained here and in our responses to co mments, EPA is finalizing a change of status date for new supermarket systems of January 1, 2017. EPA noted in the NPRM, and multiple commenters echoed, that supermarket equipment using some of the acceptable alternatives, notably HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F and R744, is available today and has been used in supe rmarkets for several years. While some, but not all, manufacturers argued more time was warranted to develop additional equipment and address performance issues, they did not provide adequa te justification or specificity on when such equipment would be available or when such issues would be addressed. A supermarket system manufacturer believed time was needed to develop contractor training materials. While EPA agr ees that training is valuable, we note below that such training is already available and, given that acceptable al ternatives have already been implemented in new supermarkets, we do not see the need to delay our proposed status change date for new equipment in this end-use category more than one year. However, one system manufacturer noted that supermarket plans ar e developed in time frames that could hinder the pr oposed status change date of January 1, 2016. EPA understands that such planning is necessary and we are esta blishing a status change date of January 1, 2017, to accommodate those end users who have already planned changes to their systems or may have plans to manufacture a new system (e.g., for a new store) but that may not have such systems operational in the period between the time this rule is issued and January 1, 2016. As noted earlier, this change in the propos ed status change date will affect those end users who arePage 131 of 317 currently in the midst of planning for a new syst em or a change to their existing system. A new system not ready for use by January 1, 2017, would not be able to use a refrigerant listed as unacceptable as of that date. b) Retrofit supermarket systems For retrofit supermarket systems, EPA proposed to list, as of January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends as unacceptable: R-404A, R-407B , R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R434A, and R-507A. In today’s final rule we are fi nding these refrigerants unacceptable in retrofit supermarkets as of [insert date one year after pub lication in the Federal Register]

. Consistent with the proposal, this action doe s not apply to servicing equipment designed to use these nine refrigerants or servicing equipment that was retrof itted to use those refrigerants before the [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] , status change date. For example, supermarket systems designed for use with or retrofitte d to R-404A or R-507A prior to [insert date one year after public ation in the Federal Register] , may continue to operate and to be serviced using those refrigerants. (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for retrofit supermarket systems: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R426A, R-427A, R-437A, R-438A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formul ation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. 63 A technical support document that provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP

63 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also liste d as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.Page 132 of 317 criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammab ility) for these alterna tives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). Several of the alternatives that remain accepta ble are in use today in the United States for supermarket system retrofits. While blends such as R-407A and R-407F have become the norm, GreenChill partners also report use of other refrigerants as retrofits in supermarket systems. 64 Also, as noted earlier, R-450A was used to retrof it a supermarket system in Spain (Cooling Post, 2014). In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided in formation on the risk to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable and those that remain acceptable. In addition, EPA listed R- 450A as acceptable on October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62,863) and included information on its risk to huma n health and the environment. Concurrently with this rule, EPA is also listing as a cceptable R-448A, R-449A and R-513A and including information on their risk to human health a nd the environment. As discussed above, the producers of the substitutes that will remain acceptable do not expect supply problems. In summary, the refrigerants listed above that rema in acceptable have zero ODP as do those that we are finding unacceptable. The refrigerants rema ining acceptable have GWPs ranging from below 100 to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the nine bl ends we are finding unacceptable, which have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. All of the refr igerants remaining acceptable have toxicity lower than or comparable to the refrigerants wh ose listing status is cha nging from acceptable to unacceptable. None of the refrigerants that rema in acceptable or those that are being listed as unacceptable are flammable. Some of the refrigeran t blends that remain acceptable and some of those that we are finding unacceptable includ e small amounts (up to 3.4% by mass) of VOCs

64 The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is a voluntary program with food retailers to reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer and climate change. SeePage 133 of 317 such as R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane) . Because these amounts are small, and EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon refrigerants shows that even when used neat (100% by mass), they are not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e), these blends would also not contribute significantly to ground level ozone formation. Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other available alternatives than for those we proposed to list as unacceptable, and because the GWP for the refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable is significantl y higher and thus poses significan tly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unaccepta ble: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. EPA regulations have eliminated or will eliminate by 2020 the production and import of HCFC-22. These and other regulations also a ffect end users who are using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-containing blends such as R- 401A, R-402A and R-408A. Therefore, we believe that the impact of this action addressing retrof its will primarily affect those owners who are faced with the choice of continuing to operate syst ems with a refrigerant that has been phased out of production and import or to switch to a refrigera nt listed as acceptable fo r retrofit at the time the retrofit occurs. Many retail chains maintain their own stockpi le of HCFC-22, for in stance by recovering from stores that are decommissioned or retrofitted and using such supplies to service stores that continue to operate with HCFC-22. In addition, over four millions pounds of HCFC-22 has been reclaimed every year since at least 2000 and over seven million pounds every year since 2006. 65 Equipment operating with ODS refrigerants may continue to do so given the supply of such materials in stockpiles and through the reclaim mark et. Thus, owners have the option to continue

65 EPA, 2012a. The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can be found on EPA’s website at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/r eclamation/recsum_merged.pdfPage 134 of 317 to operate this equipment through its useful life with the refrig erant they are using, such as HCFC-22. Regardless of the continued supply of HCFC-22 and other ODS refrigerants, we believe that the majority of retrofits are planned for reason s other than the supply of the refrigerant currently in use; for instance, owners may decide to retrofit when upgrading to more energy efficient equipment or during planned maintenance overhauls of their stores. We see that many retrofits are already dire cted towards lower-GWP blends such as R407A and R-407F, which are widely available and remain acceptable for such use under today’s rule, and not those of the refrigerants whose status will change to unacceptable under today’s rule. These two refrigerants (R-407A and R-407F ), other available HFC blends, the additional HFC/HFO options that EPA recently listed as ac ceptable, and other HFC/ HFO blends that are being evaluated by chemical producers and equipm ent manufacturers, as well as the option of continuing to operate with HCFC-22, are suffi cient to meet the various features—such as capacity, efficiency, materials compatibility, cost and supply—that affect the choice of a retrofit refrigerant. 66 (2) When will the status change? As explained here and in our responses to comments, EPA is establishing a change of status date for retrofit supermarkets of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register]

. In the NPRM and above, EPA pointed out that retrofits of supermarkets using acceptable alternatives are already occurring. Supermarke t Company ABC indicated that their experience with the use of R-407A in retr ofits indicates the availability and viability of it and other alternatives. FMI similarly indi cated that many of its members have already stopped performing

66 For example, see CCAC, 2012.Page 135 of 317 retrofits with refrigerants we are finding unacce ptable. EPA considers these comments directly from the supermarket retailer to indicate that adequate performance can be achieved using refrigerants that will rema in listed as acceptable. As indicated in section V.C.1.c above, retr ofits may require various changes to the existing equipment, such as different lubricants, new materials such as ga skets and filter driers, and adjustments to expansion valves. These ch anges include readily available materials and common refrigeration practices. Such retrofits to acceptable alternatives are already occurring, and the option to continue to operate and se rvice existing systems remains; however, EPA received comment that users may plan a “new st ore layout” in advance. While not specifically referencing retrofits, a new layout of an existing store may include the retr ofitting of the existing supermarket system. Therefore, EPA is modifying th e change of status date to provide a full year from publication of the final rule to ensure th at any supermarkets that may have retrofits underway using a refrigerant that will no longer be acceptable will be able to complete those retrofits ahead of the change of status date. While EPA did not receive specific comments on the time to complete retrofits that are underway, it is our understanding that any ongoing retrofits can be completed within this timeframe . c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)?
Comment : Several commenters commented on the proposed January 1, 2016 change of status date for new supermarket systems. One supermarket owner, Supermarket Company ABC, specifically supported the proposed 2016 date for both new and re trofit systems. An industry organization representing supermarkets, FMI, st ated that “a majority of our members have already voluntarily and proactively discontin ued the use of R-404A, R-507 and R-422D for newPage 136 of 317 systems and as a retrofit refrigerant.” Two environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD, supported the proposed 2016 date for both new and retrofitted supermarket systems. One manufacturer of supermarket systems, Hillphoe nix, supported the change of status date of January 1, 2016, for HFC-227ea, R-407B, R- 421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A and R434A in new and retrofit supermarket systems. 67 Several other manufacturers of supermarke t equipment, including Hussmann, MasterBilt, Lennox, and Zero Zone, and an associ ation representing such manufacturers—AHRI— suggested later dates for the change of status. Hussmann suggested a change of status date of 2018 for new equipment as store layouts of their customers are planned “up to three years in advance.” Another manufacturer, Lennox, requested thr ee years from the date of any final rule, a position supported by AHRI, which also noted “a lternatives are available and manufacturers have started re-designing products to minimize or eliminate the use of high GWP refrigerants.” Master-Bilt indicated th at under the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date for new supermarket systems, they would convert to HFC-134a and R-407A, but would have to address issues of energy efficiency and reliability. They believed “these HFCs will also be banned as soon as lower GWP alternatives are available” a nd therefore did not offer a long-term solution. Instead, they stated blends with even lower GWPs than the ones remaining acceptable would be available in 1-3 years and requested a minimum of 3 years from then to develop products. Zero Zone indicated that it has produc ts available for R-407A and R-407C, but needs time to address performance issues. Response : Several commenters indicated that many stores were already using alternatives other than the ones we proposed to list as unac ceptable. While two manufac turers of equipment,

67 They addressed the change of status date for R-404A and R-507A with regard to stand-alone units but not supermarket systems.Page 137 of 317 Zero Zone and Lennox, and AHRI advocated for a later change of status date , they also indicated that products using refrigerants that will remain acceptable are already in use. Hillphoenix and Hussmann, both of whom offer supermarket system s with such refrigerants, and Supermarket Company ABC and FMI, who have used such products, did not indicate that there were performance, efficiency or reliability issues when usi ng R-407A, R-407C or R-407F in supermarket systems. We recognize the concern raised by Huss mann regarding store layout plans for new systems. Store design plans are generally develo ped well in advance of the physical change-over or construction, because of several different fact ors related to construction and installation as well as the need to address any commissioning, pe rformance optimization or start-up procedures. Hussmann suggested a change of status date of 2018 to allow up to three years for design. Hussmann did not indicate if the “up to three ye ars in advance” for planning a new design was a typical planning cycle or a rare maximum, nor di d they indicate that any particular customer currently is in the planning stage but will not ha ve equipment designed to use a refrigerant we are listing as unacceptable operational until 2018. We further note that the NPRM was proposed on August 6, 2014, and thus supermarkets were on notice at that time that the refrigerants currently listed as acceptable would possibly be unacceptable for use as of January 2016. In order to address concerns about those end users who began planning prior to the proposal, we are establishing a change of status date one year later than proposed for new supermarket systems and [Insert one year after publicat ion in the Federal Register] for retrofits. This will provide those end users who were in the planning stage pr ior to the time of th e proposal over two years after issuance of the proposal to ensure ne w supermarket systems are in place and operational and likewise approximately two year s to complete any retrofits.Page 138 of 317 Comment : Lennox noted that supermarket syst em designs exist for R-407 series refrigerants, but stated that manufacturers “need at least 3 ye ars to develop complete product lines, technical literatu re and contractor trai ning materials.” Lennox did not indicate specifically how much time was needed to co mplete their equipment development. Zero Zone Inc. comments that the industry needs at least six years to make a smooth complete transition away from R404A, R-507A, and HFC-134a; they indicated th is time was needed “to eliminate the performance issues and design produ ct that uses these refrigerants in the most energy efficiency manner.” In its comments regarding supermarket systems, AHRI indicated low-GWP alternatives are available and stated research on other, lower-GWP refrigerants was underway but requested “a minimum of 3 years” to transi tion. AHRI contended that “manufacturers have started re-designing products to minimize or elim inate the use of high GWP refrigerants” but that “manufactures need more time” on “the re-design effort that started [a] few years ago.” In general comments not specific to the three reta il food refrigeration end-use categories addressed in the proposal, AHRI also indicated that “a t ypical design cycle takes an average 7 years from start to finish” for non-flammable alternativ es. Supermarket Company ABC referenced the NPRM discussion of new supermarket systems (79 FR 46,144) and stated that their “own experience and testing with R134a, CO 2 and the R-407 series of refr igerants have demonstrated to our satisfaction that implement able alternatives to R-404A and R-507A are available to meet that time frame” of January 1, 2016. Response : The commenters have not provided su fficient information to support that alternatives will not be available for several year s because of technical constraints. As indicated in the comments from AHRI, Lennox, and Zero Zone , manufacturers have been working for the past several years to design systems using low GWP alternatives and as FMI noted manyPage 139 of 317 supermarkets are already choosing to use them. EPA noted in the proposal that R-407A systems have already become a norm for supermarkets and Supermarket Company ABC indicated it was using R-407A in its comments. In fact, EPA not es that the amount of R-404A in use from partners participating in EPA’s GreenChill partnership program reporting in 2012 and 2013 increased only 1.3%, while the amount of R-407A in use increased 24%. Hence, we do not agree that a several year delay in the change of st atus date is needed to accommodate design of systems. With respect to contractor training, EPA agrees proper education and training is important, and we note that there are already many manufacturers and supp liers who have been conducting such training. For example, Hillphoeni x, a manufacturer of supermarket systems and other equipment affected by this rule, operates a learning center with cour ses available including several on R-744 equipment. 68 Learning material is also available from EPA’s GreenChill program, including for instance th e GreenChill retrofit guidelines 69 , which contain material on refrigerants R-407A, R-407F and R-427A, all of wh ich remain acceptable in retrofit supermarket systems . For supermarket systems, we note that a lternatives such as R-4 07A have been in the market and have been used successfully for many years. Other alternatives, such as R-448A, R449A, R-450A and R-513A, are nonflammable and opera te with similar characteristics to HFC134a or R-404A, and hence should require only minimal extra training. EPA believes the January 1, 2017, change of status date for new supermarke t systems, will allow technicians that focus on particular end-uses or end-use ca tegories to obtain the training they need and likewise for those that cover all end-uses and end-use categories to build their skills across those end-uses over

68 See www.hillphoenixlc.com/course-curri culum/refrigeration-systems/

. 69 EPA, 2011b. GreenChill Best Practices Guidelines , Commercial Refrigeration Retrofits. August 2011. This document is accessible at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/pr oduction/files/documents/retro fit_guideline_august_2011.pdf

.Page 140 of 317 time. We disagree that a need to develop comple te technical lines and technical literature are technical challenges that limit the availability of refrigerants for new supermarket systems beyond January 2017. 3. What is EPA finalizing for retail f ood refrigeration (remote condensing units)? The change of status determinations for retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units) is summarized in the following table:

Table 5. Change of Status Decisions for Reta il Food Refrigeration (Remote Condensing Units) End-use Substitutes Decision Retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units)(new) HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2018 Retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units)(retrofit) R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A Unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register]

a) New remote condensing units For new remote condensing units, EPA proposed to list, as of January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea as unacceptable. Th e HFC blends are R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. In today’s final rule, we are finding that same list of nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea as unacceptable as of January 1, 2018. The change from the proposal is in response to informa tion provided by commenters concerning technical challenges with meeting the January 1, 2016, proposed date. (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for new remote condensing units: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600aPage 141 of 317 (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-448A, R- 449A, R-450A, R-513A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formul ation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. 70 R-717 is acceptable in remote condensing units when used as the prim ary refrigerant in a secondary loop system. Some of these acceptable alternatives are currently in use in remote condensing unit systems in the United States, such as R- 407C and R-407F. Others, such as R-744 and hydrocarbons, while not indicated as in use in the United States, are being used in limited demonstration trials in Europe and elsewhere. In addition, comm enters have pointed out that testing of low-GWP HFC/HFO blends is underway; several of these HFC/HFO blends have been submitted to EPA for SNAP review in this end-us e category and four are listed as acceptable. See section V.C.2.a.1 above for a summary of our comparative assessment of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammab ility) for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable with the other available refrigerants. The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable for new remote condensing units are the same as those we are listing unacceptable for new supermarket systems. Likewise, the other availa ble refrigerants are the same for new remote condensing units as for new supermarket systems. Fo r the same reasons as presented in section 2, EPA concludes that there are othe r refrigerants for use in new re mote condensing units that pose lower overall risk to human health and the envi ronment than the alternatives we are listing as unacceptable. (2) When will the status change? As explained here and in our responses to comments, EPA is establishing a change of status date for new remote c ondensing units of January 1, 2018.

70 HCFC-22 and several blends c ontaining HCFCs are also liste d as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.Page 142 of 317 Blends such as R-407A, R-407C and R-407F ar e technically viable options. We did not receive any comments suggesting that these or ot her alternatives that will remain acceptable could not be used in these systems. In fact, info rmation in the docket to this rule supports the feasibility of these alternatives. For example, information in the Agency’s possession from a manufacturer of remote condensi ng units provides an energy effi ciency analysis for R-407A as compared with R-404A in remote condensing units , with results ranging from 10% lower to 1% higher in low-temperature equipment and 0% to 6% higher in medium-temperature equipment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0184). For unit coolers, this information showed improved results of 4.3% to 13.3% in medium-temperature applicatio ns. While the low-temp erature applications showed 3.6% to 6.7% decreases, it was noted th is came “as the capacity increased;” hence, we expect adjustments to the equipment could improve the efficiency while still meeting the original capacity requirements. In addition, Honeywell indicated that R-448A and R-449A, which have been submitted to SNAP for review in this end-us e, are undergoing extensive field trials and that R-448A is “close to being qua lified with numerous manuf acturers,” indicating that manufacturers are developing equipment to use th is alternative. DuPont indicates that R-449A (also referred to as DR-33 and XP40), which has been submitted to SNAP for review in this enduse, works well in their tests of a display case connected to a remote condensing unit. DuPont found that the energy consumption for this refrig erant in a remote condensing unit originally designed for R-404A was 3% to 4% less than R-404A in low-temp erature tests and 8% to 12% less in medium-temperature tests. Although there are technically viable alternatives, we recognize the testing and certification needs for this equipment. Comp liance with DOE energy conservation standards will be required on March 27, 2017 for commercial refrigeration equipment and on June 5, 2017Page 143 of 317 for walk-in coolers and freezers (see also sec tion V.C.1.b above and V.C.7 below). Commenters noted the challenges with timing for designing pr oducts with acceptable a lternatives and testing these products to meet the 2017 DOE energy conser vation standards for comm ercial refrigeration equipment and for walk-in coolers and freezers. EPA agrees with the commenters that the challenge of meeting both this status change ru le and the DOE standards creates a significant technical hurdle that would be difficult to overcome by a January 2016 change of status date. A January 1, 2018, change of status date for remote condensing units recognizes the time needed for redesign and testing to meet both regulatory obligations. b) Retrofit remote condensing units For retrofit remote condensing units, EPA pr oposed to list, as of January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends as unacceptable: R-404A, R- 407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R434A, and R-507A. In today’s final rule, we are establishing a cha nge of status date for these refrigerants of [ insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ]. Consistent with the proposal, this action doe s not apply to servicing equipment designed to use these nine refrigerants or servicing equipment that was retrof itted to use those refrigerants before the January 1, 2018 status change date. For example, remote condensing units designed for use with or retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] , are allowed to continue to operate and to be serviced using those refrigerants. (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for retrof itting remote condensing units: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600aPage 144 of 317 (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R426A, R-427A, R-437A, R-438A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formul ation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. 71 Unlike retrofits of supermarket systems, which are common, retrofits of remote condensing units are unusual. However, given that the operating condi tions and requirements between supermarket systems and remote condens ing units are generally similar, EPA believes blends such as R-407A, R-407C and R-407F are available options. See section V.C.2.b.1 above for a summary of our comparative assessment of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammab ility) for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable with the other available refrigerants . The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable for retrofit remote condensing units are the same as those we are listing as unacceptable for retrofit supermarket systems. Likewise, the avai lable alternatives for re trofit remote condensing units are the same as those for retrofit supermarke t systems. For the same reasons as presented in section V.C.2.b.1, EPA concludes that there are ot her refrigerants for use in retrofit remote condensing units that pose lowe r overall risk to human health and the environment than the alternatives we are li sting as unacceptable.
EPA regulations have eliminated or will eliminate by 2020 the production and import of HCFC-22. These and other regulations also a ffect end users who are using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-containing blends such as R- 401A, R-402A and R-408A. Therefore, we believe that the impact of this action addressing retrof its will primarily affect those owners who are faced with the choice of continuing to operate syst ems with a refrigerant that has been phased out

71 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also liste d as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.Page 145 of 317 of production and import or to switch to a refrigera nt listed as acceptable for retrofit at the time the retrofit occurs. As noted in section V.2.b.1, millions of pounds of HCFC-22 are reclaimed every year, and this supply is available to remote condensin g unit owners, operators and technicians, just as it is available for supermarket ow ners, operators and technicians. We also noted that many retail chains have maintained their own stockpile of HCFC-22, for instance by recovering from stores that are decommissioned or retrofit ted and using such supplies to se rvice stores that continue to operate with HCFC-22. This same strategy is possible for those who own or operate multiple facilities using remote condensing units. By establishing a change of status date of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] , we are providing owne rs and operators of remote condensing units the opportunity to begin to address any HCFC-22 supply concerns they may have. Thus, owners have the option to contin ue to operate this equipment through its useful life with the refrigerant they are using, such as HCFC-22. Supermarket Company ABC indi cated that they have used R-407A to retrofit HCFC-22 systems and that their experience indicates the availability and viability of this and other alternatives. The success of R-407A as a retrofit refrigerant, the other available HFC blends, the additional HFC/HFO options that EPA recently li sted as acceptable, and the other HFC/HFO blends that are being evaluate d by chemical producers and equipm ent manufacturers, as well as the option of continuing to operate with HCFC-22, are sufficient to meet the various features— such as capacity, efficiency, materials compatibil ity, cost and supply—that affect the choice of a retrofit refrigerant. (2) When will the status change?Page 146 of 317 As explained here and in our response to comments, EPA is establishing a change of status date for retrofit re mote condensing units of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register]

. We did not receive any commen ts suggesting that alternatives that remain acceptable could not be used in these systems. As noted above, Supermarket Company ABC indicated that they have had success using R-407A to retrofit HCFC-22 systems. Results from testing of remote condensing units with R-407A and R-449A are presented above in section V.C.3.a.2. Those results showed increased energy effici ency and/or increased capacity with those refrigerants, indicating that they are viable for both new and retrofit equipment. As indicated in section V.C.1.c above, retrofits may require variou s changes to the existing equipment, such as different lubricants, new materials such as gasket s and filter driers, and adjustments to expansion valves. These changes include readily availabl e materials and common re frigeration practices. Such retrofits to acceptable alte rnatives are already occurring, and the option to continue to operate and service existing systems remains. Ho wever, as discussed in Section V.C.2.b.2 above, comments indicate that a “new st ore layout” could be planned or otherwise underway, and that such layout may include the retrof itting of existing remote condensi ng units to a refrigerant that will no longer be acceptable. Therefore, by providing one full year from the final rule’s publication, EPA is providing sufficient time for a ny such retrofits in this end-use category to occur as planned. c) How is EPA responding to commen ts on retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units)?
Comment : Two environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD, urged EPA to maintain the proposed status change date of Janua ry 1, 2016, for new remote condensing units.Page 147 of 317 Supermarket Company ABC stated that they did not oppose the January 1, 2016, change of status date for new remote condensing units . FMI, an industry organization representing supermarkets, a market segment that also utili zes remote condensing units , pointed out that “a majority of our members have already voluntar ily and proactively disc ontinued the use of R404A, R-507, and R-422D for new systems and as a retrofit refrigerant.” Many equipment manufacturer s including: Hussmann; Continental Refrigerator; NorLake; Master-Bilt Products; Inte rnational Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite WalkIns; Lennox; and Manitowoc reque sted later dates for the stat us change ranging from 2018 to 2025. In some cases the date requested applied to new equipment in other end-use categories as well as new remote condensing units. AHRI sugges ted a minimum of six years to transition. The North American Association of Food E quipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) and Howe Corporation submitted comments that were gene ral rather than specific to any particular refrigeration end-use. Based on NAFEM’s memb ership and the products Howe discussed, EPA believes these comments apply to remote conde nsing units and stand-alone equipment. Howe proposed that the status of R-404A and R-507A change “no sooner than year 2024” while NAFEM suggested a ten-year delay for all of the refrigeration end-us es addressed in the proposed rule and enumerated 14 tasks that they indicate are “necessary to safely introduce different/flammable refrigerants into the manuf acturing process.” A separate comment from NAFEM listed five phases, totaling 10 to 12 years, to adopt hydrocarbon refrigerants but also stated that “in no case should any manufacturer be expected to transition prior to 2022.” These manufacturers and industry associat ions cited concerns over the avai lability of a lternatives, the need to design and test products using those alte rnatives, as well as ot her concerns that we summarize and address in the Response to Commen ts Document that has been placed in thePage 148 of 317 docket. Several manufacturers indi cated that a January 1, 2016, ch ange of status date would create significant difficulties in designing products with refrigerants that remain acceptable while also meeting the DOE energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment and for walk-in coolers and freezers that are sche duled to become effective in 2017 (see also section V.C.1.b above and V.C.7 below). In part icular, the commenters claimed that additional development of low-temperature products may be necessary to match current efficiency levels. Hussmann was concerned with the lead time of its customers in planning store layouts with “remote systems,” which could include re mote condensing units as well as supermarket systems, and indicated that a date of 2018 woul d allow its customers to better determine what types of systems and refrigerants to use. Lennox proposed a “phased in implementation timing by refrigerant equipment end-use category,” sugges ting five years from publication of the final for remote condensing units compared to three y ears for supermarkets and seven years for standalone units. AHRI similarly suggested that the change of status da te for remote condensing units occur after that of supermarkets. Regarding HFC/HFO blend altern atives, Honeywell, indicates that supply of R-450A, an alternative listed as acceptable, will be avai lable soon and that R-448A and R-449A, which are currently under SNAP review, are undergoing extensive field trials. Honeywell further stated that R-448A is “close to being qua lified with numerous manuf acturers,” indicating that manufacturers are developing equipment to use th is refrigerant. DuPont indicated that R-449A works well in their tests of a display case connected to a remote condensing unit. Response : Supermarket Company ABC and FMI as well as environmental organizations supported or did not oppose the proposed status change date of January 1, 2016. A number of other commenters supported a later date ranging from 2017 to as late as 12 years after this actionPage 149 of 317 is finalized. The comments requestin g later status change dates eith er did not address retrofits or did not provide adequate information indicating why a date earlier than that for new remote condensing units would be infeasib le for retrofit equipment. Although some use of alterna tives is already occurring, we agree with the commenters that certain technical ch allenges still exist that su pport a change of status date later than we proposed for new and retrofit equipment. Howeve r, we do not agree that significant additional time is needed before alternatives listed as acc eptable will be availabl e for new equipment. There are alternatives that are not subject to a status change that are used already in new and retrofit remote condensing units and others are being developed and deployed. As supported by the comments from FMI, many supermarkets have already transitioned away from the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable and are using refrigerants that will remain acceptable after this final action. Supermarket Company ABC stated that alternatives were available, pointing towards their experien ce with R-407A in retrofits and HFC-134a, R-744 and the R-407 series in new equipment. Information in the Ag ency’s possession from a manufacturer of such equipment, explained above, is indicative that R-407A, among other availa ble alternatives, can be readily implemented now in new remote condensing units at medium-temperature applications both during and after meeting DOE energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment and for walk-in coolers and freezers. However, the information showed efficiency losses for this refrigerant in low-te mperature applications. Although DuPont points to positive results using R-449A in a display case connected to a remote condensing unit, this refrigerant too showed lower energy efficiency in low-temperature than medium-temperature conditions. Both comments indicate that th ere is a more significant challenge for lowtemperature applications.Page 150 of 317 Thus, while there has been significant progress in transitioning to alternatives that will remain acceptable in medium-tempe rature applications, there has been less progress in doing so for low-temperature applications. However, th e information provided by Honeywell and DuPont indicates that significant additional time will not be needed before equipment is available. In recognition that new remote-condensing unit equi pment will need to meet DOE and National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) standards, and some e fficiency challenges exist particularly with low-temperature equipment, we are establishing a status change date of January 1, 2018, for new remote condensing units and [insert one year from publicat ion in the Federal Register] for retrofits . Given that the low-temperature results with R-407A showed only 3.6% to 6.7% efficiency declines along with capacity increases, and those from DuPont with R-449A showed a slight improvement in efficienc y, we consider a status change date of January 1, 2018, to be adequate to adopt these or other acceptable al ternatives into new equipment and perform any testing and certification necessa ry. A January 1, 2018, change of status date for new remote condensing units will allow tim e for manufacturers to redesi gn any products that require additional engineering to meet both this rule an d the DOE standards. In situations where these refrigerants do not show energy efficiency impr ovements, other design changes as described in the DOE rulemakings and in the literature can be utilized to achieve required efficiencies. In addition, as indicated above, cu rrent research and testing on some HFC/HFO blends show similar or better energy effi ciency for these products. While we agree than a short additional amount of time is needed to address these technical challenges and the testing and certi fication requirements for new equipment, we disagree with commenters who sugge st that a lengthy period is n eeded prior to the change ofPage 151 of 317 status. NAFEM estimated 10 to 12 years to adopt hydrocarbon refrigerants; however, as hydrocarbons are not listed as acceptable for remote condens ing units, and no schedule was provided for nonflammable refrigera nts, EPA views this comment as pertaining to stand-alone equipment. (See section V.C.4 belo w). All of the refrigerant blends that remain acceptable are nonflammable and some were designed to mimic HFC-134a and R-404A. EPA believes that these can be adopted into manuf acturers’ products with minor changes while still meeting the DOE requirements. The commenters failed to iden tify specific technical challenges that would support a more lengthy delay in the change of status date. 4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)? The change of status determination for retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment) is summarized in the following table: Table 6. Change of Status Deci sions for Stand-Alone Equipment End-use Substitutes Decision Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone medium-temperature units 72 with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded evaporator) (new) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor capacity equal to orgreater than 2,200 Btu/hr and standalone medium-temperature units containing a flooded evaporator) (new) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020

72 “ Medium-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C).Page 152 of 317 Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone low-temperature units 73 ) (new) HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation). Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone units only) (retrofit) R-404A and R-507A. Unacceptable as of [Insert one year from publication in the Federal Register]

a) New stand-alone equipment For new stand-alone equipment, EPA proposed to list HFC-134a and 31 other refrigerants for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipmen t unacceptable, as of January 1, 2016. In today’s final rule, EPA is subdividing the new retail food refrig eration (stand-alone equipment) end-use category. For new stand-alon e medium-temperature units with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded evaporator, EPA is changing the listing for HFC-134a and 30 other refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2019. These30 other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR1 2B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, THR-03 and 24 additional refrigerant s, listed below, for which EPA is changing the status in all types of stand-alone equipment. For new st and-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and all stand-alone mediumtemperature units containing a flooded evaporat or, EPA is changing the listing of HFC-134a and the same 30 other refrigerants from acceptabl e to unacceptable as of January 1, 2020. For new stand-alone low-temperature units, EPA is changi ng the status from acceptable to unacceptable of 24 refrigerants as of January 1, 2020. The 24 refrigerants are: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A , R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A,

73 “ Low-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or below 32°F (0 °C).Page 153 of 317 R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R- 422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 formulation). While EPA proposed to change the status from acceptable to unaccep table for FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03 in all new stand-alone eq uipment, EPA is not changing the status for these refrigerants in this final rule in sta nd-alone low-temperature equipment, or for IKON B for any stand-alone equipment, for the reasons provided below. EPA clarifies below how the compressor capacity is to be determined as well as how to distinguish medium-temperature and low-temperature stand-alone equipment. (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? EPA has listed R-290, R-600a and R-441A acceptabl e subject to use conditions in new stand-alone equipment. R-290 is already in us e globally, including in th e United States, and R600a is in use outside of the United States as well as in test market trials in the United States. For instance, at a recent exposition, stand-alone e quipment using R-290 was displayed by multiple companies and component suppliers exhibited comp ressors, filter driers, controls and expansion valves that are designed to use R-290 or R-600a. 74 R-450A, R-513A, R-744, IKON A, IKON B and THR-02 are listed as acceptable
substitutes in new stand-alone equipment without use conditions. 75 In addition, HFC-134a, FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS- 24 (2002 formulation), SP34E and THR-03 remain acceptable without use conditions and are not subject to a change of status date in new stand-alone lowtemperature equipment. Also, concurrently w ith this rule, EPA is listing R-448A and R-449A

