Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0123
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2014-10-28T04:00Z

Response to Comments
                                       
                                       
                    For the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
                                       
    Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System
              for Controlling HCFC Production, Import and Export
                                       
                                       
                                       
                         Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263
                                       
                                       
                                 October 2014
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Air and Radiation
                       Stratospheric Protection Division
                         1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
                             Washington, DC 20460
                                       
                                       
                        Prepared with assistance from: 
                                       
                               ICF International
                              1725 Eye Street, NW
                             Washington, DC 20006
                                       
                                       
Table of Contents 
1.	Summary of Comments	1
1.1.1.	Table 1. Public Comments Received by EPA on the Adjustments to the HCFC Allowance System	1
2.	Use and Sales Restriction in Section 605(a)	6
2.1.	Existing inventory of HCFC-225ca and HCFC-225cb	7
2.2.	Existing inventory of HCFC-124 for sterilant uses	9
2.3.	Recent changes to section 605(a) and plans to update regulations	9
3.	Determining Baselines for 2015-2019	10
4.	Developing Allocation Levels for Each HCFC	11
4.1.	HCFC-22 consumption allocation	15
4.1.1.	Comments in support of issuing zero allowances in 2015	15
4.1.2.	Methodology for issuing allowances	21
4.1.3.	Starting Allocation in 2015	25
4.1.4.	HCFC-22 Inventory Data	27
4.1.5.	Technical Projections and Estimated Servicing Need	33
4.1.6.	Prior Regulation	35
4.1.7.	Other Comments on HCFC-22 Consumption	36
4.2.	HCFC-22 production allocation	37
4.3.	HCFC-142b allocation	39
4.4.	HCFC-123 allocation	39
4.4.1.	Allocate 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline through 2019	40
4.4.2.	Allocate less than 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline	42
4.5.	HCFC-124 allocation	43
5.	Other Adjustments to the HCFC Allocation System	44
5.1.	Dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing units	45
5.2.	Maximizing compliance with HCFC regulations	49
6.	Modifications to Section 608 Regulations	51
6.1.	Adopting AHRI 700-2012 standards	53
6.2.	Notifying EPA of a change in business, management, location, or contact information	55
6.3.	Reporting and recordkeeping requirements	56
6.4.	Technical and process information required in reclaimer certification application	58
6.5.	Expanded end product testing requirements	59
7.	Other Issues	60
7.1.	Timely completion of the rule	61
7.2.	Statutory and executive order reviews	63
7.3.	Labeling requirements	64
7.4.	Other issues	65

Summary of Comments
This document summarizes comments on the proposed rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production, Import and Export, which are found in EPA's docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263. A total of 86 comments were submitted by 54 commenters and are listed in Table 1 by organization and Docket ID number. One of these comments has 10 signatories (listed individually in the table below), and is referred to throughout this document by the group name, "Group of EPA Certified ODS Reclaimers." Another comment was submitted by the United States Congress with signatures from 41 members, 17 of whom are from the Senate and 24 of whom are from the House. In the subsequent sections, the comment is referred to as "41 members of U.S. Congress." Fifteen comments were submitted in response to Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013. Please note that in some sections, comment totals may not necessarily meet the total cited in the preamble of the final rule due to the submission of late comments.

Table 1. Public Comments Received by EPA on the Adjustments to the HCFC Allowance System
                                     Count
Organization  
 Docket ID
                                       1
A-Gas RemTec
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0080
                                       2
A-Gas U.S. Holdings Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0082
                                       3
AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. (AGC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0058
                                       4

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0084[a]
                                       5
Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0075
                                       6

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0086[b]
                                       7
Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0078[c]
                                       8

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-120
                                       9
Airgas, Inc. (Airgas)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0064
                                      10
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049
                                      11

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0076[d]
                                      12
American Pacific Corporation (AMPAC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0042
                                      13

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0089[e]
                                      14
American Refrigerants, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0106[f]
                                      15
Arkema Inc. (Arkema)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0045
                                      16
Combs Investment Property (CIP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0061
                                      17

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0066
                                      18

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0104[g]
                                      19
Congress of the United States (41 Members of the U.S. Congress)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0063[h]
                                      20
Coolgas
None[i]
                                      21
Crane & Aerospace Electronics (ELDEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0072
                                      22
Daikin Applied
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0034
                                      23
Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0057
                                      24
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0065
                                      25

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0097[j]
                                      26
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0067
                                      27

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0070[k]
                                      28

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0119
                                      29
EOS Climate
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0053
                                      30

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0100[l]
                                      31

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0108[m]
                                      32
Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0112[n]
                                      33

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0113[o]
                                      34
GC Refrigerant Supply, Inc
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0047

                                      35
Golden Refrigerant
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0029
                                      36
Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0060
                                       
                                      37
                                       
Group of EPA Certified ODS Reclaimers
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0035[p]

Advanced Refrigerant Technologies LLC 

A-GAS Americas (RemTec)

Certified Refrigerant Services, Inc.

Chill-Tek Inc.

Diversified Pure Chem

Golden Refrigerant

ICOR International - Refri-Claim

Perfect Cycle

Safe Disposal Systems

USA Refrigerants

                                      38
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0050
                                      39
Honeywell International, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0051
                                      40
Hudson Technologies (Hudson)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0081
                                      41

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0109[q]
                                      42
ICOR International
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0027
                                      43

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0107[r]
                                      44
Mesa Labs
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0115
                                      45
Ingersoll Rand
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0083
                                      46
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0040
                                      47
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0038
                                      48
National Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0071
                                      49
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0055[s]
                                      50

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0069[t]
                                      51

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0085[u]
                                      52

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0087[v]
                                      53

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0103[w]
                                      54

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0110[x]
                                      55
New Era Group, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0041
                                      56

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0043
                                      57

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0101[y]
                                      58

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0114[z]
                                      59
North Lakes Distributing, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0077
                                      60

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0099[aa]
                                      61
Patton Boggs LLP
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0062[bb]
                                      62

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0079[cc]
                                      63

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0111[dd]
                                      64

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0118
                                      65
Polar Technology
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0059
                                      66

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0068[ee]
                                      67
Private Citizen Comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0032
                                      68

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0033
                                      69

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0036
                                      70

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0039
                                      71

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0094[ff]
                                      72

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0095[gg]
                                      73

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0096[hh]
                                      74

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0105[ii]
                                      75
Rapid Recovery
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0116
                                      76
RMS of Georgia, LLC (RMS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0048
                                      77

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0102[jj]
                                      78
STJ Chemical Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0098[kk]
                                      79
Summit Refrigerants
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0052
                                      80

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0088[ll]
                                      81
The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. (CSDL)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0037[mm]
                                      82
USA Refrigerants
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0044
                                      83

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0054
                                      84
UTC Building & Industrial Systems (Carrier)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0056
                                      85
Watsco, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0046
                                      86
January 23, 2014 Public Hearing on the 2015-2019 Proposed Rule
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0030[nn]
                                       
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy 
(Alliance)

                                       
Combs Investment Property (CIP)

                                       
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont)

                                       
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)

                                       
Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman)

                                       
        Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)

                                       
Honeywell International, Inc.

                                       
Hudson Technologies (Hudson) 

                                       
Johnstone Supply

                                       
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

                                       
North Lakes Distributing, Inc.

                                       
        Patton Boggs LLP

                                       
Rapid Recovery

                                       
USA Refrigerants

a. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0058. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0084 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0058 in the following sections.
b. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0075. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0086 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0075 in the following sections.
c. Comment was submitted after the close of the comment period on March 10, 2014. 
d. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0076 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049 in the following sections.
e. AMPAC submitted the paper, "The Case for New Production of HCFC-123 Beyond 2020 for use in Production of Halotron I and in Other Niche Fire Protection Applications" for informational purposes only. Therefore, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0089 is not summarized in the following sections.
f. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
g. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
h. Comment contains signatures from 17 United States Senators and 24 Members of Congress. For the remainder of the document, the collective group of 41 signatories will be referred to as "41 members of the U.S. Congress."
i. Comment has not been posted to the docket at this time.
j. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
k. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0067. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0070 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0067 in the following sections.
l. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
m. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0100. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0108 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0100 in the following sections.
n. Comment submitted after the close of the comment period on March 10, 2014.
o. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0112. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0113 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0112 in the following sections.
p. For the remainder of the document, the collective group of 10 reclaimer signatories will be referred to as "Group of EPA Certified ODS Reclaimers." 
q. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
r. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
s. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0085. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0055 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0085 in the following sections.
t. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0085. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0069 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0085 in the following sections.
u. Comment was submitted after the close of the comment period on March 10, 2014.
v. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0055. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0087 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0055 in the following sections.
w. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
x. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0103. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0110 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0103 in the following sections.
y. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
z. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
aa. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
bb. Comment was submitted on behalf of New Era Group, Inc.
cc. Comment was submitted on behalf of several parties, including Altair Partners, LP; American Refrigerants, Inc.; Combs Investment Property (CIP); Consolidated Refrigerants Reclaim; Diversified Pure Chem; Dynatemp International; ICOR International; North Lakes Distributing, Inc.; Refrigerants Inc.; Refrigerants Salvage, Inc.; RMS of Georgia; Safe Disposal Systems, Inc.; Summit Refrigerants; and USA Refrigerants.
dd. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
ee. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0059. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0068 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0059 in the following sections.
ff. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
gg. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
hh. Comment submitted after the close of the comment period on March 10, 2014.
ii. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
jj. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013.
kk. Comment on the EPA Notice: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability Regarding Aggregate HCFC - 22 Inventory Data From 2008-2013
ll. Duplicate copy of EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0052. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0088 is listed under EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0052 in the following sections.
mm. Comment was submitted by Holland & Knight LLP on behalf of The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. (CSDL).
nn. Verbal comments transcribed from the Public Hearing held January 23, 2014.

All comments have been reviewed, summarized and responded to; the comments and responses are organized within the remainder of this document to highlight major issues and clarification requests pertinent to the rule. Summaries are organized by the following main sections of the rule:
 Section 2  -  Use and Sales Restriction in Section 605(a)
 Section 3  -  Determining Baselines for 2015-2019
 Section 4  -  Developing Allocation Levels for Each HCFC
 Section 5  -  Other Adjustments to the HCFC Allocation System
 Section 6  -  Modifications to Section 608 Regulations
 Section 7  -  Other Issues
At the beginning of each section, an outline of categories is provided followed by a table detailing organizations that provided comment. Below each individual topic heading of a section, a bulleted summary of comments is provided. Generally, comments within each topic by frequency (i.e., comments supported by the largest number of commenters are placed first to highlight issues of common concern) followed by Docket ID number. Special attention was paid to ensure that comments were properly addressed with sufficient and relevant detail extracted from their submittal. Commenters are listed at the beginning and Docket ID numbers are provided in parentheses at the end of each comment.
Out of the 42 comments the agency received on the HCFC-22 consumption allocation, a majority were in support of a faster phaseout than any the options proposed. Some even supported a zero allocation starting in 2015. Twelve commenters were in support of EPA's proposed alternative five-year linear drawdown option beginning with 10,000 MT of HCFC-22 in 2015. Five commenters were in support of EPA's preferred option. 
EPA also received a large amount of comments related to inventory, alternatives, market issues, and the environmental impact of HCFC-22. Several commenters requested that updated data on inventory amounts be made public. In response to the Notice of Data Availability, a number of commenters said that inventory is higher than previously estimated and that there is unaccounted inventory held by entities throughout the supply chain (i.e., distribution centers, warehouses, retailers, service shops, supermarkets, commercial sites, and housing complexes). Several commenters stated that there is an over-supply of HCFC-22 in the market, leading to falling prices of virgin HCFC-22, negatively impacting the reclamation industry and decreasing the incentive for alternatives. The majority of comments received pertaining to environmental impacts, described a correlation between a larger HCFC-22 allowance and a greater environmental impact. 
Opinions were split on whether EPA should consider banning dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing units, though EPA did not propose to take any action with regards to dry-shipped units in this rulemaking. Six commenters stated that there is no need for EPA to revisit this issue, citing decreasing sales of dry-shipped units and the ability for EPA to control HCFC-22 allocations to address this issue, while seven commenters maintained that EPA should ban the sale of dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing equipment. 
Comments were also received on several other issues, as described in more detail in the sections that follow.
Use and Sales Restriction in Section 605(a) 
EPA received eleven comments on the use and sales restriction in section 605(a) of the CAA. Comments were in reference to the following topics:

      2.1 	Existing inventory of HCFC-225ca and HCFC-225cb
      2.2	Existing inventory of HCFC-124 for sterilant uses
      2.3	Recent changes to section 605(a) and plans to update regulations
      
Count
Commenter
Organization
Docket ID No
                                       1
Dr. Evan D. Laganis
AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. (AGC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0058
                                       2
Kevin Fay
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049
                                       3
Jeff Gibson
American Pacific Corporation (AMPAC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0042
                                       4
Don Magid
Combs Investment Property (CIP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0066
                                       5
Brian Anderson
Crane & Aerospace Electronics (ELDEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0072
                                       6
Donald R. Schregardus
Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0057
                                       7
Mack McFarland
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0065
                                       8
James S. Leatherwood
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0040
                                       9
David Doniger; Benjamin Longstreth; Emily Davis
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0085
                                      10
Dianne R. Phillips
The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. (CSDL)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0037
                                      11
Eric Gillitzer
Mesa Labs
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0115
      
Two commenters, AMPAC and the Alliance, support EPA's proposed interpretation of section 605(a). 
Existing inventory of HCFC-225ca and HCFC-225cb
EPA received submissions from nine commenters related to EPA's proposal for existing inventory of HCFC-225ca/cb. Six commenters support a de minimis exemption for any HCFC-225ca/cb that entered into inventory prior to January 1, 2015. One commenter, NRDC, does not support the exemption. 

   >    NASA, DoD, and ELDEC support EPA's proposed de minimis exemption for HCFC-225ca/cb. Although the commenters are actively evaluating alternative materials that can satisfy their unique and stringent technical requirements, they anticipate a need for continued use of HCFC-225ca/cb until a substitute is identified and implemented. They state that the ability to store virgin HCFC-225ca/cb until needed would provide valuable flexibility for management of solvent entered into inventory prior to January 1, 2015. [0040, 0057, 0072]
   >    CSDL supports EPA's proposed de minimis exemption for HCFC-225ca/cb. The commenter agrees that the de minimis exemption comports with the statutory intent. Given that previously used HCFC-225ca/cb is already exempt, the commenter believes that continuing to allow end users to use virgin inventory that they hold prior to January 1, 2015 will obviate the need to take advantage of the exemption found in 42 U.S.C 761d(a)(1) and will also result in cost avoidance in disposing of the previously obtained HCFC-225ca/cb. CSDL's subcontractors currently use HCFC-225ca/cb as a solvent in the production of sensitive electronic instrumentation components. CSDL and their subcontractors are in the lengthy process of qualifying an alternative process to the use of HCFC-225ca/cb. [0037]
   >    AGC supports EPA's proposed de minimis exemption for HCFC-225ca/cb. AGC produces HCFC-225ca/cb for use as a solvent in several highly specialized applications. AGC has applied for approval of an HCFC-225ca/cb substitute under the SNAP program that has a significantly lower GWP and ODP. AGC is managing their own import and sales of HCFC-225ca/cb with the goal of having zero inventories by December 31, 2014. AGC is also informing customers wanting to purchase HCFC-225ca/cb before December 31, 2014 to place orders no later than July 15, 2014 to encourage end users to utilize their inventory in an effective manner as well as help apprise them of the upcoming phaseout deadline. AGC comments that EPA should otherwise clarify that "owners" of HCFC-225ca/cb can use the product in any of their affiliated organizations, allowing transfer among corporate facilities even if they are in different locations. While AGC believes this interpretation is consistent with the definition of a 'person" in 40 C.F.R. 82.3 and EPA's explanation of this matter in the proposed rule, it would be beneficial for EPA to explain this matter more fully in the final rule. [0058]
EPA Response: In response to the comments from NASA, DoD, ELDEC, CSDL and AGC, please see section IV.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    CIP supports EPA's proposed de minimis exemption for HCFC-225ca/cb inventory prior to January 1, 2015, on the ground that at that point the inventory would be `products' and not `class II controlled substances.'" CIP believes that as other HCFCs are phased out, similar situations could also arise along with EPA's concern about end-users placing inventory into equipment before the phaseout date, so it would be considered recycled or used once prior to being recovered is valid. Thus, CIP agrees with EPA that the better option is to allow end users to continue to consume virgin inventory that is held prior to the phaseout (while recognizing that for HCFC-225ca/cb these quantities are extremely limited). [0066]
EPA Response: Please see section IV.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule. Additionally, as EPA clarifies in the preamble to the final rule, the exemption allowing for continued solvent uses of existing inventory of existing HCFC-225ca/cb does not re-define the class II controlled substance as a "product." 

   >    AMPAC supports EPA's more formal interpretation of the meaning of the word "use" in section 605 and believes the legislative intent is clear. [0042]
EPA Response: Please see section IV.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    The Alliance agrees with the conditions and exceptions, as stated, to the prohibition on use and introduction into interstate commerce of class II substances starting January 1, 2015. In its list of conditions and exceptions, the Alliance includes EPA's proposed exception for HCFC-225ca/cb if the material is in inventory prior to January 1, 2015 and is used as a solvent.  [0049]
EPA Response: See section IV.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule. In addition, the agency clarifies that the exemption allowing for continued use of existing HCFC-225ca/cb inventories for solvent uses applies only to the use of existing material, not the sale or introduction into interstate commerce.

   >    NRDC disagrees with EPA's proposed interpretation of "use" in section 605(a) as applied to HCFC-225ca/cb. NRDC believes that even if the quantities of this chemical are limited, a de minimis exemption is unjustified. NRDC states that Section 605(a), and Title VI itself, are intended to be interpreted strictly, and de minimis exceptions of the kind EPA has envisioned here are inappropriate, as Title VI is intended to entirely phase out the production, import, and consumption of HCFCs. NRDC believes that if the fact that small amounts of a chemical were available could justify its use for "as long as needed," then the goals of the Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA) would never be met. NRDC claims that EPA's statutory interpretation has the potential to cause harm in future years of the phaseout, and they urge the agency not to adopt this de minimis exception. [0085]
EPA Response: NRDC did not provide other objections to EPA's interpretation of "use," so EPA believes NRDC is solely objecting to the de minimis exemption for use of existing inventory of HCFC-225ca/cb. Please see section IV.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to NRDC's comments opposing the exemption for HCFC-225ca/cb.
Existing inventory of HCFC-124 for sterilant uses
EPA received one submission from a commenter supporting an equivalent exemption for continued use of existing HCFC-124 for specific sterilant needs.