74 See “New regulations inspire hydrocarbon displays at U.S. NAFEM Show,” www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/view/6143. 75 Shecco, 2015. “New Regulations Inspir e Hydrocarbon Displays at U.S. NAFEM Show, February 24, 2015. This document is accessible at ht tp://www.hydrocarbons21.com/ne ws/viewprintable/6143.”.Page 154 of 317 acceptable without use conditions for new stand-al one low-temperature equipment. EPA is aware of equipment deployment using R-744 and HFC- 134a. We are not aware of such deployment with respect to any other of th ese substitutes, although we are aware that several are undergoing research and testing. The producer of R-450A, Hone ywell, stated that the supply of R-450A is “soon to be available.” Although we did not see evidence that pr oducts were produced with the HFC/HFO blends that are listed as acceptable, pu blicly-available literature indicates that R448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A and others are under investigation. For example, R-513A (trade name XP10) was tested in commercial bottle cooler/freezer under test 008 of AHRI’s Low-GWP Alternative Refrigerants Evaluation Program research. 76 The Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine quoted Emerson, a major s upplier of compressors for this industry, as saying it is “prepared to support customers a nd devote more resources to qualifying lower-GWP A1 refrigerant alternatives such as R448A, R449A, R-450A and R513A.” 77 EPA addressed the supply of these HFC/HFO blends, and speci fically the production of HFO-1234yf and HFO1234ze(E), which are components of these blends, above in section V.C.2.a.1. In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided in formation on the risk to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable compared with other alternatives, incl uding several refrigerants listed as acceptable (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62,863) or acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19,453) after the NPRM was issued. A technical support docum ent that provides the additional Federal Register citations

76 Shapiro, Doron. “ System Drop-In Tests of R-134a, R-1234yf, OpteonTM XP10, R-1234ze(E), and N13a in a Commercial Bottle Cooler/Freezer”, January 25 , 2013. This document is accessible at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Cont ent/ahri/files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Re ports/AHRI%20Low -GWP%20AREPRpt-008.pdf. 77 Gaved, 2015. “Emerson Climate Technologies offers to help supply chain move to lower-GWP refrigerants,” www.racplus.com/news/-emerson-clim ate-technologies-offers-to-help- supply-chain-move-to-lower-gwprefrigerants/8677708.articlePage 155 of 317 concerning data on the environmental and hea lth properties (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for the acceptable alternatives as well as those we are finding unacceptable may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, for stand-alone medium-temperatu re refrigeration equipment, the substitutes listed above that remain acceptable have zero ODP and GWPs ranging from 1 to about 630. In contrast, the alternatives that we are listing as unacceptable for stand-alone medium-temperature equipment also have zero ODP and they have GWPs ranging from approximately 900 to 3,985. Three of the substitutes that remain a cceptable, R-290, R-600a, and R-441A, are or are composed primarily of VOC. EPA’s analysis indicates that their use as refrigerants in this enduse are not expected to contri bute significantly to ground leve l ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). These three substitutes are also flammable; however, the use c onditions specified ensure that they do not pose greater overall risk than any of th e substitutes currently li sted as acceptable in new stand-alone medium-temperature equipment. 78 None of the refrigerants currently listed as acceptable present significant human health toxic ity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the refrigerants we are finding una cceptable are similar in ODP (zero ODP), flammability (low risks of flammability), toxic ity (low toxicity), and VOC (non-VOC or not expected to contribute significan tly to ground level ozone formation). Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other available alternatives than for those we are listing as unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable is significantly higher and thus pos es significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable for new stand-alone medium-temperature refrigeration equipment:

78 The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rules finding them acceptable subject to use conditions (December 20, 20 11; 76 FR 78,832 and Apr il 10, 2015; 80 FR 19,453). Refer to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748.Page 156 of 317 FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R- 410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R- 426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 ( 2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03. For stand-alone low-temperature refrigeration equipment, the substitutes that remain acceptable have zero-ODP and GWPs ranging from 1 to about 1,500. The alternatives we are listing as unacceptable have GWPs ranging fr om approximately 1,800 to 3,985. For the other risk criteria we review, the analysis provided above for st and-alone medium-temperature refrigeration equipment applies also to for the al ternatives that remain acceptable and those we are listing as unacceptable. Because the risks othe r than GWP are not significantly different for the other available alternatives than for those we proposed to lis t as unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable for new stand-alone low-temperature refrigerati on equipment: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- 422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 formulation). (2) When will the status change? We are establishing a status change da te of January 1, 2019, for new stand-alone medium-temperature equipment with a co mpressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded evapor ator, and a status change date of January 1, 2020, for all other types of new stand-alone equipment. For this equipment, there are several alternatives that can meet the technological needs of the market. EIA states that “R-744, R-290, R-441A, and isobutenePage 157 of 317 (‘R-600a’) can satisfy the vast majority of the current market for refrigerants in stand-alone equipment.” We are aware of products using R-290, R-600a and R-744 that are already on the market. According to Shecco, based on its Oc tober 2014 survey, the manufacturers of standalone equipment they surveyed “are already toda y able to produce sufficient amount of such [R290, R-600a and R-744] equipment to cover the needs of the entire market. All of the interviewed manufacturers confirmed that they plan to covert [sic] their whole manufacturing facilities to hydrocarbons and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.” While th e alternatives that remain acceptable will be able to meet the technical cons traints for this equipment, time will be needed for the transition to occur. On the aspect of timing, Shecco, Supermarket Company ABC, Hatco, and H&K International suggested a 2018 change of status date, while DuPont and Honeywell suggested 2017. NRDC and IGSD believed EPA should maintain the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date. In contrast, numerous other manufacturers of stand-alone equipment indicated concerns with hydro carbons and R-744, and some referenced HFC/HFO blends as a potential solution. They recommended change of status dates ranging from 2020 to 20 years after the rule becomes final. While we agree that manufacturers will be able to produce equipment using lower-GWP refrigerants addressing a large portion of the market in the period of 2016- 2018, we also agree that there are some technical challenges that s upport a change of status date of 2019 or 2020 for this end-use category. Manufacturers indicated several necessary st eps that will need to occur, including development and testing of components, such as compressors and condensing units, for the full range of stand-alone products. In addition, engineering, devel opment, and testing to meet standards, such as those from UL, DOE and NS F, of the products would start as components became available. Modifications to the factory c ould be required, ranging from a simpler changePage 158 of 317 of the refrigerant storage area to reconfiguration of the factory to address concerns such as ventilation or other safety measures. Inform ation submitted by the commenters supported that these actions could take a few mont hs or up to a couple of years. Ho wever, it is likely that these actions could occur simultaneousl y with other steps such as equipment design and testing. Manufacturers identified three di stinct refrigerant types. For hydrocarbons, including R290, we do not see any question regarding ch emical supply. NAMA a nd True Manufacturing indicated that components have already been de signed globally, including in the United States, using both R-290 and R-600a. Danfoss, Manitowoc a nd Unified Brands indicated that 1-2 years are needed to develop air-cooled conden sing units for R-290. Components using other hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as R-441A have not been developed, but these refrigerants are offered for sale in the U.S. and are in ample supply. EPA believes that much of the component a nd equipment development can occur at the same time; in other words, as certain component s become available, appr opriate units could be redesigned using those components, prototypes could be built and tested, and final designs could be produced, while additional components ar e released. Indeed, it appears that many manufacturers have already identi fied a portion of their products th at they could redesign using R-290, as discussed below. Once product models are designed, testing and certification could take place. In summary, to use hydrocarbon refrigerants , such as R-290, the comments support that approximately three and a half years is needed for equipment to become fully available. This includes one to two years to develop additional components be yond those that are currently available and to test the current and newly developed components in models. Equipment development and testing would occur in series, w ith the final units being developed and ready forPage 159 of 317 testing approximately one year after the componen ts for that unit were available. Testing and certification would likewise occur as products we re developed and would span two to three years, much of which while other actions are oc curring. We estimate the final units might take an additional six months to a year to test and certify once deve loped. As discussed above, any required modifications to the factory line a nd facilities would occu r concurrently if a manufacturer chose to use R-290 or another acceptable hydrocarbon refrigerant. Hence, EPA believes that new stand-alone equipment for medi um-temperature applications with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and no t containing a flooded evaporator could be available and in compliance with a status change date of January 1, 2019. The steps in developing products for R-744 w ould be similar and on a similar time frame as those for hydrocarbons. However, alt hough R-744 is in wide supply, as supported by commenters such as Hillphoenix, Coca-Cola, Pa rker-Hannifin, and HC Duke & Son/ElectroFreeze, there has been limited development of components and development of necessary components in a variety of sizes c ould take two to three years. Designing stand-alone equipment with R-744 pres ents challenges such as the need for a complete system redesign due to higher pressu res and the different thermodynamic and transport properties. Additionally, as s upported by commenters such as HC Duke & Son/Electro-Freeze, while CO 2 system efficiency is good at lower ambient temperatures, CO 2 system efficiency suffers at higher temperatures. Thus, it may ta ke additional time to develop components and equipment for both medium and low-temperature applications. Although it may not be feasible to develop R-744 equipment for the full spectrum of stand-alone equipment by a status change date of January 1, 2019, other alternatives, such as thePage 160 of 317 hydrocarbons and HFC/HFO blends would be ava ilable for those uses by the January 1, 2019, status change date. The third group of alternatives is the HFC/ HFO blends. Refrigerant producers DuPont and Honeywell provided detailed comments on th e development of specific HFC/HFO blends and EPA listed one of these, R-450A, as acceptable in October 2014. Concurrently with this rule, EPA is also listing R-513A as acceptable in all stand-alone equipment and two additional HFC/HFO blends, R-448A and R-449A, acceptable in stand-alone low-temperature equipment. Some samples of these refrigerants are ava ilable today and are bei ng tested, as supported by comments from AHRI. However, supplies of some of these blends are limited at this time because of limits on some of the HFO com ponents, HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E). However, as discussed above in section V.C.2.a.1, produc tion facilities for thes e refrigerants have commenced operation and thus, as supported by H oneywell and DuPont, we expect adequate supplies to be available by January 2017 if not before. Unified Brands and Structural Concepts indicated that components for HFC/HFO equipmen t are being tested and developed today and Unified Brands further projected that it would be three years for a full line of production-ready components. HFC/HFO blends found acceptable to date or submitted to the SNAP program are nonflammable, acceptable without use conditions, and designed to mimic the performance of either HFC-134a or R-404A, refrig erants in predominant use curre ntly. Thus, as compared with hydrocarbons and R-744, there should be fewer t echnical challenges in developing equipment using these alternatives. Several commenters, in cluding Master-Bilt, Structural Concepts, and Hoshizaki America, supported that transition to th ese alternatives would be simpler and quicker once components have been developed and there are adequate supplies.Page 161 of 317 In summary, should manufacturers choose to pursue HFC/HFO blends, EPA expects such equipment would be widely available in about four years and that R- 450A could be available earlier as it was the first su ch blend found acceptable under S NAP. This includes one to two years for supplies to become widely available, approximately one year for development and testing of components, and approximately one ye ar for equipment development. The short time for development of components and equipment is due to the fact that the pr operties of the blends are similar to the refrigerants mo st manufacturers are currently us ing. Similarly, we expect that there would be limited factory modifications, if a ny, and that these could o ccur concurrently with the design work. As with other refrigerants , EPA would expect equipment testing and certification to be rolled out as equipment models are redesign ed, with the last units being available approximately six to twelve months after designs are developed. We are finalizing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for stand-alone lowtemperature retail food refriger ation units; stand-alone medi um-temperature retail food refrigeration units with a compressor capacity equal to or exceedi ng 2,200 Btu/hr; and standalone retail food refrigeration units employing a flooded evaporator. For these three types of stand-alone equipmen t, we find that an additional year beyond January 1, 2019, is needed for the change of st atus. For equipment using a flooded evaporator, Emerson indicated the lower-GWP refrigerants are all “high glide” ofte n in the range of 7 0 F to
10 0 F (3.9°C to 5.6°C), and that such a characteri stic presents unique redesign and performance challenges. Because of this unique design challenge that will require additional time to address, we are establishing a January 1, 2020 , change of status date for new stand-alone equipment that utilizes a flooded evaporator.Page 162 of 317 The second segment of the stand-alone equi pment end-use category that we found faced particular technical challenges was equipment de signed to hold products at low temperatures. The choice of refrigerant is in part determined by the desired temperature that food or beverage will be stored. As with “large” equipment, discussed below, commenters, including Hussmann and Hillphoenix, indicated that the charge size lim its that apply to the hydrocarbon refrigerants could limit their use in low-temperature equi pment, although for some equipment, it may be possible to redesign equipment to use multiple ci rcuits. In addition, these commenters further note that HFC-134a was not a workable refrigerant for low-temperature a pplications, and thus some of the HFC/HFO alternatives, specifica lly R-450A and R-513A, which were designed to perform similarly to HFC-134a, w ould likewise not be workable in these applications. However, other HFC/HFO alternatives, such as R-448A a nd R-449A, designed to perform similarly to R404A could be available for low-temperature uses. We believe that these technical challenges for stand-alone low-temperature equipment will mean the date upon which technically feasible solutions are availabl e will be later than small, medium-temperature equipment. For this r eason, we are finalizing a change of status date of January 1, 2020, for stand-alone low-temperature equipment. EPA points to the 2014 ASHRAE Handbook on Re frigeration, Chapter 15, which reads “medium-temperature refrigeration equipment ma intains an evaporator temperature between 0 and 40°F [-18 and 4.4°C] and product temperat ures above freezing; low-temperature refrigeration equipment maintains an evaporat or temperature between -40 and 0°F [-40 and - 18°C] and product temperatures below freezing.” We believe the product temperature is a more widely understood criteria, especially amongst e quipment owners and users and for purposes of compliance, and therefore clarify here that for purposes of this rule “stand-alone medium-Page 163 of 317 temperature equipment” is defined as that whic h is designed to maintain product temperatures above 32°F (0°C) and “stand-alone low-temperatur e equipment” is defined as that which is designed to maintain product temper atures at or below 32°F (0°C). For large stand-alone equipment with additiona l cooling capacity requirements, there are challenges with using a number of the lower-G WP refrigerants because the refrigerants are subject to use conditions, including a restriction limiting the charge size to 150 grams per circuit. The charge size use condition applie s to the alternative refrigerants that are the farthest along in design and testing for this e nd-use category, specifically, R- 290 and R-600a. Because larger equipment often needs refrigerant charges that are larger than thos e provided in the use conditions, we sought comment on possible technical challenges in transitioning to another alternative and asked how charge size limits fo r these flammable refrigerants might affect our determination of whether and when alternatives that pose lower risk are available for larger equipment. In the NPRM, we sought comment on th e possibility of establishing a use restriction that would allow continued use of some refriger ants for which we would otherwise change the status in “large” stand-alone equipment. We sought comment on how we could define “large” and “small” stand-alone units in part icular considering charge size. Several commenters addressed these issues during the comment period. Lennox said that over 98% of its “basic, self-contained refriger ation models exceed 500 grams of refrigerant charge,” precluding the use of fl ammable refrigerants in just one circuit. Manitowoc and NorLake indicated that if they were to use R-290, multiple refrigeration circuits would be required considering the 150 gram use condition that applie s to that refrigerant. Some manufacturers discussed the technical difficulties with using multip le circuits. Hillphoenix noted that the use of multiple compressors, each tied to an individu al condensing unit, would require “more complexPage 164 of 317 control synchronization that customers must be willing to master” and raised a concern about whether customers would do so. For some equipment, space constraints would limit the practicality of using multiple, separate refriger ation circuits. Minus Forty indicated that “A significant number of our models cannot be or would be very imp ractical to transition to R-290 due to their size, shape, and custom uniqueness.” Nor-Lake stated that multiple circuit equipment would use more energy and believed that the “energy efficiency of a dual system may also create issues with meeting DOE energy requirements.” EPA agrees that there are additional techni cal challenges faced in converting this equipment that use large charge sizes. In some instances, the challenge may be in developing multi-circuit systems that use refrigerants subject to the charge-size use limits. In other cases, where multiple circuits are not an option, th ese manufacturers will need additional time to evaluate refrigerants R-744 or the newly lis ted HFC/HFO blends R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A. Therefore, we have establ ished a later status change date of January 1, 2020, for “large” stand-alone equipment. A few commenters addressed how EPA coul d distinguish “small” from “large” standalone equipment. Nor-Lake suggested a dividing lin e and recommended that it could be set based on compressor capacity, pointing to 2,400 Btu/ hr and 2,200 Btu/hr for medium and lowtemperature freezer systems, re spectively. Hillphoenix also re commended looking at refrigerant capacity and performed an analysis that, under specific design prescrip tions, indicated the maximum capacity achievable using 150 gram s of R-290 would be 4,800 Btu/hr and 1,600 Btu/hr for medium-and low-temperature applicat ions, respectively. Supermarket Company ABC suggested making a distinction based on interior volume and refrigeration requirements, but did not offer specifics. Southern Case Art indicated di fficulty with using R-290 in its products thatPage 165 of 317 are open-display units reaching capacities up to 25,000 Btu/hr. Unified Br ands indicated R-290 compressors are available to provide cooling capacity up to 5,000 Btu/hr for mediumtemperature and 2,000 Btu/hr in low-temperature applications. Traulsen requested a narrowed use exemption for “large stand-alone units requiri ng 2 or more systems to operate within the 150 gram limit.” We believe that the compressor capacity lim its are a reasonable, easily-understood and easily-enforceable method to distinguish betw een products that may be unable to rely on flammable refrigerants or that will face greater challenges in doing so, and those that are more easily able to use flammable refrigerants consis tent with the 150-gram charge size limits established in the use conditions. We considered separate capacity limits for medium and lowtemperature systems as suggested by Nor-Lake and analyzed by Hillphoenix, but determined that establishing just one value would provide more clarity and ease of implementation. We chose the lower of Nor-Lake’s capacity of 2,200 Btu/hr as a dividing line and expl ain how this applies further below. In setting one value, however, we considered the similarity of the capacities suggested by Nor-Lake, and the fact that thes e came within the range of sizes analyzed by Hillphoenix. Although the 2,200 Btu/hr compressor capacity de lineation was based on the particular comment from Nor-Lake, neither that commenter nor others indicated how that capacity would be determined. EPA believes consensus standa rds from AHRI, an association representing manufacturers of such equipment, may be used fo r this purpose. In today’s final rule, we are indicating that the capacity for a stand-alone un it is to be calculated based on the compressor ratings as determined under AHRI 540-2004, Perf ormance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Compressor Units. Although “capacity” is not a rating specificallyPage 166 of 317 to be listed under that standa rd, we note that “Compressor or Compressor Unit Efficiency” and the “Power Input,” which are defined in that standard under clauses 3.1 and 3.4, respectively, are required data for the compressor to be listed, per clause 6.2. The compressor capacity is the product of those two items, with adjustment to ensure the result is in the correct units (i.e., Btu/hr). Although a range of capacities may be cal culated, EPA is clarifying that to determine whether the compressor capacity is equal to or above 2,200 Btu/hr, we expect the manufacturer to use Table 1 of the standard and choose the “Standard Rating Condition” (defined in clause 3.6.1) most appropriate for the design and intend ed use of the product. EPA notes that five standard rating conditions are listed in the standard, for instance at Suction Dew Point Temperatures—which is related to the designe d food or beverage temperature within the equipment—of 45°F (7.2°C), 20°F (-6.7°C), -10° F (-23°C), -25°F (-32°C), and -40°F (-40°C). By referring to this table EPA believes the di viding line between “small” and “large” condensing units also considers the product application (e.g., “low” or “medium” temperature), as suggested by Nor-Lake and analyzed by Hillphoenix, and as discussed above. b) Retrofit stand-alone equipment For retrofit stand-alone equipment, EPA propos ed to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from acceptable to unaccep table as of January 1, 2016. In today’s final rule, we are establishing the change of status date of [Insert one year from the date of publication in the Federal Register]

. This action does not apply to servicing existing equipment designed for those two refrigerants or servicing equipment that was retrofitted to use those refrigerants before the January 1, 2016, status change date . For instance, equipment designe d for use with or retrofitted to R-404A prior to [insert date one year after publication] , would be allowed to continue toPage 167 of 317 operate using and could be serviced with R-404A. (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? While we do not believe retr ofits are common in stand-al one retail food refrigeration equipment, a number of refrigerants are listed as acceptable for this purpose: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a ( 55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R- 421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A , R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, R-513A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 form ulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. 79 . R-448A and R449A are also listed acceptable for retrofitting st and-alone low-temperatur e units. We also note that many of the refrigerants remaining accep table are blends with small amounts of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content allows the possibility of re trofitting equipment from an ODS (which would have used al kylbenzene or a mineral oil) w ithout changing the lubricant, whereas usually a polyolester is required when retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend. Thus we believe these refrigerants are designed for and w ould prove successful in re trofits of stand-alone equipment, should such a retrof it be desired by the owner. In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided in formation on the risk to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable compared with other available alternatives. A technical support document th at provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e .g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternat ives may be found in the docke t to this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, the other available alternatives have zero ODP as do those that we are finding

79 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also liste d as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.Page 168 of 317 unacceptable. However, the refrigerants remain ing acceptable have GWPs ranging from below 100 to 3,607, lower than the GWPs of the two ble nds we are finding unacceptable, which have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985. All of the refrigerants remaining acceptable have toxicity lower than or comparable to the refrigerants whose lis ting status is changing from acceptable to unacceptable. The other available refrigerants, as well as those we are finding unacceptable, are not flammable. None of the alternatives is considered a VOC; however, some of the other available refrigerant blends include small am ounts (up to 3.4% by mass) of VOC such as R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane). However, thes e amounts are small, and EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon refrigerants shows that even when us ed neat, they are not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone formation (IC F, 2014e). Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other availa ble alternatives than those we are listing as unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrig erants we are listing as unacceptable is significantly higher and thus pos es significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable fo r retrofit stand-alone refrigeration equipment: R-404A and R507A. (2) When will the status change? Commenters did not indicate any technical challenges in retrofitting stand-alone equipment with the refrigerants that remain acceptable. In fact, EIA felt “The poor energy efficiency performance of R-404A is another co mpelling reason to delist this refrigerant and replace it with R-134a for retrofits, which by comparison, has shown a 10 percent efficiency gain.” EPA does not believe retr ofits are nearly as common for stand-alone equipment as for other retail food refrigeration uses considered in this fi nal rule, particularly supermarket systems. However, similar to the other types of retail food refrigeration addressed today, EPA is providingPage 169 of 317 one year to ensure that any retrofits that ar e already underway will have sufficient time to be completed. Therefore, we are establis hing a change of status date of [Insert one year from date of publication in the Federal Register ]. c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)?
Comment : One commenter, Honeywell, addressed the status change date for retrofits and supported the proposed date of January 2016. Commenters suggested a wide-range of dates for the status change for new equipment. NRDC and IGSD urged EPA to maintain the pro posed status change da te of January 1, 2016 for new stand-alone units. These commenters pointed out that coolers using transcritical R-744 have already been developed. Unified Brands stated “it will be impossible to convert all our equipment from R134a and R404A to R290 by 2016.” A number of commenters supported a change of status a year or two later than that proposed. Two refrigerant producers, Honeywell and DuPont suggested a change of status date of 2017 for new equipment to allow fuller deve lopment of HFC/HFO blends that require minimal design changes and offer similar or better performance than current refrigerants. Shecco indicated that a date of Janua ry 1, 2018, was needed for “smalle r” manufacturers to meet the requirements. Supermarket Company ABC also s upported a 2018 change of status date for new stand-alone equipment. H&K Inte rnational indicated R-290 is very energy efficient and that 2018 would provide enough time to transition. A nother manufacturer, Hatco, also believed a “January 1, 2018 implementation date would provide the needed time to do the necessary testing and certification for a safe and effective conversion.” Other commenters supported a much later cha nge of status date for new equipment.Page 170 of 317 Approximately 30 manufacturers, two indus try associations re presenting equipment manufacturers (AHRI and NAFEM), an associa tion representing supermarkets (FMI), and a beverage supplier (Coca-Cola) suggested dates ranging from 2020 to 2025. True Manufacturing, indicated they have been shipping products us ing hydrocarbons and R-744 for several years. Hillphoenix provided a refrigeran t change schedule that disc ussed the development of R-744, hydrocarbons and HFO blends; this schedule suggeste d various dates for different tasks for these three refrigerant types. Based on the timeframes associated with these tasks, they suggested a change of status date of January 1, 2022, for stand-alone equipment. Lennox believed the NPRM “generally contemplates a w holesale switch to hydrocarbon re frigerants” in stand-alone equipment. NAFEM indicated it would “take ten to twelve years for ma nufacturers to convert their product lines to use isobutene or propane.” Response : As provided above in our discussion of the status change dates we are finalizing, we agree with the commenters who su ggest a few additional years are needed for the status change. However, we do not agree that commenters advocating a lengthy delay in the change of status provided support for such a delay. As an initial matter, to the extent that these commenters identified concerns with alternatives , their concerns were focused on one refrigerant or class of refrigerants and the commenters di d not consider the full range of available or potentially available refrigerants. Specifically, those comments appeared to have focused on alternatives for which the most significant amount of design changes would be necessary and did not appear to consider the range of available refrigerants, many of which could be used with less significant changes to designs. Manu facturers will likely select diffe rent refrigerants for different products. Those manufacturers th at are not interested in de signing equipment that uses hydrocarbon refrigerants, given some of their st ated concerns with overcoming challenges withPage 171 of 317 safety and VOC issues, could select a nonflammabl e fluorinated refrigerant such as an HFC/HFO blend designed to mimic many of the characteris tics of the refrigerants th ey are using today. EPA believes such HFC/HFO blends will become available by the status change dates established in this rule and note that R-448A, R-449A, R-450A a nd R-513A are listed as acceptable in this enduse category, with the latter two being acceptabl e in stand-alone medium-temperature equipment and all four being acceptable in stand-alone low-temperature equipment. Furthermore, EPA points to the fact that new HFC/ HFO blends have been listed as acceptable and that such blends perform similarly to traditional refrigerants and ha ve proved to be as efficient or even offer an efficiency advantage. As discussed above, the s upply of these refrigerants is increasing and the components to use them are in development. EPA believes that by finalizing a status change date for new stand-alone equipment several years late r than proposed, manufacturers will have the ability to choose such HFC/HFO blends for their equipment, as well as the other alternatives, including R-290, R-441A, R-600a and R-744, which have already been listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions. There is ample supply of R-290 and R-744; however, the technical difficulties discussed with R-290 (particularly in “lar ge” units) and R-744 suggest that not all manufacturers will be able to conve rt their products and undergo the testing and certification necessary before that equipment can be sold. Because the HFC/HFO blends are designed to mimic the performance of the refrig erants they replace, th e adoption of those is expected to take less time; however, there is onl y limited supply of those refrigerants now. Given the limited current supply, the initiation of the product convers ion, testing and certification would not start until approximately 2016-2017, and hence manufacturers would not be able to provide products using these alte rnatives until ap proximately 2019-2020. As pointed out by Honeywell and DuPont, some of the HFC/HFO blend alternatives,Page 172 of 317 such as R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A, can be used with little adjustment to existing designs, show energy efficiencies equal to or better than current refrigerants. While there is not currently sufficient supply of these refrigerants, Honeywell an d DuPont have indicated that production facilities for the components are on- line (see V.C.2.a.1 above) and that the blends will be made available after listed acceptable with SNAP. As noted pr eviously, Honeywell has stated that R-450A supplies will be “available soon” and multiple component manufacturers are developing equipment that uses these alterna tives. Hillphoenix’s refrig erant change schedule indicates that “Lab/User Testing” and “Test & Verification” is alrea dy underway with such blends. These blends offer equipment manufact urers additional energy efficient options to rapidly transition out of refrig erants listed as unacceptable while also avoiding some of the concerns (e.g., flammability, charge size limits, operation in hot temperatures) manufacturers indicated exist with other alte rnatives such as R-290 and R-744. Several commenters pointed out that at le ast some part of their product line can be converted to R-290 and some manuf acturers are already offering products to the market using these options. For instance, Hillphoenix’s refriger ant change schedule indicates that the step of “Convert Products” for “Hydrocarb ons (on applicable systems)” can begin in 2015 and continue after that until 2020. They did not provide a full e xplanation of why the pr ocess would continue until 2020; however, EPA sees from commenters th at there will be time necessary to develop products and have them undergo the testing and certification necessary to sell such products. EPA believes that by our status change dates of 2019 and 2020, and not before, manufacturers will be able to complete the development of products using R-290 or other hydrocarbons. EPA also believes that testing and certification resources are available to meet this deadline, and that more can be created if th ere is a demand for them.Page 173 of 317 As many commenters pointed out, complia nce with new DOE energy conservation standards for certain commercia l refrigeration equipment is required on March 27, 2017 and for stand-alone walk-in coolers and freezers is required on June 5, 2017 (see also sections V.C.1.b and V.C.7). EPA is establishing change of status dates of January 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, for stand-alone units. This allows additional ti me after compliance is required with the DOE standards for manufacturers to potentially redesign any produc ts that require additional engineering to meet both this rule and the DOE standards. With 2019 and 2020 change of status dates, manufacturers have the opportunity to integr ate low-GWP refrigerants in their models now as they prepare for the DOE requirements for so me or all of their products. Other products already meeting those DOE standards but util izing refrigerants that we are listing as unacceptable may be redesigned after the DOE deadline to ensure compliance with both EPA and DOE requirements. Given th at some HFC/HFO blends, such as R-450A and R-513A, were designed to mimic HFC-134a in medium-temperatu re refrigeration, and others, such as R-448A and R-449A, were designed to mimic R-404A in low-temperature refrigeration, EPA believes that these can be adopted into manufacturers’ pr oducts with minor changes while still meeting the DOE requirements, once supplies of those refrigerants are made available to the manufacturers. 5. What is EPA finalizing for vending machines? The change of status determination for ve nding machines is summarized in the following table: Table 7. Change of Status Decisions for Vending Machines End-use Substitutes DecisionPage 174 of 317Vending machines (new only) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A,R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019

Vending machines (retrofit only) R- 404A, R-507A. Unacceptable as of [Insert one year from date of publication in the Federal Register]

a) New vending machines EPA proposed to change the listing for HFC-134a and 20 other refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. In today’s final rule, EPA is changing the listing for HFC-134a and 19 other refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2019. While EPA proposed to change the status from acceptable to unacceptable for IKON B, EPA is not changing the status for this refrigerant in this final rule for the reasons provided below. The 19 other refrigerants in addition to HFC-134a are: FOR12A, FOR12B, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A , R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and
SP34E. (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? A number of other refrigerants are acceptabl e or acceptable subject to use conditions for new vending machines: IKON A, IKON B, R-290, R-441A, R-450A, R-513A, R-600a, R-744,
and THR-02. 80