   >    Mesa Labs requests continued use of HCFC-124 already held in inventory, for use as a sterilant in the manufacture and testing of biological indicators (BIs). BIs contain biological spores and are used in the pharmaceutical, medical device and healthcare markets to monitor sterilization cycles. Mesa Labs manufactures BIs for use in monitoring ethylene oxide sterilization cycles, and requests an exemption to the section 605(a) use prohibition for the following reasons: (1) BIs may need to be tested for up to two years after their production date to meet regulatory compliance requirements related to FDA and ISO 9001:2008 standards. Since the initial resistance assessment of the BIs was conducted using a blend of ethylene oxide and HCFC-124, Mesa Labs cannot obtain relevant comparison data if it uses pure ethylene oxide sterilant that does not contain HCFC-124; (2) According to the ISO 11138-2 standard, the minimum acceptable resistance for a BI used for monitoring ethylene oxide sterilization cycles is 2.5 minutes, which is not yet achievable with pure ethylene oxide, thus the need to continue using blends that contain HCFC-124 in order to comply with the ISO resistance requirements; (3) the manufacturer of the HCFC-124 and ethylene oxide blend has stopped manufacture and will no longer accept material for destruction; (4) the amount of HCFC-124 that Mesa Labs owns is small (300-400 pounds) and will last for up to two years. [0115]
EPA Response: See section IV.B.2 of the preamble for EPA's response to the comment from Mesa Labs and the agency's discussion of its reasons for adopting a narrow exemption for continued use of HCFC-124 for manufacturing and testing biological indicators.
Recent changes to section 605(a) and plans to update regulations
EPA received three comments on this subject. AMPAC, The Alliance and DuPont support the rationale and language that EPA proposes to add to 82.15(g)(4) regarding continued use of HCFCs as a fire suppression agent, though AMPAC comments that the word "streaming" should be deleted from the language.

   >    AMPAC believes the word "streaming" should be deleted from the first and third paragraph of page 78083. AMPAC states that the proposed implementation is narrower (i.e., limited to streaming agents only) than what is stated in Section 320 of the 2012 NDAA. AMPAC states that the actual language of the public law does not limit it to streaming and EPA should be consistent with legislative intent. 
   AMPAC supports the following EPA statement that is made in the second paragraph of page 78083: "This change has minimal impact on the overall allocation since the primary HCFC used for fire suppression, HCFC-123, has a low ODP, and the quantities used for fire suppression are small relative to the other uses of HCFCs." AMPAC believes that a sound basis for this conclusion is found in the fact that HCFC-123 has an extraordinarily low environmental impact (ODP=0.0098, GWP=77). [0042]
   >    DuPont agrees with EPA that allowing for continued HCFC production and import for nonresidential fire suppression uses is a natural follow-on to the recent amendment to section 605(a) of CAA. DuPont supports the language that EPA proposes to add 82.15(g)(4) to implement that recent amendment and allow the continued use of HCFCs as a fire suppression streaming agent for certain nonresidential applications through 2019. [0065]
   >    The Alliance agrees with the conditions and exceptions, as stated, to the prohibition on use and introduction into interstate commerce of class II substances starting January 1, 2015. In its list of conditions and exceptions, the Alliance includes substances used in nonresidential streaming fire suppression applications that are listed in accordance with CAA section 612(c), which is EPA's SNAP program. [0049]
EPA Response: Please see section IV.B.3 for a response to the AMPAC, the Alliance and DuPont's comments, including a response to AMPAC's suggestion that EPA remove the word "streaming" from its proposed regulatory language.
Determining Baselines for 2015-2019
EPA received seven comments on how EPA will determine baselines for the 2015-2019 period. 

Count
Commenter
Organization
Docket ID No
                                       1
Kevin Fay
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049
                                       2
Jeff Gibson
American Pacific Corporation (AMPAC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0042
                                       3
William J. Hamel
Arkema Inc. (Arkema)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0045
                                       4
Don Magid
Combs Investment Property (CIP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0066
                                       5
Dave Stirpe
Honeywell International, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0051
                                       6
Maureen Beatty
National Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0071
                                       7
Jill Tronca
North Lakes Distributing, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0077

Five commenters support the proposal to maintain the existing baseline system, largely due to the certainty and consistency this system provides allowance holders. EPA received one comment, from AMPAC, proposing that baseline allowances be reallocated if any company receiving allowances is not actively consuming HCFCs. EPA received one comment opposed to the baseline system entirely.

   >    NRI and the Alliance support EPA's proposal to maintain the existing baseline system. The commenters agree that the industry is familiar with this system and believe it will provide certainty to allowance holders. They assert that changing the baseline system would lead to unnecessary confusion without any environmental benefit. [0071, 0049]
   >    CIP agrees with EPA's proposal to keep the post-Arkema historical baselines as reflected in the 2013 Final Rule and to not re-establish each company's baseline. CIP agrees that the alternative of re-establishing each company's baseline would not affect the total allocation and may detract from the certainty that allows stakeholders to plan for an orderly transition to alternatives. As noted in the communication from CIP to EPA dated June 17, 2013, CIP also agrees with EPA's proposal not to use a more recent set of years to establish company baselines, since there would be no environment benefit and would result in confusion. [0066]
   >    Arkema comments that EPA should maintain existing baselines. According to Arkema, CAA Section 601 directed EPA to select "a representative calendar year" as the baseline year, but did not authorize EPA to change the baseline years. Arkema adds that if the Agency replaced the baseline year, it would impact both the Agency's regulatory program and allowance holders' reactions to the program (including decisions to over-produce material for later sale in anticipation of the eventual HCFC phaseout or in an attempt to "buy" market-share from established suppliers like Arkema). Arkema believes that the Arkema v. EPA 618 F.3d 1 decision shows the inherent difficulty of keeping an existing allowance system, but trying to make changes that have the practical effect of benefitting some allowance holders while injuring others. According to Arkema, the current HCFC system obviated any need to update the baseline allowance allocations with the incorporation of a high degree of flexibility in allowance transfers, thereby allowing market adjustments. Arkema believes that maintaining the current established baselines, particularly for HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, will provide market stability and allow for an orderly transition to alternatives since this will be the final allocation for those chemicals. Arkema comments that market participants benefit from a well-established, accepted system, and the certainty associated with using the same system will allow for informed business decisions through the program's end. Additionally, Arkema believes that there is no environmental benefit to changing the baseline allowance levels. [0045]
   >    Honeywell does not object to EPA's proposal to maintain the established company baselines as published in the April 3, 2013 Final Rule. [0051]
EPA's Response: While EPA does not necessarily agree with all of the commenter's reasons for maintaining the existing baselines, we have decided to maintain them for the reasons provided in section V of the preamble. In addition, the agency discusses its preference to maintain existing baselines in the proposed rule at 78 FR 78084.

   >    AMPAC supports establishing baselines for 2015-2019 in a way that ensures any company receiving such allowances is known to still actively be consuming. If any company receiving allowances is not actively consuming, then AMPAC supports reallocating these allowances proportionately amongst actively consuming companies. [0042]
EPA's Response: As discussed in section V of the preamble to the final rule, altering baselines would not provide environmental benefit. In addition, changing baselines for 2015-2019 could interfere with the agency's longstanding goal of an orderly transition out of HCFCs. Since allowances are tradable, there is flexibility within the current system to grow or shrink a company's activity in the market. EPA discusses its consideration of revised baselines and its reasons for not proposing to change baselines in the proposed rule at 78 FR 78084. 
 
> North Lakes takes issue with the baseline allocation system itself. They claim that since its inception, the baseline allocation system has unfairly frozen the market in place; giving a few market players an unfair advantage, whilst creating barriers for smaller businesses to enter and survive in the market. [0077]
EPA's Response: EPA has decided to maintain the existing baseline system for the reasons provided in section V of the preamble. In addition, the agency discusses its preference to maintain existing baselines in the proposed rule at 78 FR 78084. EPA did not propose an alternative allocation system.
Developing Allocation Levels for Each HCFC
EPA received 66 comments on how EPA is developing allocation levels for each HCFC. Comments were in reference to the following topics:

      4.1	 HCFC-22 consumption allocation
      4.2	 HCFC-22 production allocation
      4.3	 HCFC-142b allocation
      4.4	HCFC-123 allocation
            4.4.1	Allocate 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline through 2019
            4.4.2	Allocate less than 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline
      4.5	 HCFC-124 allocation
      
Count
Commenter
Organization
Docket ID No
                                       1
Patricia A. Burns
A-Gas RemTec
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0080
                                       2
Ken Logan
A-Gas U.S. Holdings Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0082
                                       3
Charles McCrudden
Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0075
                                       4
Karim Amrane
Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0078
                                       5

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0120
                                       6
Michael Molinini
Airgas, Inc. (Airgas)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0064
                                       7
Kevin Fay
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049
                                       8
Jeff Gibson
American Pacific Corporation (AMPAC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0042
                                       9
William J. Hamel
Arkema Inc. (Arkema)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0045
                                      10
Julie C. Look
American Refrigerants, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0106
                                      11
Don Magid
Combs Investment Property (CIP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0066
                                      12

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0061
                                      13

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0104
                                      14
41 Members of U.S. Congress
Congress of the United States (41 Members of the U.S. Congress)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0063
                                      15
Jason Crawford
Coolgas
None
                                      16
Tom Johnson
Daikin Applied
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0034
                                      17
Donald R. Schregardus
Department of Defense (DoD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0057
                                      18
Mack McFarland
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0065
                                      19

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0097
                                      20
Mark W. Roberts
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0067
                                      21

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0119
                                      22
Jeff Cohen
EOS Climate
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0053
                                      23

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0100
                                      24
Erik R. Lieberman
Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0112
                                      25
Greg Canniff
GC Refrigerant Supply, Inc
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0047
                                      26
Carl Grolle
Golden Refrigerant
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0029
                                      27
Gary Clark
Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0060
                                      28
Jonathan Melchi
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0050
                                      29
Dave Stirpe
Honeywell International, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0051
                                      30
Stephen P. Mandracchia
Hudson Technologies (Hudson)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0081
                                      31

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0109
                                      32
Gordon McKinney
ICOR International
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0027
                                      33

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0107
                                      34
Nanette Lockwood
Ingersoll Rand
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0083
                                      35
Maureen Beatty
National Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0071
                                      36
David Doniger; Benjamin Longstreth; Emily Davis
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0085
                                      37

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0103
                                      38
Peter V. Williams; Linda T. Leak-Ransom
New Era Group, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0043
                                      39
Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0041
                                      40
Peter Williams

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0101
                                      41

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0114
                                      42
Jill Tronca
North Lakes Distributing, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0077
                                      43

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0099
                                      44
W. Caffey Norman
Patton Boggs LLP
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0079
                                      45

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0062
                                      46
J. Gordon Arbuckle

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0111
                                      47

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0118
                                      48
Anonymous
Polar Technology
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0059
                                      49
Daniel Renfrow
Private Citizen Comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0032
                                      50
 Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0033
                                      51
Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0036
                                      52
L. Durr

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0039
                                      53
Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0094
                                      54
G. H. Holliday

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0095
                                      55
Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0096
                                      56
Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0105
                                      57

Rapid Recovery
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0116
                                      58
Kenneth M. Ponder
RMS of Georgia, LLC (RMS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0048
                                      59

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0102
                                      60
Stephanie Dubow
STJ Chemical Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0098
                                      61
Stephen Trevino
Summit Refrigerants
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0052
                                      62
John Mandyck
UTC Building & Industrial Systems (Carrier)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0056
                                      63
Ted Broudy
USA Refrigerants
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0044
                                      64

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0054
                                      65
Carole Poindexter
Watsco, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0046
                                      66
January 23, 2014 Public Hearing on the 2015-2019 Proposed Rule:

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0030
                                       
Stephen Van Maren; Kevin Faye
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance)

                                       
Don Magid
Combs Investment Property (CIP)

                                       
Mack MacFarland; Michael Parr; James Bachman
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont)

                                       
Alexander von Bismarck; Danielle Gagne; Marcus Lee
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)

                                       
Rusty Tharp; Dave Ransom
Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman)

                                       
Jon Melchi
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)

                                       
Stephen P. Mandracchia
Hudson Technologies (Hudson)

                                       
Steve Porter
Johnstone Supply

                                       
Ben Longstreth
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

                                       
Jill Tronca
North Lakes Distributing, Inc. 

                                       
W. Caffey Norman; Kristina Foehrkolb
Patton Boggs LLP

                                       
Jerry Dykstra
Rapid Recovery

                                       
James Burke
USA Refrigerants

EPA received two general comments on the HCFC phaseout: one related to EPA's proposal to remove the HCFC-141b exemption petition process from the regulatory text and the other stating support for the end of certain exemptions. Arkema also urges EPA to continue using the existing allocation system for the 2015-2019 regulatory period. 

   >    Arkema urges EPA to continue using the existing allocation system for the 2015-2019 regulatory period because the system is straight-forward for the Agency to administer, needs little to no adjustment or retooling to accommodate the end of the program, meets environmental goals, and is known and accepted in the marketplace. Additionally, Arkema supports the approach of removing the HCFC-141b petition process from the regulations so that HCFC-141b exemption allowances would no longer be granted, while maintaining the existing HCFC-141b rules for transshipments, heels or used material, and exports to Article 5 countries. These proposals would eliminate unnecessary use of HCFC-141b and facilitate smooth transitions to alternative materials. [0045]
EPA Response: In section VI.F of the preamble, EPA explains its rationale for removing the HCFC-141b petition process from the regulations effective January 1, 2015. The agency did not propose to modify the existing regulations that allow for transshipments, heels or used material, and exports to Article 5 countries. In response to Arkema's support of continuing the existing allocation system, the agency did not propose, and is not making, any changes to the structure of the allocation system.

   >    A private citizen states that s/he supports EPA's efforts to "tie off loose ends with a number of HCFCs (HCFC-141b for example) that have been exempted in the past." [0036]
EPA Response:  The agency appreciates the citizen's support of the existing regulations in 40 CFR 82.15 and 82.16, which limit the production, import and use of specific HCFCs. Restrictions on certain HCFCs take effect, or have taken effect at different times. 
 HCFC-22 consumption allocation
EPA received submissions from 42 commenters on the HCFC-22 consumption allocation. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA responds to many of these comments in its discussion of the final consumption allocation methodology and starting point in 2015. In this document, EPA follows a similar approach, responding first to comments suggesting that EPA issue zero allowances, or fewer allowances than proposed under any option. The agency then addresses comments on the consumption allocation methodology (i.e. estimation approach or a linear approach), followed by responses to comments on the starting point in 2015. The remaining comments are summarized and addressed in the sections on inventory, technical projections, prior regulation and a final "other" category.

Comments in support of issuing zero allowances in 2015
> 41 members of the U.S. Congress support a more aggressive phase-down of HCFC-22 than the preferred approach, and urge EPA to solicit a comment on a zero allocation. They believe a faster phase-down of HCFC-22 will help stimulate reclamation, support the development of low-GWP alternatives, foster better refrigerant management practices, and reap significant environmental benefits from both an ozone depletion and a greenhouse gas perspective; placing our nation on stronger footing as we continue international negotiations to phase down HFCs. The commenter believes that between the large stockpile, decreased demand, better leak control, use of reclaimed HCFC-22, and availability of alternative refrigerants, consumers can be assured of sufficient capacity to serve their existing systems without the granting of significant new HCFC-22 allowances. [0063]
EPA Response: The agency appreciates the letter from 41 members of U.S. Congress, and discusses the importance of reclamation, effective refrigerant management and industry development of low-GWP alternatives throughout section VI.A of the preamble. However, as EPA explains in section VI.A.3.i, the agency is not finalizing an allocation of zero allowances in 2015-2019. In that preamble discussion, EPA considers available market data, the Montreal Protocol cap, available non-HCFC alternatives by end use and potential effects on the marketplace if EPA were to issue zero allowances.

> ACCA does not support a zero allocation because it would cause tremendous volatility and uncertainty in the market, which would likely lead to upward price fluctuations. [0075]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3.i., where EPA recognizes that a majority of market participants, both small and large businesses, do not support issuing zero allowances in 2015, and where EPA notes that given the long-standing expectation that allowances would be available through 2019, issuing zero allowances in 2015 could cause chaotic and unanticipated market disruptions.

> Airgas supports an allocation of zero. According to Airgas, moving more aggressively to zero will deplete what they see as a surplus in stockpiled inventories earlier, drive dependence on reclaimed product sooner, incentivize a switch to alternatives, and benefit the environment through enhanced refrigerant management practices and reduced equipment leakage. [0064]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3.i for EPA's discussion of available HCFC-22 alternatives and the environmental implications of a zero allocation, and section VI.A.3.iii for the agency's discussion of how it considered the inventory data available and the importance of the allowance allocation's influence of reclamation and proper refrigerant management.  

> American Refrigerants, Inc. requests zero allocations for the 2015-2019 control period in order to make the reclamation industry more financially feasible. They believe recent regulatory changes have affected the market, in particular their ability to make money and implement programs to help end users. They also state that customers have complained about fluctuations in pricing and have expressed distrust in the market. [0106]
EPA Response: See previous responses. In addition, see preamble section VI.A.4 discussion of the importance of a timely rulemaking in providing market stability for 2015-2019.

> AMPAC does not support reducing HCFC-22 consumption allowances to zero because it would cause an unsmooth transition. [0042]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3.i and previous response to ACCA.

> Arkema comments that the concept of a more rapid phasedown with zero allowances would not have any environmental benefit, especially when the Agency already has been moving to eliminate the use of HCFCs faster than the Montreal Protocol requires, and would result in unanticipated market disruptions with accompanying injury to consumers and many service and maintenance businesses. Currently, the reclamation industry is far from ready to be the sole source of refrigerant needed to service consumer demand. Arkema believes their suggested HCFC-22 allocations to be an effective compromise among the competing approaches. Allowance holders would receive additional allocations to complete their business plans, demand for reclamation services would be higher and increase over time, users would have an additional economic incentive to minimize leaks, and consumers would get additional protection from disruption. [0045]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3.i and previous response to ACCA.

> Due to perceived surpluses in existing HCFC-22 inventory levels, CIP asks the EPA to reconsider an HCFC-22 allocation of zero for the 2015-2019 control period. CIP believes that future demand can be meet by stockpiled inventory, reclaimed material, and non-ODS alternatives. They further claim that a zero allocation option will encourage a shift to reclamation and "drop-in" alternatives and will help the environment. [0030, 0066, 0104]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3.i and previous responses.

> EIA believes EPA should reduce the allocation of HCFC-22 to zero or to as few allowances as possible with the fastest phaseout schedule possible due to significant inventories in the marketplace, the ability of the reclamation industry to meet needs, the availability of alternatives, and the need to reduce intentional venting. EIA believes that the proposed rule over allocates HCFC-22, leading to the release of HCFC into the atmosphere, damaging the ozone and contributing to climate change. EIA believes overproduction of HCFC-22 directly conflicts with Congress' intent for the CAA, which is to "protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population," and is inconsistent with President Obama's Climate Action Plan and the agreement between U.S. President Obama and Chinese President Xi. [0067, 0119]
> EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3, where EPA considered inventory, reclamation capacity, alternatives, the environmental benefits of the rule and the commitments the agency has made under the Climate Action Plan. In addition, the agency notes that knowing venting is prohibited under section 608 and EPA's regulations for both ODS and ODS-substitute refrigerants, except for substitutes that EPA has determined do not pose a threat to the environment. 
   
   EPA disagrees with EIA's assertion that allocating HCFC-22 allowances conflicts with Title I of the CAA. The overall phaseout of HCFCs is directly in line with original intent of the Clean Air Act. This rule is within the allowed amount of consumption and production authorized by both the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol. In fact, the HCFC-22 consumption allocation, which limits the import and production for U.S. use, over the five-year period is only 25 percent of the total amount allowed under the Montreal Protocol -- significantly lower than the Clean Air Act originally envisioned. For a more detailed discussion on both consumption allowances and production allowances, see sections VI.A and VI.B of the preamble.