80 HCFC-22 and some blends containing HC FCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.Page 175 of 317 In the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives th at are being found unaccep table and those that remain acceptable. Subsequent to the issuance of the proposal, EPA listed R-290, R-441A and R600a, as acceptable, subject to use conditi ons (April 10, 2015, 80 FR 19,453). In addition, concurrently with this rule, EPA is listi ng R-450A and R-513A acceptable in new vending machines. A technical support documen t that provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, the other available refrigerants for new vending machines have zero ODP and GWPs ranging from 1 to about 630. In contrast, those we are findi ng unacceptable have GWPs ranging from approximately 1,100 to 3,985. IKON B, which we proposed but are not finalizing to be unacceptable, has a GWP around 600. R-290, R-600a, and R-441A are or are composed primarily of VOCs. We have exempted R-290, R-600a and R-441A used in vending machines from the venting prohibition (80 FR 19,453). EPA’ s analysis indicates that their use as refrigerants in this end-use are not expected to contribute significan tly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). These three substitutes ar e also flammable; however, the use conditions specified ensure that they do not pose greater overall risk than any of the substitutes currently listed as acceptable in new vending machines. 81 None of the refrigeran ts currently listed as acceptable present significant human health toxic ity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the refrigerants we are finding unaccepta ble are similar in ODP (zero ODP), toxicity (low toxicity), and VOC (non-VOC or not expect ed to contribute signif icantly to ground level

81 The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rule finding them acceptable, subject to use conditio ns (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19,453). Refer to Dock et ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0748.Page 176 of 317 ozone formation). When the three hydrocarbon substitutes are used in accordance with the use conditions, their flammability risks are not signi ficantly greater than those of the unacceptable alternatives. Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other available alternatives than those we are list ing as unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable is si gnificantly higher and thus poses significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrig erants as unacceptable for new vending machines: HFC-134a, FOR12A, FOR12B, KDD6, R-125/ 290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/4 2.5/1.5), R-404A, R407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R- 422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E. (2) When will the status change? EPA is establishing a change of status date for the specified HFC refrigerants in new vending machines of January 1, 2019. For new vending machines, there are several alternatives that can meet the technological needs of the market. EIA states that “R -744, R-290, R-441A, and isobutene (‘R-600a’) can satisfy the vast majority of the current market for refrigerants in ... vending machines.” We are aware of products using R-290 and R-744 that are already in use. According to Shecco, based on its October 2014 survey, the manuf acturers of vending machines they surveyed “are already today able to produce sufficient amount of such equipment [R-290 and R-744] to cover the needs of the entire market. All of the interviewed manuf acturers confirmed that they plan to covert [sic] their whole manufactur ing facilities to hydrocarbons and/or CO 2 by 2018/2019 latest.” While the alternatives that remain acceptable will be able to meet the technical constraints for this equipment, time will be needed for the transiti on to occur. On the aspect of timing, Shecco supported a status change date of January 1, 2018, although their surv ey suggested somePage 177 of 317 manufacturers might not convert until 2019. Shecco indicated that the supply of HFC-free vending machines has been increasing over the last two years. Other commenters suggested that four to five years would be required, mentioni ng in particular the supply of components as a major obstacle in achieving the proposed January 1, 2016, status change date. While we agree that manufacturers will be able to produce equi pment using lower-GWP re frigerants addressing a large portion of the market in the period of 2016-2017, we also agree that there are some technical challenges that support a change of status date of 2019 for this end-use. Commenters indicated several necessary steps that will need to occur, including development and testing of components, such as compressors, for the full range of vending machines. In addition, engineering, development, a nd testing to meet standards, such as those from DOE, of the products would start as components became av ailable. Modifications to the factory could be required, ranging from a simpler change of the refrigerant storage area to reconfiguration of the factory to address concerns such as ventilation or other safety measures. Information submitted by the commenters supported that for the portion of the vending machines that have not already transitioned to a lower-GWP refrigerant, these actions could take a few months or up to a couple of years. However, it is likely that thes e actions could occur simultaneous with other steps such as equipment design and testing. One manufacturer identified two refrigerant types: R-744 and hydrocarbons. Refrigerant producers also pointed towards HFC/HFO blends as a third group. For R-744, we do not see any question regarding refrigerant supply. Information submitted by the commenters support that some components are already available. Coca-C ola indicated time was needed for testing and certifying new models of vending machines; however, additional information indicated that various types of R-744 vending machin es are already available or ar e expected to be available byPage 178 of 317 January 1, 2016. Pepsi has test-marketed R-744 vendi ng machines in the United States as early
as 2009. 82 The Automated Merchandising Systems (AMS) however stated that R-744 was unlikely as a viable substitute for its equipm ent, especially for the perishable food vending machines it offers. Although EPA did not see the tec hnical detail to allow us to conclude that R744 would not be a viable choice for such equipm ent, we agree that additional time beyond our proposed status change date is needed to explor e that and other acceptable substitutes for this equipment. The comments support that equipment can be designed, tested and certified using R744 by January 1, 2019. Comments also supported that some compone nts and equipment using hydrocarbons are available. AMS stated that one hurdle for us ing R-290 is finding 120-vo lt, 60-hertz components for the U.S. and Canadian markets. AMS also ec hoed the concern of Coca-C ola that more time is needed for testing and certifying new models of vending machines. EPA agrees time beyond the originally proposed January 1, 2016, status change date is necessary for further development of R-290 components and for necessary testing and certification of R-290 vending machines. Information in the comments indicate that some R-290 components are available from multiple suppliers and we believe that these compone nts could be employed in vending machines. In summary, to use hydrocarbons refriger ants, comments support that approximately three and a half years are needed for equipment to become fully available. This includes six months to test and design products using the available R-290 components and an additional year to two years for development of other co mponents and equipment designs. Equipment development and testing would occur in series, w ith the final units being developed and ready for

82 PepsiCo, 2009. “PepsiCo Brings First Climate-Friendly Vending Machines to the U.S.,” March 30, 2009, this document is accessible at www.pepsico.com/live/pressrelease/pepsico- brings-first-climate-friendly-vendingmachines-to-the-us03302009.Page 179 of 317 testing approximately six months after the components for that uni t were available. Testing and certification would likewise occur as products were developed and would span up to three years, much of which while other actions are occurri ng. We estimate the final units might take an additional six months to test and certify once developed. As discussed above, any required modifications to the factory line and facilities wo uld occur concurrently if a manufacturer chose to use R-290 or another acceptable hydrocarbon refrigerant. Hence, EPA believes that new vending machines could be available and in complia nce with a status change date of January 1, 2019. Comments also support that other opti ons besides R-744 and hydrocarbons may be explored for those products that have not yet transitioned. Concurrently with this rule, EPA is listing two HFC/HFO blends, R-450A and R-513A, as acceptable for new vending machines. Although commenters did not indicate a current s upply of components for these refrigerants, information indicates that component suppliers are committing additional resources to develop them. EPA believes their adoption can happen quic kly as they are both nonflammable blends and are designed to mimic the performance of HF C-134a, the only refrigerant indicated by a manufacturer as used in its ve nding machines. As noted earlier, Honeywell, the producer of R450A, indicated that it will be supplying that re frigerant soon. We expect that the refrigerant producers will be able to fully supply these blends in a year or two. EPA expects that components designed for the vending machine market using one or both of these blends could be developed within the next year to eighteen months as more refrigerant supplies become available. As components become available, ad ditional design and testing in vending machines could begin. Because the comments indicated onl y one refrigerant to be replaced, and because the HFC/HFO blends are designed to mimic that refrigerant, equipment development time forPage 180 of 317 vending machines is expected to be shorter than other end-uses, perhap s adding only six months. Limited factory modifications, if any, could happen concurrently with the design work. As with other refrigerants, EPA would expect equipment te sting and certification to be rolled out as equipment models are redesigned, with the last units being available ap proximately six months after designs are developed. In summary, we find that HF C/HFO blends could be implemented to meet the January 1, 2019, status change date for new vending machines. b) Retrofit vending machines For retrofit vending machines, EPA proposed to change the listing for R-404A and R507A from acceptable to unacceptable as of Ja nuary 1, 2016. In today’s final rule, we are finalizing a change of status of [insert one year from the date of publication in the Federal Register] similar to the retail food end-uses considered in this final action. EPA does not believe retrofits are nearly as common in vending machines as for some of the retail food refrigeration uses, particularly supermarket systems. Howe ver, similar to the retail food refrigeration addressed today, EPA is providing one year to ensure that any retrofits that are already underway, will have sufficient time to be completed. This action does not apply to servicing existing equipment designed for those two refrigerants or servicing equipment that was retrofitted to use those refrigerants before the January 1, 2016, status change date. For instan ce, vending machines designed for use with or retrofitted to use R-404A or R507A prior to [Insert one year from date of publication] , would be allowed to continue to operate using and could be serviced with that refrigerant. (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment?Page 181 of 317 A number of refrigerants are acceptable for retrofitting vending machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, K DD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R407C, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R- 422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-02. 83 We do not believe retrofits are common in vending machines. Many of the refrigerants remaining acceptable are blends with small amounts of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content allows the possibility of re trofitting equipment from an ODS (which would have used alkylbenzene or a mineral oil) w ithout changing the lubricant, wh ereas usually a polyolester is required when retrofitting to an HFC or HFC bl end. Thus we believe these refrigerants would prove successful in retrofits of vending machines, should such a re trofit be desired by the owner. In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided in formation on the risk to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable and those that remain acceptable. A technical support document that provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives may be found in the doc ket for this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, other alternatives have zero ODP and have GWPs ranging from below 100 to 3,085, lower than the GWPs of the two blends we are finding una cceptable, which have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985. All of the refrigerants remain ing acceptable have toxicity lowe r than or comparable to the refrigerants whose listing status is changing from acceptable to unaccep table. None of the refrigerants that remain acceptable or those that are being listed as unacc eptable is flammable. None of the alternatives is considered a VOC; however, some of the refrigerant blends that remain acceptable include small amounts (up to 3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R-600 (butane)

83 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also liste d as available but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.Page 182 of 317 and R-600a (isobutane). However, these amounts are small, and EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon refrigerants show even when used neat they are not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other available alternatives th an those we are listing as unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses significantly greater risk, we are listing the fo llowing refrigerants as unacceptable for retrofit vending machines: R-404A and R-507A. (2) When will the status change?
Commenters did not indicate any technical challenges in retrofitting vending machines with the refrigerants that remain acceptable. In fact, EIA felt “The poor energy efficiency performance of R-404A is another compelling reason to delist this refrigerant and replace it with R-134a for retrofits, which by comparison, has shown a 10 percent efficiency gain.” As discussed above, however, commente rs indicated that plans may be underway and that adequate time should be given to allow for those plans to be implemented or changed. Therefore, we are establishing a change of status date of [Insert one year from date of publication]

. c) How is EPA responding to comments on vending machines?
Comment : Honeywell supported the proposed date for retrofit vending machines. Regarding new vending machines, NRDC and IGSD believed the proposed status change date of January 1, 2016, was feasible and stated that the Consumer Goods Forum has pledged to transition completely out of HFC equipmen t by the end of 2015. Honeywell and DuPont, suggested a change of status date of 2017 for new vending machines to allow fuller development of additional alternatives that would require minimal design change s and offer similar or better performance than current refrigerants. Shecco felt that while the large manufacturers could meetPage 183 of 317 the proposed date, a date of January 1, 2018, woul d allow for smaller manufacturers to meet the requirements. The Coca-Cola Company claimed the change of status date for new vending machines should be no earlier than January 1, 2020, to allow time for the development of additional compressor models of its preferred alternative to c over a full range of required capacities. AMS, a vending machine manufacturer, be lieves that one option that is being pursued on the beverage side, R-744, is not a viable solu tion for perishable food vending equipment. This manufacturer recommends a January 1, 2020, change of status date to allow for development of additional alternatives. The National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) indicated that the conversion timeline is likely to be f our or five years, although some of its members estimate the timeline to be as much as eight years, based on the experience of the mid-1990s when companies phased out the use of CFC-12. Response : We acknowledge the comment supporti ng the proposed date of January 1, 2016 for retrofit vending machines and note that we ar e finalizing that change of status date as proposed. We do not agree with NAMA that the sw itch away from CFC-12 in the mid-1990s supports a four, five or even eight year period. The phaseout of CFC-12 consumption was January 1, 1996, less than two years after the initial SNAP listings were issued. Regardless, each transition is unique and the timi ng for transitions can vary end-use by end-use and even for the same end-uses depending on a number of factors, such as whether alternatives that perform similarly to the current refrigerant can be used or whether significant design changes may need

to occur. Regarding this current action for vendi ng machines, the transition away from the substitutes we are listing as unacceptable is already underway based on public commitmentsPage 184 of 317 made by some of the largest purchasers of ve nding machines. Shecco conducted a survey of vending machine manufacturers in October 2014 and found that all were pl anning to convert to hydrocarbons and/or R-744 in the 2018/2019 timef rame at the latest. Many companies have already made significant progress. For exampl e, the Coca-Cola Company has placed over 1.4 million HFC-free units globally and EIA indicates that “Pepsi is approaching 1 million hydrocarbon vending machines which use 20 percent less energy than Energy Star requirements.” There has been success developi ng and deploying vending machines with R-744, including the manufacture of components for those machines. EIA enumerated four manufacturers offering hydrocarbon compressors a nd components for light commercial uses, including vending machines. Alt hough Coca-Cola requested a 2020 ch ange of status date, other information listing commercialization plans fo r low-GWP stand-alone equipment and vending machines indicated that by January 1, 2016, all of the vending machines in that list were expected to be available with low-GWP refrigerants. However, other commenters indicated that more components need to be developed for di fferent types of vending machines to support a complete transition. AMS stated that more co mponents for R-290 suitable for the U.S. and Canadian power supply (e.g., 60 Hz) were needed. We agree that the choice of components todate has been limited but we see that it is growing and expect it to conti nue to grow, especially considering that two large U.S. purchasers of vending machines have committed to move to nonHFC technologies. R-744, R-290 and R-600a com ponents used in other products, like standalone retail food refrigeration equipment, may also be adaptable for vending machines. Thus, although significant progress has been ma de, in particular with the use of R-744 in vending machines that dispense canned beverages, it is necessary to provide some additional time beyond the proposed date of January 1, 2016 to allow further development of componentsPage 185 of 317 for different types of vending machines and also to allow further development of components using other alternative refrigerants. 6. General comments on the retail fo od refrigeration and vending machine end-uses a) Specific numerical limits for GWP
Comment : Unisom Comfort Technologies requ ested that EPA consider banning all refrigerants with GWP greater than 10, as th ere are very many existing alternatives. DuPont recommended that EPA change the status to una cceptable for all alternatives which generally have GWPs above 1,500, such as the R-407 series re frigerants. They suggested this limit “for new and retrofit refrigeration and vending applic ations.” DuPont indicated that by January 1, 2017, there will be multiple low-GWP alternatives commercially av ailable. Another refrigerant producer, Honeywell, recommended a GWP limit for new supermarket systems and remote condensing units of 1,500 and a GWP limit of 2,000 for retrofitted equipment, based on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). For new stand-alone equipment and vending machines, Honeywell recommended a GWP limit of 600 (u sing AR5 GWPs) for HFC-134a replacements and 1,500 for R-404A replacements. CARB suggested adding an additional restriction for all commercial refrigeration to find unacceptable al l HFCs with a GWP greater than 1,500 starting in 2018 and all those with a GWP greater th an 150 in 2023. Unison Comfort Technologies implored us to “seriously consider banning all refrigerants with GWP>10.” Response : EPA’s proposal was limited to determin ations for the specific refrigerants proposed which pose significantly greater risk than other available refrige rants, and we cannot take final action changing the status of additi onal refrigerants without first providing notice and an opportunity for comment. EPA may consider wh ether to include additional refrigerants in aPage 186 of 317 future proposed status change rule in which EP A would provide the necessary analysis of the SNAP criteria and an opportunity for public comment. Regarding the suggestion that we establish a specific numerical limit for GWP, as noted in Section IV.B, the structure of the SNAP program, which is based on a comparative framework of available substitutes at the time a decision is being made, does not support the use of such limits. We note that in making our decision for new and retrofit supermarket systems and remote condensing units, EPA pointed to th e multi-year history of the successf ul use of some blends that remain acceptable to support the “availability” of alternatives that pose le ss risk than those we are listing as unacceptable. Many of these blends have GWPs higher than the limits recommended by the commenters. Thus, at this time, we do not believe an analysis of refrigerants below those limits recommended by th e commenters with those above the limit and which remain acceptable would support a conclu sion that the lower-GWP refrigerants are available for use, as many have not been demonstr ated to be technically feasible for products and systems in these specific end-us e categories. As noted previously, there are a number of technical challenges that must be addressed in selecting a refrigerant for use in a specific system and we do not have information supporting use of these lower-GWP refrigerants. However, as we see from the current action, the refrig eration industry has made great pr ogress in the last five to ten years in moving toward lower-GWP alternativ es and we see that momentum continuing. Therefore, it is possible that at some future date, we could determine to list additional alternatives as unacceptable base d on a determination that there are lower-GWP alternatives available that, based on consideration of the SNAP review criteria, pose lower overall risk. b) Comments and responses concerning small businesses
Comment : Commercial Food Equipment Service A ssociation (CFESA), an organizationPage 187 of 317 representing service companies and technicians, suggested a ti meline “ideally extended to 10 years for small businesses” and “no less than 5 y ears” for large companies. Shecco believed that many of the smaller manufacturers lag behind th e larger companies in the switch away from HFC-134a in stand-alone equipment and vending machines. They suggested a January 1, 2018, change of status date would pr ovide sufficient time for these sma ller companies, “enabling them to remain in the marketplace and ensuri ng healthy competition in this area.” Response : EPA does not agree that a different change of status date s hould apply to large companies as compared to small companies. The av ailable alternatives that pose lower risk than those subject to the status change are equally available to businesses of all sizes. Under SNAP, EPA has not used the “size” of the user as a ba sis for its listing decisions and the commenter provides no basis related to the sc ope and purpose of the SNAP program to do so in this instance. EPA’s decision regarding the status change date s for new retail food refrigeration equipment and new vending machines was based on the technical challenges faced by busine sses of all sizes in adopting new refrigerants su ccessfully in these products.
Comment : Some commenters indicated that they believe additional time is needed for smaller companies, especially businesses in the stand-alone/self -contained retail food refrigeration end-use that manufacture custom -built equipment and produce hundreds of models. The commenters also indicated pa rticular challenges and disadvant ages for small businesses as compared to larger businesses. Response : We note that transition timelines in the NPRM were based on the Agency’s information concerning the availability of alternat ives for businesses of all sizes and we did not provide separate change of stat us dates for different size busine sses. We address these concerns further in the previous comment and response.Page 188 of 317 c) Suggestion regarding education and training
Comment : CFESA points to the need for “prope r education and safety training for a successful and safe transition aw ay from current refrigerants to the flammable or scarce refrigerants EPA deems acceptable.” Other comm enters likewise stated training of factory employees and service technicians would be re quired, especially if hydrocarbon refrigerants were employed. Response : Because CFESA and others reference flammable refrigerants, EPA believes this comment is particular to stand-alone equipment and vending machines, where certain flammable refrigerants are curr ently acceptable subject to use c onditions. However, for these two end-uses, not all refrigerants listed as acceptabl e are flammable. Acceptable alternatives for stand-alone equipment and vending machines, such as R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A, are nonflammable and operate at similar char acteristics to R-404A and HFC-134a. CFESA does not specify which refrigerants it considers scarce. Nonflammable R-744 refrigerant, for example, is in ample supply. While some other refrigerants have not been produced in large quantities to date, production is increasing as demand in creases, including R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R513A. Honeywell indicates that R- 450A is soon to be produced in commercial quantities, and EPA expects it, along with other HFC/HFO blends , will be available by the change of status dates of 2019 and 2020 for vending machines and stand-alone equipment. With respect to technician training, EPA agrees pr oper education and training is valuable, and we note that there are already many manufacturers a nd suppliers who have been conducting such training. For example, Shecco notes that “The GUIDE North America 2013 84 report has identified at least 165 [Heating, Ventilation, Air Condi tioning, and Refrigeration] HVAC&R System & Component

84 Shecco, 2013a: GUIDE 2013: Natural Refrigerants - Market Growth for North America, publication.shecco.com/publications/view/6Page 189 of 317 Manufacturers, and Engineering Contractors in the United States working with natural refrigerants already today. In re ality we have a reason to believe that this number is much higher.” Coke noted that it has developed and tr ained a servicing networ k as it introduced R-744 equipment. Included in the docket to this rule is Hydrocarbon Refrigerants—A Study Guide for Service Technicians , published by the Refrigeration Serv ice Engineers Society (RSES), that could be used for those wishing to service new stand-alone units and new vending machines using R-290, R-441A or R-600a. The HFC/HFO blend alternatives, identifie d above, are nonflammable and operate at similar characteristics to those subject to the status change and therefore technicians should require only minimal extra training to use them. B ecause different change of status dates apply for the different refrigeration end-uses technici ans will have an opportunity to stagger training relevant for the different end-uses and they can build their skills across those end-uses over time. 7. Energy efficiency considerations DOE has promulgated, in separate rulema kings and under separate authority, energy conservation standards for several types of equi pment, including products that are affected by this rule. See section V.C.1.b for information re garding DOE energy conservation standards that are applicable to the equipment addressed in this rule. New equipment subject to this rule would need to meet the DOE requirements and the requirements of the status change by the dates established in these rules. 85 We note that for each of these end-uses, there are many compliant

85 Refrigeration equipment in the applicab le covered equipment class would s till be subject to DOE’s standards, regardless of the refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a ma nufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue hardship by a regulatory standard prescr ibed by DOE (in contrast to one that is statutorily prescribed by Congress), the manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant regulatory relief from a standard promulgated by DOE on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.Page 190 of 317 models already commercially available that do no t use the refrigerants subject to a change of status. Furthermore, for all the equipment subject to today’s rule, there are examples, highlighted below, that show the energy efficiency using alte rnative refrigerants not subject to a change in status can be at least as good as, and often better than, the ener gy efficiency of equipment using refrigerants whose status will change to unacceptable. We note that we do not have a practice in the SNAP program of including energy efficiency in the overall risk analysis. We do, how ever, consider issues such as technical needs for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standa rds) in determining whether alternatives are “available.” EPA recognizes that th e energy efficiency of particul ar models of equipment is a significant factor when choosing eq uipment. We also recognize that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular thermodynamic and thermophysical properties th at refrigerant possesses. Although we cannot know what energy efficiency will be achieved in future products using a specific acceptable refrigerant, we can point to both actual equipm ent and testing results that show promise and often better results than the equipment using the refrigerants that we are finding unacceptable. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0134, EPA-HQ- OAR-2014-0198-0184, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198- 0077). We recognize that, while th eoretical efficiency of any given Rankine cycle is not dependent on the refrigerant use d, the refrigerant, the design of the equipment, and other factors will affect the actual energy efficiency achieved. The efficiency can change based on the refrige rant chosen and there are various metrics, such as Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEW I) and Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP), that account for climate effects of both emissions of the refrigerant and th e possible emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, from th e source of power to operate equipment.Page 191 of 317 Quantification of the portions of TEWI/LCCP fr om the refrigerant and energy use can only be done using broad assumptions that would not be a pplicable to all users of the myriad equipment models that are affected by today’s rule. As noted in se ction V.C.1.b, energy conservation standards set by the DOE apply to some of the equipment covered by today’s rule (e.g., standalone equipment, vending machines). If manufactur ers were to offer equipment that meets, but does not exceed, that standard (or any other standard, such as ENERGY STAR ® ), then the indirect emissions from energy use would be the same regardless of which refrigerant were used. In that case, the refrigerant emissions would be the only factor that woul d decide which system has a lower TEWI or LCCP. Manufac turers that wish to exceed energy efficiency requirements may do so with any acceptable re frigerant they choose. Although some refrig erants will in the future be listed as unacceptable as determined in this final action, that does not directly affect the theoretical energy efficiency possible. As noted be low, the results to date for actual equipment using acceptable alternatives do not show any significant decline in energy efficiency and often show the reverse. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014- 0198-0134, EPA-HQ-OAR- 2014-0198-0184, EPA-HQOAR-2014-0198-0077). While various s ources of data on energy effi ciency results from testing acceptable refrigerants show varying results, we believe that with new designs to use these refrigerants, any lower energy efficiency resu lts can be overcome and likewise existing energy efficiency levels can be improved. Throughout the history of the SNAP program, EPA has seen the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment increase, despite changing refrigerant options. In some cases, this was because new chemicals we re developed that possessed unique properties that allowed high energy efficiency levels to be obtained. In many cases, technological improvement and optimization of equipment de signs and controls has increased energyPage 192 of 317 efficiency. Although today’s rule lists some refr igerants as unacceptable, we do not believe it will have a detrimental effect on this trend in increased energy efficiency. In fact, there are multiple case studies available that highlight the energy efficiency gains achieved by some of the low-GWP refrigerants, such as R-744, which re mains acceptable for the refrigeration end-uses addressed in this rule, and R-290 and R-600a, whic h remain acceptable subject to use conditions for new stand-alone equipment and ne w vending machines. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0134, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015). 86 As part of our review of whether alternatives are “available,” we determined that equipment has been designed for and is capable of meeting existing requirements such as th e DOE energy conservation standards. Below we highlight the energy efficiency gains that have been reported for the commercial refrigeration end-uses and end-use categorie s affected by today’s rule. Theoretical and prototype te sting show similarly good ener gy efficiency results. For instance, in supermarket refrigeration, a theo retical analysis (Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014) examined the energy use of R-407A and R-410A, both of which are on the list of acceptable substitutes, against that of R-404A , which is listed as unacceptable in new supermarket systems as of January 1, 2017. Although this analysis found that both blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop in efficiency in the lo w-temperature part of th e store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream), they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% incr ease in the medium-temperature part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy products, chilled prepar ed food). Given that supermarkets have significantly larger use of medi um-temperature equipment, the net effect would be for the equipment using those alternatives to use less energy than equipment currently designed to use R-404A. We have pointed out in Section V.C.2 above that R-407A in particular is widely used

86 Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015. “Coca Cola to narrowly miss HFC-free global refrigeration target” ( www.racplus.com/news/coca-cola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc- free-global-refrigeration-target/8680290.article ).Page 193 of 317 and we might expect it to be used in a large share of supermarkets after the change of status date. This analysis showed similar increases in energy efficiency of new supe rmarket and stand-alone equipment using a variety of low-GWP refrigerants as compared with equipment currently using
R-404A. The analysis also showed a slightly higher energy consum ption by stand-alone equipment designed to use other alternatives as compared with one designed to use R-404A. One user of stand-alone equipment did not pr ovide any specific results, but stated that “HC freezers are significantly more energy-efficien t.” (Ben and Jerry’s, 2014). True recently displayed several stand-alone units using R-290 refr igerant that were reported to be 15% more efficient than similar equipment using HFC-134a and R-404A. 87 Similar results were seen by DuPont, who found that R-449A reduced energy usage when used in a display case connected to a remote condensing unit. They found that the energy consum ption using this refrigerant was 2% to 3% less than R-404A in low-temperature tests and 8% to 12% less in medium-temperature tests. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077). Similar results are being seen with vendi ng machines. As noted in the NPRM, one purchaser of vending machines indicated that while introducing over one million units using R744, they have increased the energy efficiency of their cooling equipment over 40% since 2000, at which time such equipment was exclus ively using HFC-134a (Coca-Cola, 2014). More recently, it was reported that 78% of Coca Cola ’s models (vending machines and stand-alone cases) perform more efficiently than HFC units . (Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015). Furthermore, it has been reported that PepsiCo has placed nearly one million hydrocarbon vending machines on the market and that th ese use 20% less energy than ENERGY STAR

87 Shecco, 2013b. “HCs gaining market pr ominence in US – view from The NA FE Show – Part 1” February 18, 2013. This document is accessible at www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/3891

.Page 194 of 317 requirements. As new products are designed to use partic ular refrigerants, manufacturers have the opportunity to change designs to take advantage of a given refrigerant’ s characteristics. The redesign and development phase is also an oppor tunity to improve other components that will affect the overall efficiency of the equipment, such as the use of more efficient motors and compressors, improved heat exchangers, better controls, improved insu lation (e.g., on display cases) and sealing (for products with doors), more efficient ligh ting, etc. These opportunities and the examples provided are indicative that when redesigning equipment for a new refrigerant, energy efficiency is often improved. Multiple companies have reported such gains in the equipment covered by today’s rule, for instance with R-407A or R-744 in supermarket systems, with HFC/HFO blends in remote condensing un its, and with hydrocarbons and R-744 in standalone equipment and vending machines D. Foam blowing agents 1. Background Foams are plastics (such as PU or polysty rene) that are manufac tured using blowing agents to create bubbles or cells in the material’s structure. The foam plastics manufacturing industries, the markets they serv e and the blowing agents used are extremely varied. The range of uses includes building materials, applia nce insulation, cushioning, furniture, packaging materials, containers, flotation devices, filler, sound proofing and shoe soles. Some foams are rigid with cells that still cont ain the foam blowing agent, whic h can contribute to the foam’s ability to insulate. Other foams are open-celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at the time the foam is blown, as for flexible foams. A variety of foam blowing agents have been used for these applic ations. Historically,Page 195 of 317 CFCs and HCFCs were typically used to blow fo am given their favorable chemical properties. CFCs and HCFCs are controlled subs tances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of production and import under section 604 for CFCs and section 605(b)-(c) for HCFCs and use restrictions on HCFCs under section 605(a). The regulations implementing section 610 of the CAA include a ban on sale or distribution of foam products blown with class I and class II ODS: however, for foam products containing a class II ODS, the ban is subject to an exception for foam insula tion products as defined at 40
CFR 82.62. HCFCs, which have a longer phase-out peri od than CFCs since they are less potent ozone-depleting substances, have continued to be used to some extent as foam blowing agents. In addition, the SNAP program has found accepta ble a variety of non-ODS blowing agents, including HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc), hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, methylal, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), and trans -1-chloro-3,3,3- trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice 1233zd(E)). Blowing agents are approved on an end-use basis. The SNAP program considers the following end-uses:

 Rigid PU (appliance foam) includes insulati on foam in domestic refrigerators and freezers.

 Rigid PU (spray, commercial refrigerati on, and sandwich panels) includes buoyancy foams, insulation for roofing, wall, pipes, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, and refrigerated transport vehicles.

 Rigid PU (slabstock and other) includes insulation for panels and pipes.Page 196 of 317  Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock includes insulation for roofing and walls.

 Flexible PU includes foam in furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles.

 Integral skin PU includes car steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles.

 Polystyrene (extruded sheet) includes foam for packagi ng and buoyancy or flotation.

 Polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet) includes insulati on for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes.

 Polyolefin includes foam sheets and tubes.

 Phenolic insulation board and bunstock incl udes insulation for roofing and walls. 2. What is EPA finalizing for foam blowing agents? For foam blowing end-uses, EPA proposed to cha nge the status for seve ral substitutes, as of January 1, 2017, as follows:

 HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable for all end-uses;

 HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and bl ends thereof; and the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses where they were on the list of acceptable substitutes at the time of proposal, except for rigid PU spray foam; and

 The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses where it was on the list of acceptable substitutes at the time of proposal. After considering the comment s received on the proposed ru le, EPA is making several changes to what it proposed in this final action. First, EPA is creating narrowed use limits for HFC-134a and blends thereof, for HFC-365mfc a nd blends thereof, a nd HFC-245fa and blends thereof for all foam blowing end-uses except rigi d PU spray foam. EPA is also creating narrowedPage 197 of 317 use limits for certain HFC blends, including Formacel TI, Formacel Z-6, and Formacel B, for those end-uses that were on the list of acceptable substitutes at the time of proposal. For all these substitutes, the narrowed use limits would be for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been ma de to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to perf ormance or safety requirements. For all other uses in these identified end-uses, the status would change to unacceptable, with the exception of rigid PU spray foam, for which we are not taking final ac tion in this rule. Second, we are establishing change of status dates that range from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2021. And, further, for the uses subject to the narrowed use limits, the status would change to unacceptable as of January 1, 2022. The change of status determination for each end-use is summarized in the following table: Table 8. Change of Status Decisions for Foam Blowing Agents End-use Substitutes Decision* Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics- related applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications* and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation Foam HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics- related applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and Other HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications* and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2019. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related application*s and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Flexible Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications* and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Integral Skin Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications* and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022.Page 198 of 317 Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications* and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet (XPS) HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications* and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2021. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Polyolefin HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications* and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock HFC-143a, HFC-134a,HFC-245fa, HFC365mfc, and blends thereof Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications* and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2022. * Under the narrowed use limit, use is limited to milita ry or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. a) What other alternatives does EP A find pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment? In the NPRM, EPA included a comparative analysis, end-use by end-use, of the substitutes for which EPA proposed to change the status and the other av ailable alternatives. 79 FR at 46,151 to 46,154. Most of the ot her alternatives that EPA id entified as having lower risk than those for which we proposed to change the st atus have zero ODP or have negligible impact on stratospheric ozone. One altern ative that contains chlorine, trans -1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-ene (SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)), has an ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 and estimates of its maximum potential impact on the ozone laye r indicate a statistically insi gnificant impact, comparable to that of other substitutes in the same end-uses that are considered to be non-ozone-depleting. 88,89 For the uses on which we are taking final acti on, the substitutes remaining acceptable have

88 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. “Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.” Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Un iversity of Illinois, Urbana , IL. September 26, 2011. 89 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. “Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans- 1-chloro-3,3,3- trichloropropylene and trans- 1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.” Atmos. Chem. Phys ., 10, 10867– 10874, 2010.Page 199 of 317 significantly lower GWP than the substitutes for which we are changing the status, with GWPs ranging from zero (water, vacuum panels) to 1 24 (HFC-152a) as compared with GWPs ranging from 725 to approximately 1,500. The substitutes ch anging status and the substitutes remaining acceptable all can be used such that the recommended workplace exposure limit for the substitute is not exceeded in the end-uses wh ere they are listed as acceptab le, and thus, toxicity risks are comparable. Most of the substitutes that remain acceptable are not VOC (e.g., water) or are exempt from the definition of VOC under CAA regul ations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. Examples of VOC-exempt blowing agents include acetone, CO 2 , ecomate, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), methyl formate, and Solstice 1233zd(E). Othe r acceptable foam blowing agents are VOC, including saturated light HCs, E xxsol blowing agents, and methylal . In the risk screens that EPA performs when we review a substitute, we consider VOC emissions impacts, taking into account the rate of blowing agent emissions of particular foam end-uses, estimated market size, and the presence of emission controls in manufacturing for different end-uses. Estimated emissions for these three substitutes is sufficiently low that we do not expect significant air quality impacts (ICF, 2014h). The manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) claims th at this substitute has low photochemical reactivity and has petitioned EPA to exempt it from the definition of VOC for purposes of the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards, but EPA has not yet acted on that petiti on. Given the large variety of alternatives that do not increase VOC emissions, and the estimated low impacts from those alternatives that are VOC, we believe that changing th e status of certain HFC foam blowing agents through this action will not significantly increase environmental or health risks.Page 200 of 317 Some of the substitutes that remain accepta ble are flammable, but the hazards of these flammable compounds can be adequa tely addressed in the proce ss of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes in all end-uses except certain rigid PU spray foam applications. Examples of acceptable flammable blowing agents are HFC-152a , ecomate, Exxsol blowing agents, methylal, methyl formate, and satu rated light hydrocarbons. Although EPA has listed a number of flammable al ternatives as acceptable for most foam end-uses, that is not the case for rigid PU spray foams. Some of the lower-GWP, flammable alternatives that are listed as acceptable in other foam blow ing end-uses, such as C3-C6 hydrocarbons and methylal, are not acceptable for us e in rigid PU spray foam. For rigid PU spray foam applications, flammability risks are of part icular concern, because they are applied onsite, sometimes in proximity to hot, flammable substan ces such as tar. Flammability risks are more difficult to mitigate in rigid PU spray foam than in most other foam end-uses because, unlike in a factory setting, in many cases vent ilation cannot 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 rigid PU spray foam in a residential building. There are three main types of rigid PU spray foam: high- pressure two-part spray foam systems, lowpressure two-part spray foam system s, and one-component foam sealants. For rigid PU spray foam, we are not taking fina l action in this rule. We intend to conduct a more extensive comparative risk analysis of th e substitutes available before taking final action. Thus, the substitutes currently listed as acceptable fo r spray foam are not affected by this rule but may be the subject of future rulemaking. For more information on the environmental and health properties of the different foam blowing agents, please see the proposed rule at 79 FR 46,151 to 46,154 and a technical supportPage 201 of 317 document that provides additional Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d) in the docket. b) When will the status change? For foam blowing agents, the time at which th e status will change varies by end-use. For the flexible PU, polystyrene extruded sheet, and phenolic insulation board and bunstock end-uses, many users have already transitioned from the foam blowing agents subject to the status change. No comment ers suggested that, or provided information that would suggest, a later change of status date is necessary fo r these end-uses. Therefore, as proposed, we are establishing January 1, 2017 as the date of the status change for those end-uses.
For PU integral skin , the systems house BASF stated that they have had limited success thus far with HFO blowing agents in this en d-use and would require at least two years to formulate and test a system and another six months for the new system to be commercialized and accepted by their customers in this end-use. Howe ver, this commenter did not provide specific details of the technical challenges they face nor w hy they believe two years, rather than a shorter time, is required for formulation and testi ng. Nor did the commenter explain why customer acceptance of the new system was related to techni cal feasibility that would require an additional six months beyond the time needed for formulation and testing. A period of two and a half years after issuance of the NPRM would be January 2017, rather than the July 1, 2017 suggested by the commenter. There are alternative foam blowi ng agents in addition to HFOs in this end-use that pose less risk overall to human health a nd the environment, such as HFC-152a and light saturated hydrocarbons. Therefore, as proposed, we are establishing Janu ary 1, 2017, as the date of the status change for PU integral skin foam. For the rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock end-use , we did not receive any specific technical information nor any comments stating that a change of status date laterPage 202 of 317 than the proposed date of January 1, 2017, was wa rranted. We received a general comment from EIA that the change of status date should be January 1, 2016, but they provided no information supporting this earlier date. We received a comme nt from one systems house, Huntsman, that provided specific technical information supporting a la ter change of status date for other PU enduses, but not PU and polyisocyanurate lami nated boardstock. Another systems house, Dow Chemical, specifically mentione d that polyisocyanurate boards tock has previously safely transitioned to use of hydrocarbons. Therefore, as proposed, we are es tablishing January 1, 2017 as the date of the status change for PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. For all other foam blowing end-uses for which we are taking fi nal action, we received comments identifying technical challenges that mean other alternatives would not be available until a later date than January 1, 2017. Systems houses and appliance manufacturers also mentioned the need for third-party testing for en d-uses such as extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet, rigid PU appliance, and rigid PU commercial refr igeration and sandwich panels. Systems houses and DuPont, a manufacturer of foam blowing agents, also were concerned with the supply of lower-GWP foam blowing agents, especially supply of HFOs (HFO-1234ze(E) and HFO-1336mzz(Z)) and trans -1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and indicated this was a constraint that prevents transitioning away from higher GWP HFCs by January 1, 2017. EPA agrees that there is validity to these concerns , as discussed further be low for each end-use.
For rigid PU slabstock , a systems house (Huntsman) commented they need additional time for testing and suggested a change of stat us date of January 1, 2019. Huntsman gave three specific reasons for why there shou ld be a later change of status date than January 1, 2017 for this end-use: they believe it will take more than two years to develop pro ducts with alternatives, including third-party certificati on; they believe the long-term performance of HFO foams is notPage 203 of 317 widely proven; and they believe there is insu fficient supply and competition in the market for HFOs. Huntsman mentioned specific technical cha llenges, such as testing the compatibility and stability of the blowing agents with the polyol bl ends (i.e., other components needed in the foam formulation) and difficulties with stability of th e catalysts when used with HFO blowing agents. They also stated that extended testing of more than six months was required to test strength, thermal insulation capability a nd dimensional stability of th e foam, including aging testing. Huntsman also mentioned testing the fire propert ies of the foams with different foam blowing agents as well as optimization of the blends. Huntsman stated that these steps required one to one and a half years initial development by the syst ems house that would then be followed by trials and custom modification at their customers’ faci lities using their specific equipment and claimed that would require one to two y ears in addition. Considering the technical constraints described by the systems house such as the need to research different catalysts and the lower stability of some alternative foam blowing agents, we agree that it is reasonable to exp ect it would take three and a half years after this rule is final for alternat ives to be available for this end-use. Therefore, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2019, for rigid PU slabstock.
For rigid PU appliance foam , one systems house, BASF, co mmented that it took five years for them to assist the appliance manufact urer Whirlpool in its conversion from an HFCblown foam to an HFO-blown foam, excluding flammability certification testing. While the Agency recognizes that as industry builds experien ce with new blowing agents, future transitions may be quicker because of the knowledge gained from earlier transitions, the Agency also understands that it may not be possible by 2017 to complete a full transition to alternative blowing agents for all applianc e manufacturers, particularly if appliance manufacturers are maintaining or improving the thermal insulati ng value of the foam to meet DOE energyPage 204 of 317 conservation standards. Applia nce manufacturers and BASF have described the difficulty and time needed to overcome technical difficulties when using alternative blowing agents, particularly olefins such as trans -1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene or HFOs, that result in cracking, thinning of the foam, and irreparable field failures of the equipment. Appliance manufacturers and systems house Huntsman also mentioned the need for energy efficiency testing and third-party certificat ion of equipment and claimed that would require at least one and a half to two years after the system house’s de velopment of foam formulations. However, the time required for ensuring adequate performance and third-party testing warrants a date as late as January 1, 2020. In addition to technical constraints, we also considered that there is unlikely to be a sufficient supply of alternatives before January 1, 2017, for appliance foam; the supply is likely to increase once a commerc ial plant for HFO-1336mzz(Z) ope ns (currently scheduled to open in 2017). We considered the supply cons traints mentioned by both systems houses and chemical producers (until 2017), tec hnical constraints with alternat ive foam blowing agents that could result in failed appliances with insufficien t research (requiring one to two years), and the need for third-party certification of each model (requiring one and a half to two years), and we agree that it is reasonable to e xpect it would take until 2020 for alternatives to be available for this end-use. We are establishi ng a change of status date of January 1, 2020, for appliance foam which allows sufficient time to work out these te chnical issues and to ensure a sufficient supply of various alternatives.
For rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels , equipment manufacturers and systems houses such as Huntsman, Dow and BA SF mentioned similar issues to those raised for appliance foam. Huntsman mentioned techni cal challenges in developing new formulations for PU insulation foam, such as testing the compa tibility and stability of the blowing agents withPage 205 of 317 the polyol blends (i.e., other components needed in the foam formulation) and difficulties with stability of the catalysts when used with HFO blowing agents. They also stated that extended testing of more than six months was required to test strength, thermal insulation capability and dimensional stability of the foam, including aging testing. Huntsman also mentioned the need for testing fire properties of foams with different foam blowing agents and optimization of the blends. Huntsman stated that these steps required one to one and a half ye ars initial development by the systems house in a process involving itera tive testing. Huntsman specifically mentioned steps such as developing new foam formulations (one to one and a half years), trials at the customers’ plants (half to one y ear), third-party certification by UL, Intertek or Factory Mutual (one to one and a half years) , and implementation of engineer ing changes at the customers’ facilities (half to one year). We also considered that based on the information and comments we have received, there is unlikely to be a sufficien t supply of alternatives for this end-use before January 1, 2017, as discussed above for applia nce foam. The Laboratory Products Association, whose members manufacture very low temperature freezers such as those used in the pharmaceutical industry, mentioned that some laboratory products using alternative foam blowing agents are medical devices listed by FDA, which would requ ire re-approval after changing the blowing agent. Representatives of this application suggest ed coordinating with timelines of EU regulations (2022), without de scribing specifically why more time might be required for very low temperature freezers than fo r foam blowing agents in other commercial refrigeration equipment which also require third-party review. It is reasonable to expect that the timeframe required for commercial refrigeration foam and sandwich pa nels is comparable to that for appliance foam, requiring until 2017 for suffici ent supply, and then an other three years for development and testing of formulations and th ird-party testing of th e resulting equipment orPage 206 of 317 panels. We are establishing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for co mmercial refrigeration and sandwich panel foams, based on the time need ed to resolve technical issues and on supply of alternative foam blowing agents.
For PU marine flotation foam , we received a comment from BASF indicating that systems houses will require at least a year for te chnical development, a year for certification testing to U.S. Coast Guard standards, a year for testing of the stability of the foam product, as well as one to two years for customer approval, gi ven the large number of customers for this type of foam. BASF expected issues similar to those fo r appliance foam, such as dimensional stability and cracking, because injecting flotation foam is a similar process and uses similar polymers in the foam formulation. BASF asked that EPA clar ify whether marine flotation foam fits under spray foam and whether this application is “exemp ted” or instead must transition to alternatives. EPA consulted with the U.S. Coast Guard regardi ng their certification pr ocess and the necessary time for manufacturers to test and certify that they meet the requirements at 33 CFR part 183 (Boats and Associated Equipment), Subparts F (Flotation Requirements for Inboard Boats, Inboard/Outdrive Boats, and Airboats), G (Flota tion Requirements for Outboard Boats Rated for Engines of More than 2 Horsepower), and H (F lotation Requirements for Outboard Boats Rated for Engines of 2 Horsepower or Less), which require all manufacturers of monohull recreational boats less than twenty feet in length (excep t sailboats, canoes, kayaks, inflatable boats, submersibles, surface effect vessels, amphibious vessels, and race boats) to provide sufficient flotation foam within the boat to ensure that the bo at will not sink if the bo at swamps or capsizes. This requirement allows the occupants to hold onto the boat until they can be rescued. We also met with representatives from the marine indus try and heard directly from them about the necessary steps for transition. Af ter considering the various st eps needed to complete thePage 207 of 317 transition, we conclude that the need for the systems houses to pe rfect formulations that perform similar or better than what is being used toda y will take additional time beyond what the Agency considered. In particular, in order to research and test foam formulations sufficiently to avoid issues with dimensional stability and field failures, and to ensure safety of the flotation foam and boats built with it, we expect it would take at least another tw o and a half to three years beyond the proposed date of January 1, 2017. Thus, we ar e establishing January 1, 2020 as the change of status date for marine flotation foam. We do not believe there is sufficient information at this time to support a change of status date later than January 1, 2020. However, given the concern for safety associated with marine floatation foam, we will monitor the situation carefully and consult with the U.S. Coast Guard. Given that under 33 CFR 183 manufacturers are required to certify to the U.S. Coast Guard that their boats have sufficient flotation to meet the regulations, EPA recognizes that the U.S. Coast Guard may be able to provide information concerning certification with the alternatives. As January 202 0 approaches, we will continue to consult with the U.S. Coast Guard and consider whether it is appr opriate to adjust the cha nge in status date or to otherwise modify the SNAP listing to addres s any uses for which there may be technical challenges beyond January 1, 2020. We are listing this use separately from spray foam due to differences in the manner in which the foam is dispensed which make this use more similar to appliance foam and commercial refrigeration fo am than spray foam. Our understanding is that flotation foam is typically in jected rather than sprayed.
For polyolefin , there are niche applications and specialized plants that may have particular difficulty in transitioning away from HFC-134a because of the time required to build a pilot plant to work with produc ts using a new gaseous blowing agent and to retrofit current facilities to work with an alte rnative blowing agent. One manufact urer, Pregis, stated that theyPage 208 of 317 must upgrade facilities if they are to safely adopt flammable blowing agents when they have been using a nonflammable agent in the past. EPA r ecognizes that such changes to a facility may take several years. Considering th e heightened challenges with these specialized facilities, we are establishing a change of status da te of January 1, 2020, for polyolefin.
For XPS , manufacturers of XPS raised concerns a bout the energy efficiency of the foam using alternative agents, the exte nsive testing required, third-part y certification, and the lack of alternatives and recommended that the status of HFC-134a change on January 1, 2021. Owens Corning mentioned specific steps such as laboratory studies to develop or test an alternative blowing agent, pilot tests, c onversion of pilot tes ting to line production, quality assurance and quality control testing of the final product, and product certification. Dow and Owens Corning estimated it would take at least six years to c onvert multiple lines and multiple facilities from HFC-134a to an alternative. Owens Corning and Dow also cited an EPA memorandum supporting a transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as foam blowing agents, which found that four years was necessary. Owens Corni ng raised concerns about the viability of CO 2 based on its impact on energy efficiency; th e safety of hydrocarbons because of their flammability and the need to consider impacts of additional flame retardants on the foam; and the commercial availability of HF O-1234ze(E) and its technical viab ility. Dow stated that of the acceptable alternatives that EP A mentioned in the NPRM, only HFO-1234ze(E) has sufficiently low thermal conductivity and low permeability to meet industry standards (e.g., ASTM C 578). We agree that additional time is required to te st and improve the quality of XPS manufactured using alternative foam blowing agents to en sure that it meets or improves upon thermal insulation requirements and passes thir d-party certification testing; it is reasonable to expect that at least five years is likely to be required for all steps to tr ansition away from HFC-134a, givenPage 209 of 317 the status of current efforts to adopt lower-GWP alternatives for XPS. Members of the Extruded Polystyrene Association (XPSA) have stated that with XPS, it is not always possible to increase the thickness of the foam to maintain thermal insulation requirements, because other construction materials (e.g., boards) may limit the thickness of boardstock foam. Thus, if alternative foam blowing agents did not produce foam meeting ther mal insulation requirements, the transition in this end-use might not reduce climate effects as intended. Given the tec hnical constraints, the need for third-party certification testing, and bui lding code requirements for energy efficiency that may limit the available blowing agents, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2021, for XPS. EPA notes that ther e is now a plant producing HFO-1234ze(E) in commercial quantities (Honeywell, 2015) and thus we do not believe that supply will limit the availability of alternatives. c) Military and space- and aeronautics-related applications We proposed to create a narrowed use lim it exception to the unacceptable listing for military and space, and aeronautics uses that w ould allow continued use of HFC and HFC blend foam blowing agents through December 31, 2021. Th ese blowing agents were proposed to be unacceptable for military or space- and aeronautic s-related applications as of January 1, 2022. For the reasons discussed in the proposed rule, we are finalizing these provisions as proposed. EPA received comments from DoD and NAS A supporting EPA’s proposed narrowed use limit, and suggesting that this additional time is needed to identify, test and qualify substitutes for certain specialty applications. Boeing comm ented that the DoD and NASA need adequate time to develop, test and qualify an acceptable su bstitute for HFC-245fa, which is used in many foams they rely on for density foam insulation for a number of space and defense applications (e.g., rockets). Boeing did not identify any speci fic technical challenges but raised a generalPage 210 of 317 concern that, based on its experience with deve loping substitutes for foam blowing agents and the normal course of time to develop and qualify a substitute, it will take until 2027 to fully test and qualify a substitute. We do not believe there is sufficient inform ation at this time to support a change of status date later than January 1, 2022; however, as January 2022 approaches, we can consider whether it is appropriate to adjust the ch ange in status date or to otherwise modify the SNAP listing to address any uses for which there may be techni cal challenges beyond January 1,
2022. Users that wish to use one of the substitute s listed as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, in a military or space- and aeronautics-rela ted application must make a reasonable effort to ascertain whether other subst itutes or alternatives are technically feasible and, if not, to document such results. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Us ers are not required to report the results of their investigations to EPA, but must retain th e documentation in their files for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Documentation should incl ude descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e .g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. d) How will the requirements apply to exports and imports? Since regulations establishing the SNAP pr ogram were promulgated in 1994, we have interpreted the unacceptability determinations in th is sector to apply to blowing foam with the foam blowing agent and not to products made with foam (e.g., 65 FR 42,653, 42,656; July 11,Page 211 of 317 2000). That is, an unacceptable foam blowing ag ent may not be used in, imported into, or exported from the United States. However, products made overseas with unacceptable foam blowing agents may be imported. For example, commercial refrigerator s containing appliance foam blown with an unacceptable blowing agent may be imported into the United States, though appliances manufactured in the United States ma y not be manufactured with foam blown by that same agent. In the proposal, EPA took comment on a differe nt interpretation of our regulations under which the unacceptability determination would a pply to imported products containing closed cell foam that contain any of the bl owing agents listed as unacceptable, as well as applying to the blowing agent itself. Public commenters stated that this was a significant departure from the Agency’s previous interpretation and suggested that EPA needed to explain the basis for such a change. In addition, some commenters pointed ou t that the proposal only allowed 60 days before this change in interpretation would apply to HCFC-141b, which they viewed as insufficient time to adjust. EPA is not finalizing this change in it s interpretation in this action; however, we plan to continue assessing the mer its of this change and may pr ovide further explanation and opportunity for comment in a subsequent rulemaking.3. How is EPA responding to comments concerning foam blowing enduses? a) Timeline
Comment : EPA received comments from more than 500 commenters concerning the proposal of January 1, 2017, as the status change date for the foam blowing agents addressed in the proposed rule. EIA and Honeywell suggested an earlier date of Ja nuary 1, 2016, for all or most foam end-uses. Most other commenters sugge sted later dates, vary ing from July 1, 2017, toPage 212 of 317 January 1, 2025. Some commenters indicated that they are small companies and they believe additional time is needed beyond that in the NPRM to reduce cost pressures. Some commenters suggested different dates for specific uses and gave a number of reasons for which dates would be appropriate for those uses. General reasons given for the need for additional time include: time needed for capital investments, for empl oyee training, for re-formulating systems; for designing, purchasing, awaiting receipt of and co nverting equipment; for obtaining local permits for VOC emissions; for meeting company and ex ternal testing requirements (e.g., UL/Factory Mutual (FM) fire safety requi rements, DOE energy conservation standards, building codes, Rvalue testing for aged foam), and if switching to a flammable foam blowing agent, facility engineering design and refurbishment. Several commenters stated that there are no “drop in” replacements, and that product research and devel opment is an iterative process. Owens Corning cited EPA’s previous recognition of time limita tions in the conversion away from HCFC-142b to HFC-134a, including an EPA sta ff memorandum that estimated a four-year transition time period in the foam sector. Some commenters also suggested that EPA adopt the same dates for transition for foams as in the European Uni on’s “F-gas” rule: 2020 for XPS and 2023 for other foam types. In addition, some co mmenters suggested that there is an insufficient supply of lowGWP foam blowing agents that will maintain energy efficiency and in sulation value of foam. Huntsman stated that there will not be e nough capacity and competition in the HFO foam blowing market by January 1, 2017, to meet th e needs of the PU foam industry. DuPont commented that while multiple low GWP alternatives will be available for foam, they will not be broadly available in the proposed timeframe. Response: EPA notes that in a number of foam blowing end-uses, the industry has already effectively transitioned away from HFCs and any additional transitions for these end-Page 213 of 317 uses can be made by January 1, 2017. Further, we received no comments suggesting a later transition date is necessary specifically for th ese end-uses. We received comments suggesting that this change of status c ould be made by January 1, 2016, but in the unlikely event that there are any end users that have not al ready transitioned, we are concer ned that this date may be too soon to finish adopting an alternative. Therefore, the final rule retains the proposed change of status date of January 1, 2017, for those uses (pol ystyrene extruded sheet, flexible polyurethane, and phenolic insulation board and bunstock). In addition, we received no comments specific to rigid PU and polyisocyanurate lami nated boardstock that indicated th ere were challenges for this end-use that would prevent a tr ansition to alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment by January 1, 2017. EIA sugge sted that we set a status change date of January 1, 2016, for this end-use, but did not prov ide information supporting an earlier transition for this end-use. Therefore, we are retaining this date in the final rule for rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. EPA agrees that additional time is needed for other specific foam types and addresses the basis for establishing later change of status date s in the discussion of each end-use above. We appreciate and agree with comment ers that note the importance of maintaining energy efficiency for appliances and buildings by ensuring there is adequate time to develop and deploy new formulations that meet or exceed existing thermal insulating values. Further, we recognize that third-party testing or witness testing will require additional time that may be outside the control of the companies manufacturing the foam. Some of this testing, such as fire safety testing for construction foams, could help reduce any potential flammability risks associ ated with the use of flammable foam blowing agents. Businesses of all sizes will be able to benefit from the laterPage 214 of 317 change of status dates in this final rule. We discuss comments specific to each end-use below in this section.
Comment : Huntsman, a systems house, commented th ey need additional time for testing alternatives in the PU slabstoc k end-use and suggested a change of status date of January 1, 2019. Huntsman mentioned specific technical ch allenges with reformulating these foam products, such as testing the compatibility and st ability of the blowing agents with the polyol blends (i.e., other components needed in the foam formulation). They also stated that extended testing of more than six months was required to test strength, thermal insulation capability and dimensional stability of the foam, including agin g testing. Huntsman also mentioned testing the fire properties of the foams with different foam blowing agents as well as optimization of the blends. Huntsman stated that these steps required one to one and a half ye ars initial development by the systems house, to be followed by trials and custom modification at their customers’ facilities using their specific equipment that would require another one to two years. The commenter also raised concerns about whether sufficient supply of alternative foam blowing agents would be available by January 1, 2017, and mentioned that there is currently a single supplier of a key low GWP foam blowing agent, trans -1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. Response : Considering the technical constraints ra ised by the systems house, such as the need to research different catalys ts and fire retardants and the lower stability of some alternative foam blowing agents, we agree that safer alternat ives will not be available for this end-use for three to three and a half years. Therefore, we are establishing a ch ange of status date of January 1, 2019 for PU slabstock foams.
Comment : Commenters suggested change of stat us dates for rigid PU appliance foam, ranging from July 1, 2017 to January 1, 2020. BASF suggested a transition date of July 1, 2017Page 215 of 317 for foam used in domestic refrigerators. In s upport of a July 1, 2017, ch ange of status date, BASF indicated that HFO-containing foams are incompatible with common polymers used in household refrigerators and that it will take a mi nimum of six months to perform durability and field testing and possibly to cha nge construction materials to re solve this known problem, as well as at least six months for testing for complian ce with federal energy c onservation standards and 12 more months for conversion at each custome r’s facility. BASF also stated that they had already developed commercially available syst ems using cyclopentane and HFOs, so they expected this transition to take less time than the five years that it took to assist the appliance manufacturer Whirlpool in its conversion from an HFC-blown foam to an HFO-blown foam, excluding flammability certification testing. Solvay commented that t echnical questions about alternatives still remain, such as whether subs titutes other than HFCs attack panel walls or appliance walls, which could compromise produc t integrity and safety, and whether other alternatives adhere properly to appliance and panel walls, or to walls and roofs, which is necessary to satisfy energy efficiency mandates. Huntsman mentioned the need for energy efficiency testing and third-party certification of equipment that would require at least one and a half to two years after the system house’s development of foam formulations, which it estimated to take one to one and a half years. Huntsman suggested a change of status date of 2019 for PU appliance foam. The Association of Home A ppliance Manufacturers (AHAM) raised concerns about the potential adverse impacts on appliance quality, performance, and longevity, as well as costs, of a transition by January 1, 2017, and stated that the easiest and chea pest transitions have been done, and will be done, first. AHAM suggested a change of status date of 2020 for appliance foam to allow for coordination with DOE energy conservation standards that could take effect in 2020 for household refrigerator s and freezers. In addi tion, AHAM claimed a 2020Page 216 of 317 change of status date was nece ssary because of the extensive tim e required for testing and thirdparty certification of multiple models, and additional time needed to ensure proper development of new alternatives to avoid field failures of the equipment. Response : We agree that it is important that ap pliance manufacturers are able to ensure the quality, performance, and usef ul lifetime of their equipment. Multiple commenters provided information and photographs demonstrating that improperly implemented alternative foam blowing agents can create defect s in the appliances, such as cr acking or improper adhesion to the appliance cabinet. BASF suggested th at it would take closer to tw o and a half to three years to work out the technical issues si nce they have already developed commercially available systems using HFOs and hydrocarbons for other appliance manufacturers. Because of the time required for ensuring adequate performance and third-party te sting, we believe that other alternatives will not be available for an industry-wide transiti on until January 1, 2020. In addition to technical constraints, we also considered that there is un likely to be a sufficient supply of alternatives before the change of status date we proposed - January 1, 2017 for appliance foam. The supply is likely to increase once a commerc ial plant for HFO-1336mzz(Z) ope ns (currently scheduled to open in 2017) and thus supply would not be a con cern for a change of status date of January 1,
2020.
Comment : For rigid PU commercial refriger ation foams and sandwich panels, commenters suggested change of status dates ra nging from July 1, 2018, to ten years after the rule is final. The majority of commenters s uggested status change da tes ranging from July 2018 to January 1, 2020. NAFEM and manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment such as Traulsen suggested a much later date of 2025 for all modifications re quired for commercial refrigeration equipment, including both foam blowing agents and refrigerant.Page 217 of 317 As an initial matter, Huntsman and DuPont mentioned the lack of sufficient supply of alternatives to allow all foam user s to convert in 2017. In support of a later change of status date, equipment manufacturers and systems houses such as Huntsman, Dow and BASF mentioned similar technical issues to those for appliance foam , such as the compatibility and stability of the blowing agents with the polyol blends and di mensional stability of the blown foam. BASF specifically mentioned reactions between the new blowing agents and the catalysts in the foam that could cause the finished foam to shrink, as well as the need to deve lop a new set of flame retardants. Commenters also stated that extended testing of more than six months was required to test strength, thermal insulation capability and di mensional stability of the foam, including aging testing. Huntsman specifically mentioned steps su ch as developing new foam formulations (one to one and a half years), trials at the customers’ plants (half to one year), third- party certification by UL, Intertek or Factory Mutual (one to one an d a half years), and implantation of engineering changes at the customers’ facilities (half to one year), with iterativ e testing often required. Unified Brands and NAFEM suggested that ther e are limitations to using methyl formate in commercial refrigeration foam that would notallow a transition by January 1, 2017, stating: “Methyl Formate is also environmentally friendl y, but has had significan t shrinkage issues once units have been placed in the field. This agent requires very specific foaming processes to be developed to ensure proper stab ility of the foam over time.” Response : We agree that there are a number of technical challenges that will require approximately four to five years for the industry as a whole to tran sition to alternatives, including stability of new formulations a nd difficulty with using existing catalysts with alternative foam blowing agents. We agree that there is unlikely to be a sufficient supply of alternatives for this end-use before the proposed change in status date January 1, 2017. However as discussed abovePage 218 of 317 for appliance foam, additional supply should be available in 2017 when a new manufacturing plant is scheduled to open and th ere should be a more than sufficient supply to meet a status change date of January 1, 2020. The later dates of ten years after finalizat ion of the rule or 2025 suggested by NAFEM and other OEMs, appear to be based on the assu mption that stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment would need to use propane or other flammable refrigerants and that changes would need to be made to building codes to support the adoption of these flammable refrigerants. However, as discussed above in section V.C on commercial refrigeration, there are other available refrigerants that ar e nonflammable. Moreover, the comm enters did not make clear why, even assuming that alternative re frigerants would not be availa ble until 2025, the insulation foam for such equipment cannot be made using safe r alternatives well before 2025. Thus we do not believe that safe alternative foam blowi ng agents will not be available before 2025.
Comment : Honeywell stated that “the technical requirements [for flotation foam in boats] may be much simpler than other industries in which customers are al ready transitioning” and suggested that a transition date of January 1, 2016 might be achievable for this application. BASF commented that systems houses will require at least a year for technical development, a year for certification testing to U.S. Coast Guard standards, a year for test ing of the stability of the foam product, as well as one to two years fo r customer approval, given the large number of customers for this type of foam. This commente r recommended that EPA set a change of status date no earlier than July 1, 2019. BASF expected issu es seen with applian ce foam also to exist with marine flotation foam, such as dimens ional stability and cracking, because injecting flotation foam is a similar process and uses si milar polymers in the foam formulation. Ninetyfour letters from the marine industry comment that, according to their suppliers in the boatingPage 219 of 317 industry, a drop-in replacement for HFC-134a curre ntly does not exist, and will not be readily available by 2017. EPA received comments from 436 boat manufacturers to the effect that the continued introduction of regulat ions on the boating industry disp roportionately affects their small businesses because the cost of compliance with these standa rds is relatively equal across production scales. According to these comment s, EPA’s proposed timeline for “phasing out” HFC-134a will have highly negative consequences for all facets of the marine industry, but it will have the greatest impact on their small boats , small businesses, and middle class customers. EPA received 93 letters from the marine industr y stating that the boating industry consists primarily of small businesses that would face seve re impacts as a result of their limited financial resources and limited influence on markets and supply chains. The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) also comment ed that the NPRM date would present a financial and logistical hardship for many sma ll boat builders. NMMA ur ged the EPA to provide an extension of the proposed timeline. Commente rs from the marine industry suggested 2022 as a transition date and mentioned the lack of av ailability of feasible options and marine application’s dependency upon chemi cal availability from the larg er industry (e.g., HFC-134a for use in MVAC). These commenters also mentione d the need for testing to meet Coast Guard requirements at 33 CFR part 183. Response : Regarding the supply of alternatives, we recognize that a plant that would produce HFO-1234ze(E) in commercial quantities has recently been built (Honeywell, 2015). Additionally, supply of HFC-134a should not be an issue as many other uses of that substitute will be ending in the next several years. We do not agree that the certification processes will require additional time beyond EPA’s understandi ng at the time of the proposal. It is our understanding that HFOs can be used in this type of foam. However, as with appliance foams,Page 220 of 317 we agree that systems houses will need time to perf ect formulations that pe rform similar or better than what is being used today. In particular, issues with stabilit y of the blown foam likely will require several years to work out, as discussed above for app liance foam. Considering this information, we are establishing January 1, 2020, as th e change of status date for marine flotation foam.
Comment : DuPont stated that polyolefin plants typically are specialized plants for niche applications and that this end- use may have particular difficulty in transitioning away from HFC134a; DuPont suggested that EP A consult with manufacturers in this end-use on appropriate transition timing. One manufacturer, Pr egis, stated that they must upgr ade facilities if they are to safely adopt flammable blowing agents when th ey have been using a nonflammable agent in the past. They also suggested that EPA consider a ch ange of status date of 2022 because of the time required to build a pilot plant to work with products using a new gaseous blowing agent (two years)—which has yet to begin--and the time to retrofit current facilities to work with an alternative blowing agent (another two years). Response : EPA recognizes that construction of a pilot plant and making the necessary changes to an existing facility could take appr oximately four years after this rule is final; however, it is not clear from Preg is’s description that they wi ll require six years or more. Considering the heightened challenges with thes e specialized facilities, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2020, for polyolefin.
Comment : Manufacturers of XPS raised the en ergy efficiency of the foam using alternative agents as an issue, the extensive testing required, third- party certification, and the lack of alternatives as reasons for allowing un til January 1, 2021 for a change of status. Owens Corning mentioned specific steps such as laboratory studies to develop or test an alternativePage 221 of 317 blowing agent, pilot tests, c onversion of pilot tes ting to line production, quality assurance and quality control testing of the final product, and product certification. Dow and Owens Corning estimated it would take at least six years to c onvert multiple lines and multiple facilities from HFC-134a to an alternative. Owens Corning and Dow also cited an EPA memorandum supporting a transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as foam blowing agents, which found that four years was necessary. Owens Corni ng and XPSA commented that a more realistic status change date of 2021 would also be consis tent with the proposed status change date for
MVAC. IP Moulding commented th at it had tried to use CO 2 and water in its extruded polystyrene molding process in the past and found it did not create sufficient internal pressure for their product; they are further investigating this opt ion with their polystyrene supplier. Mexichem commented that carbon dioxide may not be suit able for the XPS industry because of its high thermal conductivity (low insulation value) a nd processing difficulties. Owens Corning raised concerns about the viability of CO 2 based on its impact on energy efficiency; the safety of hydrocarbons because of their flammability and the need also to consider impacts of additional flame retardants on the foam; and the commer cial availability of HFO-1234ze(E) and its technical viability. Honeywell commented that CO 2 is an option for XPS, and that Dow has commercialized other solutions to im prove energy efficiency with CO 2 such as Dow’s XENERGY technology, which, according to Dow’s website, has up to 20% higher insulating properties than its STYROFOAMTM polys tyrene product that uses HFC-134a. XPSA commented that one of the alternatives in the proposed regulations (HFO -1234ze(E)) is commercially suboptimized, and thus, XPSA’s members have not c onducted testing to confir m that they can be used to produce products that provide comparable thermal efficiency or if there are any otherPage 222 of 317 issues that would make them an unacceptable al ternative to HFC-134a. Dow stated that of the acceptable alternatives that EP A mentioned in the NPRM, only HFO-1234ze(E) has sufficiently low thermal conductivity and low permeability to meet industry standards (e.g., ASTM C 578). Response : Regarding concerns about the supply of HFO-1234ze(E), EPA notes that since the third quarter of 2014, ther e has been a plant producing HFO-1234ze(E) in commercial quantities (Honeywell, 2015), and a smaller plant was providing lots upon request before this. Based on the information we received, we agree that additional time is required to test and improve the quality of XPS produced using altern ative foam blowing agents and for third-party certification testing. Thus, it is re asonable to expect up to three years to complete formulation development and to conduct pilot testing, an ad ditional two years to convert the existing plant and test the quality of the final product (with some overlap with the pilot testing period), and a year for certification testing. The total time needed is five and a half to six years. Therefore, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2021, for the XPS end-use. EPA agrees that additional work with CO 2 as the blowing agent for XPS may be required to provide a better performing foam. Available information indicates CO 2 has a higher thermal conductivity than HFC-134a or HFO-1234ze(E), and thus, would be expected to provide lower insulation value in the absence of major changes to the foam formulation. The information on Dow’s website that Honeywell references, although encouraging, is not sufficient to determine if
CO 2 is the sole blowing agent and if the XE NERGY technology that Honeywell mentions may be used in all the applications where XPS blown with HFC-134a is currently used. The information provided by Honeywell implies that with additional work, XPS blown with CO 2 could be more broadly available and could resu lt in XPS with better foam insulation properties than current XPS foam using HFC-134a. Regardi ng comments suggesting that a status changePage 223 of 317 date of January 2021 is appropriate because it would be consistent with the status change date of MY 2021 for MVAC, we first note that the tr ansition for MVAC is required as of MY 2021, which will be completed in calendar year 2020. More importantly, the change of status date for each end-use is based on an evaluation of when alte rnatives will be availabl e within that specific end-use. The change of status date for MVAC is not relevant for purposes of determining when safer alternatives will be available for the XPS foam blowing end-use. b) Foam blowing agents changing status and other alternatives
Comment : Some commenters, including comm ercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers and environmental groups, support EPA’s proposal to find higher GWP HFCs unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses. Others, including manufacturers of household appliances and AHAM, advised EPA to reconsider the proposal, stati ng that it unnecessarily accelerates the transition away from widely used ch emicals that still have “significant beneficial uses” in the United States (e.g., HFC-245fa in app liance foam). Solvay st ated that the entire foam blowing sector should have been excluded fr om the proposal to change the status of certain
HFCs. Response : We disagree that this action “unnece ssarily accelerates” the transition away from chemicals that have signifi cant beneficial use. EPA applied the SNAP criteria when making determinations on what to include in the propos ed rule. For the reasons provided above and in the proposed rule, we have determined in most foam blowing end-uses that there are other alternatives that pose less risk than t hose for which we are changing the status.
Comment : DuPont commented that the category of Rigid Spray Polyurethane foam incorporates several product sub- categories, including high pressure spray foam and low pressure spray foam, each requiring different foam expansi on agent characteristics and therefore differentPage 224 of 317 alternatives and different testing requirements . DuPont and the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry recommended that EPA cr eate separate SNAP categories for high-pressure spray foam systems, low-pressure foam systems, and one component spray foam sealants to allow appropriate change of status dates for each