> Goodman believes that a zero allowances approach is unnecessary and would disrupt the market, with end users (i.e., consumers) bearing the brunt of higher costs for repairing existing HCFC-22 equipment. [0030, 0060]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3.i and previous response to ACCA.

> HARDI believes that the zero allocation approach would do significant harm to HVACR distributors who would not have time to plan accordingly and have been told for many years that 2019 would mark the end of production and importation of HCFC-22. [0030, 0050]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3.i and previous response to ACCA.

> Hudson believes zero HCFC-22 allowances should be issued after 2014. Hudson is disappointed EPA failed to take public comment on a zero option. The commenter believes existing stockpiles, supplemented by transition to new equipment and refrigerant options are sufficient to meet the aftermarket servicing needs. The commenter believes alternatives now represent approximately 25 percent of the market. The commenter also notes that elimination of HCFC-22 allowances is supported by EPA's confirmation that its previous estimates of the HCFC-22 stockpiles were too low and that, as the commenter believes, the reclamation industry is underutilized and could easily increase the number of reclaimed pounds produced threefold to in excess of 30 million pounds. The commenter believes excess allowances are in effect undermining the use of best practices during the service and maintenance of systems. Hudson also states that, while the Proposed Rule discusses the environmental risks of ozone depletion, it fails to even mention the dramatic global warming effects of the 90 million pounds of proposed additional production and the more than 100 million pounds already in the stockpile. The commenter believes that ending virgin HCFC-22 production in 2015 is one of the most significant actions the Administration could take in the short-term to help meet the carbon reduction targets outlined in the recent Climate Action Plan. Hudson also comments that the resulting decline in return of used HCFC-22 from the detrimental impacts of the April 2013 rule also resulted in greater illegal venting. 
   
   Hudson states that elimination of HCFC-22 allowances is supported by the currently accelerated phaseout of HCFC-22, the success of programs like EPA's GreenChill that has resulted in a more rapid transition from HCFC-22 in the supermarket sector, and the proliferation of HFC alternatives to HCFC-22. The commenter believes that the use of reclaimed HCFC-22 is the best solution for HCFC-22 system owners and that reclamation will be more competitive and will decrease the need for HFC based alternatives. The commenter notes that HCFC-22 systems operate more efficiently using HCFC-22 as compared to HFC-based alternatives, and technicians will be more likely to promote the use of reclaimed gas when they receive a tangible economic benefit. [0030, 0081, 0109]
EPA Response: The agency discusses why it did not propose a zero allocation option in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 78 FR 78087), and also in section VI.A.3.i of the preamble to the final rule. The agency considers Hudson's statement about the increase in the market share of alternatives and the success of programs like GreenChill in the development of the rule. In the preamble EPA points out that the agency supports the uptake of new alternatives that offer improved environmental profiles. However, for some end uses many of the existing alternatives to HCFC-22 have GWPs comparable to or higher than HCFC-22. In a separate action, EPA has proposed to change the status of a number of substitutes that were previously listed as acceptable, based on information showing that other substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk overall to human health and/or the environment under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program (see 79 FR 46126). In addition, EPA agrees with Hudson's statement that HCFC-22 equipment runs most efficiently on HCFC-22, and that proper refrigerant management and increased reclamation will help support a smooth transition out of HCFCs. EPA discusses inventory, alternatives and refrigerant management more in section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble as it explains its decision to issue 10,000 MT of HCFC-22 allowances in 2015, with a linear decrease to zero in 2020. 
   
> ICOR favors an HCFC-22 allocation of zero for the 2015-2019 control period. They believe this option will correct a perceived over-supply of HCFC-22.  ICOR claims EPA knows definitively that the supply of stockpiled HCFC-22 is in excess of 148 million pounds, and is likely substantially higher. ICOR further claims that demand for HCFC-22 is substantially lower than forecasted.  They believe a zero allocation will help promote non-ODS alternatives, reduce venting, encourage responsible reclamation practices, and revive the "severely damaged reclamation industry." [0027]
EPA Response: As discussed in the preamble, EPA did not attempt to collect an exact measurement of inventory, nor is it the goal of the agency to eliminate inventory immediately. See section VI.A.2 of the preamble for more discussion on inventory, section VI.A.3 for an explanation of how EPA decided on the allocation, and the previous response to Hudson. In that section EPA explains how it was not the agency's goal to eliminate inventory immediately; however, EPA did take into consideration that total industry inventory is likely above 148 million pounds when the agency decided on its final allocation.
   
> Johnstone Supply supports an aggressive phaseout but not a zero allocation because they believe it would be too disruptive. [0062]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3 and previous responses.

> NRDC urges EPA to issue zero allowances for HCFC-22 in light of the excess supply currently in the market. NRDC believes zero allowances would support the availability of alternatives, opportunities for leak reduction, and opportunities for reclamation and reuse. NRDC states that accelerating the phaseout under section 606 of the Clean Air Act is both "necessary" to protect human health and the environment and "practicable" based on existing stockpiles, recycling and leak detection technologies, and the wide range of low-GWP alternatives. NRDC claims excess allowances will result in additional HCFC-22 released into the atmosphere, exacerbating ozone depletion and climate change. 
   
   Regarding alternatives, NRDC states: that there are several non-ozone depleting alternatives that can be used to retrofit equipment. NRDC quotes the proposed rule, stating that"sales of HCFC-22 retrofit refrigerants (e.g., R-407C, R-421, R-422B, R422D, R-438A, and numerous other non-ODS alternatives) have increased dramatically since 2011." (78 FR 78087). NRDC points out that additional refrigerants are on the market as well  -  e.g., R-407f and R-407a  -  and these refrigerants can be used for retrofit in equipment using HCFC-22. NRDC believes that the existence of these alternatives makes it practicable to reduce HCFC-22 consumption allowances more rapidly than proposed, and thinks that EPA's proposed options should be adjusted accordingly. [0030, 0085]
EPA Response: Similar to previous responses, and as discussed in the preamble, EPA would also like to support the availability of alternatives, opportunities for leak reduction and opportunities for reclamation and reuse. The agency discusses why it did not propose and is not finalizing a zero option in section VI.A.3.i of the preamble. In addition, the agency points out that the total level of HCFC consumption allowances allocated from 2015-2019 is 75 percent below the maximum level of consumption authorized by the Montreal Protocol and EPA's regulations implementing sections 605 and 606 of the Clean Air Act.

EPA did not propose to accelerate the phaseout of HCFC-22. The current phaseout date under EPA's existing regulations at 40 CFR 82.16(e) is January 1, 2020. When EPA evaluates various possible allocations prior to the phaseout date, an important consideration is how to achieve a smooth transition to the ultimate phaseout. EPA believes the linear approach it has chosen for 2015-2019 best achieves this goal. For the reasons discussed in the preamble regarding the effects of a zero allocation, EPA does not believe that accelerating the HCFC-22 phaseout date would be appropriate. 

NRDC suggests that an acceleration would be "practicable" within the meaning of section 606(a)(2), based on the availability of substitutes.  In determining whether a more stringent schedule is practicable, EPA is to take into account "technological achievability, safety, and other relevant factors." EPA discusses retrofit alternatives at section VI.A.3 of the preamble. As noted in the preamble, EPA believes retrofits are an important option for many consumers as HCFC-22 is phased out; however, the agency does not want to prematurely drive consumers away from the refrigerant their system was designed to run with. EPA is concerned that a zero allocation could unnecessarily push equipment owners to retrofits, potentially discouraging continued operation of HCFC-22 equipment with reclaimed refrigerant. In addition, HCFC-22 systems generally run most efficiently on HCFC-22, and to the extent NRDC is concerned about climate impacts, energy efficiency is also an important climate consideration. The preamble contains additional discussion of the climate impacts of retrofit alternatives. Retrofitting an existing system can also decrease capacity, meaning a system must run longer and use more electricity in order to generate the same cooling output. A decreased capacity may also result in the inability of equipment to meet the sensible (temperature) and latent (humidity) cooling needs required throughout the season. Given these factors, EPA did not propose, and is not finalizing, a determination that a more stringent phaseout schedule is practicable under section 606(a)(2). NRDC also cites other reasons why it believes an acceleration would be "practicable," but these reasons do not obviously relate to the availability of substitutes, which must form the basis of a determination under section 606(a)(2).

NRDC further suggests that an acceleration is "necessary to protect human health and the environment" against harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer (CAA section 606(a)(1). Yet NRDC does not cite any new scientific information to support this proposition. As discussed above and in preamble section VI.A.3, the allocation level in the final rule is well below the amount authorized by both the CAA and Montreal Protocol, and also encourages gradual transition to alternatives that are safer for human health and the environment. 

> New Era Group, Inc. comments that EPA should require allowance holders to petition for allowances "based on facts that would justify further production or consumption of HCFC-22." [0043]
EPA Response: The concept of petitioning for new production or import allowances, instead of issuing allowances based on existing baselines, was beyond the scope of this rulemaking. For a full discussion of EPA's decision on the 2015-2019 HCFC-22 allocation, please see section VI.A.3 of the preamble.

> Patton Boggs, commenting on behalf of the New Era Group, Inc. coalition supports zero HCFC-22 allocations for the 2015-2019 control period. They claim that the large amount of existing inventory for HCFC-22, along with reclaimed and alternative gas, can meet future servicing needs. They further believe that an allocation of zero will boost struggling reclamation and alternative refrigerants industries, while providing benefits to the environment and human health. New Era Group, Inc. also believes that the proposed rule will guarantee that the excess HCFC-22 will be vented and that this outcome is not in accord with the White House's efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the United States. [0030, 0079]
EPA Response: In section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble, the agency discusses how it considered existing inventory, and the importance of reclamation and proper refrigerant management in deciding to issue 10,000 MT in 2015, which is the lowest proposed starting point of any of the HCFC-22 consumption options. The agency also discusses the environmental considerations that went into the final decision. The agency believes that a linear approach starting at 10,000 MT should meet the needs of the market, while promoting proper refrigerant handling and timely transition to well-chosen alternatives.

> North Lakes supports zero HCFC-22 allowances for the 2015-2019 control period. They believe that any allocations for the upcoming control period will perpetuate an unnecessary surplus of HCFC-22. North Lakes claims that such a surplus will make reclaimed material uneconomical in comparison to the price of virgin HCFC-22, thus further harming a reclamation industry that was damaged by the amount of allowances granted during 2013 and 2014. North Lakes further argues that issuing additional allowances will contradict EPA's goal of mitigating the environmental impacts of ozone-depleting substances. [0030, 0077, 0099]
EPA Response: See response to Patton Boggs above. EPA appreciates North Lakes' concern regarding the environmental impact of ozone depleting substances, and notes in the preamble and in the above response to NRDC, that the total level of HCFC consumption allowances allocated from 2015-2019 is 75 percent below the maximum level of consumption authorized by the Montreal Protocol and EPA's regulations implementing sections 605 and 606 of the Clean Air Act. 

> A private citizen supports halting all future allocations due to the over-supply of HCFC material. The commenter states that EPA discontinued HCFC equipment in 2010 but at the same time allowed an increase in allocations. The private citizen states that, at a minimum, allocations for any additional gas should be halted until full queries of stockpiles are documented. A private citizen comments that EPA must remove all unwanted and unneeded ODSs so that a healthier environment can be restored. [0105]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble. Additionally, the agency would like to clarify that it did not increase HCFC-22 allowances in 2010. To the contrary, the 2010 allocation for HCFC-22 was nearly 60 percent lower than the 2009 HCFC-22 allocation.  

> A private citizen comments that if the Agency allocates more than zero HCFC-22, then they are, in effect, venting. The commenter believes the market does not need any more HCFC-22 inventory, and all unneeded inventory ends up in the atmosphere because there is no economy that could afford to properly destroy this inventory. [0094]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble. 

> RMS states that no more HCFC-22 should be produced or imported during the 2015-2019 allocation period if inventory reporting and the use of retrofitted alternatives prove that more HCFC-22 exists than is needed for servicing. RMS comments that decreasing R-22 in the market helps the environment by phasing out HCFCs and transitioning to more environmentally friendly refrigerants. [0048, 0102]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble, particularly section VI.A.3.i, which discusses the environmental profiles of available HCFC-22 alternatives.

> STJ strongly supports reducing the allocation to zero for the 2015-2019 control period. [0098]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble.

> Summit Refrigerants requests that allowances for the 2015-2019 period be reduced to zero, and does not support any of the proposed drawdown approaches. They believe that the 2013-2014 rule caused an over-supply of virgin HCFC-22, which has resulted in less recovery, more venting, and has had a material impact on refrigerants reclaimers. [0052]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble.

> USA Refrigerants supports an allocation of zero allowances for the 2015-2019 control period. They believe that the prior rule caused an oversupply of virgin HCFC-22, which harmed the once successful reclamation and alternatives industries, has caused a rough transition out of ozone depleting substances, and has led to venting. [0030, 0044, 0054]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble.

> Rapid Recovery requests that EPA reduce import and consumption allocations to zero effective immediately because of the large amount of inventory already in the market and because reducing allowances to zero will improve contractor compliance with the venting prohibition. [0030]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble. 

Methodology for issuing allowances
> ACCA supports the 5-year linear drawdown (option 1) since it supports the smoothest transition.  The 3-year linear drawdown (option 2) does not provide enough time or fair warning to industry. While the estimation approach provides flexibility to EPA, ACCA is concerned the agency would adjust allowances in later years, which could lead to additional uncertainty. Recent uncertainty in the market lead to significant price fluctuation, so going forward ACCA believes it is in the best interests of the industry to avoid these circumstances. [0075]
EPA Response: In section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble, EPA explains its decision to use a five-year linear approach for 2015-2019. As explained, EPA also agrees with ACCA and other commenters that the 3-year approach has some of the same drawbacks as a zero allocation approach, given the longstanding expectation that the agency would issue allowances through 2019. Also in section VI.A.3.ii, EPA discusses its concerns with the estimation approach and the difficulties of precisely modeling servicing need towards the very end of a production and import phaseout.

> A-Gas RemTec supports a 5-year linear drawdown approach because it will provide certainty to the market. [0080]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble.

> A-Gas U.S. Holdings Inc. supports EPA's five-year linear drawdown approach, because they believe it would make the market more predictable, and allow businesses to plan more effectively. [0082]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. In addition, EPA addresses the importance of a timely rulemaking for regulatory certainty and market stability in section VI.A.4 of the preamble.

> AHRI supports EPA's five-year linear drawdown. [0078]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. 

> Airgas believes that the accelerated five-year phaseout (starting at 22 million pounds in 2015) would still result in 66 million pounds of HCFC-22 being produced unnecessarily; and the accelerated three-year phaseout would result in almost 55 million pounds of new production over a shorter period of time. [0064]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. In addition, EPA discusses its decision to allocate allowances (as opposed to a zero or lower than proposed allocation) in section VI.A.3.i.

> The Alliance encourages EPA to adopt the five-year linear drawdown approach. The Alliance believes that this option coupled with a 10,000 MT starting point would result in the lowest allocations of any of the proposals in the first two years of the 2015-2019 period, and believes an early signal is important for an orderly market transition. The Alliance does not believe that EPA's preferred HCFC-22 schedule best reflects the market dynamics and goal of an orderly transition, and will discourage reclamation, improved leak reduction, and product stewardship. [0030, 0049]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. In section VI.A.3.iii, the agency explains its decision to start at 10,000 MT in 2015, including the importance of a low allocation in 2015 and 2016 in prompting thoughtful transition out of HCFC-22.

> AMPAC supports Option 1 with the starting allocation of 13,700 MT of HCFC consumption allowances in 2015, because of its consistency, predictability, and fairness through increased competition and market flexibility. AMPAC does not support Option 2 because it would form confusion and not facilitate a smooth transition to alternatives. If Option 1 is not employed AMPAC supports an alternative linear drawdown where the allocation starts at 16,700 MT in 2015. In regards to Option 3, the estimation approach, AMPAC asks that the agency review the logic applied here in terms of automatically equating the maximum volume resulting from allocations to the amount of material actually supplied into the market. [0042]
EPA Response: See previous responses to ACCA and the Alliance, as well as section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. The agency is implementing a five-year approach (option 1) but with a starting point of 10,000 MT. In section VI.A.iii, EPA provides its rationale for starting at 10,000 MT in 2015, instead of 13,700 MT or 16,700 MT. 
 
> Arkema supports the five-year linear drawdown. Arkema believes the linear drawdown will incentivize reclaim and alternatives, provide market stability, and give users time to become knowledgeable about the transition. Arkema believes this is important as EPA and the international community shift to regulation of HFCs. Because they believe HCFC-22 inventory levels are higher than previously estimated, Arkema thinks EPA should issue fewer allowances than in EPA's preferred option so reclaim rates will increase to satisfy the post-phaseout service demand. [0045]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. EPA specifically addresses the importance of reclamation in the final years of the phaseout in section VI.A.3.iii.

> CIP requests that if a zero allowance approach is not followed, EPA use a three year linear drawdown approach. CIP states that this three year option would 1) still provide adequate time for stakeholders to plan for a smooth transition, and 2) enhance the development of the reclamation industry. Also, CIP believes using a three year drawdown will further incentivize the improvement of servicing practices, along with added reclamation and the expanded the adoption of non-ODS containing drop-in alternatives. CIP supports a linear drawdown model for its simplicity, and believes that the 3rd "estimation approach" option is not viable because it will disincentivize recovery and is based on unverifiable assumptions. CIP also feels very strongly that the detrimental environmental effects of issuing the 5,908 MT of add-on HCFC-22 recoupment allowances in 2013 and 2014 needs to be addressed in the 2015-2019 control period by ensuring the allocation of allowances in this period is sufficiently reduced to counteract the added emissions resulting from this action. [0030, 0060, 0061, 0104,]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. In that section, the agency points out that a five-year approach sends a clear market signal and supports a smooth transition. The agency also discusses the environmental concerns associated with a three-year linear reduction to zero. With regard to the commenter's concern about recoupment allowances, in the proposed rule EPA based the starting point for the linear drawdown on the pre-recoupment allocation in 2014. Additionally, EPA notes that it is issuing 10,000 MT of allowances in 2015, far below the projected servicing need and more than 55 percent below the 2014 allocation of 23,100 MT.

> Coolgas encourages EPA to adopt a linear phasedown, such as the 5 year option, to provide clarity in the trajectory of the phase out, and because it would support alternatives and reclamation. [Coolgas]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. 

> DoD supports the proposed 5 year linear drawdown. They believe a more aggressive drawdown may result in refrigerant shortages and high prices, and a 5 year option offers the most balanced approach to drive market change while ensuring end users have  refrigerant available at reasonable cost to service existing equipment. DoD comments that commercial availability of equipment using low-GWP alternatives is limited in some sectors, so an accelerated HCFC-22 timetable may have the unintended consequences of forcing users to replace their equipment with new equipment using high-GWP refrigerants such as R-410A, prolonging the use of this refrigerant for 20 years or more. [0057]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.ii of the preamble. In addition, EPA addresses DoD's concerns regarding the availability of low-GWP alternatives in section VI.A.3.i.

> DuPont supports the five-year linear approach option beginning with 10,000 MT in 2015. DuPont believes this allocation would provide the best opportunity for a smooth transition that will minimize HCFC-22 emissions. DuPont states that this option has the lowest allocation in both 2015 and 2016 of all options discussed in the proposed rule, which will encourage better refrigerant management practices, more recycling and reclamation, and allow for a smooth transition to zero allowances in 2020. DuPont believes that the three year linear approach would result in a chaotic market by beginning at an extremely high allocation level in 2015, curbing any motivation to begin transitioning, and then ending abruptly after three years. [0030, 0065, 0097]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3. ii and VI.A.3.ii of the preamble. 