. DuPont suggested that EPA not change the status of HFC-134a in low-pressure two-part spray foam and in one-component foam sealants, because these applications require a gaseous foam blow ing agent, and not a liquid agent such as HFC245fa or HFC-365mfc. Response: EPA recognizes that a gaseous foam blow ing agent is required for these uses, unlike for high-pressure two-part spray foam syst ems, and thus, there is reason to differentiate between low-pressure two-part spray foam sy stems, one-component foam sealants, and highpressure two-part spray foam. We intend to cond uct a more extensive comparative risk analysis of the substitutes available in each of these spray foam cate gories before taking final action. Thus, the substitutes currently listed as acceptable fo r spray foam are not affected by this rule but may be the subject of future rulemaking.
Comment : Unified Brands and NAFEM commented that water-based blowing agents are environmentally friendly, but suffer from poorer insulation performance and vulnerability towards processing temperatures that would consequently require improved control of fixture temperatures. Thermo Fisher commented that wa ter-blown foam could lead to equipment with reduced energy efficiency and negative environm ental impact because of its poor insulating properties. Response : It is EPA’s understanding that wa ter-blown foams offer lower energy efficiency than foams blown with a number of ot her blowing agents. This is not a barrier to use for foam applications that do not require thermal insulation or for which increased thickness ofPage 225 of 317 the foam is not an issue. However, thickness of th e foam is likely to be an issue for foams where the dimensions cannot be increased, such as foams used in refrigerated transport or sometimes in construction foams such as XPS or PU spray foam.
Comment : Mexichem commented that using hydr ocarbons as a blowing agent may result in less thermally efficient XPS (as compared to use of HFC-134a). Unified Brands and NAFEM suggested there are complications with use of hydrocarbons in commercial refrigeration foam, and that “Pentane based blowing agents ar e strong candidates due to their insulation performance, but require all foam fixtures and pr ocesses to be redeveloped” due to flammability. Dow stated that that HC technology is we ll understood, and it has been broadly deemed inappropriate for use as a blowing agent for XPS and SPF building and c onstruction products in the United States. Dow also stated that HCs have been proactively adopted for use with polyisocyanurate foams, where they may be used safely. EIA commented that hydrocarbons have been used as blowing agents in Europe since 1992, includ ing in insulation foams. Response : It is EPA’s understanding that hydroca rbons such as pentane and isopentane have better thermal conductivity than CO 2 , but not as good as that of HFCs or HFOs. This is not a barrier to use for foam applic ations that do not require thermal insulation or where increased thickness of the foam is acceptable. We also re cognize that additional safeguards must be taken when using hydrocarbon foam blowing agents, such as improving ventilati on, training staff, and explosion-proofing electrical fixt ures. These steps can reasonably be taken in a manufacturing facility but are more difficult for installation in place, as with PU spray foam.
Comment : Honeywell commented that in many in stances, customers are seeing benefits such as better performance, energy efficienc y, nonflammability, and better product yields (less foam for the same performance) when using 1233zd(E) ( trans -1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-Page 226 of 317 ene). This commenter claimed that this foam blowing agent has been commercial in the United States in spray foam applications for more than a year, and in Japan, EU and China for a variety of foam applications, incl uding appliance, panel and sp ray foam. Several users of trans -1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene mentioned its properties, such as impr oved compressive strength, lower density, better dimensional stability, and highe r R-value (All-Weather Insulated Panels, West Development Group for spray foam, UTMC for comm ercial refrigeration foam in refrigerated transport). Response : Available information indicates that trans -1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has many performance characteristic s, including improved insulation value, that should allow its adoption as a foam blowing agen t in appliance foam, sandwich panels, and some spray foam applications. c) Environmental and energy impacts of foam blowing agents
Comment : A number of commenters provided co mments on the potential impact of the proposal on greenhouse gas emissions. AHAM state that they believe the proposed rule is unnecessary to protect the environment, because the use and potential emissions of high GWP HFC blowing agents for household re frigerators sold in the U.S. market are far less than what EPA estimated. DuPont comments that given that HFCs remain in these closed cell foams and provide valuable insula ting properties, emissions of HFCs from foam production are roughly one-third of total HFC use in foams, or about 5% of total HFC emissions on a CO 2 equivalent basis. Two commenters in the foam blowing i ndustry comment that EPA should consider the greenhouse gas emissions and energy savi ngs over the life time of a product. Response : Some commenters have suggested that because current HFC blowing agents, including HFC-134a in XPS, result in foams w ith energy efficiency that reduce overall GHGPage 227 of 317 emissions, EPA should not change the status of HFC-134a, or at least should consider overall lifecycle climate impacts. While we do not consider energy efficiency as part of our overall risk analysis, we believe that other alternatives, such as olefin fo am blowing agents, could improve energy efficiency even more than HFC-134a a nd other high GWP HFC blowing agents. Further, as explained below in our discussion of energy efficiency, listing higher GWP HFCs unacceptable likely would improve, rather than worsen, overall lifecycle GHG emissions. EPA recognizes that additional time is needed to ensure that the formulations provide equal or better thermal insulating value given the iterative pro cess that can involve chemical manufacturers, system houses and end users. The change of status dates reflect the need to ensure that these technical challenges can be addressed.
Comment : Imperial Brown comments they cannot know if what is developed as an alternative will enable the resul ting foam panels to meet DOE thickness requirements, because there is not a Class 1 polyurethane foam system on the market that utilizes a new blowing agent. Thermo-Kool comments that new foam formula tions are not guaranteed to have insulating capabilities comparable to what is available to day to satisfy DOE requirements. American Panel Corporation does not intend to us e pentanes in its foam blowi ng application, because the U.S. DOE has established new requirements that do not permit pentanes for walk-in panel manufacturers, as they would increase the pane l thickness size. International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite Walk-Ins stated that lower R-Values will require additional insulation thickness to meet the energy regulati on, thereby requiring expensive, complex, and costly modifications to new walk-in coolers and freezers that may sit side-by-side with identical existing equipment that offers the same degree of performance and protection.Page 228 of 317 Response : EPA recognizes that different foam bl owing agents result in different insulation values. We note that some of the accept able alternative foam blowing agents, such as HFO-1234ze(E), trans -1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluorop rop-1-ene, and HFO-1336mzz(Z), are expected to provide better insulation value than the HFC blowing agents listed as unacceptable in this action. EPA is not specifically aw are of which, if any, of these a lternatives has been tested by Factory Mutual (FM) and already qualifies as a “Class 1 polyurethane system.” Other foam blowing agents are expected to have compar able or lower insulation value, such as CO 2 , ecomate and hydrocarbons. Given the variety of foam blowi ng agents available, we expect that foam products that need higher energy efficiency will have foam blowi ng agents available that will result in lowering the GHG emissions and ener gy savings over the lifetime of a product.
Comment: A number of commenters stated that they believed the proposed rule will result in increased energy consumption, pot entially negating the overall net GHG emission reductions. One commenter, AMS, believes th e effect of the proposed rule on energy consumption is a big unknown at this time. Struct ural Composites and Compsys, Inc., stated that the efficiency and reduced manufacturing imp act of their PRISMA technology offsets the climate impacts from the small amount of HFC- 134a used in their foam. ACMA stated that composite panels made using foam blown with HF C-134a for refrigerated transport dramatically reduce fuel usage, and therefore, exhaust emissi ons, because the panels are so lightweight. They suggested, therefore, that the environmental be nefits of a transition away from HFC-134a are outweighed by emissions reductions achieve d through lighter, HFC-134a blown panels. Honeywell provided information on the relative ener gy efficiency, in terms of lambda values, for
CO 2 , HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E), and stated that HFO-1234ze(E)’s energy efficiency properties are comparable and in some instan ces better than HFC-134a for XPS. MexichemPage 229 of 317 claimed that HFO-1234ze(E) is not nearly as energy efficient as HF C-134a and stated that it is not clear that XPS produced with HFO-1234ze(E) will provide the same thermal efficiency as achieved with HFC-134a, because HFO-1234ze(E) is not available for the industry to begin product testing. DuPont comments that the em erging low GWP HFO foam alternatives can deliver marked energy efficiency improvements over current alternatives when they become commercially available. Response : EPA notes that some of the acceptable alternative foam blowing agents, such as HFO-1234ze(E), trans -1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1- ene, and HFO-1336mzz(Z), can provide better insulation value than the HFC blowing agents we are listing as unacceptable. Contrary to Mexichem’s unsupported assertion that HFO-1234ze(E) is not nearly as energy efficient as HFC-134a, another commenter provided information showing that HFC-134a has a lambda (thermal conductivity) value of 29 to 30, while HFO-1234ze(E) has a lambda value of 27 to 30 that shows better insulation (Honeywell, 2014b). Other foam blowing agents have comparable or lower insulation value, such as CO 2 , ecomate and hydrocarbons. Given that there are multiple foam blowing agents available th at have lower thermal conductivity and better insulation value in each of the end-uses where we are changing the status of one or more foamblowing agent, we expect that foam products that require higher energy efficiency will be able to use foam blowing agents that will result in lowering the GHG emissions and energy savings over the lifetime of a product, rather than raising it. For example, home appliances that currently use HFC-245fa could use trans -1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene or HFO-1336mzz(Z) and thereby ensure they meet DOE energy conservation standa rds. Similarly, information from the supplier of HFO-1234ze(E) indicates that XPS would maintain or improve its energy efficiency if HFO1234ze(E) were used instead of HFC-134a as th e blowing agent. Manufact urers of alternativePage 230 of 317 panels or composite materials ha ve not provided information showi ng that use of an alternative blowing agent would adversely aff ect the weight of foam formul ations and thereby reduce fuel efficiency. d) Cost impacts
Comment : Commenters express concern about the costs of the transition required by the proposal, including:

 capital costs;

 research, reformulation, and testing;

 technology and equipment;

 conversion, system re-design, and retrofit;

 certification;

 costs for the recreational boating industry;

 increasing cost of HFC-134a;

 increases in costs to consumers;

 market competitiveness impacts;

 reduction in new product development;

 retesting required due to lack of coordi nation with timing of requirements for DOE energy conservation standards;

 economic impacts on branding;

 cost savings; and

 other general economic concerns. Some commenters, such as Mexichem, Solv ay, and AHAM, suggested that it was not necessary to change the status of HFC-134a and other HFC foam blowing agents or to requirePage 231 of 317 industry to incur the costs that these change s require. Other commenters, such as NMMA,NAFEM, XPSA, and their members, requested additional time for the change of status of HFC134a and other HFC foam blowing agents in order to allow them to spread costs out over time and thus make costs of the transition more mana geable. Imperial Brown suggested a later status change date to allow foam manufacturers to create sufficient supply, thereby alleviating a potential cost premium associated with scarcity of newer alternatives. Response : EPA recognizes that transitioning to ne w foam blowing agents is likely to require capital costs and invest ments in research, updated equi pment, and related financial impacts. However, as explained in more deta il in another response to comment, under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180 (a)(7), the only cost informati on that EPA considers as part of its SNAP review is the cost of the substitute under review (and not the cost of transition when a substitute is found unacceptable). Although cost is not a consider ation in our decision to change the status of certain substitutes, we note that based on technical concerns, the final rule establishes a later change of status date in a number of end-uses, which will allow manufacturers to spread costs over time. Regarding whether there will be a sufficient supply of alternatives, we considered this issue in establishing the change of status dates and believ e that there will be more than adequate supplies of alternatives. This will also contribute to lo wer costs. We have addressed elsewhere why it is necessary to change the status of substitute s for the various end-uses based on whether alternatives that pose lower risk are available. Where we concluded that safer alternatives were available, we determined it was necessary to ch ange the status. Thus, we disagree with the commenters who suggest that it is not necessary to change the status of various HFC foam blowing agents.Page 232 of 317 VI. What is EPA finalizing for the HCFCs addressed in this rule? A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs and what is being finalized in this rule? In the August 6, 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for three HCFCs: HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22 (79 FR 46,155). As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA proposed to modify the listings for these three HCFCs and blends containing these HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with other parts of the stratospheric protection program, specifically section 605 and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 610 and its implementing re gulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C. HCFCs are subject to the use restrictio ns in CAA section 605(a) and these specific HCFCs have been restricted under EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A since January 1, 2010. Additionally, the nonessentia l products ban under CAA secti on 610 restricts sale and distribution of certain products containing or manufactured with these three HCFCs. We believe it is important that the SNAP listings not indicat e that these HCFCs may be used when another program under title VI of the CAA would pr event such use. Thus, we are aligning the requirements. The HCFCs addressed in this ru le were previously listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions in the ae rosols, foam blowing, fire suppression and explosion protection, sterilants, a nd adhesives, coatings and inks sectors. For more information, please refer to the relevant sec tion of the proposed rule as noted above. The change of status determinations for the HCFCs addressed in this rule are summarized in the following table: Table 9. Change of Status Decisions for HCFCs Addressed in This Rule Sector and End-use Substitutes Decision Aerosols—Propellants HC FC-22 and HCFC-142b Un acceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Aerosols—Solvents HCFC-141b and blen ds thereof Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]Page 233 of 317 Foams – All end-uses HCFC-1 41b, HCFC-142b, HCFC-22, and blends thereof Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Fire suppression – Total flooding HCFC-22 Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Sterilants Blends containing HC FC-22 Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Adhesives, coatings, and inks—All end-uses HCFC-141b and blends thereof Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]
Consistent with the proposal, in today’s fi nal rule, EPA is modifying the listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well as blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable 90 in non-refrigerant sectors–specif ically, aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppressants, cleaning solvents, st erilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. As provided in the proposal, EPA is not a ddressing HCFC use for refrigeration and air conditioning in this rulemaking because CAA s ection 605(a) and our implementing regulations allow for continuing use of HCFCs to service equipment. Recognizing that other HCFCs became subject to the use and interstate commerce prohibitions in 40 CF R 82.15(g) after issuance of the proposed rule, and that limited exemptions are av ailable in section 82.15(g) for certain of those HCFCs, EPA is not modifying the SNAP listin gs for HCFCs other than HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 and blends containing those substances at this time. EPA may revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs in a later rulemaking as appropriate. We are finalizing the pr oposal that the listings be modified 60 days following issuance of a final rule. B. How is EPA responding to public comments co ncerning HCFCs?
Comment : EPA received a few comments on the proposed modifications affecting HCFCs, primarily on whether the unacceptabili ty determination should apply to imported

90 These three HCFCs have previously been listed as un acceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors.Page 234 of 317 products containing closed cell foam that cont ain any of the blowing agents listed as unacceptable, as well as applying to the blowing agent itself. Response : As explained in section V.D.2.c, a bove, EPA is not finalizing the proposed change to the import of closed cell foam products blown with an agent listed as unacceptable. We also explained that we plan to continue assessing the merits of this change and may provide further explanation and opportunity for comment in a subsequent rulemaking. Thus, as of the time of the status change, foam blowing agents containing HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 and blends are prohibited from being used or importe d into the United States, but foam products or products containing foam made with these agents, such as applianc es or furniture, may still be imported.
Comment : Hussmann Corporation asked for four years from the issuance of the final rule to make any changes to the acceptability of HC FC-141b in foam blowing applications, stating that considerable time is needed to review what impact new foam has to structural integrity and product efficiency. The commenter stated that th is timing would would al low manufacturers to make a transition to new products while remaini ng within the EPA’s new HCFC allocation rule (which will completely phase out HC FC refrigerants in five years). Response : EPA would like to clarify that anyone still using HC FC-141b to blow foam in the United States is likely out of compliance with longstanding regula tions promulgated under the SNAP program (CAA section 612), as well as the HCFC phaseout (CAA section 605). Under SNAP, HCFC-141b was listed as unacceptable ef fective on November 29, 2004, for all foam uses, with a limited exemption for use in space ve hicle, nuclear, and defense applications, as well as for research and development for foreign customers (see 69 FR 58,269). Under the HCFC phaseout program, EPA stopped the production and import of HCFC-141b for use in foams inPage 235 of 317 2003 (40 CFR 82.16(b)) and prohibited its use as of January 1, 2010, with limited exceptions (40 CFR 82.15(g)). All remaining exemptions for the use of HCFC-141b ended on January 1, 2015. Therefore, this current rule doe s not affect the use of HCFC-141b to blow foam in the United States; it only ensures the SNAP list is aligned with other existi ng regulations under Title VI of the CAA. If the commenter is referri ng to applying the unacceptability determination for HCFC141b to products containing HCFC-141b, as disc ussed above in this section, EPA is not finalizing the proposed change to the import of closed cell foam products blown with an agent listed as unacceptable. VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments? A. Authority 1. General Authority
Comment : The Agency received several comments, including those from Solvay, Arkema, AHAM, BASF, Mexichem, NRDC and IG SD, Whirlpool, and Bally Refrigerated Boxes on its authority to change the status of HFC-134a and other substitutes that were addressed in the proposed rule. NRDC and IGSD asserted that under section 612 of the CAA ((42 U.S.C. 7671k), EPA has the authority – if no t the affirmative mandate -- to remove the proposed substances from the SNAP list of accep table substitutes. They quoted from section 612(a), emphasizing that replacement of ODS with s ubstitutes that reduce overa ll risk is to occur “to the maximum extent practi cable” (42 U.S.C. 7671k(a)). Th ey stated that under section 612(c)(2), EPA has authority to decide which subs tances may and may not be used in the SNAP sectors. Finally, they asserted that in speaking of both alternat ives “currently” available, and those that are “potentially” available, Congress re cognized that the universe of alternatives willPage 236 of 317 evolve over time, so that as a dditional alternatives become ava ilable, EPA has an obligation to revise the SNAP list to ensure that the substan ces included will minimize “overall risks to human health and the environment” (42 U.S.C. 7671k(c)). In contrast, Mexichem, Solvay, AHAM/Elect rolux and Arkema asserted that the proposed actions were outside the scope of Title VI, section 612 of the CAA, and EPA’s SNAP regulations. Specifically, these commenters assert ed that Congress and EPA designed the SNAP program to safeguard stratospheric ozone, and not to address climat e change and greenhouse gases. AHAM stated that Title VI of the CAA do es not provide EPA broad authority to regulate refrigerants, foams and chemicals in circumst ances unrelated to ozone depletion. Mexichem stated that the repeated refere nces in section 612 to class I an d class II substances demonstrate that Congress was concerned with ODS. Several commenters emphasized evaluation of a substitute in relation to ODS. Mexichem asserted that EPA recognized “the limited nature of the statute” in 1994 when it promulgated the statement of purpose and scope for the S NAP program (59 FR 13,044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.170). In its comment, Mexichem provided a q uotation from the statement of purpose and scope, suggesting that substitutes are to be compared only to ODS. Arkema quoted an EPA “Guide to Completing a Risk Screen” 91 for the fire suppression s ector as explaining that environmental effects would be evaluated by comparing the substitute’s GWP to the GWP of the ODS it replaces. Solvay contende d that changing the listing st atus of a previously approved substitute would eliminate the user’s ability to us e a substance that met the statutory objective of providing better overall health and safety in comparison to the use of an ODS in a specific enduse.

91 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/riskscreenfire.pdfPage 237 of 317 Several commenters also asserted that nothi ng has happened with resp ect to any attribute or impact of the HFCs addressed in this rulema king that would warrant a change in the initial decisions to list HFCs as acceptable. Response: EPA agrees with NRDC and IGSD’s c onclusion that the Agency has authority to take the change of status actions include d in the proposed rulemaking and disagrees with comments suggesting that the sole purpose of se ction 612 and the SNAP program is to safeguard the ozone layer. Section 612(c) requires EPA to ta ke action when the Agency (1) determines that a substitute may present adverse effects to human health and the environment, and (2) identifies an alternative that reduces overall risk to human health and the environment and is currently or potentially available. That prov ision makes clear that the mand ate of section 612 is to reduce overall risk; it does not limit the risks of concern to those associated with ozone depletion. In addition, while section 612 refers repeatedly to class I and class II substances, it also refers repeatedly to substitutes or alte rnatives, requiring speci fic actions with regard to such substances. EPA cannot fulfill its section 612( c) mandate to compare alternatives with a view to reducing overall risk without cons idering impacts related to issu es other than ozone depletion. Toward that end, the SNAP regulations require submitters to include information on a wide range of factors in addition to ODP, including GWP, toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human exposure (59 FR 13,044, Mar. 18, 1994 and codified at 40 CFR 82.178). Further, the SNAP regulations state that EPA will consider atmospheric effects (including GWP), exposure assessments, toxicity data, flammability, and other environmental impacts such as ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts (59 FR 13,044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.180). In addition, while section 612( a) states the Congressional policy of reducing overall risk in broad terms, section 612(c) specifica lly requires EPA to compare the risk of thePage 238 of 317 substitute under review to other substitutes or alternatives. In that regard, Mexichem’s comment omits a crucial phrase in the stat ement of “purpose and scope” in the SNAP regulations. The complete statement reads: “The ob jectives of this progra m are . . . to promote the use of those substitutes believed to pres ent lower overall risks to human health and the environment, relative to the class I and class II compounds being replaced, as well as to other substitutes for the same end-use , and to prohibit the use of those substitutes found, based on the same comparisons, to increase overall risks [emphasis added]” (59 FR 13,044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.170). In addition, Arkema’s refe rence to a single document containing language mentioning a substitute-to-ODS comparison ignores the large number of risk screens that EPA has prepared over the years that compare the ODP and GWP, and other environmental and health attributes, of substitutes to those of other substitutes, as well to those of ODS (e.g., risk screens in the foll owing dockets: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0798 and EPA-HQOAR-2003-0118.) Further, EPA’s listings over th e years have included comparisons of substitutes to other availabl e alternatives in the same end-uses (e.g., 67 FR 13,272, 67 FR 77,927, 68 FR 50,533, 69 FR 58,903, 71 FR 15,589, 71 FR 55,140, 71 FR 56,359, 74 FR 21, 74 FR 50,129, 75 FR 34,017, 76 FR 17,488, 76 FR 61,269, 76 FR 78,832, 77 FR 47,768, 77 FR 58,035, 78 FR 29,034, 79 FR 62,863). The substitute -to-substitute comparison is essential to fulfilling EPA’s obligation under section 612(c) to determine wh ether there are alternatives that reduce overall risk as compared with the substitute under review. To the extent possible, the Agency has always sought to ensure that our SNAP decisions are informed by the most current overall unde rstanding of environmental and human health impacts associated with available and potentially available alternatives. In that regard, the Agency has, since the inception of the SNAP progra m, asserted its authorit y, consistent with thePage 239 of 317 language of section 612(c) and the section’s statement of co ngressional policy, to review substitutes listed as acceptable and to take ac tion with respect to those substitutes on the basis either of new information generally, including that re lated to overall risk, or of the availability of new alternatives that pos e less overall risk. Specifically, in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule, EPA made clear that “the Agency may revise thes e [listing] decisions in the future as it reviews additional substitutes and receives more data on substitutes already covered by the program” (59 FR 13,044, 13,047). We interpret section 612 as allowing both addition of new, safer alternatives to the listings and removal from the listings of substitutes found to pose more risk overall than other available alternatives. With regard to additional data on substitutes already covered by the program, the Agency has previously responded to the evolution of scie ntific and technical info rmation by revisiting the listing status of a substitute. For example, on th e basis of new information on toxicity, EPA took action in January of 2002 to change the listing for HBFC-22B1 from acceptable, subject to use conditions to unacceptable (67 FR 4,185, January 29, 2002; 40 CFR 82 subpart G, appendix J). With regard to additional alternatives, the suite of available or potentially available alternatives changes over time. Fo r example, over the past several years, and as standards and familiarity with the safe use of various alte rnatives has developed, EPA has listed several specific flammable refrigerants as acceptable for some end-uses subject to use conditions (e.g., 76 FR 78,832, December 20, 2011; 40 CFR 82 subpa rt G appendix R; 80 FR 19,453, April 10, 2015). Most of these refrigerants (e.g., etha ne, propane, isobutane, HFC-32) are not new molecules; rather, their recent listing as acceptable subject to us e conditions is based on an increased understanding of their ability to be used in a manner that would reduce overall risk. The availability of those alternat ives enables a broader review of comparative risk under sectionPage 240 of 317 612(c). Further, we disagree with th e notion that our understanding of the impact of HFCs has remained static. Our understanding of the impact that HFCs have on climate has evolved and become much deeper over the ye ars. As mentioned elsewhere in this rulemaking, a significant indication of that change can be seen in EPA’s December 7, 2009, Endangerment Finding ( 74 FR 66,496, 66,517, 66,539) which makes clear that l ike the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs. In addition, HFCs are now in widespread usage. The most commonly used HFC is HFC134a. HFC-134a is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate system than carbon dioxide (see Table A-1 to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98). Further, HFC emissions are projected to accelerate over the next several decades; if left unregulated, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030. 92 Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific literature and emission scenarios related to HFCs is availabl e in the docket for this rulemaking (e.g., Akerman, 2013; EPA, 2013b and 2014; IPCC, 2007 and 2013; IPCC/TEAP 2005; Montzka, 2012; Velders et al., 2009). This information was ta ken into account in this rulemaking. 2. Second generation substitutes
Comment : Several comments focused on the term “replace” in secti on 612(c), suggesting that once a company has switched to a non-ODS alternative, it is no longer "replacing" a Class I or Class II ODS in its products, and that it is unsupportable to read "replacement" as a continuous process rather than as a single event. Solvay stated that the proposed rule would require users that have already “replaced” ODS with non-ODS to make a second replacement, and that EPA lacks authority to require this seco nd replacement. Arkema stated that the statutory terms “replace” and “replacement” must be given th eir ordinary meanings, and that to replace an

92 Climate Change and President Obama’s Action Plan. Ju ne, 2013. Available in th e docket and online at www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-planPage 241 of 317 ODS means to take the place of an ODS. Arkema further noted that EPA defines a “substitute or alternative” in its SNAP regula tions as something “intended for use as a replacement for” an ODS (59 FR 13,044, Mar. 18, 1994 and 40 CFR 82.172). Arkema concluded that Congress and EPA designed the SNAP program to regulate th ings taking the place of ODS, not to replace substances with no ozone depletion potential. Ar kema contended that EPA has interpreted the statute and regulations as excl uding non-ODS. In support of this argument, Arkema quoted the preamble to the initial SNAP rule as saying that “a key issue” was “whether there exists a point at which an alternative should no lo nger be considered a class I or class II substitute as defined by 612” (59 FR 13,044, 13,052). The commenter further quoted the preamble to that rule as saying that “if a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is in troduced as a first-generation refrigerant substitute for [an ODS], it is subject to review and listing under section 612. Future substitutions to replace the HFC would then be exempt from reporting under section 612 . . . .” ( id.). In addition, Arkema quoted a 1996 petition response 93 as stating that EPA does not review substitutes for non-ozone-depleti ng substances such as HFC-134a. Arkema also quoted the SNAP Instruction Manual 94 as instructing applicants to specify the ODS being replaced. AHAM commented that the appliance industry no longer intends HFCs as a substitute or replacement for ODS. The commenter stated that th ere are very few remaining models that ever used ODS, and that the substances used in today’ s models are not substitu tes or replacements in the common-sense meaning of those words. Arkema further stated that EPA should be precluded from comparing non-ODS firstgeneration alternatives (such as HFC-134a) to second-generation non-ODS alternatives (such as HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744). Arkema contended that none of these second-generation

93 Response to Oz Technology’s Petition (Aug 30, 1996). 94 www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/submit/appguide.pdfPage 242 of 317 compounds is a “substitute” for SNAP purposes. Response : In this rulemaking, the Agency is re vising the listing stat us of substitutes that are direct replacements for ODS. Arkema ad mits as much on p. 8 of their comment letter, where they describe HFC-134a as a “first generation refrigerant substitute.” While we are not exploring the full scope of the “first generation” concept in this action, there is no question that HFC-134a directly replaced ODS in the rele vant sectors. For example, with respect to foam blowing, when HFC-134a was listed as acce ptable in foam blowing applications, foam was still being blown with HCFCs (59 FR 13,044, March 18, 1994; 64 FR 30,410, June 8, 1999). In this action, we are not a ddressing the extent of EPA’s au thority to revise the listings of alternatives that are arguably indirect replacements for ODS, sometimes termed “secondgeneration alternatives.” EPA does not agree with the commenters w ho suggest that while HFC-134a may have replaced ODS at one point in time, it no longer do es so. The term “replace” is not defined in section 612, EPA therefore interprets this term as it is commonly used. Dictionary definitions can provide insight into how a reasonable or ordinary pe rson would interpret the term. Dictionary definitions of “replace” include the following: “to be used instead of” 95 “to take the place of,” 96 and “to provide a substitute or equivalent for.” 97 None of these definitions suggests that something used “instead of” or “t o take the place” of something else ceases to “replace” it simply due to the passage of time. Nor does the Agency view the replacement of a ODS with a substitute (e.g., HF C-134a) as limited to the first time a product manufacturer uses the substitute. Indeed, in the preamble to th e initial SNAP rule, we interpreted the term

95 Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replace 96 Collins, www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/replace 97 Id.Page 243 of 317 “replace” to apply “each time a substitute is used.” (59 FR 13,044, 13,047). We noted that “[u]nder any other inte rpretation, EPA could never effec tively prohibit the use of any substitute, as some user could always star t to use it prior to EPA’s completion of the rulemaking required to list it as unacceptable” ( Id. ). Thus, the fact that HFC-134a is already in use as a replacement for ODS does not mean that its future use is any less of a replacement. In context, the language that Ar kema quotes (“whether there exists a point at which an alternative should no longer be considered a clas s I or II substitute”) does not suggest that a substance that directly replaces the ODS might somehow cease to qualify as an ODS substitute. Rather, it raises th e question of whether a substan ce that indirectly replaces the ODS might fail to qualify. That question is not addressed in this rulemaking because this rulemaking addresses only substances that are direct replacements for ODS in the relevant

sectors. Similarly, the mere passage of time does not m ean that the substances addressed in this rulemaking have somehow ceased to be “substi tutes or alternatives” under the regulatory definition at 40 CFR 82.172. No co mmenter suggests that at the time of their initial SNAP listing these substances were anything other than “chemicals . . . intended for use as a replacement for a class I or II compound.” Rather, commenters assert that these substances are no longer intended for use as an ODS replacemen t. However, introducing a temporal aspect into this definition would mean that a product manufacturer could make an initial substitution for a class I or II substance 90 days after pr oviding the required notification to EPA and thereafter continue to use the substitute while disclaiming any intent to replace the ODS. This is not a supportable interpretation because it would allow the manufact urer to circumvent SNAP requirements simply by beginning to use a substitute prior to its SNAP listing.Page 244 of 317 In addition, EPA implements the section 612(c ) mandate to list substances as acceptable or unacceptable “for specific uses” by listing substitutes on an end-use or sector basis. 98 Similarly, the Agency views transition as occurr ing on an end-use by end-use or sector-by-sector basis, not -- as one commenter suggests -- on a model-by-model basi s. Thus, the act of “replacing” is not limited to th e redesign of a particular mode l, or the introduction of a new model, but instead occurs repeatedly within a given end-use or sector. Contrary to Solvay’s comment, EPA has aut hority to regulate the continuing replacement of ODS with HFC-134a and the other substitutes w hose listing status is a ddressed in this action. In this rulemaking, EPA considered whether such replacement should continue to occur given the expanded suite of other alternatives to ODS in the relevant end- uses and our evolving understanding of risks to the e nvironment and public health. The commenter’s line of reasoning would undermine EPA’s ability to comply with th e statutory scheme refl ected in section 612(c), under which EPA’s authority to prohibit use of a s ubstitute is tied to info rmation on overall risk and the availability of substitutes. Regarding Arkema’s suggestion that HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744 are not “substitutes” for SNAP purposes and thus they ca nnot be used as part of a review of whether EPA should change the status of HFC-134a, we disagree. HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a and R-744 (as well as the other substances we used fo r comparison purposes in this rulemaking) 99 are currently listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions under SNAP. Thus, we have

98 This is reflected in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 99 We note that the requirement under section 612 does not limit our analysis of whether there are “safer” alternatives only to “substitutes” listed under the SNAP prog ram. Rather section 612(c) re fers to “alternatives” that are currently or potentially available. Th us, in instances where we are aware of other alternatives that may not have completed SNAP review and we have sufficient informa tion for those alternatives relative to the SNAP review criteria, we may include those alternatives in our comp arative analysis. In this action, for purposes of the refrigeration end-uses, we included in our comparative analysis several substances we were concurrently reviewing under SNAP and which we have taken action to list as acce ptable, subject to use conditio ns (April 10, 2015, 80 FR 19,453) and for which we are taking action concu rrently with this rule to list as acceptable.Page 245 of 317 separately taken action to treat these substances as substitutes for the purposes of section 612(c) and the corresponding regulatory provisions. We are not re-examining in this rulemaking whether the substances used for comparison purposes in this action qualify as substitutes. Rather, in this rule, we are making listing determinations for substances that are direct substitutes for ODS based on their overall risk compar ed to these other alternatives. 3. GWP Considerations
Comment : The Agency received several comments relating to EPA’s authority to consider GWP in its comparative risk evalua tion, and to take action on the basis of GWP. Specifically, Solvay and Mexichem stated that while section 602 of the CAA requires EPA to publish the GWP of each listed class I and class II substance, the Agency’s authority is limited by the language stating that it “s hall not be construed to be the basis of an y additional regulation under this chapter.” Solvay stated that this language e xpresses Congress's intent that no provision of Title VI – including, but not limite d to, §602, §608, §612, and §615 – provides statutory authority for the Agency to implement an overa rching program under which it can force users to cease using substances with global warming, bu t not ozone-depleting, potentials. Mexichem commented that if GWPs of lis ted compounds cannot be the basi s of further regulation under Title VI, it follows that regulation based on comparisons of GWPs of both listed substances and unlisted alternatives was intended by Congress e qually to be foreclose d. Commenters asserted that EPA inappropriately used th e physical characteristic of GW P as a surrogate for risk; failed to assess the significance to climate change of the emissions reductions estimated to be brought about by the action as they relate to risk for each substance in each sector covered; failed to assess and account for indirect climate impacts; and failed to apply it s customary tests for consideration of atmospheric effects.Page 246 of 317 BASF commented that EPA proposed to find HFCs unacceptable because they have “high GWPs as compared with other available or potentially available substitutes in those end– uses and pose significantly grea ter overall risk to human heal th and the environment.” BASF noted that while CAA section 612 does require an assessment of risk, it does not explain how that assessment should be done. BASF added that whatever that assessmen t should involve, it is possible that Congress did not intend GWP to be part of that assessment. Response : As noted by some commenters, section 602 of the CAA calls on EPA to publish the GWP for each class I or class II substance, but goes on to say that this mandate “shall not be construed to be the basis of any additional regula tion under this chapter.” Consistent with this provision, we are no t relying on section 602 as authority for the action being taken in this rulemaking. Rather, we are relying on section 612, which specifically provides that EPA is required to list a substance as una cceptable if it “may present adverse effects to human health or the environment” where EPA has identified alternat ives that are currently or potentially available and that “reduce the overall risk to human health and the environment.” Considerations of atmospheric effects and related health a nd environmental impacts have always been a part of SNAP’s comparative revi ew process, and the pr ovision of GWP-related information is required by the SNAP regul ations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and 82.180). The issue of EPA’s authority to consider GWP in its SNAP lis ting decisions was raised in the initial rule establishing the SNAP program. In the preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule, EPA stated: “The Agency believes that the Congressional mandate to evaluate substitutes based on reducing overall risk to human health and the environment authorizes use of global warming as one of the SNAP evaluation criteria. Public comment failed to identify any definition of overall risk that warranted excluding global warm ing” (59 FR 13,044, March 18, 1994).Page 247 of 317 Consistent with that un derstanding, the 1994 SNAP rule specifically included “atmospheric effects and related health and envi ronmental impacts” as evaluation criteria the Agency uses in undertaking comparative ri sk assessments (59 FR 13,044, March 18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7)(i)). That rule also established the requirement that anyone submitting a notice of intent to introduce a substitute into intersta te commerce provide the substitute’s GWP (see 40 CFR 82.178(a)(6)). Accordingly, we have considered the relative GWP of alternatives in many SNAP listing decisions. For example, in the deci sion to list C7-Fluoroketone as acceptable we noted that “C7 Fluoroketone’s GWP of about 1 is lower than or comparable to that of other nonozone-depleting subs titutes in heat transfer uses, such as HFE-7100 with GWP of 297, HFC245fa with a GWP of 1030, and CO 2 with a GWP of 1” (77 FR 47,768, August 10, 2012). In that same action, EPA also considered ODP, VOC st atus, flammability, toxicity and exposure, concluding that “EPA finds C7 Fluoroketone acceptable in the e nd-use listed above because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by C7 Fluoroketone is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other subst itutes found acceptable in the same end-use” ( id ). Similarly, in finding the use of isobutane and R-441 acceptable subject to use conditions in household refrigeration, we incl uded an-in depth discussion of the relative GWP of these and other alternatives listed for household refrigeration (76 FR 78,832, December 20, 2011). In response to comments that EPA inappropriate ly used the physical characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for risk and that EPA failed to assess the significance to climate change of the emissions reductions estimated to be brought about by the action, as they relate to risk for each substance in each sector covered, we note that GWP is a relative measure and that if comparable amounts of two substitutes are used, th en the relative climate effects of resultant emissions will be higher for the substitute with higher GWP. EPA considers factors such asPage 248 of 317 charge size of refrigeration equipment and tota l estimates of production in its assessment of environmental and health risks of new alternatives, so we ca n consider if there would be substantial differences that might affect total atmospheric emissions. We believe that we have appropriately considered GWP as a metric for comparing climate effects of substitutes. In response to comments that EPA failed to assess and account fo r indirect climate impacts, we note that we do not have a practi ce in the SNAP program of including indirect climate impacts in the overall risk analysis. We do consider issues such as technical needs for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether alternatives are “available,” and have followed that practice in this rulemaki ng. We believe that there is a sufficient range of acceptable alte rnatives that end users will be able to maintain energy efficiency levels We also note that federal ener gy conservation standards will continue to ensure that equipment regulated by this rule will not increase its indirect climate impacts. See in particular section V.C.7 for a discussion on ener gy efficiency for comm ercial refrigeration products and section V.D.3.c for a response to comments on energy efficiency of foams. In this action, EPA used the same comparativ e risk approach it has used in the past, including the consideration of GWP. 4. Takings
Comment: Solvay asserted that the delisting of al ready approved alternatives constitutes a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Solvay commented that the delisting would effectuate a re gulatory taking for which the United States would owe "just compensation" to regulated parties, including Solv ay, that have made significant investments in furtherance of U.S. policies under the CAA a nd the Montreal Protoc ol. Solvay quoted the Supreme Court case Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council as saying that “any limitation [thatPage 249 of 317 prohibits all economically benefici al uses of real property] . . . cannot be newly legislated or decreed (without compensation), but must inhere in the title itself, in the restriction that background principles of the State’s law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership” (505 U.S. 1003, 1029 (1992)). Response: The first question in a takings analysis is whether there is a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment. The commenter does not identify the prope rty interest that is the subject of the alleged “taking.” While the commenter cites a case involving real property, no real property is at stake here. To the extent the commenter has a property interest in the HFCs it imports or produces, such interest would be lim ited to quantities already in existence, and not those that might be produced or imported in the future. In any even t, EPA’s change in the listing status of HFCs does not effect uate a taking. First, EPA’s actio n does not “completely deprive” the commenter of “all economically beneficial us[e]” of the HFCs it produces or imports. See Lingle v. Chevron , 544 U.S. 528, 538 (2005), quoting Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council , 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992). EPA is not listing all HFCs as unacceptable in all end-uses; rather, EPA is listing certain HFCs as unacceptable in specified end-uses. In addition, EPA is adopting change of status dates that pr ovide ample time for HFCs already in existence to be sold. Thus, some “economically beneficial use” of the HFCs remains. In such situat ions, courts typically consider several factors in determining whethe r a regulatory taking has occurred. Those factors include “the character of the gove rnmental action, its economic im pact, and its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations.” PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robbins , 447 US 74, 83 (1980). Here, the change in the listing status of certain HFCs for speci fied end-uses is designed to “promote the common good” ( see Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City , 438 U.S.Page 250 of 317 104, 124 (1978)). The alternatives to which EPA co mpared these HFCs in this action were found to pose less overall risk to human health and th e environment in the sp ecified end-uses. Thus, removing these HFCs from the list of acceptable s ubstitutes for these end-uses provides a public benefit. Regarding the economic impact of this action, EPA recognizes that the impact will vary for the different end-uses. For example, for some foam blowing agent en d-uses, transitioning to other alternatives is likely to require capital costs and i nvestments in re search, updated equipment, and their related financial impacts. In comparison, for some aerosol propellant uses and some refrigeration end-uses, depending on the alternative selected, there may be little or no need for capital costs or research. However, EPA notes that chemical producers have been investing in low-GWP alternatives for years, a nd many have either submitted SNAP notifications or expressed interest in submitting SNAP notifi cations concerning new molecules and blends of existing molecules. The commenter could not have had a reason able investment-backed expectation that these HFCs would continue to be listed as accep table indefinitely in all end-uses, or in any specific end-use, because EPA expressly stated in th e preamble to the initial SNAP rule that “the Agency may revise these [listing] decisions in the future as it reviews additional substitutes and receives more data on substitutes already covered by the program” (59 FR 13,044, 13,047). In addition, EPA also noted the “significant global warming potentials” of some HFCs and stated “EPA is concerned that rapid e xpansion of the use of some HF Cs could contribute to global warming” ( id. at 13,071). EPA characterized HFCs as a “near-term option for moving away from CFCs,” not as a long-term solution. 5. Montreal Protocol/International
Comment : Solvay comments that HFCs are not re gulated under the Montreal ProtocolPage 251 of 317 and are not Class I or Class II substances under T itle VI. Mexichem states that the United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed to amend the Montreal Protocol to provide an across-theboard phase down of HFCs, but until then, EPA’s regulatory authority under Title VI is limited to ODS. AHAM adds that if at some point EPA is authorized to phase ou t HFCs consistent with future international obligations that may constitute a more appropriate avenue for phase-down measures. AHAM believes there is minimal purpos e in promoting an international regulatory regime if EPA is going to apply what it consider s to be a “blunt and inappropriate” regulatory instrument domestically, regardless of the sh ape of a future international scheme. AHAM comments that the appliance industry's transi tion from HFCs is well underway, and EPA’s proposal should reflect and support this progre ss, rather than impede it. Five commenters commented on the perceived inconsistency of the proposed timeline and the proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol to adopt a gradual ph ase down of HFCs. Response : EPA agrees that the Montreal Protoc ol does not currently regulate HFCs. Nevertheless, several sections of Title VI call on EPA to take measures that are not required by the Montreal Protocol but are complementary to the ODS phaseout. Thes e sections include, in addition to section 612, sections 608 (national emissions reduction program), 610 (nonessential products), and 611 (labeling). In ad dition, while HFCs are not a Class I or Class II substance under the Clean Air Act, HFCs are substitutes for Class I and Class II ODS, and section 612 and its implementing regulations sp ecifically call on the agency to restrict substitutes for ODS where the Agency has identified other available or potentially available alternatives that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. The CAP considers both domestic and multilateral action to address HFCs. The United States co-proposed and is strongly advocating fo r an amendment to the Montreal Protocol toPage 252 of 317 phase down production and consumption of HFCs . EPA sees no conflict between the United States’ strong support for a global phase-dow n and this domestic action. The amendment proposal calls for a phase-down of production an d consumption of a group of HFCs, including HFC-134a as well as HFC-125 and HFC-143a (components of R-404A, R-507A and other blends), on a total CO 2 -equivalent basis. It ap plies phase-down steps to this group of HFCs as a basket and does not assign indi vidual deadlines to specific HFCs or address specific uses. 6. Absence of petitions
Comment : Solvay questioned whether the Agency has the authority to issue this proposed rule in the absence of one or more petitions that fully satisfy the requirements of §612(d). Solvay commented that while Congress gran ted EPA the authority to create an initial list of approved substitutes for ODS under §612(c), §612(d) specifies that additions or deletions to the SNAP list must be proposed vi a petition, and that petitions “shall include a showing by the petitioner that there are data on the substance ade quate to support the petition.” Solvay stated that the CAA puts the burden on a petitioner to demonstrate that the substance it proposes to list sa tisfies all of the SNAP criteri a. Solvay contended that EPA should not attempt to delist any substances on it s own initiative. Solvay commented that to the extent it does, EPA has the burden, standing in the shoes of a petitioner, to demonstrate that it has data adequate to support the petition. Response : The Agency disagrees with the comme nter regarding EPA’s authority to independently review and, where appropriate, change the status of substitutes under the SNAP program. In the preamble to the initial SNAP rule, the Agency stated that “section 612 authorizes it to initiate changes to the SNAP determinations independent of any petitions or notifications received. These amendments can be based on new data on either additionalPage 253 of 317 substitutes or on characteris tics of substitutes previously reviewed” (59 FR 13,044, 13,047). Nothing in section 612(c) cont ravenes this interpretation. Th e existence of section 612(d), which provides a right for persons to petition th e Agency to revise a listing, does not address in any manner whether EPA has authority to ch ange a listing on its ow n. Furthermore, section 612(c) requires EPA to take action when the Ag ency (1) determines that a substitute may present adverse effects to human health and the environment, and (2) identifies an alternative that reduces overall risk to hu man health and the environment a nd is currently or potentially available. Section 612(c) does not limit such EPA determinations to initial review of substitutes. For petitions under section 612(d), the petition must “include a showing . . . that there are data on the substance adequate to support the pet ition.” The Agency disagrees that EPA stands in the shoes of a petitioner under 612(d) when it pr oposes to change the listing status of an alternative. Rather, EPA’s action is governed by section 612(c), and EPA considers the criteria used in reviewing substitutes as provided in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). Regardless, we note that we also review section 612(d) petitions based on the same SNAP criteria a nd thus the “data on the substance adequate to support the petition” neces sarily are the data required for review under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). EPA has changed the listing status of substitu tes in the past without having received a petition under section 612(d), as , for example, when we change d the listing status of MT-31 (64 FR 3,861, Jan. 26, 1999;40 CFR 82 subpart G appendix E) and HBFC-22B1 (67 FR 4,185, Jan. 29, 2002; 40 CFR 82 subpart G appendix J). While EPA has the right to act in the absen ce of a petition, as described above, EPA did receive three petitions filed under section 612(d) that are re levant to this rulemaking.Page 254 of 317 Specifically, NRDC filed a petition on May 7, 2010. On February 14, 2011, EPA found that petition complete for MVAC in new passenger ca rs and light-duty vehicles and determined it was incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. This rule responds to the aspect of that petition that we found complete. In addition, EIA filed a petition on April 26, 2012, and NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a petition on April 27, 2012. Although EP A found both of these petitions incomplete, our action in this final rule may be considered responsive to certain as pects of the petitions, given that we are changing the listing of certain HFCs used in sectors noted in those petitions from acceptable to unacceptable for most uses, a nd placing use conditions or narrowed use limits on some of the remaining uses. A more detailed discussion of the petitions can be found in section IV of this rule.
7. Application of criteria for review of alternatives
Comment : Solvay commented that EPA has failed to properly apply the SNAP factors to a delisting situation, has gi ven undue weight to GWP in its analysis, and has based its decision on comparative GWPs of various non- ODS options to the exclusion of all other factors. Solvay commented that the proposal wa s deficient in that EPA failed to consider many relevant codes, standards and regulat ions, including parallel energy efficiency regulations issued by the DOE; building code st andards; fire code requirements; and Coast Guard regulations. Solvay also stated that EPA should have considered te chnical concerns like solubility, compatibility, and shelf stability; equipment limits ; supply chain considerations; and safety concerns that a ffect many end-use products. Solvay further commented that in making a de termination whether to list a substance as an approved substitute to repla ce an ODS, the Agency must conduc t a comprehensive analysis of each alternative in each end-use, including cons iderations of the cost of the alternative,Page 255 of 317 availability, and the overall pract icability of effectuating a replacement. Solvay focused on the phrase “to the maximum extent practicable” in se ction 612(a) of the CAA, stating that Congress deliberately chose the term “practicable” to ma ndate an orderly transition from ODS. Solvay stated that the term “practicable” ordinarily includes consideration of cost and availability. Solvay further argued that EPA had acknowledged and agreed with this understanding of the term by including cost and availabi lity in its list of criteria. Solvay referred to dictum in Honeywell v. EPA , 374 F.3d 1363, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 2004) stating that “it is at least facially plausible to read the term ‘available’ in sec tion 612(c) as permitting consideration of ‘economic or practicality’ concerns.” Mexichem commented that the text of th e proposed rule and the underlying docket, including the SNAP program’s comparative risk framework, are vague on how EPA reached the required section 612(c) conclusion that the alternatives reduce ove rall risks to human health and the environment, leaving the impression that it considered only GWP. Specifically, they state that out of the seven documents th at may be relevant to the comp arative risk framework analysis, only the “Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule” re port refers to human health and the environment, with a focus on climat e benefits, but that the report itself is silent on estimated reduction of “overall risks to human h ealth.” Mexichem also noted that EPA promised to prepare a consolidated anal ysis document in the proposed rule, but no such document was available at the time the comments were drafted. Me xichem further stated that an assessment of HFC-134a and related alternatives is missing, and that such an assessment should have included several specific questions related to the followi ng factors: performance, availability, hazard, exposure, and cost of the alternatives. These que stions include whether the other a lternatives perform as well as HFC-134a in the specific end- use; whether the other alternatives will bePage 256 of 317 available in the necessary quantities; whether th e other alternatives present a better overall hazard profile; whether the other al ternatives present a better overall exposure profile; whether use of the other alternatives invol ves an equivalent cost; and whethe r use of the other alternatives represents a cost-effective mitigation of CO 2 emissions in each end-use. Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc. questioned whether the CAA authorizes EPA to delist non-ODS solely on the basis of GWP. Arkema co mmented that EPA is focusing on the potential hazard of GWP alone and stated that EPA is not evaluating HFC-134a within a comparative risk framework. Arkema stated that if the CAA were to authorize the SNAP program to “delist” previously approved non-ozone depl eting substances based on climate, then EPA would need to develop an objective measure for deciding which substitute poses a greater risk and communicate that standard to the regulated comm unity. Arkema claimed that any such measure would need to include methods for weighing differ ent types of risks against one another (such as flammability versus climate) a nd for including mitigation, as the existing SNAP program, which did not originally provide for quantitative i ndexing of risks, does not convey sufficient information to the Agency or the regulated co mmunity regarding risk management decisions. Response : EPA disagrees with the commenter s’ views regarding the Agency’s consideration of overall risk. In this rule, we applied the same comparative risk framework that was established for the SNAP program in 1994 a nd that has been used successfully for over 20 years. When we issued the proposal, we did not re-open fundamental parts of the SNAP program, such as the factors we evaluate and the manner in which we weigh them. Under the SNAP regulations, proponents of a substitute are required to submit a wide array of information, including information on ODP, GWP, toxicity, e nvironmental fate and transport, flammability, exposure data and the cost and availability of the substitute under review (see 40 CFR 82.178 forPage 257 of 317 a full list of the information required with SNAP submissions). EPA reviews these data and applies the regulatory criteria adopted in 1994, whic h include, in addition to atmospheric effects, general population risks from ambient exposure to compounds with direct toxicity and to increased ground-level ozone, ecosystem risks, occ upational risks, consumer risks, flammability, and cost and availability of the substitute under review (see 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7)). As regards specific quantification of reductions in overall risk to human health and the environment, in the 1994 rulemaking, we considered and rejected comme nts suggesting that we develop an index to rank all substitutes based on risk. In the preamble to the rule, we specifically noted that “a strict quantitative index would not allow for suffici ent flexibility in making appropriate risk management decisions” (59 FR 13,044, March 18, 1994). Our subsequent experience with the SNAP program has given us no reas on to revisit this approach. While EPA prepared a variety of documents in association with the proposed rule, the bulk of the comparison of human health and enviro nmental impacts of alte rnatives appeared in the preamble to the NPRM. 100 For this final rule, we have ad ded a technical support document to the docket which provides the Federal Register citations for information such as ODP, GWP, VOC status, flammability, and workplace exposure limits both for the substitutes remaining acceptable and for those with a changed status (EPA, 2015d). This information was discussed in the preambles to both the NRPM and the final ru le and is provided in tabular format in the technical support document for easier comparis on and consistency of presentation. As stated in the NPRM, the documentation associated with the proposed rule includes “market characterizations, analyses of costs associat ed with sector transitions, estimated benefits associated with the transition to alternatives , and potential small business impacts” (79 FR