> If EPA does not consider zero consumption allocation, EIA suggests EPA choose a linear approach over three years starting at 10,000. EIA believes that a three-year approach will help spur near-term investment in the recycling industry. For the 2015 allocation. EIA believes a three-year linear approach starting at 10,000 is legally sufficient under the "logical outgrowth" test and notice requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act and therefore no further notice is required from EPA to adopt this rule in the final rulemaking. [0030, 0067]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble, respectively, where EPA discusses why it did not choose a 3-year approach and why it decided to issue 10,000 MT in 2015. EPA did not evaluate whether there was sufficient notice for this type of three-year approach and whether it would be a logical outgrowth of the proposal because EPA decided against a three-year approach for the reasons discussed in the preamble. 

> EOS Climate supports a 3-year approach. EOS Climate argues that EPA's preferred approach would perpetuate an already oversupplied market, reducing incentives for leak detection and repair and discouraging recovery and recycling/reclamation. According to EOS Climate, this would result in unnecessary emissions of ozone-depleting GHGs, delay the transition to alternatives, and run counter to the Agency's climate action goals. EOS Climate suggests that at minimum, the Agency should adopt option 2 in the proposal, which partially accounts for existing stockpiles. EOS Climate comments that EPA's preferred approach in the proposed rulemaking is inconsistent with the climate goals laid out in the President's Climate Action Plan and by EPA in the 2014 Climate Action Report. [0053, 0100]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 preamble.  In section VI.A.2, EPA explains how it collected and considered HCFC-22 inventory data. In section VI.A.3.i, the agency addresses comments related to the Climate Action Plan and the GWP of existing alternatives to HCFCs. In section VI.A.3.ii, EPA discusses its rationale for a 5-year approach, and finally, section VI.A.3.iii, considers the relationship between the HCFC-22 allocation and the importance of incentivizing leak reduction, recovery and reclamation and proper refrigerant management.

> FMI supports the five-year linear approach, but with an alternative phasedown beginning with 10% of the U.S. HCFC consumption baseline in 2015, 8.7% in 2016, 6.8% in 2017, 5.1% in 2018, and 1.9% in 2019. FMI believes that this approach would allow companies to make gradual reductions in 2015 and 2016 and help the food sales industry to adopt new refrigeration tools, reducing the likelihood of HCFC leaks, and encourage a transition to alternatives. FMI believes that their suggested allocation percentages will ultimately reach the same levels as in the EPA proposal. [0112]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble, where the agency discusses its rationale for using a five-year linear approach. In addition, FMI's suggestion of issuing 10 percent of the U.S. consumption baseline (1,524 ODP-MT or 27,709 MT of HCFC-22), would not leave room for any allocations of allowances for other types of HCFCs, since under the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. is limited to 10 percent of its HCFC baseline starting in 2015. Furthermore, the 2015 and 2016 allocations would be higher than the 2014 HCFC-22 allocation, which could decrease the incentives to recover and reclaim used refrigerant, as well as possibly hinder the transition to alternatives. 

> In response to the late comment submitted by FMI, EIA reiterates its support for a lower allocation than that proposed by EPA and submits a rebuttal of many of the points raised by FMI. EIA contends that supermarkets have had enough time to prepare for the phaseout of HCFC-22 and that if they have issues with the transition it is the result of poor planning. They contend there is enough HCFC-22 available from reclamation and stockpiles to prevent the situation FMI describes in their comments: "the short time period available for companies to adapt to changes in the availability of R-22 will force companies to compete for limited R-22 supplies and for limited quantities of alternative refrigerants." [0119]
EPA Response: EPA is finalizing the lowest five-year consumption allocation option that it proposed, not a higher allocation in line with what FMI requested. For a more detailed discussion on EPA's rationale for the allowed level and timeline for consumption and production allowances, see sections VI.A and VI.B of the preamble.

> GC Refrigerant Supply, Inc wants faster action. They note that even large manufacturers (e.g., Honeywell and DuPont) have agreed that too many allowances were issued and as such, EPA should act to reduce the allowances. GC Refrigerant Supply, Inc states that the oversupply of HCFC-22 is hurting the reclamation industry and leading to venting. [0047]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3 of the preamble. 

> Goodman supports EPA's five-year linear drawdown beginning with 10,000 MT in 2015. Goodman believes this five year phaseout period is essential to safely and properly address issues associated with HCFC substitutes or alternatives. The linear drawdown approach allows industry stakeholders to establish plans and develop the infrastructure to transition away from HCFC-22 without significant market disruption. Further, Goodman believes the linear drawdown is equitable to both manufacturers and consumers. [0030, 0060]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3.ii and VI.A.3.iii of the preamble. 

> HARDI supports the most aggressive 5-year linear drawdown that begins at 10,000 MT in 2015. HARDI believes this approach will provide business owners the resources to meet servicing demand. [0030, 0050]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.3.ii and VI.A.3.iii of the preamble. 

Starting allocation in 2015
> ACCA supports starting at 13,700 MT since it supports the smoothest transition and provides market certainty. [0075]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.3.iii, where EPA discusses its decision to use a 2015 starting point of 10,000 MT and explains why the agency believes such a starting point, combined with the predictability of a linear approach, will promote alternatives, reclamation and transition.
   
> A-Gas RemTec supports starting the allocation at 10,000 MT to aid in stimulating the reclaim industry earlier and ensure reclaim capability is retained in order to meet future demand. [0080]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> A-Gas U.S. Holdings Inc. supports a starting point of 10,000 MT in 2015 to provide market certainty and support reclaim. A-Gas U.S. Holdings Inc. believes the preferred option would not send a strong enough market signal of tightening supply, especially in light of the increased HCFC-22 inventory. The commenter notes that the volatile market over the last two years for R-22 has had a profound effect on reclaim activities and without regulatory certainty and a clear tightening of supply, reclamation operations will continue to suffer. [0082]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> AHRI supports a drawdown beginning with 10,000 MT in 2015 because they believe that the inventory of HCFC-22 is significantly larger than previously estimated by EPA. [0078]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and preamble sections VI.A.2 and VI.A.3.

> The Alliance supports allowances starting at 10,000 MT in 2015. The Alliance comments that EPA's preferred HCFC-22 allocation level could lead to greater emissions than a lower allocation. [0030, 0049]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> AMPAC supports a starting allocation of 13,700 MT in 2015 because of its consistency, predictability, and fairness. [0042]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> Arkema supports beginning with 10,000 MT in 2015 to incentivize reclaim and alternatives. [0045]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> CIP believes that the 2015 starting point should be as close as possible to zero without exceeding the proposed lower alternative of 10,000 MT in 2015. CIP believes that EPA has grossly overestimated demand for HCFC-22 and underestimated supply that exists in "hidden inventory." [0030, 0060, 0104]
EPA Response: See previous response to ACCA and preamble sections VI.A.2 and VI.A.3.iii. In those sections, EPA specifically addresses how it collected inventory information, how it considered existing inventory in proposing the starting points for the linear drawdowns, and in its decision to issue 10,000 MT in 2015 instead of its preferred proposed starting point of 13,700 MT.

> Coolgas favors starting in 2015 with an allocation of 10,000 MT. Coolgas believes that the preferred starting point would allow a perceived oversupply to persist, inhibiting reclamation and alternatives. [Coolgas]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> DoD supports starting at 13,700 MT to allow for a more gradual phasedown that will insure HCFC is available to service equipment. [0057]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> DuPont supports beginning with 10,000 MT in 2015. DuPont believes this allocation would provide the best opportunity for a smooth transition that will minimize HCFC-22 emissions. They also believe that the large and still growing inventories of HCFC-22 require a suitably low level to send a clear market signal and avoid over-allocating. [0030, 0065, 0097]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> If EPA does not consider a zero consumption allocation, EIA suggests taking the 10,000 MT 2015 allocation to support better practices and help the environment. [0030, 0067]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> EOS Climate suggests that at minimum, the Agency should start at 12,400 MT to promote better practices and protect the environment. [0053, 0100]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> Golden Refrigerant supports the lowest allocation that EPA will consider for 2015. The commenter believes that if EPA lowers the HCFC-22 supply, then the reclaim industry can do its job of handling the used refrigerant. Golden Refrigerant believes that the industry has shown that it is ready to transition to alternatives based on the recent uptake of R-438a and other alternative blends. [0029]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> Goodman supports EPA's beginning with 10,000 MT in 2015 to provide a smooth transition to alternatives. [0030, 0060]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> HARDI supports beginning at 10,000 MT in 2015 to provide a clear message that transition is underway. [0030, 0050]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> Honeywell supports an option that falls between the Agency's alternative five-year linear drawdown option beginning with 10,000 MT and 13,700 MT. Honeywell believes that an allocation amount in this range would provide a sufficient signal to the industry to make a smooth transition to alternatives and would cause minimal market disruption. [0051]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> Hudson urges EPA to adopt a more aggressive five-year schedule starting with no more than 22 million pounds in 2015 to avoid surplus inventory and support better practices. [0030, 0081, 0109]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> Johnstone Supply supports a five-year phaseout similar to EPA's third proposal but with approximately two-thirds of the allocation cut. [0030]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii. In addition, EPA discusses the merits of a linear drawdown (options 1 and 2), as opposed to the estimation approach (option). The agency notes that the annual allocations under the chosen five year approach, starting at 10,000 MT in 2015, are fairly similar to the allocations that would result from taking the proposed estimation approach, starting at 23,100 MT in 2015, and reducing it by two-thirds.

> If EPA does allow for new production and consumption, NRDC urges EPA to adopt Option 2 with a starting point of 12,400 MT or lower. [0030, 0085, 0103]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble sections VI.A.3.ii and VI.A.3.iii. In those sections, EPA discusses the benefits of a five year approach, and also the benefit of starting at 10,000 MT in 2015, as opposed to a higher allocation (e.g. 12,400 MT).

> Patton Boggs, commenting on behalf of the New Era Group, Inc., comments that the 10,000 MT annual reductions proposed under the estimation approach to account for inventory is arbitrary and should be higher. [0030, 0079]
EPA Response: EPA notes that it is not finalizing the estimation approach. Additionally, see previous responses and preamble sections VI.A.3.ii and VI.A.3.iii. In those sections, EPA discusses the benefits of a five year linear approach, as compared to the estimation approach.  The agency also discusses how it considered inventory data and trends, noting that it was never EPA's intent to determine exactly how much inventory exists industry-wide. Finally, EPA also notes that the allocation starting point in 2015 and the methodology being finalized by EPA have support from a number of industry stakeholders, including trade organizations representing hundreds of member companies.

> NRI supports beginning with 10,000 MT of HCFC-22 in 2015 because it provides more environmental benefit than EPA's preferred option. [0071]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii. The agency also discusses the environmental considerations of issuing HCFC-22 allowances in section VI.A.3.i.

> Polar Technology encourages EPA to adopt the linear drawdown over five years starting at 13,700 MT in 2015. The commenter supports EPA's preferred allocation option, with a starting point of 13,700 MT. [0059]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> Watsco, Inc. supports beginning with 10,000 MT in 2015 to signal transition and support better practices. [0046]
EPA Response: See previous responses and preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

HCFC-22 inventory data
> 41 members of the U.S. Congress are concerned that the proposed rule will be issued without the most current industry information regarding the impacts of further stockpiling and atmosphere releases, and because 2012 stockpile submissions remain publically unavailable the commenter believes it will be difficult for stakeholders to assess the appropriateness of Agency actions. [0063]
EPA Response: In April 2014, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability, announcing availability of the aggregate HCFC-22 inventory data it collected from nine entities for the years 2008-2013. EPA also posted these data on its website and contacted HCFC stakeholders. In section VI.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule, the agency explains the process for collecting, considering and releasing aggregate inventory data. 

> The Alliance believes that it is important to come up with a specific figure on the amount of HCFC-22 inventory, and that EPA should use this figure in determining the allocation. The Alliance states that in light of the larger-than-anticipated inventory, EPA's preferred HCFC-22 schedule may create additional surplus. [0030, 0049]
EPA Response: See previous response. In addition, EPA is finalizing a linear five-year approach starting at 10,000 MT in 2015, instead of starting at 13,700 MT. As explained in section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble, part of the rationale for lowering the 2015 starting point was based on EPA's understanding of the scale and trends of HCFC-22 inventory in recent years.

> AMPAC thinks EPA should consider polling key users of HCFC-22 to get their viewpoints on the sufficiency of the supply and pricing for HCFC-22. [0042]
EPA Response: As stated in preamble section VI.A.2, in addition to asking nine entities for their year-end inventory data, EPA held over 60 stakeholder meetings and phone calls in development of the 2015-2019 rulemaking with large and small companies, including distributors, importers, refrigerant manufacturers, reclaimers, end users and contractors. The final list of these meetings is included in the docket for this rulemaking (available at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263). Among other topics, nearly all of the conversations included a discussion of inventory and that stakeholder's thoughts on industry-wide inventory scale and trends.

> CIP believes EPA's reported inventory amount is low because EPA's values do not capture a very large "hidden inventory" of HCFC-22 in a highly segmented supply chain (i.e., distribution centers, warehouses, retailers, service shops, supermarkets, commercial sites, and housing complexes) and that it is possible that inventory levels are several thousand tons higher than 67.4 MT (extrapolated from data in the Section 114 letters). [0066]
EPA Response: EPA responds to this comment in preamble section VI.A.3.iii.

> With regards to EPA's Notice of Data Availability, DuPont states that the inventory values confirmed their estimates and reinforces their support for the five-year linear drawdown option beginning with 10,000 MT in 2015. DuPont also states that their analysis indicates that the data from the 114 letters in all likelihood represents the vast majority of the total inventory throughout the HCFC-22 value chain. [0097]
EPA Response: In section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble, the agency discusses its decision to issue 10,000 MT in 2015 as well as its understanding that the inventory data from the 114 letters are representative of the trends and scale of inventory across the entire market, and that the aggregate held by these nine companies accounts for a large proportion of total inventory.

> EIA notes that recycling of R-22 increased by 13% from 2011 to 2012 and that EPA has not taken into account this material that is available to fulfill demand. EIA states that EPA underestimates stockpiles based on the nine company sample size, outdated data, and arbitrary quantities for inventory drawdown and recycling capabilities. EIA suggests the EPA should conduct an expanded and ongoing data collection from the entire industry. EIA also believes servicing needs are overestimated by 20% each year and that EPA does not take the decline of leak rates into account. EIA requests that EPA publicly disclose information on stockpiles of HCFC-22 inventory to further the transparency of the rule. [0030, 0067]
EPA Response: EPA has disclosed the aggregate HCFC-22 inventory data it collected from nine entities. See section VI.A.2 of the preamble. With regards to estimated servicing need, and the percentage of that need that can be met by recovered and reclaimed material, EPA points the commenter to the 2014 Servicing Tail Report, found in the docket. In this report, EPA considers various recovery scenarios, and the remaining servicing need for virgin material. In addition, the report contains sensitivity analyses conducted specifically to gauge how actual servicing need might differ depending on various parameters (e.g. leak rate, equipment lifetime, etc.). In the preamble, EPA explains its decision to issue 10,000 MT in 2015, with a 2,000 MT annual decreases each year. Part of the rationale for this approach is that 10,000 MT is well below projected servicing need, which should prompt an increase in reclamation and the drawdown of existing inventory.

> EOS Climate believes that the data released by EPA demonstrates that stockpiles of HCFC-22 are significantly larger than EPA's original estimates. They believe, owners/operators of large, pre-2010 HCFC-22 systems (e.g., supermarkets) have significant stockpiles, that are not all covered as part of EPA's information gathering. EOS Climate also believes EPA is not taking into account increasing sales of HCFC-22 retrofit refrigerants (e.g., R-407C, R-438A) which are lowering demand for R-22. EOS Climate encourages EPA to make the additional inventory data collected during the public comment period available for public review in a supplementary notice prior to finalizing the rule. In regards to EPA's Notice of Data Availability, EOS Climate believes the survey of nine companies under represents actual inventories. EOS Climate claims that they are aware of significant HCFC-22 inventories held by refrigerant reclaimers not surveyed, refrigerant distributors, large HVAC engineering/servicing firms, supermarkets, and other refrigerant-intensive organizations that are not allocation holders. EOS Climate also believes that the survey data confirms the oversupply of HCFC-22.EOS Climate provides a table that compares annual HCFC-22 supply to HCFC-22 quantities actually used over the past four years, along with comparable estimates of HCFC-22 supply for 2014. [0053, 0100]
EPA Response: The agency discusses inventory data in section VI.A.2 of the preamble. In section VI.A.3.iii, EPA addresses stocks of HCFC-22 held by operators of large systems and also explains the agency's intent in collecting inventory data from just nine entities. Finally, in section VI.A.3.i, EPA discusses the increase in retrofit refrigerants and its consideration of retrofits in determining the allocation levels for 2015-2019.
   
> FMI comments that the experience of their members contravene the statements in the preamble to the proposed rule that "the R-22 allocation for 2013 and 2014 may have been higher than was necessary and that `there appears to be a significant amount of HCFC-22 inventory.'" FMI states that "FMI members have been adversely affected by increases in the price of R-22 and by R-22 shortages. Previous regulatory uncertainty has led to doubling and even tripling of prices for R-22. Further, uncertainty about R-22's availability will increase operating costs for retailers and wholesalers." [0112]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.2 and VI.A.3.iii of the preamble. Additionally, while uncertainty regarding the supply of HCFC-22 can have effects on price, this rule should remove uncertainty by establishing allocations for a 5-year period. With regard to the comment on supply shortages, the presence of at least 120 million lbs of HCFC-22 in inventory at the end of 2013, coupled with a continuing allocation and the ability to reclaim HCFC-22 that is recovered from decommissioned equipment, should prevent shortages. Also, the five-year allocation should minimize the possibility of spot shortages.

> Honeywell also notes that demand for HCFC-22 in the short term remains uncertain and subject to considerable variation due to changes in weather conditions. [0051]
EPA Response: The agency acknowledges the influence of certain real-time market factors, like weather, on the actual servicing need in a given year. Specifically, EPA explains in section VI.A.3.ii that one advantage of the linear approach is that it does not rely on EPA's ability to predict certain events, like the effects of a hot or cold summer, or the general state of the economy.

> In regards to EPA's Notice of Data Availability, Hudson comments that the inventory collected by EPA exceeds 112 million pounds, at least 12 million pounds higher than EPA's highest estimate for the industry. Hudson is not surprised the inventory held by these nine entities increased by more than 6 million in 2013 when the total consumption allowances were increased from 55 million pounds in 2012 to 63 million pounds in 2013. [0081, 0109]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.2 of the preamble.

> In regards to EPA's Notice of Data Availability, ICOR International states that the stockpile of HCFC-22 is likely much higher than 148 million pounds when all allocation holders and hundreds of distributors, wholesalers, and contractors that were not surveyed are considered. [0107]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.2 of the preamble. EPA also discusses HCFC-22 stocks held by end-users in section VI.A.3.iii.