100 EPA also placed in the docket a document on exposure li mits for alternatives in the foam blowing sector, titled, “Information on workplace exposure lim its for foam blowing agents.”Page 258 of 317 46,126). These documents provide information to the public about estimated environmental benefits, the affected markets, and potential co st impacts, as well as provide EPA’s screening analyses to determine whether this rule may have significant economic impacts or significant impacts on a substantial number of small businesses; they are not part of EPA’s comparison of human health and environmenta l effects of alternatives. Mexichem noted in its comments that EPA had included these docum ents in the docket for the proposed rule, but raised a concern about the availability of the consolidated analysis document anticipated in the NPRM. The consolidated analysis is included in the docket for the final rule, but was not available during the pub lic comment period (ICF, 2015a). This document is a consolidated sector-by-sector market char acterization for those sectors addressed in this action. While it incorporates some suggestions and information provided by commenters, it otherwise does not add new substantive informa tion other than that pr ovided in the individual market characterizations at th e time of the proposed rulemaking. It merely consolidates the information for ease of reference. We disagree with the comments suggesting that EPA did not consider factors other than GWP. In the NPRM, for each end-use or sect or, EPA provided information comparing the alternatives and applying the full set of regulator y criteria, not solely GWPs, in deciding whether to change the status of a liste d substitute, consistent with SNAP’s past practices. As one example, in discussing the change in status fo r HFC-227ea in the aerosol propellant end-use, the Agency explained in the preamble that other avai lable substitutes have zero ODP, are relatively low in toxicity, are capable of remaining below their respective exposure li mits, and are expected to have negligible impact on ground-level ozone levels (79 FR 46,126, 46,173). In each case, consistent with the decision criteria liste d at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), EPA has consideredPage 259 of 317 environmental impacts, flammability, toxicity, and exposure. In the context of this review, we considered a large amount of information incl uding, among other things: scientific findings, information provided by the Technology and Econo mic Assessment Panel (TEAP) that supports the Montreal Protocol, journal articles, submissi ons to the SNAP program, dockets for other EPA rulemakings, presentations and reports presented at domestic and international conferences, and materials from trade associations and professional organizations. References cited in the NPRM were listed in section IX of that document and the re ferences cited in this final action are listed in section IX of this document. Solvay suggested a number of considerations they believe should have been included as part of EPA’s decision-making criteria, such as various standards and codes, product shelflife, and equipment limits. Solvay does not disc uss how the various cons iderations mentioned relate to the existing SNAP review process. In general, we took such considerations into account to the extent relevant to the criteria for review of a subs titute or to the availability of other alternatives. For ex ample, we considered such issues as the supply and characteristics of alternatives as well as the status of various regulations and code s and standards as they relate to the availability of the alternatives and thus the appropriate time fo r the change of status. EPA specifically mentioned building codes ( id. at 46,143) and energy effi ciency and requested comment on “the effect, if any, [the] proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE standards.” ( id. at 46,147). We also noted that plans for the production of an alternative to HFC-134a in the MVAC end-use “are in place to make it available in volumes that meet current and projected domestic auto industry demand.”( id. at 46,141) We also addressed certain of these issues in the context of the potential mitigation of risks both for those substitutes subject to the stat us change and those that remain available. ForPage 260 of 317 example, we noted in the preamble to the NPRM, in the context of alternatives in several of the foams end-uses, that flammability issues would be addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes ( id. at 46,152, 46,153); and in the c ontext of the retail food refrigeration and vending machine end-uses, that exposure limits for the alternatives, including workplace exposure limits of the AI HA and from OSHA and NIOSH, would be met. ( id. at 46,144). Concerning other te chnical concerns such as so lubility, compatibility, and shelf stability, this is not information that the SNAP program has routinely requested or received, either for the substitutes used for comparison purposes or for those being evaluated for listing. We have recognized, and when wa rranted, made changes responding to such technical considerations in this final rule wh ere commenters provided information relevant to the availability of alternatives: for example, in establishing the change of status date for standalone refrigeration equipment, we took into consideration that certain larger capacity commercial stand-alone refriger ation equipment requires charge sizes larger than those established in the use conditions fo r most flammable refrigerants. Similarly, Mexichem suggested that EPA was required to ev aluate specific questions regarding performance, availability, hazard, exposure, and cost. Again, this ignores the established criteria that EPA uses in dete rmining whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable in a specified end-use. In the NPRM, in determining whether other substitutes were available that posed lower risk than thos e for which we proposed to change the status, EPA evaluated the ozone-depletion, climate, loca l air quality, toxicity and flammability risks of the substitutes undergoing a change of stat us as well as of othe r alternatives, thereby addressing hazard and exposure concerns. We note that the statute refers to overall risk to human health and the environment, and does not re quire that the substitutes be better in termsPage 261 of 317 of each potential human health and environmen tal concern. EPA does not typically compare the performance or efficacy of substitutes ex cept in considering whet her a substitute is technically feasible (s ee definition of “potentially avai lable” at 40 CFR 82.172). In other words, it is not necessary for EPA to evaluate whether other alternatives perform as well as HFC-134a (or other HFCs) in the specific end–use in order to determine that overall risks to human health and the environment would be reduced through use of those alternatives. We have considered whether other alternatives will be available in sufficient quantities as part of our analysis of the availability of alternatives. As discussed in the NPRM, we set dates for the proposed status changes that reflect when there will be a sufficient supply of the alternatives. ( id. at 46,141) In some instances, we have revised those dates in this final action after taking into account information on supply of alternatives submitted by commenters. One of the regulatory criteria for review of a substitute is the “cost and availability of the substitute” (59 FR 13,044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.180(7)(vii)). The consideration of cost under this criterion is limited to the cost of th e substitute under review; it is distinct from consideration of costs associated with the use of other alternatives to which the substitute is being compared. See Honeywell, 374 F.3d at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“While the SNAP regulations make the ‘cost and availability of the substitute’ an element of acceptability . . . that concern is limited to whether EPA ‘has . . . reason to prohibit its use,’ not to whether cleaner alternatives for th e substance are already ‘c urrently or potentially available’. . . . Consideration of transition costs is thus preclu ded by the SNAP regulations as currently written, irrespective of whether it might be permitted under CAA § 612(c) . . . .”) Contrary to Solvay’s contention, including the cost of the substitute in the list of review criteria does not amount to an acknowledgment that the te rm “practicable” as used in section 612(a)Page 262 of 317 necessarily involves consideration of the costs as sociated with using other alternatives. EPA has not determined whether the term “practicable,” the term “available,” or other terms in section 612 provide discretion to consider such costs. Similarly, our existi ng regulations do not direct us to consider whether use of the ot her alternatives involves an equiva lent cost to that of HFC-134a or a cost-effective mitigation of CO 2 emissions. We are not addr essing in this rulemaking whether to revise the regulatory criteria to includ e an expanded role for the consideration of costs in SNAP listing decisions. We have simply applie d the existing regulatory criteria in determining whether to change the listing status of the subst itutes addressed in this action. Thus, we have not considered the costs of tran sition to other alternatives. Several commenters suggested or implied th at EPA’s action was based “excessively” or solely on GWP. As discussed above, we performed a full comparative risk analysis for each of the substitutes and for each end-use for which we are changing the status. However, as noted in the preamble to the NPRM, EPA issued this pr oposal in response to the CAP. As such, in determining which substitutes and end-uses to address in the proposed rule, we evaluated the existing listing decisions in th e eight sectors covered by the S NAP program. In three of the sectors, we identified a subset of substitutes that have a high GWP relative to other listed alternatives and for which we also had reason to believe other alternatives were “available” for the end-use. For those substitutes included in the proposed rule on the basis of having a relatively higher GWP, in most cases, EPA did not find signifi cant potential differences in risk with respect to the other criteria, with the exceptions of fla mmability and local air quality impacts. However, where flammability risk was a potential concern, we concluded that such risk is mitigated by the existing use conditions or through other existing regulations (e.g., OSHA). In the case of spray foam, we proposed to change the status of fewer HFCs than in other foam blowing end-uses inPage 263 of 317 consideration of greater flammability risks in that end-use. Regarding VOC emissions and potential impacts on local air qua lity, for the aerosol propellant end-use, we did not propose to change the status of HFC-152a, a VOC-exempt aerosol propellant.
B. Cost and economic impacts of proposed status changes EPA received a number of comments on the co st and economic impacts of the proposed rule. Some of these comments are summarized in the response to comments sections for the enduses addressed in this final rule. We summari ze and respond to the more general cost comments below. 1. Costs of proposed rule
Comment : EPA received several comments indica ting that the commenters believe EPA should provide more time in order to a void undue burden on the U.S. economy. NAFEM comments that if this rule is finalized as pr oposed, the change from using R-404A will be very costly. NAFEM stated that compliance cost estimates range from $500,000 to several million dollars depending on the number and variety of cu stom products the manufacturer offers. They further comment that testing costs are routinel y several hundred thousand dollars and increase with the variety and level of customization. NAFEM comments that in addition, manufacturers will lose revenues waiting for the limited number of testing facilities able to accommodate the industry’s products. The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (t he Alliance) requests that greater weight be given to economic consid erations where the Agency is determining dates for availability of new alternatives, or cha nging the listing status, which unlike SNAP listing, may require businesses to alter practices and business models. The Alliance also requests that these economic considerations al so be undertaken cognizant of co mpeting regulatory initiatives. The Alliance also comments that the SNAP change of status process should be used sparingly,Page 264 of 317 since its economic implications should require a higher scrutiny in cons idering transition dates and market assumptions than is needed for the SNAP listing approval process. DuPont comments that it is important to reduce emissions in a wa y that does not slow dow n global trade, and to achieve emissions reductions in a cost-effectiv e manner. Arkema comments that no SNAP rule should impose unreasonable burdens on the U.S. economy. Arkema believes that EPA must allow more time for transitions to avoid that outcome. Mexichem believes EPA failed to take into account the economic impli cations of the proposed rule. Response : As discussed more fully in section V II.A.7, under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only co st information that EPA cons iders as part of its SNAP reviewof substitutes is the cost of the substitu te under review. The transition timelines in this final rule are based on information concer ning the availability of alternatives.
Comment : Arkema commented that EPA underestim ated the costs of the NPRM. Arkema believes EPA’s cost estimates are unduly optimistic given all that must be done to redesign equipment. Arkema further commented on three areas of economic analysis that they state need to be addressed. First, Arkema stated that EP A does not include the “wasted costs” incurred by those manufacturers that have actually change d designs of their equipment to meet DOE standards, based on the continued availability of existing SNAP substitutes, but that now may need to change their designs again. Second, Arkema suggested that EPA should account for “economic effects” on U.S. plants that produce HFC-134a and the other HFCs and HFC blends whose listing the Agency proposed to change . Third, Arkema suggest ed that the economic analyses should disclose how EPA expects prices and availability to change once it eliminates competing products, including stimulation of shor t-term demand for the HFCs and HFC blends whose listing the Agency proposed to change, longe r term increases in pr ices for the HFCs andPage 265 of 317 HFC blends, and increased demand for next-gener ation fluorinated product s. Solvay commented that given the cumulative regulatory burden, EPA has dramatically underestimated the costs of the NPRM. As an example, Solvay pointed to the DOE energy conservation standards. Response : Although EPA did not consider the costs of transitioning to other alternatives in making the listing decisions in this rulemaking, we did prepar e a cost analysis and a small business impacts analysis for this rule fo r businesses that are directly regulated. We do not typically analyze cumulative re gulatory burden in our cost analyses. Nonetheless, EPA notes that to the extent that affected entities recently incurred costs to comply with DOE rulemakings, the change of status dates in the final rule for the foam blowing sector and for some of the refrigeration end-uses (e.g., vending machines) may reduce the potential for additional costs due to complying with both rules compared to the change of status dates in the NPRM, since equipment manufacturers should better be able to coordinate DOE’s requirements and these SNAP requirements. For example, the ch ange of status date for rigid PU appliance foam is January 1, 2020, while based on the 2014 compliance date of the most recent DOE standards, the compliance date for any revi sed energy conservation standard for household refrigerators and freezers would be no earlier than 2020. For vending machines, the final change of status date is January 1, 2019, which will likely coincide with compliance requirements for any new or amended DOE refrigerated beverage vending machine standards, as compliance with such standards would be required three years after the publication of a final rule. Material in the docket for that action indicate DOE’s plans for a final rule with a compliance date three years later (see EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022). Second, EPA has analyzed the costs of users that are directly regulated and has not analyzed the impacts on chemical producers, whic h are indirectly affect ed by the regulation. ThePage 266 of 317 commenters did not provide specific cost or supp ly information regarding redesigning equipment or specific information on operating costs for chem ical plants that would have allowed us to analyze the impacts as requested by Arkema. We disagree with Arke ma that it is necessary or appropriate to analyze the indir ect impacts upon chemical plants and producers. Such analysis would be highly speculative abou t the degree of cost pass-thr ough from producers to consumers of these chemicals. The total cost estimates woul d be unchanged; rather such an analysis would relate to transfers between produ cers of the substitutes undergoi ng a change of status, producers of the acceptable alternatives fo r the same uses, and consumers of these products rather than losses to the economy or to a market sector as a whole. We note that the transition affecting the majority of HFC-134a production, the transition away from HFC-134a in MVAC, is already occurring because of other regu lations, and therefore changes to production and cost of HFC134a cannot easily be attri buted to this action. EPA recognizes that transitioning to other alternatives is like ly to require capital costs and investments in research, updated equipment, and their re lated financial impacts. Many chemical producers have either submitted SNAP notifications or expressed interest in submitting SNAP notifications concerning new molecules a nd blends of existing molecules. EPA agrees with Arkema that this rule is likely to stimulat e demand in next-generati on alternatives further. EPA also notes that, for example, HFC-134a likely will be a component of many lowGWP blends that are being developed specifica lly to replace HFC-134a. EPA listed as acceptable one of those blends, R-450A, on October 21, 2014 at 79 FR 62,863. The Agency is aware of additional blends that multiple chemical producers are developing. As noted throughout this document, the range of alternatives in cludes new molecules and existing compounds, encompassing fluorinated, non-fluorinated and in some cases not-in-kind alternatives.Page 267 of 317 Third, we question Arkema’s assumption that competition will decrease and thus cost for low-GWP alternatives will rise. For each of the status changes in this final action, more than one other alternative is currently li sted as acceptable or acceptable, s ubject to use conditions, for the relevant end-use. Moreover, we expect new SNAP submissions that would result in the introduction of further alternatives to increase, rather than reduce, competition. Further, because this rule does not regulate produc tion of individual chemicals dire ctly and allows servicing of existing refrigeration and AC equipment with the refrigerants for which they are designed, we expect there will continue to be a market for HFC-134a and other HFC refrigerants for years to

come. In those cases where commenters provided spec ific, detailed cost information, we used that information to revise the cost assumptions in our updated cost analysis for this final rule. For additional information on economic analysis co nducted for this rule, see the supporting document “Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives” (ICF, 2015c).
Comment : NRDC and IGSD commented that the ru le is important because it provides a needed signal to various industr ial sectors that as safer altern atives are brought to market, substitutes with high GWPs will be removed fr om the SNAP list. NRDC and IGSD commented that this provides American companies with an opportunity to become industry leaders as the global market moves away from high-GWP s ubstances, by developing new chemicals and processes to transition the refr igeration, cooling, aerosol and foams markets as quickly as possible. NRDC further commented that this rule will establish U.S. industry as a leader in safer chemicals, helping pave the way for global actio n under the Montreal Protocol. NRDC noted that when EPA previously proposed phasing down CFCs and ODS, there were warnings about direPage 268 of 317 impacts on industry that did not come to pass, and NR DC expects this will be true for this rule as well. NRDC commented that 25 years of experi ence with the Montreal Protocol and the CAA has shown us that transitioning to safer chemicals works smoothly. Response : EPA appreciates this comment and agr ees that there are many innovative U.S. companies bringing new low-GWP, energy-efficient products to market. 2. EPA’s cost analysis and small business impacts screening analysis
Comment : EPA received a number of comments indi cating that small businesses bear a disproportionate share of the re gulatory burden and that the NP RM represents a “significant regulatory action,” NAFEM comments that EPA must conduct a complete analysis of the impacts on small entities before any final re gulation can be promul gated. NAFEM comments that EPA’s analysis is too narrow, is inco mplete, and that its c onclusions are unsupported. NAFEM further comments that the NPRM disp roportionately affects small entities. NAFEM comments that the NPRM represents a major rule and will have a $100 million effect on the economy and a major impact on the commercial refrigeration industry and its consumers. NAFEM commented that the docket lacks a robu st industry analysis of the effects on small business manufacturers and customers, or reason able support for EPA’s Regulatory Flexibility Act conclusions. NAFEM recommends that EPA initiate a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Small Entity Re presentative review panel to help inform final rulemaking, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Solvay also commented that EPA should convene a Small Business A dvocacy Review Panel under the SBREFA. Response : E.O. 12866 states that rules that have an impact on the economy of $100 million per year qualify as significant regulatory ac tions. EPA disagrees that this rule would have an impact on the economy of $100 million more per year. We performed an analysis of the costsPage 269 of 317 of the proposed rule on businesse s and estimated the to tal annualized upfront compliance costs to range from $8.9 million to $41.6 million; total annual savings are estimated to be about $25.1 million (ICF, 2014g). This cost analysis did not eval uate the share of costs likely to be borne by consumers, since it is not clear what proportion of cost impacts ma y be carried on to consumers, and further, such economic analyses typically l ook at costs to the regul ated community rather than indirect impacts on consumers. We updated this analysis based upon the regulatory options and change of status dates in the final rule, and using cost in formation provided by commenters. The changes in the final rule—especially with respect to compliance dates—reduce the cost impacts on small businesses, while the updated cost information resulted in higher cost estimates. In this updated analysis, we estimated the total annualized upfr ont compliance costs to range from $28.0 million to $50.6 million, using a 7% discount rate, and from $19.5 million to $37.8 million, using a 3% discount rate. Total annual savings are estimated to be about $19.3 million (ICF, 2015c). In either case, this is well below the $100 million per year threshold to consider this an economically significant rule on economic grounds. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the “docket lacks a robust industry analysis on the effects on small business manufacturers a nd customers, or reasonable support for EPA’s Regulatory Flexibility Act conclu sions.” The Agency’s screening analysis at proposal stage is included in the docket (ICF, 2014f). The commenters do not point to any speci fic aspect of that analysis that they believe are deficient. A Small Business Advocacy Panel is convened when a proposed rulemaking is expected to have a sign ificant impact on a subs tantial number of small entities, or “SISNOSE.” We have updated our sm all business impacts screening analysis using the change of status decisions and dates in the final rule, adding boat manufacturers as affected entities, and using detailed cost informa tion provided by commenters (ICF, 2015b). EPA’sPage 270 of 317 preliminary and final screening analyses conc luded that this rule making would not pose a SISNOSE. In the analyses, EPA recognized th at some small businesses may experience significant costs, but concluded that the numbe r of small businesses that would experience significant costs was not substantial. Both the screening analysis for purposes of determining whether there was a SISNOSE and the analysis to determine whether the rule was significant based upon economic grounds were conducted based on the best market and co st information available to the Agency. Where commenters provided specific market or cost information, the Agency used that information to update these analyses. The updated analyses came to the same conclusions: that the final rule would not pose a SISNOSE and that it is not an economically signifi cant rule (ICF, 2015b,c). C. Environmental effects of proposed status changes EPA received submissions from 42 commenters related to the environmental impacts of the proposed status changes. Additionally, EPA received 7,022 mass mail ing letters commenting on the importance of transitioning away from HFCs to more climate-friendly alternatives. Ten commenters referred to the CAP. 1. General comments
Comment : EPA received over 7,000 substantially identical comments regarding the climate impacts of HFCs and supporting action to address the growth in usage of these potent greenhouse gases. The commenters al so stated that that the rest of the world, including Europe and Japan, is taking action to reduce HFC emissions , so the United States should also transition away from HFCs to protect the planet from th e catastrophic impacts of climate change. They also stated that it is of the utmost importance to limit “super-potent” greenhouse gases from use in refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosols and foam s and substitute them with safer, more climate-Page 271 of 317 friendly alternatives. They also noted that some HFCs remain in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries after they are released, so that th ey have a strong cumulative effect. NRDC stated that if EPA were only considering human hea lth risks, HFCs should be banned immediately given the climate risks. NRDC commented that we know these chemicals are extremely potent agents of climate change, and we know that c ontinuing to use them only exacerbates the climate problem. EIA requested that EP A continue to remove high GW P HFCs from the lists of acceptable substitutes, given that HFC emissions are set to double by 2020 and triple by 2030, and given that this rule has the potential to reduce 42 MMTCO 2 eq by 2020. EIA urged EPA to address all sectors covered in the SNAP program, given the needs of climate and the existence of climate-friendly alternatives. DuPont commented that they acknowledge the environmental need to avoid future growth in GHG emissions, and ha ve thus developed low-GWP, energy efficient products. Response: The Agency appreciates th e support of actions to list change the status of certain HFCs. Other actions urged by the comment ers are outside the scop e of this rulemaking. 2. EPA’s benefits analysis
Comment : EPA received a number of comments rega rding the importance, significance, and magnitude of the environmental benefits of avoided HFC emissions that would result based on the proposed rule. CARB comments the current regulations and the SNAP proposal meet only half of the 80% reduction necessary for the HFC sector if California is to meet its overall GHG reduction goal contained in California Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 (2005). Therefore, CARB believes additional HFC reductions are required to redu ce this fastest-growing source of GHGs.Page 272 of 317 NRDC and IGSD comment that even though HF Cs may currently make up a small piece of global climate emissions, their projected rapid growth underscores the urgent need to replace these chemicals with lower-GWP alternatives. Fu rther, NRDC and IGSD comment that without stringent rules in place, HFC emissions increases could counteract the progress EPA is striving to make in other sectors to reduce carbon pollution. Response : EPA appreciates the support for redu cing GHG emissions, and appreciates the estimates of the benefits in terms of MMTCO 2 eq that the commenters provide. CARB’s comment concerning meeting GHG reduction goals in a California EO are beyond the scope of this rule; we may consider addi tional status changes in a future rule. We agree with NRDC and IGSD that HFC emissions are growing rapidly and that it is timely to act now to encourage use of lower-GWP alternatives and ensure continuing progress. The Agency notes that both EPA’s estimates cited in the NPRM and the estimates the commenters provide are based on the provisions of the proposed rule, a nd that the benefits from this final rule differ. For further information, see EPA, 2014 and EPA, 2015b.
Comment : Arkema comments that at this time, it is not possible to provide a more detailed critique of the Vintaging Model’s assump tions and the levels of sector emissions given the lack of meaningful information in the doc ket. Arkema comments that the docket does not provide all the model inputs, nor does EPA disclose the specific emission factors that it used to derive its estimates, how recent those estimates are, and how they are expected to change over time. Arkema comments that EPA's benefits analysis nowhere details the extent of the uncertainties in its emissions estimates, even though the record elsewh ere acknowledges that such emissions estimates may be unreliable.Page 273 of 317 Response : As an initial matter, EPA did not re ly on the Vintaging Model in reaching decisions about whether other alte rnatives present lower overall risk. Nor did EPA otherwise rely on the benefits analysis that accompanied the proposed rule. We estimated emissions reductions resulting from this rulemaking in order to provide information to the public. Consistent with section 612(c) of the CAA, EPA relied on the cr iteria for review specified in the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7) in determin ing whether the substitutes for which we proposed to change the status pr esented greater risk to human h ealth and the environment than other available alternatives. As part of the process for listing alterna tives, EPA evaluates information concerning a substitute according to the crit eria in EPA’s regulations at 82. 180(a)(7)(e.g., atmospheric effects, ecosystem risks, occupational and consumer ri sks, availability) in comparison with other available substitutes for the same end-uses. At th e time of review, we prepare a risk screen and place it in the relevant public docket for our listing d ecisions. It is rare for risk screens to include information from the Vintaging Model, although su ch information may be used in some cases to estimate emissions (e.g., VOC emissions from an end-use where the submitter has provided insufficient information). The preambles to this final rule and the NPRM include information summarizing the comparisons to other alterna tives. In addition, we also have docketed a document which provides the Federal Register citations for the information on the health and environmental characteristics of various alternatives in the end-uses covere d in this final rule (EPA, 2015d). See the next response for further informa tion about where one can find information on the modeling assumptions and methodology.Page 274 of 317 Comment : Arkema commented that in order to ca lculate HFC sector emission savings, the Vintaging Model needs to be revised sin ce it is over-estimating chemical demand. Arkema also commented that the basis and methodology fo r the Vintaging Model's emissions estimates are unclear, but a comparison to publicly availa ble information should have raised red flags because a steady growth rate of HFC emissions in the U.S. is extremely unlikely for at least three of the four covered sectors (i.e., MVAC, aeros ols, and foams). For MVAC, Arkema comments that refrigerant charge sizes have been droppi ng, and new cars will be transitioning to low-GWP alternatives over time. Arkema notes that for ae rosols, a significant portio n of the aerosol product manufacturing industry has alr eady transitioned out of the HFCs proposed for regulation. In addition, Arkema points out that UNEP’ s 2014 TEAP report shows that hydrocarbon technologies already dominate the foam sector. Response : EPA’s Vintaging Model has been explained annually in the Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gases and Sinks 101 report and other places. Fo r example, the 2015 annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks report, EPA Report 430-R-15-004 (EPA, 2015c), covers emissions, including emissions of HFCs used as ODS alternatives, for the years 1990 through 2013 and provides in detail the basi s and methodologies used. The commenter is misinformed with respect to the assumptions us ed in the model. Specifically, the model does assume that MVAC refrigerant charge sizes ha ve dropped over time, and it utilizes detailed sector information to calculate such changes. In addition, it does assume that a significant portion of the aerosol product manufacturing industry ha s transitioned out of HFCs. Although the cited 2014 TEAP report—which the commenter states i ndicates hydrocarbon t echnologies dominate the foam sector—applies globally rather than specif ically to the United States, EPA notes that its

101 Available online at www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissi ons/usinventoryreport/2014.htmlPage 275 of 317 Vintaging Model does specifically assume that si gnificant transition in the foam industry to nonozone-depleting, low-GWP substances, in cluding hydrocarbons, has occurred.
Comment : Arkema comments that as far as they are aware, EPA has never submitted its Vintaging Model for external pe er review. Arkema co mments that the Vintag ing Model qualifies under the Agency's Peer Review Handbook as "inf luential scientific information" for which external peer review is warra nted. Arkema believes that the underlying data has been kept a secret. Arkema comments that EPA’s NPRM is not consistent with Administrator McCarthy’s three pillars of EPA’s scientific conclusions: tr ansparency, rigorous p eer review, and robust, meaningful public comment. Arkema comments that EPA cannot obtain robust, meaningful comments if the Vintaging Model is not subject to peer review and if underlying data is kept

secret. Response : As explained above, EPA used its Vint aging Model to provide information to the public, but does not rely on that informati on to support today’s rule . Thus, the issue of whether the Vintaging Model should be subject to a peer review pr ocess is outside the scope of this rulemaking action. 3. Energy efficiency
Comment: EPA received a number of comments re garding energy efficiency and LCCP of refrigeration equipment. NAFEM commented th at the life-cycle climate performances of manufacturers show that only about 10% of the environmental impact is due to a combination of refrigerant leak, charge amount a nd GWP of the refrigerant; the re st relates to energy efficiency. NAFEM asserted that the proposed SNAP rule does not account for nor can EPA claim any significant environmental benefits to offset signi ficant costs. The Alliance noted that given the important energy efficiency consequences of this proposed rule, it is uncle ar how this action willPage 276 of 317 meet the statutory standard of no greater risk to human health and the environment. The Alliance commented that by taking previously acceptable substitutes off the market, these proposals could result in less efficiency in the near term. The Alliance further comment s as EPA evaluates the timing of transitions in various end-use segments, it is important that life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, including those associated with energy use, are given proper consideration as part of ensuring the alternative presents “no greater ri sk to human health and the environment.” Response : EPA provided estimates of the climate benefits associated with the NPRM, and we have also estimated the climate benefits a ssociated with this final rule (EPA, 2014; EPA, 2015b). These estimates are based on avoided direct HFC emissions. They ar e distinct from our evaluation of whether other alternatives are curr ently or potentially available that present less overall risk to human health and the environm ent. EPA does not have a practice in the SNAP program of including indirect climate impacts or energy efficiency in the overall risk analysis. We do consider issues such as technical n eeds for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether alternatives are “available.” Elsewher e in this final action, EPA addressed and responded to comments concer ning energy efficiency (see in particular sections V.C.3.c, V.C.4.c, V.C.7 and V.D.3.c). EP A notes that the refrigerant is only one of many factors affecting energy effi ciency. Moreover, even as refrigerant transitions have taken place over past decades, we have seen improve d energy efficiency. This is often due to equipment redesigns and technology advancements that include factors besides the choice of refrigerant. EPA notes that a number of models are al ready commercially av ailable that do not use the refrigerants subject to a change of status in this final rule and also meet or exceed the relevant energy conservation standa rds and thus reduce both direct and indirect climate impacts.Page 277 of 317 4. The Climate Action Plan
Comment: EPA received six comments commendi ng the EPA for quickly proposing a rule to achieve the goals in the President’s CAP. Response: EPA appreciates the support from this wi de variety of interested stakeholders on addressing the goals in the President’s CAP.
Comment: EPA received two comments questioni ng whether the President’s CAP provides authority to regulate HFCs. Response: Section 612 of the CAA, not the CAP, provides the authority for this action. CAA section 612(c) requires EPA to list a s ubstitute as unacceptabl e if other available alternatives pose lower risk to hum an health and the environment.
Comment: Two comments stated that EPA’s re sponse to the President’s CAP in the NPRM did not consider full ramificati ons of the challenges to industry. Response : The NPRM proposed changes to listings based on the information the Agency had at the time of the proposal. We requested comments to further our understanding of any potential challenges relating to technical feasibility or supply. We considered that additional information as we developed the final rule. D. Potential exemptions
Comment : EIA commented on potential exempti ons, specifically the need for a mechanism to petition for an essential use exemption or for more time with a valid basis. The commenter recognized that the po tential for the misuse of such a mechanism could overwhelm the resources of the EPA availa ble for this transition. As a re sult, EIA recommended that EPA grant no blanket exemptions or delays due to th e needs of one or a few sectors but that EPA establish an exemption mechanism with a penalty clause to avoid misuse.Page 278 of 317 Response : The SNAP regulations do not curr ently contain an across-the-board mechanism for petitioning for an exemption, and EPA did not propose such a mechanism in the NPRM. To make such a change in our regulations , we would first need to provide an opportunity for public comments. In some instances in the fi nal rule EPA has changed a listing to acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits. The narrowed use limits identify a narrow part of the end-use in which an end user could use an otherwise unacce ptable substitute if they can support that no other acceptable substitutes are availa ble for their specific application. E. Interactions with other rules
Comment : The Alliance, AHAM, AHRI, and a num ber of other commenters in the commercial refrigeration and home appliance indust ries expressed concern about the feasibility of using other alternatives to meet DOE en ergy conservation standard s. AHRI and Coca-Cola stated that DOE’s federal mini mum energy conservation standards are based on refrigerants and foam blowing agents that EPA is now proposing to list as unacceptable. NAFEM comments that manufacturers are now finding th at developing a product to meet both the energy conservation standards and also utilizes accepta ble alternative refrigerants and blowing agents is daunting if not impossible. Commenters pointed out that they have redesigned products to meet DOE energy conservation standards due to take effect in 2017. See section V.C.1.b fo r a discussion of DOE energy conservation standards that apply to the equipment affected by this rule. Response: Given that today’s rule contains late r deadlines than proposed, as well as a phased-in approach with differe nt status change dates for di fferent kinds of equipment as suggested by many commenters, this should a ddress commenters’ concern about meeting both sets of requirements. 102 EPA continues to coordinate with DOE as EPA reviews alternative