> NRDC notes that data released by EPA in response to their FOIA request reveal that stockpiles were almost 51,000 MT [in 2012] and predicts they will have substantially increased as a result of excess allowances in 2013 and 2014. NRDC asks EPA to reexamine stockpile data and to make clear how stockpiles, leak rates, and leak prevention in the linear drawdown options were accounted for, as NRDC believes the numbers are underestimated. NRDC urges EPA to use its authority under Section 114 to request updated data on stockpiles. With regards to leak rates, NRDC draws on GreenChill's progress report estimations of average U.S. leak rates, GreenChill partner leak rates, average UK supermarket leak rates, and the settlement of EPA and DOJ with Safeway to support the argument that leak reductions need to be made and how over-allocation of HCFC-22 by this rule would undercut that progress. [0030, 0085]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.2 of the preamble. In response to the commenter's assertion that inventory will have substantially increased in 2013 and 2014, the agency notes that the aggregate inventory from the nine entities at the end of 2013 was only 5.4 percent higher than at the end of 2012. EPA explains throughout section VI.A.3 of the preamble how it considered inventory and refrigerant management, among other factors, in setting the allocations for 2015-2019. The agency applauds the efforts of GreenChill partners and, because of their success in lowering leak rates, EPA considered what effect lower leak rates could have on estimated servicing need in the Servicing Tail Report (see Appendix D). These analyses indicate the allocation can be significantly lower than estimated servicing need, supporting EPA's decision to allocate 10,000 MT in 2015 with a 5-year linear drawdown. The allocation is about 20 percent of estimated servicing need. These lower allocations should encourage rather than undercut better refrigerant management practices in HCFC-22-containing equipment, while also fostering transition and reclamation. 

> New Era Group, Inc. comments that there has been a constant failure to obtain and use data available to the EPA. New Era Group and Patton Boggs LLP believe that there is an unnecessarily high amount of HCFC-22 being allowed under the proposed rule because the amount already stockpiled is not fully taken into account.  New Era provided an attachment with information on stockpiled HCFC-22. The attachment that included a list of 19 companies that are potentially holders of stockpiled material; a list of companies with allowances for the control periods of 2014-2019; and a list of reclamation companies. New Era believes the question of crossed [or yet-to-be-reclaimed] gas must be considered, as some companies have large amounts of gas that might not be taken into the national reporting. New Era also suggests that EPA look into stockpiles held by large property management buildings, consider the ODS reserve of the Department of Defense, and gather stockpile information from EPA's GreenChill Partnership. New Era does not believe that the nine companies surveyed by the EPA represent 80% of the market, and suggests expanding data collection to wholesalers and distributors. New Era also states that in conjunction with a 1993 CFC phaseout rule, EPA showed a desire to "establish knowledge of the market through numerous data collection requests."  New Era further comments that production and consumption allowances have never been fully expended and that in 2009 only 48.7% of the allowances allocated by EPA were expended. New Era Group also believes that information they obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) shows that EPA has severely underestimated stockpiles of HCFC-22. [0041, 0043, 0101, 0114]
EPA Response: The commenter believes EPA should have collected information on inventory levels at the Department of Defense's ODS Reserve. DOD did weigh in on the proposed rule, both in public comments, and through the interagency process. The commenter also urges EPA to collect inventory data from GreenChill partners, which is beyond the scope of current GreenChill reporting. See previous responses and sections VI.A.2 and VI.A.3 of the preamble. In these sections, EPA explains its intent behind collecting inventory data, its consideration of these data in proposing options for 2015-2019, why these data are sufficient given EPA's intent, and how inventory information and conversations with numerous stakeholders helped EPA reach its final decision for 2015-2019. 

EPA did not make a definitive statement that the nine companies surveyed through the 114 request have 80 percent of all inventory, only that the it was reasonable to assume the agency had a significant majority, possibly on the order of 67 to 80% of total inventory. For more detail on how the agency collected and considered inventory information, please see previous responses and section VI.A.2 of the preamble.

Additionally, EPA notes that it did collect limited information on the quantities of recovered HCFC-22 that had yet to be reclaimed. While that information is not included the inventory number, and is significantly smaller that the inventory number, the agency did take it into consideration as it developed the proposed and final rules. 

With respect to collection of data in 1993 for purposes of the CFC phaseout rule, the commenter may be referring to a section 114 information request published on July 27, 1993 (58 FR 40048).  In that action, EPA requested information on production, import, export, transformation, and destruction of certain ozone-depleting substances, including specified CFCs.  EPA did not request data on inventory.  

The agency responds to the comment about large end-users in section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble. Information obtained from CARB is available in the docket, and the agency believes that the commenter's conclusion about what the data means is flawed. The email/data from CARB indicates that there is more than 100 million lbs of HCFC-22 that is in use in California. It does not mean that existing inventory or stockpiled quantities of HCFC-22 in California exceed 100 million lbs, as the commenter appears to be suggesting.

Finally, the agency has included U.S. consumption of HCFC-22 as reported to the United Nations compared to the allocation of HCFC-22 consumption allowances between 2003 and 2013. As the table in the docket titled, Historic HCFC-22 Consumption Allowance Allocation and Allowance Use, 2003-2013, shows, more than 100% of the initial allocation of allowances was used in 2012 and 2013. What this indicates is that allowance holders transferred other HCFC allowances into HCFC-22 in addition to using their initial allocation. 

> Patton Boggs, on behalf of the New Era Group, Inc. coalition, asks that EPA publish the information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which they believe conclusively demonstrates that the existing inventory of HCFC-22 far exceeds the EPA estimates referenced in the proposed rule, and reissue the proposed rule or another Notice of Data Availability to allow for public input. It is the commenter's view that this critical new information radically alters the factual assumptions upon which the proposed rule was predicated and that EPA must allocate zero allowances or perhaps require buybacks of previously-sold refrigerant. [0030, 0062, 0079, 0111]
EPA Response: See previous response to New Era Group, Inc.  

> In regards to a previous comment in this docket, North Lakes Distributing, Inc clarifies that they did not mean to imply that holding over 80% of allowances means that these companies represent 80% of the stockpile. North Lakes Distributing, Inc comments that EPA seems to be making the assumption that the ability to bring 80% of the allocations into the U.S. this year means that these companies somehow represent 80% of the stockpile. The commenter believes this assumption is one-dimensional and naïve because it does not consider the supply chain in the market (i.e., distributors, wholesalers, reclaimers, small allocation holders, and large mechanical contractors). [0099]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.2 of the preamble. EPA does not assume that the size of a company's allowance allocation corresponds to their share of the total inventory.

> A private citizen comments that there are millions of pounds of oversupply of R-22, as demonstrated by the survey of nine companies. The commenter questions how much inventory the thousands of inventory holders might have that have not been counted.  The commenter suggests that EPA ask the allocation holders to table any additional import or manufacturing immediately and supply data accounting for the amount of product imported or manufactured in 2014 as well as any product in process that could not be halted without incurring expenses or breaking contracts. [0105]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.2 of the preamble. In addition, allowance holders have the option of using their allowances, trading them or letting them expire at the end of the year. EPA has included HCFC-22 consumption totals through 2013 in the docket for this rulemaking in the document titled, Historic HCFC-22 Consumption Allowance Allocation and Allowance Use, 2003-2013. 

> In regards to EPA's Notice of Data Availability, a private citizen states that the nine companies who received Section 114 letters are not representative of the entire market. The commenter states that there are many importers and reclaimers, hundreds of distributors, and more than 100,000 section 608 licensed contractors with HCFC-22 refrigerant. The commenter also notes that the following entities add to the stockpiled inventory, but are not considered in the inventory analysis: Large companies that service their own equipment and have stockpiled HCFC-22 to avoid future price increases or inventory shortages; Illegal imports of exceptional quality that are flooding the market; Those who have bought HCFC-22 as an investment to make a profit on the future shortages and price increases broadcasted by EPA and allowance holders;  The inventory held by manufacturers of HCFC-22 equipment that returned to the market after the 2009 Final Rule; and Replacement blends that are used as alternatives for HCFC-22. [0094]
EPA Response: See previous responses and section VI.A.2 of the preamble. Additionally, EPA discusses inventory held by equipment owners and other large entities in section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble.

> In response to EPA's request for more inventory data, RMS suggests the EPA should include in the Final Rule requirements for reporting similar to what the reclaiming industry has. They believe this will provide accurate accounting of refrigerants sold and avoid excess inventory caused by inaccurate data collection. [0048, 0102]
EPA Response: EPA did not propose to collect inventory data as a reporting requirement. The agency explains in section VI.A.2 and VI.A.3.iii why it collected data, how it considered those data and why it believes those data were sufficient for the purposes of this particular rulemaking.
   
> USA Refrigerants comments that there are 100 million pieces of HCFC-22 equipment and five pounds of gas per piece of equipment. Therefore, there is 500 million pounds of gas in the marketplace. [0030]
EPA Response: Throughout section VI.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule, the agency considers the needs of existing HCFC-22 equipment, specifically the need for HCFC-22 to continue to service and repair equipment that is still within its expected lifetime. As EPA notes, HCFC-22 equipment typically runs most efficiently on the refrigerant is was designed to use, which is one reason why EPA believes it is important to continue to provide HCFC-22 allowances, while issuing a sufficiently low allocation as to incentivize recovery, reclamation and reuse of refrigerant. 

EPA agrees that there will be approximately 100 million pieces of refrigeration and air conditioning appliances in service in 2015 -- the Servicing Tail Report estimates almost 97 million units, excluding cold storage facilities. However, that total includes residential air conditioning equipment, which has an average charge under five pounds, as well as supermarket refrigeration, industrial process refrigeration and other systems which have significantly more charge than five pounds. EPA estimates that in 2015, there will be approximately 900 million pounds of HCFC-22 in use in the United States. As noted above, California estimates there is more than 100 million pounds being used in equipment in California alone. However, as noted in the response to New Era group, the amount of HCFC-22 that is in use in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment is distinct from the amount of existing inventory or stockpiled quantities of HCFC-22. The former would have to be recovered from the equipment before any possible recycling or reclamation leading to reuse. In addition, recycling and reuse by large equipment owners (e.g. supermarkets) is likely, and thus is not available to re-enter the supply chain. Also, some material may be too contaminated for subsequent use. In contrast, HCFC-22 that is held in inventory is generally either virgin material or material that has already been recovered from equipment and recycled or reclaimed,

> Watsco, Inc. states that there is a large existing inventory of HCFC-22 (i.e., almost 60,000 MT in 2012 and likely higher today). [0046]
EPA Response: See previous responses in this section, as well as section VI.A.2 and VI.A.3.iii of the preamble to the final rule.

> A private citizen requests that EPA reports on how the oversupply situation can be prevented in the future. The commenter states that the oversupply has led to a decline in reclamation and the use of alternatives, which negatively impacts reclaimers and leads to venting. [0033]
EPA Response: See previous responses in this section, as well as section VI.A.2 and VI.A.3.iii of the preamble to the final rule.

Technical projections and estimated servicing need
> Airgas believes that demand is far below EPA's Vintaging Model estimate of 100 million lbs in 2015. Airgas's estimate of the industry demand in 2013 was less than 50 million lbs. [0064]
EPA Response: EPA appreciates commenters suggesting that in recent years modeled servicing need is higher than actual servicing need. The agency points out that it is issuing 10,000 MT in 2015 (or about 22 million pounds), far below the agency's 100 million pound estimate and Airgas' estimate of 50 million lbs. See also section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble.
   
> The Alliance comments that the Vintaging Model should not be relied on as the sole basis of determining allocations. The Alliance believes that an update of the Vintaging Model should be conducted to include more current information on leak rates and charge size, in order to better determine actual need over the next five to 15 years for servicing the installed equipment base. Alliance members welcome the opportunity to work with EPA on this update. The Alliance does not believe, however, that work on the Vintaging Model should delay completion of the allocation rule. [0030, 0049]
EPA Response: EPA explains in section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble why it is using a linear approach, which does not rely solely on the Vintaging Model. In addition, the agency published the 2013 Servicing Tail Report with the December 2013 proposal, and took comment on all aspects of the report. The agency welcomes data or input on model parameters from the Alliance and its members, as well as other interested parties, that could help improve the agency's estimates.

> CIP states that while the Vintaging Model can be a helpful tool, more emphasis needs to be placed on market conditions and the effect of the 2012-2014 Final Rule in order to validate the data contained in the tool. CIP also believes that the forecasted quantities contain a high level of uncertainty. [0066, 0104]
EPA Response: See previous response and section VI.A.3.ii of the preamble.

> EOS Climate comments that the Vintaging Model: 1) assumes excessively high leak rates for commercial refrigeration that do not reflect progress in the supermarket industry as reported by GreenChill partners; 2) assumes growth rates in all categories of HCFC-22 equipment despite the fact that newly produced/imported HCFC-22 can only be used for pre-2010 equipment and that imports of "dry-shipped" condensing units are decreasing, as noted in the preamble; and 3) fails to account for the widespread availability of HFC alternative refrigerants which now account for more than 20% of aftermarket demand. [0053]
EPA Response: EPA welcomes comment and data supporting a change in modeled leak rates for any given end-use modeled in the Vintaging Model. Part of the reason that EPA issues a draft Servicing Tail Report is to take comment and incorporate it into the final version. The draft and final versions are available in the docket. Additionally, see the response to NRDC in the previous section on GreenChill and its effect on supermarket leak rates. As explained in the preamble, EPA does not model growth in any HCFC-22 equipment categories. In addition, EPA considers the effects of changing leak rates and the influence of dry-shipped components in the sensitivity analyses contained in the Servicing Tail Report. Finally, the agency discusses HFC alternatives in section VI.A.3.i and VI.A.3.iii of the preamble.

> NRDC states that demand for HCFC-22 has dropped sharply in recent years. NRDC comments that the demand for HCFC-22 was 40,000 MT in 2012 and 30,039 MT in 2013, while the Vintaging Model predicts a demand of 46,165 MT for 2015. [0085]
EPA Response: See previous responses. EPA is issuing only 10,000 MT of allowances in 2015, far below the projected servicing need and more than 55 percent below the 2014 allocation of 23,100 MT.

> New Era Group and Patton Boggs, commenting on behalf of the New Era Group Coalition, comment that the 2009 Servicing Tail Report, subsequent Adjustment Memo, and 2013 Notice of Data Availability do not accurately capture the size of the current HCFC-22 inventory, and therefore more surveys should be conducted. Patton Boggs asks how the survey can be effective when EPA did not survey all of the allowance holders or all of the largest allowances holders. They also assert that they can't tell whether EPA surveyed non-allocation holders who might also have inventory. Patton Boggs comments that they believe the Servicing Tail Report is seriously flawed, and they would like to work with the EPA to improve it. [0030, 0079, 0111]
EPA Response: See preamble section VI.A.2 and VI.A.3.iii for discussion of EPA's consideration of inventory data and how it affected the 2015-2019 rulemaking. Specifically, EPA explains why it does not need to know the precise amount of inventory industry-wide, and why additional inventory data would not change other factors that have affected EPA's final decision. As noted in the preamble, these nine companies included HCFC-22 producers, importers, distributors, and reclaimers; some are large allowance holders and others are not. The group has a significant role in the HCFC-22 market, and because they are different types of entities, data from these companies provide information on how much HCFC-22 might be in the supply chain.

Additionally, EPA welcomes data supporting changes to Vintaging Model parameters, but cannot simply rely on anecdotes or unsubstantiated suggestions.

> North Lakes claims that EPA's Vintaging Model and service tail analysis has relied on and referenced qualitative analysis, and is dated and inaccurate. They ask EPA to collect additional information from allocation holders and other entities that EPA can identify as having stockpiled refrigerant. They encourage EPA to collect information on:
      o How much consumption was sold into the U.S. market?
      o How much consumption was stockpiled for later years? What years are you projecting?
      o What was inventory at the beginning and end of the year? For virgin, reclaimed, and mixed R-22.
      o When is the stockpile projected to be released?
      o What is the industry distribution of your customers?
   North Lakes believes that this market information should be easy to collect because, as they claim, 86 percent of the information on allocations is held by only three companies. [0030, 0077, 0099]
EPA Response: See previous responses, in particular the responses to New Era Group and Patton Boggs. Additionally, EPA did collect much of this information prior to the publication of the proposed rule. The 114 request asked about sales (of HCFC-22 and HCFC-22 alternatives) and inventory changes (of both reclaimed, virgin and yet-to-be reclaimed HCFC-22) over the past five years, among other data. This data is included in the docket item titled "CBI Placeholder for ICF Memorandum 10-25-13," and has not been made public because it contains individual company responses to the section 114 request and has been claimed as confidential. Among other considerations, EPA used this information to gauge HCFC-22 sales trends relative to allowance use, whether the amount of recovered HCFC-22 (awaiting reclamation) was growing, and sales trends for retrofit alternatives for HCFC-22. EPA considered this information fully as it developed both the proposed and final rules. EPA also used this information to gauge when existing inventory of HCFC-22 might be depleted under various consumption allocations.

Prior regulation

> A-Gas RemTec believes the uncertainty around finalization of EPA's 2012-2014 rule, the oversupply of R-22, and the decrease in price of R-22 negatively affected the reclamation business and has stalled increased investment in reclamation. This continues to affect the reclamation business. [0080]
EPA Response: EPA discusses the perceived oversupply of HCFC-22 and recent price fluctuations in section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble. In January 2013, EPA issued a No Action Assurance (NAA), which some stakeholders perceived as a signal that EPA would finalize a lower allocation. This was a misperception. In reality, without the NAA, the regulations would have prohibited the production and consumption of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b because of the partial vacatur of the 2010-2014 HCFC Allocation Rule in Arkema v. EPA. The NAA allowed industry to continue importing and producing HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, without allowances, up to a certain level without fear of enforcement until such time as a final rule was in place. As such, the allowed level in the NAA had to be the lowest possible amount EPA could allocate (based on the proposed options), so as not to preclude any possible outcome in the final rule. In addition, although EPA had proposed to provide recoupment, the agency could not authorize the corresponding level of import and production until a decision was made in the final rule published in April 2013. In order to avoid future misperceptions concerning the effect of a NAA, EPA has made every effort to publish this final rule as far in advance of January 1, 2015 as possible.

In section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble, EPA states its belief that the best way to encourage reclamation, as well as development and use of expanded reclaimer capacity, is to send a clear market signal in 2015-2019. A five-year linear approach, starting at 10,000 MT should allow all stakeholders to readily plan and prepare for 2020. In addition, EPA believes setting the allocation for an entire five year period should minimize uncertainty.
   
> According to Airgas, an oversupply of HCFC-22 in the market, precipitated by the final rule in April 2013, immediately caused prices and buying activity to plunge. [0064]
EPA Response: See previous response to A-Gas RemTec. 

> CIP believes that since the final 2012 - 2014 rule was issued that also included the add-on recoupment allowances, there is an excessive quantity of allowances available that discourage desired practices. [0066]
EPA Response: See previous responses. Also see the final 2012-2014 rule (78 FR 20004) for a discussion of EPA's decision to issue recoupment allowances.

> EIA states that the HCFC-22 oversaturated market from the 2013 rule led to an approximate 50% decline in the price estimated by a recycling company and a 50-60% decline in price estimated by a reclaiming company. EIA states that the suppressed prices have led to a drop in reclamation and recycling meaning that greater amounts of HCFC-22 are escaping or being vented into the atmosphere. EIA notes that, after the 2013 rule, the price of ozone safe alternatives fell sharply. [0030, 0067]
EPA Response: See previous response to A-Gas RemTec.

> ICOR International comments that since EPA's last ruling, the price of HCFC-22 has plummeted, recovery rates are down, and the HCFC-22 stockpiles have increased. [0027]
EPA Response: See previous response to A-Gas RemTec. See section VI.A.2 and VI.A.3.iii for EPA's discussion of inventory trends.

> North Lakes states that the 2013-2014 Final Rule had a devastating effect on the reclamation industry, creating a surplus of HCFC-22, and making reclaimed HCFC-22 less economical compared to the price of virgin HCFC-22. North Lakes believes that in the 2013-14 rulemaking they were denied their right to comment under § 553 of the APA because EPA allegedly changed its methodology between proposal and final. The commenter further states that the timing of the 2013-2014 rule created market instability because it was promulgated in the middle of the refrigerant season. [0030, 0077, 0099]
EPA response: See previous response to A-Gas RemTec. Additionally, EPA appreciates the commenters' continuing engagement on these issues but notes that it is responding to comments on the current rulemaking, not to comments on the previous allocation rule.

> Rapid Recovery comments that the market uncertainty caused by the delay of the issuance of allocations and the use of non-enforcement letters created the perception of an impending shortage in the marketplace, which drove prices very high, very fast. This action suddenly provided higher values and contractor incentives to recover, and as a result compliance increased. Then the ultimate decision to set production import allocations higher than industry expectations drove the prices back down again very quickly. Not only did this result in an immediate decline in recovery compliance, it sent an extremely damaging shockwave through the refrigerant reclamation and distribution industry. [0030]
EPA response: See previous response to A-Gas RemTec. 

> RMS Comments that the 2013 Rule has without question harmed their small business. [0048, 0102]
EPA Response: See previous response to A-Gas RemTec.

Other comments on HCFC-22 consumption
> A private citizen comments that for 20 years, the Agency has controlled Freon-type gases to no avail, since the size of the ozone hole over the Arctic has not been reduced. [0095]
EPA Response: To evaluate the effectiveness of regulations under the Clean Air Act in protecting the ozone layer, we should compare the current state of the ozone layer to what would have happened without the regulations. Before controls of ozone-depleting substances, global average ozone was declining, reaching a minimum of about 5% below the 1964 - 1980 average during the early 1990s. Since then, the global average of ozone stopped its decline and has begun increasing. Because many ODS can remain in the stratosphere for decades after they are emitted, ozone is still being destroyed by chemicals that were emitted in the 20[th] Century, and the global average ozone is not predicted to climb back to its 1980 level until the second half of this century. 

Because of wind currents and weather patterns near the North and South Poles, much of the ozone destruction that continues to occur happens in spring in the Arctic and especially the Antarctic. Thus, even as the decrease in use of ODS allows the total amount of ozone in the stratosphere to increase back towards historical levels, we will likely see the seasonal destruction of ozone, called the "ozone hole," for many more years.

For more information, please visit http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/scientific_assessment_2010.php.

> A private citizen believes that any HCFC-22 replacements (e.g., HFC-134a) should be exempt from any proposed tariffs which may result from the Mexichem ruling. Higher prices of these alternatives will increase prices of HCFC-22. [0096]
EPA Response: This request is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Additionally, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) handles antidumping cases like the recent case brought by Mexichem regarding HFC-134a imports from China. EPA has relayed this comment to the U.S. ITC.
 
 HCFC-22 production allocation
EPA received submissions from eight commenters related to how EPA will determine the HCFC-22 production allocation. Four commenters do not support EPA's proposed Option 1 (allocating the maximum production amount allowed under the Montreal Protocol cap), with three commenters supporting a minimal or zero allocation. Two commenters support EPA's proposed Option 1 to issue the maximum number of HCFC-22 production allowances allowed under the Montreal Protocol cap. 

   >    EIA believes that EPA should reduce the allocation of HCFC-22 production allowances to zero in 2015. EIA believes failure to do so would impact EPA and the U.S. government's support of developing countries in transitioning to low-GWP and ODP technologies under the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol. [0030, 0067]
EPA Response: EPA responds to EIA's comment in section VI.B of the preamble.

   >    A private citizen comments that with all of the available alternatives to HCFC-22, completely stopping all production of HCFC-22 today would not hamper a qualified technician. [0032]
EPA Response: The agency discusses how it considered the availability of HCFC-22 alternatives, by end-use, in proposing and finalizing the HCFC-22 consumption allocation. See section VI.A.3 of the preamble. 

   >    A private citizen comments that Option 1 (i.e., allocate the maximum production allocation allowed under the cap) serves U.S. manufacturers, but harms the reclamation industry and the goals of the Montreal Protocol. The commenter states that although the preferred option might benefit U.S. manufacturers in the short-term, it may harm them in the long-term if they do not keep up with and adopt new technology. Therefore, the commenter supports cutting HCFC-22 production allocation to encourage a shift in U.S. production of ODS alternatives for export. The commenter acknowledges that HFC-23 emissions are worth considering, but are less important since HCFCs will be phased out globally. [0036]
EPA Response: Allocating more production than consumption allowances should not harm the U.S. reclamation industry because the additional allowances will only be used, if at all, for quantities to be exported. With regard to long-term competition, significant progress is being made in the development and commercialization of low-GWP alternatives to HCFCs and higher-GWP HFCs. The HCFC-22 production allowances will only be available through 2019, so manufacturers will have to take this into account in their long-term planning. Also, given that HCFCs will not be phased out globally for some time, and even then HCFC-22 can still be produced for use as a feedstock, HFC-23 emissions continue to be an important consideration. For a full discussion of EPA's rationale on issuing more production allowances, please see section VI.B of the preamble. 

   >    Airgas believes the number of production allowances should be in line with the number of consumption allowances, and that this number should be zero or minimal. Airgas comments that any production in excess of consumption would have to be exported, leading to further oversupply globally, to the detriment of the environment. [0064]
   >    Hudson comments that industry does not need one more pound of HCFC-22 to be produced, and as such, no HCFC-22 allowances should be issued after 2014. [0081]
EPA Response: In response to Airgas and Hudson, to the extent that the commenters believe consumption allowances should be zero, or minimal, EPA discusses its reasoning for allocating consumption allowances and responds to comments in section VI.A.3 of the preamble. The agency also explains why an increase in U.S. production allowances could not result in increased global consumption in section VI.B of the preamble.

   >    DuPont supports EPA's proposal to issue the maximum number of HCFC-22 production allowances allowed under the Montreal Protocol cap after accounting for the production allocations for other HCFCs. According to DuPont, this proposal could result in environmental benefits, would not result in any increase in global consumption, and would allow U.S. producers to export subject to existing regulatory constraints. DuPont believes the option of allocating approximately the same number of production allowances as consumption allowances would deny U.S. producers access to export markets with no environmental benefit and could result in environmental harm to the extent that production facilities in the U.S. generally have better emissions controls than those in developing countries where the HCFC-22 would otherwise be produced to serve those export markets. [0065]
   >    Honeywell supports EPA's proposed option 1. Honeywell states that permitting more U.S. production for export could allow production from U.S. facilities to displace production from facilities abroad that do not control byproduct emissions of HFC-23. Honeywell believes that choosing to authorize the maximum production permissible under the Montreal Protocol would thus reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. [0051]
EPA Response: The agency is finalizing its proposal to issue the maximum number of HCFC-22 production allowances allowed under the Montreal Protocol cap after accounting for the production allocations for HCFC-124 and HCFC-142b. EPA explains its rationale for this decision in section VI.B of the preamble.

   >    FMI comments in support of an alternative production phasedown beginning with 25% of the baseline in 2015, 23.5% in 2016, 22.5% in 2017, 21.7% in 2018 and 21.7% in 2019. [0112]
EPA Response: The agency is allocating the maximum number of production allowances allowed under the Montreal Protocol cap, after accounting for HCFC-124 and HCFC-142b production allowances. Each company with an HCFC-22 production baseline will receive 21.7% of their baseline, totaling approximately 28,000 MT in aggregate. Since this is the maximum amount allowed under the cap, EPA could not issue a larger percentage.
 HCFC-142b allocation
EPA received submissions from five commenters on how EPA will determine the HCFC-142b allocation. Three commenters support EPA's proposal to allocate 35 MT of HCFC-142b consumption allowances in 2015 with a decrease of 5 MT each year. DuPont, Honeywell, and EIA support EPA's proposal to allocate the same level of production and consumption allowances, while Arkema requests that EPA make the percentage allocations for HCFC-142b production allowances the same as are currently listed in the NPRM for consumption. CIP noted during the January 2014 public hearing that they are in support of a three-year phasedown of HCFC-142b.

   >    DuPont supports the Agency's proposal to allocate 35 MT of HCFC-142b production and consumption allowances in 2015 declining linearly to 15 MT of production and consumption allowances in 2019. [0065]
   >    EIA believes that EPA should reduce the allocation of HCFC-142b to the smallest possible amount. EIA also states that, since HCFC-142b is only used for niche refrigeration needs, the Agency's option of 35 MT in 2015 with a decrease of 5 MT each year is the best option presented to protect the ozone layer and global climate. In addition, EIA states that the production and consumption allocations should be the same, as the U.S. should not be encouraging the use of a high GWP and ODS substance abroad [0067]
   >    Honeywell supports EPA's proposal to allocate an equal number of consumption and production allowances for HCFC-142b. [0051]
EPA Response: See section VI.C of the preamble for EPA's discussion of the HCFC-142b consumption and production allocation. The agency explains why it proposed a starting 2015 consumption allocation of 35 MT, decreasing by 5 MT each year, and why it believes that the production allocation should match the consumption allocation.

   >    Arkema supports the proposed allocated total of 35 MT consumption allowances with a decrease of 5 MT each year, for a total of 125 MT. However, Arkema believes that allocating a lower percentage of HCFC-142b production allowances than consumption allowances would discourage U.S. production. Arkema requests that EPA make the percentage allocations for HCFC-142b production allowances the same as are currently listed in the NPRM for consumption. According to Arkema, issuing production allowances in this fashion would not increase U.S. emissions of HCFC-142b since manufacture would be constrained by the level of consumption allowances. Arkema believes with this flexibility, the ozone layer benefits would be maintained and a greater contribution to the U.S. economy would be assured. [0045]
EPA Response: In section VI.C of the preamble, EPA explains why it believes issuing 35 MT of production allowances, decreasing to 15 MT in 2019, is sufficient to allow for continued U.S. production and export.

   >    CIP supports a three-year drawdown for HCFC-142b to be consistent with their proposed three-year drawdown of HCFC-22. CIP believes this will enhance good handling practices, emissions control, and enforcement. [0030]
EPA Response: In section VI.C of the preamble, the agency explains why it did not propose, and did not finalize, a three-year approach for issuing HCFC-142b allowances.
HCFC-123 allocation
Two commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed revisions to section 82.16(d) to sunset production and import of HCFC-123 for fire suppression purposes in 2020. 

   >    Honeywell does not oppose EPA's proposal to allow continued use of HCFC-123 as a fire suppression agent in non-residential applications, as permitted by a recent amendment to the Clean Air Act, through 2019. Honeywell supports the Agency's proposal to disallow production and import of HCFC-123 for fire suppression purposes beginning in 2020. [0051]
   >    AMPAC supports the allocation of 2015-2019 allowances specifically targeted for fire protection. AMPAC also supports EPA's proposed revision to section 82.16(d) regarding the sunset of the HCFC-123 exemption on December 31, 2019. [0042]
EPA Response: As discussed in section VI.B.3, EPA is amending the regulations at 40 CFR 82.16 to allow for production and import of HCFC-123 as a non-residential streaming fire suppression agent up until December 31, 2019.

Allocate 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline through 2019
EPA received submissions from nine commenters specific to EPA's preferred option for issuing HCFC-123 consumption allowances. Four commenters support this option to allocate 100 percent of the HCFC-123 consumption baseline. Three of the supporting commenters note that time is needed for a smooth transition to alternatives. AMPAC also notes that the projected need for HCFC-123 allowances for non-residential fire suppression is more than what is proposed in the preferred allocation. Five commenters oppose this option.
   
   >    AMPAC supports EPA's approach to allocate 100 percent of the HCFC-123 consumption baseline through 2019. AMPAC interprets section 605(b) as placing a limit on production, but not consumption, as of January 1, 2015. AMPAC also comments that under 605(b), it appears that EPA could increase allowances for consumption of HCFC-123 for non-residential fire protection. According to AMPAC, the benefit of increasing such allowances would be to provide maximum flexibility with an associated environmental benefit as the market decides demand for HCFC-123 based agents. 
   Further, although AMPAC agrees that a more stringent provision shall govern when there is a conflict between the CAA and Montreal Protocol, they believe EPA should increase the HCFC-123 allocation to 120 percent of the production and consumption baseline years (2005-2007) in order to provide flexibility in the market and benefits to users and the environment alike. AMPAC states that within section 605(b) and 605(c), there could be EPA discretion, subject to meeting the HCFC cap, to increase the consumption allowance allocations for HCFC-123 in the years 2015-2019 beyond the consumption values found in the (production) baseline years (2005-2007). AMPAC believes positively exercising this discretion is appropriate given that the highest contemplated level of planned allocation of HCFC-22 allowances still results in the U.S. being well below the ODP-weighted HCFC cap as dictated by the Montreal Protocol and implemented by the CAA. [0042]
EPA Response: EPA explains in section VI.D of the preamble why it is limited to issuing 100 percent of HCFC-123 baseline or less starting in 2015.  While CAA section 605(b) refers only to production, CAA section 605(c) states that EPA "shall also promulgate regulations to insure that the consumption of class II substances in the United States is phased out and terminated in accordance with the same schedule . . . as is applicable to the phase-out and termination of production of class II substances." As of January 1, 2015, section 605(b) restricts production of any class II substance to 100% or less of baseline levels.  Section 605(c) requires EPA to apply this same restriction to consumption of class II substances. Thus, EPA does not have discretion to increase consumption allowances to 120 percent of the consumption baseline as requested by the commenter.

   >    AMPAC comments that its projected need for HCFC-123 allowances for non-residential fire suppression is more than what is proposed in the preferred allocation. AMPAC states that the HCFC-123 based fire suppressant they manufacture has a negligible impact on the environment and is necessary compared to alternatives due to its superior performance with: aviation related fire, commercial/industrial fires where clean agents are needed; fire threats where a novice can quickly operate the unit; fire threats of larger size ("extra hazard" as defined in NFPA 10); and applications requiring UL ratings of 80B or higher. According to AMPAC, HCFC Blend B is the only non-halon 1211 halocarbon based true clean agent with such multiple listing. [0042]
   > In reference to the "Calendar-Year HCFC Consumption Allowances" table in the Proposed Rule, AMPAC requests that the allowances allocated for HCFC-123 be increased for years 2015-2019 by 100 MT to account for higher than initially cited use for fire suppression. 
   > In reference to the "Apportionment of baseline consumption allowances" table in the Proposed Rule, AMPAC requests that the allowance apportioned to HCFC-123 be increased proportionately to the existing apportionment by 100 MT in the aggregate to account for higher than initially cited use for fire suppression. 
   > In reference to the table in Appendix B of the Proposed Rule, AMPAC comments that the ODPs are based on outdated measurement techniques and that in the case of HCFC-123, the correct ODP is 0.0098. AMPAC believes using the modern data would be good practice and consistent with the evolving changes in the rules which deviate from what was originally projected. AMPAC believes that while these ODPs can be used for determining compliance under the cap, they should not be used for the environmental impact analyses. 
   > In reference to Table 3-1 of the 2013 Servicing Tail Report, AMPAC suggests that EPA should use a more recent ODP value for HCFC-123. According the AMPAC, the peer reviewed modern, and therefore more accurate, characterization of this compound's ODP is 0.0098. 
   > In reference to Table 3-5 of the 2013 Servicing Tail Report, AMPAC believes the fire protection projections should be approximately 100 MT higher per year, or 300 MT per year, rather than 190 MT in 2015, 200 in 2016 and 2017, and 210 in 2018 and 2019. AMPAC also generally agrees with the analysis on the approximate number of fire suppression units (i.e. fire extinguishers) in the current and projected period through 2025. 
   > In reference to Table 4-4 of the 2013 Servicing Tail Report, AMPAC suggests that EPA adjust this table to reflect the revised numbers as noted for Table 3-5. AMPAC states this would increase the overall total for 2015 by 85 MT, for years 2016 and 2017 by 75 MT, and for years 2018 and 2019 by 65 MT. Alternatively, AMPAC suggests that EPA round up and increase these projections by 100 MT to a level of 300 MT for each year. [0042]
EPA Response: In response to AMPAC's comments, the agency has updated the projected need for HCFC-123 for non-residential fire suppression uses in the 2014 Servicing Tail Report by increasing it by 100 MT per year from 2015-2019. Correspondingly, the estimates of total need for HCFC-123 in 2015-2019 have increased by the same amount. However, EPA is still only issuing 2,000 MT of HCFC-123 consumption allowances in each year, for reasons discussed in section VI.D of the preamble.
In response to AMPAC's request to use an ODP of 0.0098 instead of 0.02, see section VI.D of the preamble. 

   >    NRI supports EPA's preferred option of issuing 100 percent of the HCFC-123 consumption baseline through 2019. NRI comments that the allocation is below the projected requirements for this time period and there is no commercially available alternative to replace HCFC-123 in low pressure chillers. As suitable substitutes become viable, NRI comments that EPA can adjust the HCFC-123 consumption accordingly in a future rulemaking. [0071]
   >    Ingersoll Rand supports issuing 100 percent of the HCFC-123 baseline because it provides the necessary time to transition their low pressure centrifugal chillers to a new refrigerant. Ingersoll Rand comments that alternative products are still in development and are not commercially available today. Ingersoll Rand comments that the HCFC-123 product platform transition strategy is capital intensive and requires significant redesigns. Further, the commenter states that the product development schedule was based on the existing date of transition (2020) and modification of this date would jeopardize existing development plans. Ingersoll Rand believes the 100 percent allocation is necessary to support both new chillers and those to be serviced in the future. Ingersoll Rand also states that maintaining a refrigerant to support chiller demand prevents unnecessary increases in global warming because competitive products typically use HFC-134a which has a much higher global warming potential. [0083]
   >    DuPont supports the Agency's proposal to issue 100 percent of baseline allowances for each year 2015-2019. DuPont believes there is no need to decrease the allowances over time to assure a smooth transition as the Agency will have the opportunity to issue allowances post 2019 to allow for servicing of existing equipment. [0065]
EPA Response: As supported by NRI, Ingersoll Rand and DuPont, EPA is allocating 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline for 2015-2019. In section VI.D of the preamble, the agency responds to comments about alternatives to HCFC-123 for low-pressure chillers. The agency notes there that certain non-ODP alternatives to HCFC-123 have a higher GWP than HCFC-123; however, compared to a recently SNAP-listed non-ODS alternative, HCFC-123 has a higher GWP, though equipment using this alternative is still being commercialized. In the preamble EPA explains the factors it considered in determining the HCFC-123 allocation, including statutory limitations and the importance of encouraging transition. The agency does not intend to revisit the HCFC-123 allocation in 2015-2019, and will consider the need for allowances in 2020 and beyond at a later date.