102 If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue hardship by DOE’s regulations, the manufacturerPage 279 of 317 refrigerants and foam blowing agents, DOE te sts energy efficiency of certain alternative refrigerants, and the two agencies discuss each other’s rulemakings in development. EPA sees the redesign of products as an integral part of business opera tions, and believes redesigning equipment to use refrigerants that pose a lower overall risk to human h ealth and the environment is in many ways similar to past redesigns. We believe that manufacturer s can incorporate lowerGWP refrigerants in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipm ent and remote condensing units while designing for DOE energy conservation sta ndards for commercial re frigeration equipment and for walk-in coolers and freezers, both of which have compliance dates in 2017, and can incorporate lower-GWP foam blowing agents wh ile designing for DOE standards for household refrigerators/freezers. Based on the 2014 compliance date of the most recent DOE standards for residential refrigerators and freezers, the comp liance date for any revised energy conservation standard for household refrigerat ors and freezers would be no earlier than 2020. As discussed in the previous and following responses and in se ctions V.C.7 and V.D.3.c) as well as other sections of this preamble, ther e are both refrigerants and foam blowing agents with lower GWPs available that allow for improved energy efficiency compared to the substitutes we are finding unacceptable in this rule. EPA anticipates that innovative companies will seize this opportunity to develop more efficient and profitable designs.
Comment: A number of manufacturers of commerci al refrigeration products commented on the relative energy efficiency of alternative refrigerants, compared to the refrigerants proposed to be unacceptable. Lennox comment ed that the substitution of R-407 family refrigerants in place of R-404A and R-507A will ne gatively affect the efficiency performance of may petition DOE’s Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to gr ant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.Page 280 of 317 refrigeration equipment for walk-in coolers a nd freezers. Structural Concepts stated that switching from R-404A to R-744, an d consequently switching to thicker piping and new compressors, would increase energy usage overall by 45%, which would caus e the unit to exceed the allowable energy level determined by the DOE. AMS commented that after studying the suitability of the acceptabl e (R-744) and proposed accepta ble (R-290, R-600a and R-441A) alternatives extensively, it c oncluded that only R-290 will allow it to meet DOE energy conservation mandates. NAMA stated th at because of DOE requirements, CO 2 ’s use would be limited to indoor self-contained units, limiting locations of refrigerated vending machines, reducing revenues for the entire supply chain and reducing consum er choice. Information in the Agency’s possession describes a manufacturer’s te sting of the energy efficiency of condensing units with R-404A compared to R-407A, finding th at the energy efficiency was typically higher with R-407A in medium-temperature equipment but was typically lower with R-407A in lowtemperature equipment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-1098-0184) . Structural Concepts comments that R-744 is not flammable, but it is less energy efficient than the acceptable, flammable refrigerant propane, and to meet the EPA proposed regulati on would likely mean they fail to meet DOE regulations or go out of bus iness trying to meet them. Response : EPA expects that no single refrigerant will improve energy efficiency compared to the unacceptable refrigerants in ever y type of equipment or in every situation. For example, the information regarding a manufactur er’s test results indicates that R-407A may provide improved energy efficien cy compared to R-404A for medi um-temperature refrigeration equipment (refrigerators), but not necessarily for low-temperature refrigeration equipment (freezers); this information indicates that Lenox ’s comment about lower energy efficiency of R407A compared to R-404A or R-507A may be correct for low-temperature equipment andPage 281 of 317 incorrect for medium-temperature equipment. We agree with the commenters who noted that R744 may be more energy efficient in locations wi th lower ambient temperatures and thus may be more suitable for use indoors than outdoors. R- 290 may provide better energy efficiency than HFC refrigerants in many situations, but not necessa rily all, and not all end users will want to use a flammable refrigerant. In response to the comment from Structural Concepts expressing concern about the ability to meeting energy conservation standards using CO 2 and the cost of using propane, we note that there are additional refrigerant choices available for stand-alone refrigeration equipment and vending machines besides CO 2 and hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as the nonflammable refrigerants R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A. As discussed in section V.C.7, these blends may show improved energy efficiency over HFC-134a and R-404A. In addition, design and operation of refrigerati on equipment affects ener gy efficiency and not just the refrigerant used. Given the variety of currently or poten tially available alternatives, EPA believes it is unlikely that manufacturers will have to use refrigerants that will result in reduced energy efficiency compared to the refrigeran ts being listed as unacceptable or otherwise restricted in this final rule, and we expect th at manufacturers will be able to meet DOE energy conservation standards with the re maining available alternatives.
Comment : Some manufacturers of commercial refrigeration products commented on how design changes needed to accommodate alternat ive refrigerants may negatively affect energy efficiency. Parker Hannifin stated that most of the alternatives result in higher discharge temperatures and that some of the discharge temperature control methods employed negatively affect system efficiency. Nor-Lake and Structural Concepts indicated that they expected to need dual compressor systems, and stated that the increased energy usage of the dual system may outweigh the environmental gains of usi ng the alternate lower-GWP refrigerant.Page 282 of 317 Response : EPA agrees that some design change s could have negative impacts on energy efficiency if they were done without broader considerations fo r the overall performance of the appliance. As stated elsewhere, many models th at comply with DOE energy conservation standards are already commercially available that do not use the refrigerants subject to a change of status in this final rule. We agree with Nor-Lake and Structural Concepts that dual compressor systems are more likely needed for larger equi pment, particularly larger equipment using hydrocarbon refrigerants which have use limits re stricting the refrigerant charge in a single refrigeration circuit. Recent listings of additional nonflammabl e refrigerants (e.g., R-450A) allow for additional options that would not require dual compressors. In response to Parker Hannifin’s comment about discharge temperatures, we note th at producers of some alternative refrigerant blends under review by the SNAP program claim th at these new blends have operating properties similar to those of HFC refrigerants, such as similar operating pressures and discharge temperatures. Given the variety of currently or potentially available alternatives, EPA believes it is unlikely that manufacturers will have to use refrigerants that will result in reduced energy efficiency compared to the refrigerants be ing listed unacceptable in this final rule.
Comment : The Alliance, AHAM, AHRI, and a num ber of other commenters in the commercial refrigeration and home appliance indu stries suggested that the SNAP rulemaking schedule should be better coordinated with the ongoing DOE energy conservation standard rulemaking schedules. AHAM comments that firms have invested millions of dollars to meet new DOE conservation standards th at were based on the assumption of the availability of HFCs, and have diverted the scarce capital that is av ailable for regulation-dr iven investment. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) reque sted that the EPA harmonize the rule withPage 283 of 317 the DOE rule in order to ease the capital- and de sign-intensive manufacturer transition. Scotsman Ice Systems and Whirlpool Corporation stated th at as a result of th e potential regulatory measures, their ability to develop any customer focused products or ne w product features during this time will be constrained. GE Appliances notes that the burden of overlapping regulatory requirements between SNAP and the DOE require consideration and revi ew under the executive orders issued by President Obam a and his predecessors that requi re consideration of cumulative regulatory burden. Response : EPA’s timeframes are based upon our unde rstanding of the availability of alternatives, considering technical challenges and supply. The timefra mes in this final rule take into account additional information on availabi lity provided to the Agen cy during the comment period. These timeframes account for the time need ed to meet the technical challenge of designing equipment using alternat ive refrigerants that can meet the DOE requirements. We note that EPA and DOE coordinate to the extent possi ble. For example, each agency has reviewed the other’s rules. The list of acceptable SNAP alterna tives is evolving. EPA is also coordinating with DOE to ensure more alternative refrigerants are being tested for energy e fficiency. We recognize that as manufacturers focus on designing equi pment to meet the DOE standards and to use refrigerants acceptable under the SNAP program, th ey may need to divert design resources from other projects for that period of time. However, as provided in section VII.A.7, this type of transition cost is not a part of the SNAP revi ew criteria. As explaine d in the Statutory and Executive Order sections at the end of the NPRM and of this final rule, EPA has complied with those requirements.
Comment : The National Restaurant Association ( NRA) comments that the food industry is already being affected by the EPA’s rule Listing of Substitutes fo r Refrigeration and AirPage 284 of 317 Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohi bition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes . NRA believes the EPA should consider the impact s of the cumulative regulatory burden of rulemakings and standards imposed nearly simulta neously on manufacturers of this equipment in the final rulemaking. Response : The rule entitled “ Listing of Substitutes for Refr igeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibiti on for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes ” lists additional substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditio ns. It does not mandate use of the newly listed substitutes. Thus, it is unclear how it might result in cumulative regulatory burden together with this rule. Equipment designed using the refrigerants in that rule is not affected by this rule, which concerns different refrigerants. Finally, that rule also has an exemption from requirements under section 608 of the CAA that wi ll reduce regulatory burden.
Comment: Danfoss commented that several of the refrigerants listed as acceptable in the rule titled Listing of Substitutes for Refrigerati on and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes are severely restricted by building codes and would not be acceptable for use in most area s of the U.S, mainly due to their flammability. Danfoss stated they believe that the proposed replacement refrigerants are not able to be used as short term alternatives to those being found unacceptable because changes to model building codes and subsequent adoption by states and lo calities will likely be much later than 2020. Response : EPA acknowledges that some building code s may currently restrict or prohibit use of flammable refrigerants. We note that othe r available or potentially available refrigerants that are not flammable and have relatively low GWP (roughly 600 or less), including R-744 and R-450A, are listed as acceptable for use in reta il food refrigeration and in vending machines.Page 285 of 317 Comment : A number of manufacturers of laborat ory refrigeration equipment and several foam manufacturers suggested that EPA align the timelines for transition of foam blowing agents and refrigerants with the requirements of the EU F-Gas regulations. The commenters summarized the deadlines for foams as: 2008 fo r one-component foams, January 1, 2020, for XPS, January 1, 2023, for other foams, and provisi ons for a four-year extension of time where (1) "alternatives are not available or cannot be used for tec hnical or safety reasons" or (2) "the use of technically feasible and safe altern atives would entail disproportionate costs." Commenters summarized the deadlines for refrigerants in commercial refrigerators and freezers as being January 1, 2020, for HFCs with GW P of 2,500 and January 1, 2022, for HFCs with GWP of 150 or more. Reasons given for this coordination of tim eline with EU regulations include: many companies are trans-national and had already been planning on a transition in line with the EU regulatory deadlines; the SNAP pr ogram has deferred to other regul ations in the past; and the later deadlines will allow for redesign of refrigeration equipment for both alternative, flammable refrigerants and for new foam blowing agents and for needed third-party testing. Commenters stated that the proposed deadlines would crea te an extreme burden, particularly on small businesses; that part supplies needed for complian ce are not offered in the United States; and that the transition is a complicated undertaking that cannot be performed in 18 months. Response : EPA disagrees that it should align the timelines in this rule with the EU timelines. The EU regulations are based upon diffe rent authority from the SNAP program and we must decide upon timelines based upon the availa bility of alternatives in the United States. Concerning the suggestion that EPA has deferred to other regulations, we note that there are several key differences. As an initial matter, we have deferred to U.S. regulations. MorePage 286 of 317 importantly, we have not deferred to other regulations in a manne r that overrides the statutory mandate governing the SNAP program. Rather, in the context evaluating risks of alternatives under our comparative risk framework we have looked to regulations in effect, such as workplace regulations from OSHA or the National Emi ssion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, to determine whether a specific alternative may be used as safely as other available alternatives. This is different from aligning with a timeline in another nation’s regulations that are not effective within the United States or deferr ing to considerations in those regulations, such as transition costs, that are not part of the S NAP decision criteria. F. Other comments Additional public comments not already discus sed above along with EPA’s responses are available in the Response to Comments docum ent which accompanies this action (EPA, 2015a). VIII. Additional Analyses EPA does not consider the cost of transiti on to other alternatives in making listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for re view in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute unde r review. However, EPA has prepared technical support documents including analyses of costs a ssociated with sector transitions, estimated avoided GHG emissions associated with the transition to alte rnatives, and potential small business impacts. 103,104,105 The transition scenarios analyzed possible ways to comply with the final rule. The transition scenario in the cost analysis reflects a direct comp liance cost method and does not

103 ICF, 2015a. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. July 2015. 104 ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--Revised. July 2015. 105 EPA, 2015. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, July 2015.Page 287 of 317 assume the regulated community chooses highe r-cost solutions where known less costly solutions exist. The scenarios analyzed in th e avoided GHG emissions an alysis reflect possible transitions for compliance based on consideratio ns of the market and activity towards lowerGWP solutions. While the emission reductions ha ve been quantified, they have not been monetized. Thus, higher or lower GHG emission reductions do not necessarily correlate to higher or lower costs due to the different assu mptions and methodologies used in the different analyses. However, the transitions assumed in the lo wer, less aggressive scenario here are similar to the transitions assumed in the cost analysis. To extend the assessment to a ll-sized businesses potentially affected by the rulemaking, EPA conducted an analysis on costs to all-size d businesses building on the approach taken to estimate potential economic impacts on small bus inesses. Using a 7% discount rate, total annualized compliance costs across affected bus inesses are estimated to range from $28.0 million to $50.6 million; total annual savings ar e estimated to be about $19.3 million. Using a 3% discount rate, total annualized compliance cost s across affected businesses are estimated to range from $19.5 million to $37.8 million, total annual savings are estimated be about $19.3
million. EPA conducted an analysis on the potentia l avoided GHG emissions associated with implementation of this final rule. The emissions a voided from this final rule are estimated to be
26 to 31 MMTCO 2 eq in 2020. The avoided emissions are estimated to be 54 to 64 MMTCO 2 eq in 2025 and 78 to 101 MMTCO2eq in 2030 (EPA, 2015b) . IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statut es and Executive Orders can be found at www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations /laws-and-executive-orders.Page 288 of 317 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planni ng and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new informa tion collection burden. OMB has previously approved the information collection requireme nts contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060–0226. This fina l rule contains no new requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this action will not have a si gnificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The requirements of this final rule with respec t to HFCs, will impact manufacturers of some consumer and technical aerosol products, retail food refrigeration equipment, vending machines, motor vehi cles, and products containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolef in, PU, and polystyrene foams. The re quirements of this final rule with respect to HCFCs could theoretical ly affect manufacturer s of aerosols, foams, industrial cleaning solvents, fire suppressants, and adhesives, coatings, and inks; however, due to existing regulations that restrict the use of HCFCs in these products , no actual impact is expected. In some uses, there is no significant impact of the fi nal rule because the subs titutes proposed to be prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use of HF C-134a as a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC-134a as a foam blowi ng agent in various polyurethane foams). A significant portion of the businesses regulated un der this rule are not small businesses (e.g., carPage 289 of 317 manufacturers, appliance manuf acturers). About 500,000 small busine sses could be subject to the rule, although more than 99% of those businesse s are expected to experience zero compliance costs because other available s ubstitutes for supermarket refrigeration systems and condensing units have costs similar to those of the refrigerants listed as unacceptable. For those small businesses with compliance costs, impacts are es timated to range from 0% to 48% of annual sales, with approximately 57 businesses expected to experience an impact of 3.0% of annual sales or more. Details of this anal ysis are presented in the document, Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP A lternatives – Revised (ICF, 2015b). In our analysis, we found that while some small businesses may experience significant costs, the number of small busin esses that would experience signifi cant costs is not substantial. We have therefore concluded that this action w ill not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded ma ndate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely aff ect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal government s or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implica tions. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilitie s among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments This action does not have tribal implications , as specified in EO 13175. It will not havePage 290 of 317 substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the rela tionship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distri bution of power and res ponsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus , Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Child ren from Environmental Health and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executi ve Order 13045 (62 FR 19,885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This action rest ricts the use of certain substitute s that have great er overall risks for human health and the environment, primarily due to their high global warming potential. The reduction in GHG emissions would pr ovide climate benefits for all people, including benefits for children and future generations.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Si gnificantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not a “significant energy ac tion” as defined in Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28,355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol uses are not related to th e supply, distribution, or use of energy. For the end-uses that are related to energy effects, includi ng refrigeration and air conditioning and some rigid cell PU and polystyrene insulation foams, a number of alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants and foam blowing agents that are listed as unacceptable in this action; many of the altern atives are as energy-efficient or more energy-efficient than the substitutes being listed as unacceptable. As desc ribed in more detail in this document, energyPage 291 of 317 efficiency is influenced, but not determined, by the refrigerant. Similarly, although foam blowing agents influence the insulation pr operties of rigid cell foams, this also can vary due to other properties of the foam (e.g., thickness). Thus, we ha ve concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This action does not involv e technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on mi nority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environm ental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adve rse human health or environm ental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income populatio n. This action would prohibit a number of substances with ODPs or high GWPs. The reducti on in ODS and GWP emissions would assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone la yer and provide climate benefits.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EP A will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptro ller General of the United States . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). X. References This preamble references the following documents, which are also in the Air Docket at the address listed in section I.B.1. Unless spec ified otherwise, all doc uments are available electronically through the Federal Docket Ma nagement System, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-Page 292 of 317 0198. AGC, 2014. AGC to Supply Honeywell with HFO-1234yf—New-generation Automobile Refrigerant, 23 January 2014. This document is accessible at: https://www.agc.com/eng lish/news/2014/0123e.pdf Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocar bons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013. Andersen, S.O., Sherman, N.J., Craig, T., Ba ker, J., “Secondary Loop Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL--

‐ MACs). Using Low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) Refrigerants .” in Leak-Tight Systems in Climates with High Fuel Prices and Long, Hot and Humid Cooling Seasons. Building on the Pr evious Success of Delphi, Fiat, General Motors, Volvo, Red Dot, SAE Cooperative Re search Projects, and Other Engineering Groups.” MACS Briefing, 2015. Arkema, 2013. Arkema is announcing the cons truction of production capacities for new refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf, September 4, 2013. This document is accessible at: www.arkema.com/en/media/news/news-detail s/Arkema-is-announci ng-the-constructionof-production-capacities-for-new-refrig erant-fluorinated- gas-1234yf/?back=true. Ben and Jerry’s, 2014. Cleaner, Greener Free zers. This document is accessible at www.benjerry.com/values/how-we-do- business/cleaner-greener-freezers CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on Climate-Frie ndly Alternatives in Commercial Refrigeration. Meeting Summary, December 8, 2012. Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible at: assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-grireport.pdfPage 293 of 317 Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 Milli onth HFC-Free Cooler Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO 2 , January 22, 2014. This document is accessible at: www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-r eleases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionthhfc-free-cooler-globally-preventi ng-525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2 Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol Pressurized Products Survey- 61st Annual Products Survey. April 15, 2012. Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test new R 404A “drop-in.” October 5, 2014. This document is accessible at: www.coolingpost.com/world-news/spanish-store-first-to-testnew-r404a-drop-in / Daimler, 2014. “Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler’s Safety Concerns About New Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,” Stephe n Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily Environment Report, March 11, 2014. This document is accessible at: news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_displ ay.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=dennotallissu es&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=0 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This docum ent is accessible at: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTM Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 13, 2014. EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Cont ribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act. T echnical Support Document. December 7, 2009. EPA, 2011a. Greenchill. “Advanced Refriger ation”. This documen t is accessible at: www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/doc uments/gc_storecertprogram08232011.pdf EPA, 2011b. GreenChill. “Best Prac tices Guidelines: Commercial Refrigeration Retrofits”.Page 294 of 317 August 2011. This document is accessible at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ documents/retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pd f. EPA, 2012a. Factsheet: Summary of Refriger ant Reclamation 2000-2013. This document is accessible at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/rec lamation/recsum_merged.pdf EPA, 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standard s and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-12-016, August 2012. EPA, 2013a. Global Mitigation of Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030, September 2013. EPA, 2013b. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013. EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. EPA, 2015a. Response to Comments on the SNAP Status Change Rule. July 2015. EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Progr am Status Change Rule, July 2015. EPA, 2015c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 , EPA Report 430-R-15-004. April 15, 2015. This document is accessible at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemiss ions/usinventoryreport.html EPA, 2015d. Table 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. February, 2015. FTOC, 2010. 2010 Report of the Foam s Technical Option Committee. Gaved, 2015. Emerson Climate Technologies Offers to Help Supply Chain Move to Lower-GWP Refrigerants. January 28, 2015. This document is accessible at: http://www.racplus.com/news/-emerson-cl imate-technologies-offers-to-help-supply-Page 295 of 317 chain-move-to-lower-gwp -refrigerants/8677708.article

. GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New Alte rnatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Pr otection Agency, October 2008. Honeywell, 2014a. Aerosols Overview-Honeywell Solstice® Propellant. EPA meeting. February 27, 2014. Honeywell, 2014b. Honeywell International Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. October 20, 2014. Honeywell, 2015. Honeywell Starts Full-Scale Production of Low-Global-Warming Propellant, Insulating Agent, and Refrigerant. Janua ry 6, 2015. This document is accessible at: honeywell.com/News/Pages/Honeywell-Starts -Full-Scale-Production-Of-Low-GlobalWarming-Propellant-Insulating-Agent-And-Refrige.aspx ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U. S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigerat ion Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. May, 2014. ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change ListingPage 296 of 317 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, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Ri gid Polyurethane Appliance Foam; Rigid Polyurethane Commercial Refrigeration a nd Sandwich Panels; Rigid Polyurethane & Polyisocyanurate Laminate Boardstock; Ri gid Polyurethane Slabstock; Flexible Polyurethane; Integral Skin Polyuretha ne Substitute: Methylal October, 2014. ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air C onditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Indus try, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015. ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis fo r Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--Revised. July, 2015. ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulat ory Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives. July, 2015. IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Pr ogramme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (e ds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Ja pan. This document is accessible at: www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html. 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, UnitedPage 297 of 317 Kingdom and New York, NY , USA. This document is accessible at: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

. IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenar io 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 Inte rgovernmental 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. IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocar bons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York). ITW Polymers Sealants, 2014. Comments of ITW Polymers Sealants North America on Proposed SNAP Status Change Rule. Oc tober 15, 2014. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014- 0198-0071. Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. Nelson, 2013. Nelson, Gabe “Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate” Automobile News, December 30, 2013. This document is accessible at: www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OE M01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.cmdl.n oaa.gov/hats/hfcs/ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. “Atmospheric Lifeti mes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans- 1-Page 298 of 317 chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans- 1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.” Atmos. Chem. Phys ., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. PepsiCo, 2009. PepsiCo Brings First Climate-Frie ndly Vending Machines to the U.S., March 30, 2009. This document is accessible at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pepsicobrings-first-climate-friendly-vend ing-machines-to-the-us-61975262.html

. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015. “Coca Cola to narrowly miss HFC-free global refrigeration target.” Th is document is accessible at: www.racplus.com/news/cocacola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-globa l-refrigeration- target/8680290.article ). Shapiro, Doron. “System Drop-In Tests of R-134a, R-1234yf, OpteonTM XP10, R-1234ze(E), and N13a in a Commercial Bottle Cooler/F reezer”, January 25, 2013. This document is accessible at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/fil es/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI %20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt-008.pdf

. Shecco, 2013a. Guide 2013: Natural Refrigerants - Market Growth for North America. This document is accessible at publicati on.shecco.com/publications/view/6. Shecco, 2013b. HCs Gaining Market Prominence in US - View from the NAFEM Show - Part 1, February 18, 2013. This document is accessible at http://www.hydrocarbons21.com /news/viewprintable/3891

. Shecco, 2015. New Regulations Inspire Hydrocarbon Displays at U.S. NAFEM Show, February 24, 2015. This document is accessible at http://www.hydrocarbons21.com /news/viewprintable/6143. UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at: ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/Page 299 of 317 TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protec ting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Inform ation on Alternatives to ODS. September,
2013. This document is accessible at: conf.montreal-protocol. org/meeting/mop/cop10- mop26/presession/Background%20Document s%20are%20available%20in%20English% 20o1/Corrigendum_TEAP_TaskFor ce%20XXIV-7-September2013.pdf UNEP, 2014. Summary of the Information Subm itted By Parties on Their Implementation of Paragraph 9 of Decision XIX/6 to Prom ote a Transition from Ozone-Depleting Substances That Minimizes Environmenta l Impact (Decision XXV/5, Paragraph 3). November, 2014. This document is accessible at: conf.montrealprotocol.org/meeting/mop/cop10-mop26/pres ession/PreSession%20Documents/MOP-26- 9E.pdf Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. Ande rsen (2009). “The large contribution of projected HFC emissi ons to future climate forcing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. “Prelimina ry Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.” Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. Weissler, Paul, “A/C Industry Faces Challenge s From Daimler R-1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,” Automotive Engineering International, April 2, 2013.Page 300 of 317 WMO, 2010. World Meteorologi cal Organization, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.Page 301 of 317 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significan t New Alternatives Policy Program Final Rule Page 301 of 317

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Admi nistrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recy cling, Reporting and recordkeepi ng requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.

Dated:

__________________________________________ Gina McCarthy, Administrator.Page 302 of 317 For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows: PART 82 - PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671 - 7671q. Subpart G – Significant New Al ternatives Policy Program
2. Appendix B to subpart G of part 82 is amended as follows:

a. By revising the entry for the substitute s HFC-134a, HCFC Blend Beta, and R-401C and adding three new rows immediately after this row in the table titled “Refrigerants—Acceptable Subj ect to Use Conditions”. b. By adding a new row at the bottom of the table “Refrigerants—Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits”.

c. By adding three new rows at the end of the table titled “Refrigerants—Unacceptable Substitutes”. The revisions and additions read as follows: Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82—Substi tutes Subject to Use Restrictions and Unacceptable SubstitutesPage 303 of 317 R EFRIGERANTS —A CCEPTABLE S UBJECT TO U SE C ONDITIONS Application Substitute Deci sion Conditions Comments CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (New Equipment/NIKs only) HFC-134a Acceptable subject to use conditions, for passenger cars and light-duty trucks manufactured for Model Year 2020 or earlier, and for vehicles other than passenger cars or light-duty trucks —must be used with unique fittings —must be used with detailed labels EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment.

CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (New Equipment/NIKs only) HCFC BlendBeta (R416A) Acceptable subject to use conditions, for p assenger cars and light-duty trucks manufactured for Model Year 2016 or earlier, and for vehicles other than passenger cars or light-duty trucks —must be used with unique fittings —must be used with detailed labels EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment.

CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (New Equipment/NIKs only) R-401C Acceptable subject to use conditions —must be used with unique fittings —must be used with detailed labels EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment.

CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (Retrofit Equipment only) HFC-134a, R401C, HCFC Blend Beta (R-416A) Acceptable subject to use conditions —must be used with unique fittings —must be used with detailed labels —all CFC-12 must be removed from the system prior to retrofitting Refer to the text for a full description. EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment. No distinction is made between “retrofit” and “drop-in” refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant includes all procedures that result in the air conditioning system using a new refrigerant. * * * * * * *Page 304 of 317 R EFRIGERANTS —A CCEPTABLE S UBJECT TO N ARROWED U SE L IMITS
End-use Substitute Decision Further Information * * * * * * * Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light-duty trucks only) HFC-134a Acceptable for use in Model Year (MY) 2021 through MY 2025 passenger cars and light-duty trucks destined for export, where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible because of lack of infrastructure for servicing with alternative refrigerants in the destination country. Vehicle manufacturers mu st document their determination that the infrastructure is not in place for each country to which they plan to export vehicles and must retain the documentation in their files for at least five years after date of its creation for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Documentation is to include descriptions of: • Products in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected for the

destination country; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives;

and • Anticipated date other substitutes will be

available and projected date of transition in the destination country. R EFRIGERANTS —U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information * * * * * * * Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light-duty trucks only) HFC-134a Unacceptable as of Model Year 2021 except where allowed under narrowed use limit HFC-134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811-97-2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2- tetrafluoropropane. HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. This listing does not prohibit the servicing or replacement of motor vehicle air conditioning systems manufactured to use HFC-134a. Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light-duty trucks only) R-406A, R-414A (HCFCBlend Xi, GHG-X4), R414B (HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, HCFC BlendLambda (GHG-HP), R416A (FRIGC FR-12, HCFC Blend Beta) Unacceptable as of Model Year 2017 These refrigerants all contain HCFCs. They have GWPs ranging from 1,080 to 2,340 and ODPs ranging from 0.008 to 0.056. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.Page 305 of 317 Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light-duty trucks only) SP34E, R-426A (RS-24, new formulation) Unacceptable as of Model Year 2017 These blends have GWPs ranging from approximately 1,410 to 1,510. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. 3. Appendix D to subpart G of part 82 is amende d by revising the first sentence of the third paragraph to read as follows:

A PPENDIX D TO S UBPART G OF P ART 82—S UBSTITUTES S UBJECT TO U SE R ESTRICTIONS AND U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES Summary of Decisions Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
* * * * *
In addition, the use of a) R–406A/ ‘‘GHG’’/‘‘McCool’’, “HCFC Blend Lambda “/ ‘‘GHG– HP’’, R-414A/”HCFC Blend Xi”/‘‘GHG–X4/‘‘A utofrost’’/‘‘Chill-It’’, R-414B/‘‘Hot Shot’’/‘‘Kar Kool’’, and R-416A /”HCFC Blend Beta”/‘‘FREEZE 12 ’’ as CFC–12 substitutes in retrofitted MVACs, and b) * * *.
* * * * *
4. Subpart G of part 82 is amended by adding Appendix U to read as follows:
Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82- Unaccep table Substitutes and Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions Listed in the [INSER T DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Final Rule, Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A EROSOLS —U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES
End-use Substitute Decision Further InformationPage 306 of 317 Propellants HFC-125 Unaccept able as of January 1, 2016. HFC-125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 354-33-6 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,2- pentafluoropropane. HFC-125 has a GWP of 3,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. Propellants HFC-134a Unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register], except uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions. HFC-134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811-97-2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2- tetrafluoropropane. HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. Propellants HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-134aand HFC227ea Unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register], except uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions. HFC-227ea has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 431-89-0 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3- heptafluoropropane. HFC-134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Regist ry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811-97-2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC-227ea and HFC-134a have GWPs of 3,220 and 1,430, respectively. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Products using these propellants that are manufactured prior to [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. Propellants HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b Unacceptable effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b for aerosols is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. These propellants have ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively. Solvents HCFC-141b and blends thereof Unacceptable effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC-141b for aerosols is prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. HCFC-141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11.Page 307 of 317Page 308 of 317 S UBSTITUTES A CCEPTABLE S UBJECT TO U SE C ONDITIONS
End-use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further Information Propellants HFC-134a Acceptable subject to use conditions The classes of products listed below are acceptable for use from [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register ] through December 31, 2017 and are unaccep table thereafter.

 products for functional testing of smoke

detectors

 products for which new formulations require

governmental review, including: EPA pesticide registration, approval for conformance with military or space agency specifications, or FDA approval (other than MDIs) The classes of products listed below are acceptable for use and other uses are unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register]:  metered dose inhalers approved by the U.S. Food

and Drug Administration for medical purposes  cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and

other soils from electrical equipment or electronics
 refrigerant flushes
 products for sensitivity testing of smoke

detectors  lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical

equipment or electronics  sprays for aircraft maintenance

 sprays containing corrosion preventive

compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment  pesticides for use near electrical wires or in

aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants

 mold release agents and mold cleaners  lubricants and cleaner s for spinnerettes for

synthetic fabrics  duster sprays specifically for removal of dust

from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical equipment
 adhesives and sealants in large canisters  document preservation sprays  wound care sprays

 topical coolant sprays for pain relief

 products for removing bandage adhesives from

skin HFC-134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811-97-2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2- tetrafluoropropane. HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430. Use is allowed for the specified uses because of the technical and safety demands in these applications. Aerosol products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register], may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date.Page 309 of 317Propellants HFC227ea and blends ofHFC227ea and HFC-134a Acceptable subject to use conditions Acceptable for use in metered dose inhalers approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for medical purposes and unacceptable for all other uses as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register]. HFC-227ea has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 431-89-0 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3- heptafluoropropane. HFC-227ea has a GWP of 3,220. Aerosol products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date.

R EFRIGERATION AND A IR C ONDITIONING —U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)(new) HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R428A, R-434A, R-507A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)(retrofit) R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A Unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.
Retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units)(new) HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R428A, R-434A, R-507A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2018 These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units) (retrofit) R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507A Unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.Page 310 of 317 Retail foodrefrigeration (standalone mediumtemperature units with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded evaporator) (new) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a,HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019 These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. “Medium-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C).
Retail foodrefrigeration (standalone mediumtemperature units with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and containing a flooded evaporator) (new) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a,HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. “Medium-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C).
Retail foodrefrigeration (standalone mediumtemperature units with a compressor capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr) (new) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a,HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. “Medium-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C).
Retail foodrefrigeration (standalone lowtemperature units) (new) HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation). Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 1,800 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. “Low-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or below 32°F (0 °C). Retail foodrefrigeration (standalone units only) (retrofit) R-404A, R-507A. Unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] These refrigerants have GWPs of approximately 3,922 and 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.Page 311 of 317 Vending machines (new only) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019 These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 1,100 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Vending machines (retrofit only) R-404A, R-507A. Unacceptable as of [insert date one year after publication in the Federal Register] These refrigerants have GWPs of approximately 3,922 and 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.Page 312 of 317 F OAM B LOWING A GENTS —S UBSTITUTES A CCEPTABLE S UBJECT TO N ARROWED U SE L IMITS
End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed Use Limits Further Information Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

Flexible Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.Page 313 of 317 Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and Other HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

. Acceptable from January 1, 2019, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation Foam HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.Page 314 of 317 Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2021, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

Integral Skin Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

. Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.Page 315 of 317 Polyolefin HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022, only inmilitary or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

U NACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information All Foam Blowing End-uses HCFC-141b and blends thereof Unacceptable effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] HCFC-141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11 under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously found HCFC-141b unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses (appendix M to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). HCFC-141b has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0.11.
All Foam Blowing end-uses HCFC-22, HCFC142b, and blends thereof Unacceptable effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b for foam blowing is prohibited after January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A unless used, recovered, and recycled. These compounds have ODPs of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively.Page 316 of 317 Flexible Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have global warming potentials (GWPs) ranging from 725 to 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock HFC-143a, HFC134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 725 to 4,470. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Integral Skin Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and Other HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 725 to 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation Foam HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6; Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from higher than 140 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.Page 317 of 317Polyolefin HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.

F IRE S UPPRESSION AND E XPLOSION P ROTECTION A GENTS —U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES
End-use Substitute Decision Further Information Total Flooding HCFC-22 Unacceptable effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC-22 for total flooding fire suppression and explosion protection is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.055.

S TERILANTS —U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES
End-use Substitute Decision Further Information Sterilants Blends containing HCFC-22 Unacceptable effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC-22 for sterilants is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.055.

A DHESIVES , C OATINGS AND I NKS —U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES
End-use Substitute Decision Further Information Adhesives, coatings and inks HCFC-141b and blends thereof Unacceptable effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC-141b for adhesives, coatings and inks is prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11.