Allocate less than 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline
EPA received submissions from six commenters on the second proposed option for issuing HCFC-123 consumption allowances. Five commenters support this option to allocate less than 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline. These commenters state that allocating 100 percent of HCFC-123 allowances would not promote a smooth transition to alternatives and would not account for recovery and reuse. AMPAC opposes this option, stating that it does not provide enough allowances to meet likely or possible demand for fire suppression use.

   >    Carrier believes EPA should finalize a phaseout schedule for HCFC-123 that is comparable to the proposed phaseout schedule of HCFC-22. At a minimum, Carrier believes EPA should reduce the HCFC-123 allowances to 1,900 MT in 2015 to 2017 and 1,400 MT in 2018 to 2019. Carrier's preferred approach, however, would be to reduce allowances from 1,900 MT in 2015 to zero in 2020, with proportional interim steps. According to Carrier, EPA's proposal to allocate the maximum amount of consumption allowances would not promote a smooth transition to HCFC-123 alternatives, which exist. According to Carrier, EPA has made no effort to encourage the development and utilization of alternatives for HCFC-123 and the agency's justification is deficient. Carrier points out that technologies exist to replace HCFC-123 in chillers. According to Carrier, HFC-134a can be used with the same, or better, energy efficiency than HCFC-123 in this application. Further, Carrier points out that these alternative technologies are available and in use. Carrier states that the AquaEdgeTM 23XRV chiller using a non-ozone depleting refrigerant has surpassed industry standards for energy efficiency, now offering record part load energy efficiency as low as 0.299 kW/Ton, which exceeds the ASHRAE 90.1 2010 efficiency standards by up to 39 percent. Carrier comments that HFO-1233zd(E) is also available as a replacement. [0056]
EPA Response: As EPA explains in section VI.D of the preamble, allocating 100 percent of baseline for HCFC-123 is consistent with EPA's practice in allocating allowances for HCFC-22, both with regard to the phaseout schedule, and how that schedule matches bans on use in new equipment. That is, EPA is issuing 100 percent of baseline up until 2020, when the section 605(a) use restriction prohibits the manufacture of new HCFC-123 equipment with virgin HCFC-123. In addition, the agency explains that unlike for HCFC-22, in the years leading up to the prohibition on new equipment in 2020, EPA is actually allocating fewer allowances than estimated market need for HCFC-123, which should help encourage transition to available or potentially available alternatives.

   >    Daikin Applied prefers option 2, "allocate less than 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline." The commenter states that there are several alternatives to HCFC-123 in the air conditioning sector and, therefore, there is no need to be conservative with the phaseout schedule. The commenter also states that that the preferential treatment of an ODS which favors one manufacturer in the air conditioning business is and has been unacceptable. [0034]
   >    A private citizen supports allocating less than 100 percent of HCFC-123 consumption baseline, since option 1 does not account for recovery and reuse. The commenter states that option 1 would put the reclamation industry at a disadvantage and would stall the adoption of alternatives. [0036]
   >    Honeywell supports EPA's proposal to allocate consumption allowances for HCFC-123 in the amount of 1,900 MT per year in 2015-2017 and 1,400 MT per year in 2018 and 2019. Honeywell notes that Solstice(R) zd (HFO-1233zd) is a commercially viable replacement for HCFC-123 in centrifugal chiller applications with a GWP of less than 1. Further, Honeywell supports EPA's proposal to allow continued use of HCFC-123 as a fire suppression agent in non-residential applications, and to disallow production and import beginning in 2020. [0051]
   >    EIA believes that, due to the fact that R-123 has a recovery rate of 90%, and 143 MT was reclaimed in 2011, there is no need to allocate 100 percent of the available baseline. EIA states that by using the Agency's own assessment, 1,400 MT less than the 100 percent allocation would be appropriate to factor in recovery and recycling. EIA believes that EPA should reduce the allocation of HCFC-123 to the smallest possible allocation. [0067]
   >    AMPAC opposes this option, stating that this is not enough allowances to meet likely or possible demand for fire suppression use. [0042]
EPA Response: In response to the remainder of comments supporting an allocation of less than 100 percent of baseline, EPA points readers to the previous responses to Carrier, NRI, Ingersoll Rand and DuPont, as well as the discussion in section VI.D of the preamble. Specifically, EPA addresses how the 2015-2019 allocation should meet the needs for HCFC-123 that are consistent with market projections, while also encouraging transition and the development of non-ODP and low-GWP alternatives. EPA also makes note of the ODP and GWP of HCFC-123 (0.02 and 73, respectively) as it compares to existing HCFC-123 alternatives, and available or potentially available alternatives that are still being commercialized. Finally, EPA notes that it is allocating less than estimated servicing need for HCFC-123, which should provide additional incentive for recovery of HCFC-123.
 HCFC-124 allocation
EPA received submissions from five commenters on the HCFC-124 allocation. NRI and Honeywell support EPA's proposal to allocate 200 MT of consumption and production allowances. EIA does not support the proposal and comments that EPA should reduce HCFC-124 allowances to the smallest allocation possible. DuPont does not support the proposal and encourages EPA to increase production allowances to 400 MT to account for exports. NRDC believes EPA should not set allowances at levels that are higher than those estimated with the Vintaging Model.

   >    NRI supports EPA's preferred option of issuing 200 MT of production and consumption allowances, to allow the continued use of refrigerants containing HCFC-124 while limiting the growth of this market as the industry transitions to non-ODS refrigerants. [0071]
   >    Honeywell supports EPA's proposal to allocate an equal number of consumption and production allowances for HCFC-124. [0051]
EPA Response: EPA is issuing 200 MT of consumption and production allowances in each year from 2015-2019. See section VI.E of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    EIA believes that EPA should reduce the allocation of HCFC-124 to zero or the smallest possible allocation. EIA believes that EPA's proposal to issue 200 MT of HCFC-22 allocation is not based on real demand. EIA states that if the major source of use for HCFC-124 (as a sterilant blend) will be banned, and the estimated need from the Vintaging Model is so low, without taking into account recovery and reuse of any of the refrigerant nor potential stockpiles, there no reason to allocate any more production or consumption. [0067]
EPA Response: As explained in section VI.E of the preamble, California sales data, along with stakeholder feedback, suggest that there is in fact real demand for HCFC-124 for niche refrigeration needs. EPA believes that an allocation of 200 MT (as compared to the 2010-2014 consumption allocation of approximately 3,000 MT) is appropriate.

   >    DuPont notes that in the analysis of market needs for HCFC-124 for 2015-2019, the Agency failed to account for exports. To allow for exports, DuPont encourages the Agency either to allocate 400 MT production allowances (10% of baseline) and 200 MT consumption allowances (8.3% of baseline) or to allocate 400 MT of both production allowances (10% of baseline) and consumption allowances (16.6% of baseline), if the Agency prefers to allocate the same quantity of both production and consumption allowances. [0065]
EPA Response: The agency considered recent production, import and export data when it decided to propose and finalize 200 MT of production and consumption allowances. In addition, starting in 2015, a company with a HCFC-124 production baseline will receive Article 5 allowances equal to 10 percent of its baseline. Article 5 allowances allow a company to produce specifically for export to Article 5 countries. This is different from how we handled HCFC-22 allowances, since the 10 percent of baseline for Article 5 allowances would not allow companies enough allowances to meet the needs of the export market. For a more full discussion of EPA's decision on the HCFC-124 allowance allocation, please see section VI.E of the preamble.

   >    NRDC believes EPA should not set allowances at levels that are higher than those estimated with the Vintaging Model, or 4 MT per year. NRDC also feels more stringent allowances will foster markets in recycling and safer alternatives, which would be undercut by overly large allowances for HCFC-124. [0085]
EPA Response: See previous response to EIA, as well as section VI.E of the preamble. 
Other Adjustments to the HCFC Allocation System
EPA received 21 comments on other adjustments to the HCFC allocation system that are being considered. Comments were in reference to the following topics:

      5.1	Dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing units
      5.2	Maximizing compliance with HCFC regulations

Count
Commenter
Organization
Docket ID No
                                       1
Charles McCrudden
Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0075
                                       2
Karim Amrane
Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0078
                                       3

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0120
                                       4
Kevin Fay
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049
                                       5
Jeff Gibson
American Pacific Corporation (AMPAC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0042
                                       6
Don Magid
Combs Investment Property (CIP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0066
                                       7

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0104
                                       8
41 Members of U.S. Congress
Congress of the United States (41 Members of the U.S. Congress)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0063
                                       9
Mack McFarland
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0065
                                      10
Mark W. Roberts
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0067
                                      11
Alexander von Bismarck; Danielle Gagne; Marcus Lee

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0030
                                      12
Jonathan Melchi
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0050
                                      13
Dave Stirpe
Honeywell International, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0051
                                      14
Stephen P. Mandracchia
Hudson Technologies (Hudson)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0081
                                      15
Gordon McKinney
ICOR International
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0027
                                      16
Maureen Beatty
National Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0071
                                      17
Peter V. Williams; Linda T. Leak-Ransom-Woolridge
New Era Group, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0043
                                      18
Anonymous
Private Citizen Comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0036
                                      19
Jerry Dykstra
Rapid Recovery
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0030
                                      20
Kenneth M. Ponder
RMS of Georgia, LLC (RMS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0048
                                      21
John M. Mandyck
UTC Building & Industrial Systems (Carrier)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0056
Dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing units
The agency received 12 comments about whether EPA should or should not consider banning dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing units. Five commenters state that there is no need for EPA to revisit this issue, citing decreasing sales of dry-shipped units and the ability for EPA to control HCFC-22 allocations to address this issue. Six commenters maintain that EPA should ban the sale of dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing equipment.
   >    41 members of the U.S. Congress ask that Agency revisit its decision to permit the continued sale of HCFC-22 condensing equipment beyond the original 2010 phaseout date. According to the commenter, a new replacement HCFC-22 condensing unit extends the life of older, lower-efficiency central air conditioner systems by as much as 15 years. With an estimated installed base of 67 million HCFC-22 residential air conditioners in the U.S., the commenter believes that potential gains in energy efficiency and CO2 reductions that could be achieved by addressing this policy are substantial. The commenter also states that ending the sales of these units will also allow the Agency to eliminate the need for approximately 8 million pounds of additional consumption allowances in 2015 and each year thereafter (estimated sales and charge size in 2012), beyond what is currently proposed. [0063]
EPA Response: EPA appreciates the comment, but the request to ban dry-shipped condensing units is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As stated in the preamble, EPA's purpose in requesting comment on this topic was to gain additional data. Since the agency did not receive quantifiable data, particularly on the number of dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing units shipped in the past several years, EPA intends to exercise its authority under CAA section 114 to collect additional information in order to confirm shipment trends between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2015. After reviewing this data, EPA intends to consider whether additional regulatory action is appropriate to meet the goals of CAA Title VI. For more discussion, see section VII.A of the preamble.

With regard to the argument that the agency should reduce allowances by 8 million lbs per year, EPA would like to provide a clarification. In Table D-7 of the Servicing Tail Report, EPA modeled how dry-shipped condensing units could increase servicing need for HCFC-22. Table D-7 shows the cumulative additional servicing need that could result if the installation of HCFC-22 condensing units after Jan. 1, 2010 extended the lifetime of an HCFC-22 system by 10 years. As such, the 3,700 MT (approximately 8 million lbs) of possible additional servicing need in Table D-7 is the potential annual increase resulting from HCFC-22 condensing units installed in 2010-2015, not 2015 alone. If EPA were to ban the installation of HCFC-22 condensing units as of Jan. 1, 2015, the decreased servicing need for 2015, as shown in Table D-7, could be as much as 1,400 MT (approximately 3 million pounds); however, banning dry condensing units is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Additionally, EPA notes that this final rule is reducing HCFC-22 consumption allowances by more than 55 percent between 2014 and 2015. In section VI.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA discusses its decision to use a linear approach starting at 10,000 MT in 2015, which is approximately one-fifth of estimated servicing need for that year. EPA explains how this allocation methodology is not directly dependent on modeled servicing need, and thus EPA does not intend to modify the allocation in the future to account for any changes to the regulations allowing for sale of uncharged replacement components.

   >    ACCA comments that anecdotal evidence suggests that fewer dry shipped units are being installed by ACCA members. [0075]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.

   >    The Alliance supports an end to the exception allowing the sale of dry HCFC-22 condensing units. The Alliance notes that the exception extends the useful life of older air-conditioning systems containing HCFC-22 that likely do not meet the current minimum efficiency standards. The Alliance further states that extending the life of old systems requires more HCFC-22 service refrigerant in the future than was originally anticipated. The Alliance urges EPA to work with the industry in developing the best method to eliminate the dry-shipped HCFC-22 air-conditioning condensing unit exception. The Alliance states that the elimination of dry shipped units will also eliminate a significant portion of the HCFC-22 servicing demand, and therefore urges EPA to reduce the number of HCFC-22 consumption allowances by an amount commensurate with the reduced demand at the time the exception is eliminated. The Alliance does not believe, however, that resolution of this issue should delay the overall HCFC allocation final rule. [0049]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress. 

   >    AHRI and the Alliance advocate for an end to the sale of dry HCFC-22 air conditioning condensing units since there is a very large installed base of HCFC-22 units, and sufficient HCFC-22 to perpetuate its use for decades to come. Replacements to the residential air conditioning installed base represent nearly 80% of the market today. Any allowances for the dry shipped units should be proportionately reduced at the time EPA puts an end to the practice. Finally, AHRI notes that any resolution to this issue should not delay the overall HCFC allocation final rule. [0049, 0078]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.

   >    AHRI asks EPA to prohibit the production of dry-shipped HCFC-22 residential condensing units effective January 1, 2017. This proposal has the support of all major OEMs. The proposal provides adequate time for transition while maintaining the spirit of the U.S. commitment to phase-out all HCFCs. The proposal does not prevent the service and repair of the existing installed base of HCFC-22 systems. Even beyond 2017, these installed HCFC-22 systems can continue to be serviced and repaired under existing warranties and through the availability of replacement parts. [0120]
EPA Response: EPA appreciates the late comment indicating all major OEMs now support a 2017 ban on the production of dry-shipped condensing units. However, the request to ban dry-shipped condensing units is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. For more detail, see the previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress and section VII.A of the preamble.

   >    Carrier believes EPA should promptly grant Carrier's 2011 petition for rulemaking concerning "dry-shipped" condensing units and clarify that current prohibitions on HCFC-22 appliances also apply to such units. Carrier believes that allowing the replacement of a HCFC-22 condensing unit means that some residential systems will be using HCFC-22 for at least another 19-23 years. According to Carrier, the Pre-Charged Rule has perpetuated the reliance on a class II ODS that EPA is otherwise moving aggressively to phase out by 2020, with adverse results for the environment. Carrier believes that the supporting information for this rulemaking understates the additional benefits of granting the pending petition. Further, Carrier believes that the Pre-Charged Rule creates economic incentives to retain HCFC-22 systems. Carrier disagrees with EPA's assessment that because the demand for dry-shipped HCFC-22 units has decreased, the consumer's repair/replace decision may be affected by the price of HCFC-22. Carrier believes the relative cost of charging a new dry-shipped unit is small in comparison to a new unit (i.e., 10 percent of the cost of the system). Carrier also states that granting their petition to ban these units will avoid unnecessary releases of HCFC-22, further other policy imperatives (i.e., Decision XIX/6 of the Montreal Protocol), and help prevent "mischarging" of HCFC-22 units. Carrier believes EPA has sufficient legal authority to grant the petition in light of EPA's 2009 Pre-Charged Rule. To the extent that EPA would require any additional information beyond what is established in the submitted petition, Carrier believes EPA has authority to request additional information on dry-shipped units. [0056]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.

   >    CIP believes that dry-shipped units should continue to be allowed to be sold for the repair of existing systems, since the HCFC allocation process adequately controls the availability of the HCFC-22 needed for this replacement equipment. If EPA bans the use of dry shipped units, CIP believes it is critical that a mechanism be included to ensure that the allocation of allowances be commensurately reduced to offset this drop in demand. [0066, 0104]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.

   >    EIA states that it is well known in the industry that these types of units have created a loophole under the Clean Air Act that undermines the purpose of the regulations to phase out the use of HCFC-22 by 2020, by allowing their installation rather than converting to other more climate-friendly alternatives. EIA believes EPA should initiate a rulemaking to ban these units as soon as feasibly possible. [0030, 0067]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.

   >    HARDI comments that there is no need to address the issue of "dry-shipped" condensing units. According to HARDI, data has shown the sales of these products to be on a downward trend and there is little evidence that this trend will change. [0050]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.

   >    Honeywell supports closure of the service exception allowing the sale of new HCFC-22 dry condensing units. Honeywell states that this exception (1) encouraged the sale of new HCFC-22 condensing units, which the industry had been preparing to phase out for more than a decade; (2) forces manufacturers to ship units without refrigerant, and (3) presents the opportunity for unapproved, unsafe refrigerants to be charged in the field adding to public safety concerns. [0051]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress. Also, with regards to the use of unapproved refrigerants, EPA continues to monitor and enforce against individuals and companies that use HCFC-22 retrofit alternatives that have not been listed as acceptable for the use in question. One recent example is the Finding of Violation with Enviro-Safe Refrigerants, Inc. (see the finding of violation in the docket for this rulemaking). EPA encourages all industry participants and private citizens to report any illicit activity. To report a violation online, visit http://epa.gov/tips/. 

   >    Hudson does not believe that a ban on the use of dry-shipped condensing units is necessary or appropriate. The commenter has seen that the demand and use of these dry-shipped units is directly related to the perceived availability of HCFC-22 in the market. The commenter believes the most appropriate way for EPA to address dry shipped units is for EPA to eliminate consumption allowances for HCFC-22 as soon as possible, thereby eliminating any economic benefits for the use of these units. Hudson states that, if EPA fixes the issues with the HCFC-22 allowances, any issue with dry-shipped units will resolve itself. The commenter states that, should EPA decide to ban dry shipped units, EPA must further reduce any allowances commensurate with the demand associated with these dry shipped units. The commenter believes that if EPA determines to eliminate dry shipped units, then an additional 8 million pounds of allowances must also be eliminated in 2015 and each year thereafter. [0081]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.

   >    NRI does not believe that dry shipped condensing units affect the phase out of virgin R-22 production and import. NRI comments that there are many reasons that an appliance may need to be serviced or repaired and not all appliance problems result in loss of the refrigerant. NRI believes that if EPA has verifiable evidence that the servicing or repair of R-22 appliances is resulting in increased emissions of the refrigerant, then EPA should consider extending the leak repair requirements to all appliances, not just appliances with a refrigerant charge greater than 50 lbs. By refining the allocation system to more accurately reflect the servicing needs of R-22 appliances, NRI believes there will be a direct and immediate impact on consumer behavior by affecting the availability of R22. [0071]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.  Though the requested changes to the regulations promulgated under CAA section 608 are outside the scope of this 2015-2019 HCFC allocation rulemaking, the agency could consider NRI's suggestions moving forward. 
   
   >    RMS comments that their industry needs the uncharged units because they offer a choice and competition to R-410a units. The commenter adds that as long as the dry charged units meet or exceed the SEER rating, they serve a proper place within the regulation and offer the consumer an additional safety net with respect to: 1) pricing and 2) providing ample time for a smooth transition away from HCFC-22, if used properly and in conjunction with an alternative refrigerant like R421A. [0048]
EPA Response: See previous response to the 41 members of U.S. Congress.

Maximizing compliance with HCFC regulations
Ten commenters provided suggestions on how EPA can maximize compliance with HCFC regulations. Four commenters suggest how EPA could improve communication and education to the public and how those in the value chain could improve compliance. Two commenters state that preventing illegal trade will help maximize compliance.

   >    ICOR International believes the most efficient method of enforcement is reducing the supply (i.e., allocation) of HCFC-22. If HCFC-22 has enough value above the costs to reclaim, it will not be vented. [0027]
EPA Response: The agency agrees that a decreasing allocation should help incentivize proper refrigerant management, including leak reduction and recovery of refrigerant during servicing. EPA's final allocation of 10,000 MT of HCFC-22 in 2015 should help ensure that HCFC-22 is recovered, recycled and reclaimed. 

   >    A private citizen believes that the best way to maximize compliance and prevent illegal import of HCFCs is to bolster the reclamation industry. [0036]
EPA Response: See previous response to ICOR, and also section VI.A.3.iii of the preamble.

   >    AMPAC agrees with the Agency's analysis with respect to how increasing the cost of HCFC-22 can incentivize cheating. AMPAC believes that the existing regulations are sufficient to provide guidance to law-abiding citizens. However, law abiding citizens can inadvertently break the law if they are not made aware of regulations. AMPAC believes the more equitable and fair method to increase compliance with HCFC regulations is to make those requirements more visible to the public. [0042]
EPA Response: The agency is in regular contact with stakeholders throughout the HCFC-22 industry. In addition, EPA has numerous fact sheets and guidance documents on its website at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/classtwo.html. EPA would be happy to work with stakeholders on ways to better communicate regulatory requirements.

   >    DuPont comments that EPA should consider enhancements in the following areas to maximize compliance with HCFC regulations: (1) restructure the efficiency of the current import and export documentation practices by either requiring electronic transfer/acceptance of documents prior to port/border arrival of shipments or by creating a license system for HCFC imports similar to what already exists in some countries; and (2) increase efforts to educate all those in the HCFC value chain of the regulations and the consequences of non-compliance. DuPont believes the restructured documentation system would allow authorities to more closely monitor the HCFC imports and to flag shipments where documentation has not been received or a license was not issued. DuPont comments that enhanced education efforts, such as placing information in trade magazines and/or providing brochures to allowance holders that could be distributed down the value chain, would help distributors and contractors understand the consequences and could lead to the identification of non-compliant product. [0065]
EPA Response: EPA responds to this comment in section VII.C of the preamble, particularly with regards to DuPont's suggested restructuring of import and export documentation requirements. While EPA did not propose any changes to the import and export requirements, EPA's ODS program is part of the interagency ITDS initiative, explained more in section VII.C. In response to the suggestion that EPA increase efforts to educate all stakeholders, the agency always welcomes recommendations for improved communication. In addition, EPA works closely with enforcement colleagues across the United States, both within the agency and in other agencies such as Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations. The agency has also developed several fact sheets for specific end-users as well as other materials on the EPA website. See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/classtwo.html.

   >    The Alliance encourages EPA to use a combination of informational and enforcement mechanisms to reduce re-use and venting. The Alliance believes that efforts to ensure compliance with HCFC regulations should focus on the contractor industry, which handles a majority of the HCFCs in use today, and recommends: (1) increased enforcement of the prohibitions against re-use and venting; and (2) an awareness program to the homeowner warning against poor service practices and the improper re-use of used refrigerant. The Alliance comments that in future rulemakings, EPA could (1) consider additional recordkeeping requirements for contractors, similar to those of system owners; and (2) consider reducing leak rate requirements from the current 35% per year, and reducing the size of the systems subject to recordkeeping and leak rate requirements to below 50 lbs. [0049]
EPA Response: EPA appreciates the Alliance's suggestions and welcomes tips or information regarding illegal use and venting of refrigerant. With respect to homeowners, EPA has several guidance documents and fact sheets on its website at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/classtwo.html. Though the requested changes to the regulations promulgated under CAA section 608 are outside the scope of this 2015-2019 HCFC allocation rulemaking, the agency may consider the Alliance's suggestions moving forward. 

   >    New Era Group, Inc. comments that the enforcement of Section 608 regulations has been spotty and inconsistent. New Era Groups, Inc. acknowledges that large emitters are prosecuted, but questions what happens when appliances and residential units are replaced and vented every day. [0043]
EPA Response: See previous responses in this section, in particular the response to the Alliance.  

   >    To discourage illegal noncompliance with an aggressive 2015 drawdown final rule, CIP encourages clear communication regarding legal enforcement of the regulation.[0066]
EPA Response: See section VII.C of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    Rapid Recovery comments that the excise tax on CFCs was effective in supporting the prices of CFCs during its phaseout. Rapid Recovery states that all ODS and GWP refrigerants need to have a fixed price support that can provide incentives to contractors for recovery and provide stability and sufficient volume to support the reclamation industry. Rapid Recovery also believes that the best approach to reducing R-22 emissions is the fair and consistent enforcement of regulations already in place at the contractor level. Rapid Recovery notes that the failure to enforce regulations at the national level has been devastating to the reclamation industry and results in more illegal venting. [0030, 0116]
EPA Response: See section VII.C of the preamble to the final rule. In addition, EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the CFC excise tax. However, excise taxes are imposed by Congress and administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), not by EPA. EPA does not have the authority to impose an excise tax.

   >    EIA comments that with a decrease in availability of R-22, increases in illegal trade are to be expected. EIA notes that recent seizures indicate that illegal trade is growing and EPA must fund enforcement and capacity building to address this. EIA notes that a failure to address illegal trade will result in noncompliance with control measures. [0030]
EPA Response: See section VII.C of the preamble, where EPA directs commenters to certain guidance documents on its website, in addition to the listing of previous enforcement actions against illegal importation of HCFC-22.

   >    RMS comments that it has come to their attention that not all reclaimers are being made to follow the reporting requirement and this is why the total reclaimed numbers for 2013 are still unavailable. RMS suggests EPA use some enforcement to correct this. [0048, 0102]
EPA Response: The 2013 reclamation data is now available on EPA's website at:  http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/reclamation/index.html. 
Modifications to Section 608 Regulations
EPA received 14 comments related to the proposed modifications to Section 608 regulations. Comments were in reference to the following categories:

      6.1	Adopting AHRI 700-2012 standards
      6.2	 Notifying EPA of a change in business, management, location, or contact information
      6.3	 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
      6.4	Technical and process information required in reclaimer certification application
      6.5	Expanded end product testing requirements 
      
Count
Commenter
Organization
Docket ID No
                                       1
Karim Amrane
Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0078
                                       2
Michael Molinini
Airgas, Inc. (Airgas)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0064
                                       3
Kevin Fay
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049
                                       4
William J. Hamel
Arkema Inc. (Arkema)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0045
                                       5
Jeff Cohen
EOS Climate
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0053
                                       6
Carl Grolle
Golden Refrigerant
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0029
                                       7
Group of EPA Certified ODS Reclaimers
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0035
                                       
Jim Tieken
ICOR International - Refri-Claim 

                                       
Rick Roland
Certified Refrigerant Services, Inc.

                                       
Carl Grolle
Golden Refrigerant

                                       
Michael Gerhart
Chill-Tek Inc.

                                       
Jason Crawford
A-GAS Americas (RemTec)

                                       
Paul Caponigri
Diversified Pure Chem

                                       
David Andrew
Perfect Cycle

                                       
Brian Conners
Safe Disposal Systems

                                       
Brian Coker
Advanced Refrigerant Technologies LLC

                                       
Ted Broudy
USA Refrigerants

                                       8
Jonathan Melchi
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0050
                                       9
Stephen P. Mandracchia
Hudson Technologies (Hudson)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0081
                                      10
Maureen Beatty
National Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0071
                                      11
Anonymous
Polar Technology
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0059
                                      12
Anonymous
Private Citizen Comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0036
                                      13
Kenneth M. Ponder
RMS of Georgia, LLC (RMS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0048
                                      14

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0102

EPA received one comment from EOS Climate encouraging the Agency to extend the existing Section 608 requirements to HFC refrigerants and to update the Section 608 regulations regarding leak monitoring, leak repair, and reporting requirements.

> EOS Climate supports the proposed revisions to the Section 608 refrigerant recycling and emissions regulations, and encourages EPA to extend the existing Section 608 requirements on refrigerant sales, recovery, reclamation, leak repair, and reporting and recordkeeping to HFC refrigerants. EOS Climate states that the Agency asserted its authority to do this in a 1998 proposal, and that the Agency should follow through by creating a consistent regulatory structure that covers all refrigerants. EOS Climate comments that there would be important environmental and economic benefits from taking this action, as described in the January 31, 2014 petition from the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. EOS Climate also encourages EPA to update the Section 608 regulations regarding leak monitoring, leak repair, and reporting requirements. EOS Climate notes that the current regulations were issued in 1993 and that EPA's 2010 proposal to lower the leak repair trigger rates was never finalized. EOS Climate believes the case to update the Section 608 regulations and to expand its coverage to HFC refrigerants has since been strengthened, with increasing reports of high leak rates, inadequate monitoring, and increasing use of HFC refrigerants in large stationary systems. EOS Climate notes that California has adopted leak monitoring, reporting, and repair requirements for facilities with stationary refrigeration and air conditioning equipment in commercial and industrial facilities, and for the technicians and engineers who service the equipment. EOS Climate states that the California regulations cover all fluorocarbon refrigerants, including HFCs, and are projected to reduce GHG emissions by 8 MMTCO2eq by the year 2020. EOS Climate extrapolates this number to the entire U.S. and estimates that if EPA were to adopt similar regulations, the nationwide reductions would be approximately 66 MMTCO2eq by 2020. [0053]
EPA Response: As explained in section VIII of the preamble, EPA is finalizing all but one of the proposed regulatory changes under section 608. These proposed changes were minor in scope, and are intended to clarify certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements, allowing for more efficient communication between EPA and reporting entities. With regards to extending the existing section 608 requirements on refrigerant sales, recovery, reclamation, leak repair, and reporting and recordkeeping to HFC refrigerants, and to updating the section 608 regulations regarding leak monitoring, leak repair, and reporting requirements, the requested changes to the regulations promulgated under CAA section 608 are outside the scope of this 2015-2019 HCFC allocation rulemaking. However, the agency is actively considering the merits and environmental benefits of the Alliance petition under a separate process. A copy of the Alliance petition is included in the docket for this rulemaking as a reference.
Adopting AHRI 700-2012 standards
EPA received submissions from ten commenters related to the adoption of AHRI 700-2012 reclamation standards. Six commenters support the adoption of AHRI 700-2012 at this time, with two commenters expressing concerns regarding the level of unsaturates defined by the standard. Four commenters oppose the adoption of AHRI 700-2012 standards, stating that the new standard's specification on the level of unsaturates allowed in refrigerant will cause undue hardship to the reclamation industry, which does not have the capacity to detect contamination at the new level. Commenters also note that studies and testing are ongoing. 

   >    Golden Refrigerant supports updating the AHRI standards, but believes there is one aspect of the new standards that will cause undue hardship to the reclaim industry. Specifically, Golden Refrigerant states that AHRI has added a specification to several of the refrigerants by defining the level of unsaturates allowed in the refrigerant. The AHRI 700-2012 standards include a new unsaturates specification of 40 ppm (or 0.004 percent), whereas the previous AHRI standards (that have been in place for more than 20 years) limit unsaturates to 0.5 percent by weight. According to Golden Refrigerant, most if not all reclaimers do not have the capability of detecting contamination at this level. Golden Refrigerant strongly doubts that the reclaimer community would be able to take on the additional expenses incurred to add this screening process to their operation procedures. Golden Refrigerant believes that only reclaimers with advanced fractional distillation systems would be able to reduce the level of unsaturates to the new standard. The commenter is confident that significant quantities of reclaimed refrigerant, legally and correctly reclaimed in the past, would fail this new standard. Further, the reclaimer would likely not find out there is an unsaturates issue until after the refrigerant has been processed and sent to a lab for verification. Due to the material harm this could bring to reclaimers, Golden Refrigerant recommends that reclaimed refrigerant collected and processed in the U.S. that is not mixed or blended with new refrigerants be exempt from the unsaturates specification in the AHRI 700-2012 standards.
   Golden Refrigerant thinks that EPA should require AHRI 700 verification for 100 percent of the material reclaimed. Without verification, the commenter points out that the system can be "gamed" in two ways: 1) by distributing substandard product or 2) by not disposing of refrigerant mixtures that the reclaimer does not have the ability to process. According to Golden Refrigerant, when reclaimers cut these corners, their costs are lowered and their businesses have a competitive advantage. Golden Refrigerant states that they test each batch using an independent AHRI certified lab. The commenter also periodically tests their product during the packaging process. Golden Refrigerant believes requiring that all reclaimed refrigerant be tested by an independent AHRI accredited lab prior to packaging would benefit the industry. Further, Golden Refrigerant believes that reclaimed refrigerant should be identified with a batch number and the name of the reclaimer, with a reporting mechanism for substandard refrigerant found in the marketplace. [0029]
EPA Response: See section VIII.C.1 of the preamble to the final rule, where EPA explains that it is not finalizing its proposal to incorporate the newest version of AHRI standard 700 at this time due to concerns about the 40 ppm limit for unsaturated contaminants. In addition, the agency responds generally to comments about additional changes under section 608, such as third-party verification of reclaimed refrigerant, in preamble section VIII.C.4. The agency notes that such changes are outside the scope of this HCFC allocation rulemaking, but that EPA will consider these comments as it determines whether to take additional action under section 608 in the future.  

   >    HARDI is opposed to the adoption of AHRI 700-2012 until such time that all studies and research related to the new standard have been completed and EPA can ascertain the full results of implementing a new standard. [0050]
EPA Response: See section VIII.C.1 of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    Polar Technology opposes this standard because of the burden and undue costs it places on reclaim companies. According to Polar Technology, analytical and logistic handling of the new unsaturated standard will be the most burdensome part. Polar Technology states that if reclaim companies were to adopt this standard, they would have to reclaim the chemicals, strip out all the impurities, isolate the unsaturates, and then be forced to possibly destroy it if the PPM count went over 40 PPM. Polar Technology believes that unsaturates don't create down line failures or risks, but they do cause undue costs for reclaim companies. Polar Technology comments that major manufacturing companies put financial pressure on reclaim companies by recommending these types of standards, thereby creating a non-competitive environment for the industry. Polar Technology believes any new standard will need to be phased in over a five-year period to give companies time to ramp up for the new standard without putting significant financial burdens on the reclaim industry in a short period of time. [0059]
EPA Response: See section VIII.C.1 of the preamble to the final rule, where EPA explains that it is not finalizing the proposed incorporation of the more recent AHRI Standard 700-2012 at this time. Once the research project, Effect of Unsaturated Fluorocarbon Contaminates on the Reliability and Performance of HVACR Equipment is completed, EPA will reassess how to proceed. At that time, the agency will consider the commenter's statements about risk, impacts on reclaimers and the phase-in period of a new standard.

   >    A group of EPA Certified ODS Reclaimers state that the unsaturates limit of 40 ppm was not intended to be a threshold for HVACR equipment performance. The commenters note that AHRI recognizes there is a need for further research on this topic and are currently conducting the study, "Effect of Effect of Unsaturated Fluorocarbon Contaminants on the Reliability and Performance of HVACR Equipment." The commenters believe the 40 ppm limit is far too restrictive for the HVACR industry and a more appropriate threshold would be significantly higher. Therefore, while the commenters support the inclusion by reference of the standard into the 608 regulations, they do not support the inclusion of the unsaturates limit at this time since it has not been proven to be an appropriate threshold and will likely be changed a year from its effective date. According to the commenters, the reclaim industry has endured many years of hardship and adding a restrictive/expensive regulation could push the industry to the brink. The commenters believe EPA should wait until the research is available from the study to set the appropriate unsaturates level for the HVACR industry. They believe this will give the reclaim industry appropriate time to prepare for this change. Further, they believe a more appropriate level would reduce the amount of refrigerant that is destroyed (or vented). [0035]
EPA Response: See previous response to Polar Technologies.

   >    RMS urges EPA to table this standard pending further review of the science. The suggestion of addressing the unsaturates poses potential and undue hardship to the reclamation community. RMS comments that they do not have the technical ability to test the unsaturates internally, but they are working on processes that after review should offer a solution agreeable to EPA and the Industry. [0048]
EPA Response: See previous response to Polar Technologies.

   >    NRI supports using AHRI standard 700-2012 for reclaimed CFCs and HCFCs after ASHRAE has completed their current study "Effect of Unsaturated Fluorocarbon Contaminants on the Reliability and Performance of HVACR Equipment." Since the 2012 AHRI Standard 700 is currently being reviewed, it would be fairer to wait until testing is done and a determination made as to whether the unsaturates limit is valid. [0071]
EPA Response: See previous response to Polar Technologies.

   >    Hudson urges EPA to adopt the AHRI 700-2012 standard. The commenter states that the AHRI 700-2012 standard, inclusive of Appendix A, reflects the most up to date testing procedures and protocol adopted by the industry and reflects purity and quality standards that have been included in the standard since 2006 and which have been recognized and followed by the industry throughout. [0081]
EPA Response: See previous responses in this section and also section VIII.C.1 of the preamble. EPA proposed to incorporate AHRI 700-2012 based on a similar understanding as Hudson, that the updated standard contained the most up to date testing procedures and protocol adopted by the industry; however, the agency explains in that section, and in the previous responses in this section, why it is not finalizing the new standard at this time.

   >    AHRI and the Alliance support EPA's adoption of the latest version of AHRI 700. However, the commenters strongly recommend that EPA institute a process by which it will adopt future versions of the AHRI standard in a timely manner. The completion of the project, "Effect of Unsaturated Fluorocarbon Contaminants on the Reliability and Performance HVACR Equipment" is expected to be complete in 2014. Once the project is complete, AHRI will assess whether to keep or change the 40 ppm limit of halogenated unsaturated volatile impurities. [0049, 0078]
EPA Response: See previous responses in this section and section VIII.C.1 of the preamble.

   >    Arkema supports updating reclamation standards to incorporate more robust certification and performance standards for reclaimers, stating that it is critical that EPA assures the reclamation industry processes material in an environmentally responsible fashion. At a minimum, Arkema states this should include updating EPA's regulations to incorporate by reference the current version of AHRI Standard 700. Further, Arkema believes EPA should take advantage of the time remaining before the next phaseouts to make sure that sufficiently protective reclamation standards are in place. [0045]
   >    EPA Response: See previous responses in this section and section VIII.C.1 of the preamble.
 Notifying EPA of a change in business, management, location, or contact information
Eight commenters support the requirement for companies to notify EPA of a change in business, management, location, or contact information. 

   >    The Alliance, HARDI, NRI, Airgas, Hudson, Golden Refrigerant, RMS, and Polar Technology support requiring companies to notify EPA when there are changes in business management, location, or contact information, and support requiring reclaimers to maintain records on each refrigerant reclaimed. [0029, 0048, 0049, 0050, 0059, 0064, 0071, 0081]
EPA Response: The agency is finalizing this proposed change. See section VIII.C.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    Golden Refrigerant asks EPA to consider reissuing its letter of certification with the new business information after it is received and accepted. Golden Refrigerant still provides their customers with their letter from 1995 with their old address, which Golden Refrigerant believes is confusing for the customer. [0029]
EPA Response: The agency will consider the suggestion to reissue the certification letter when a company changes its management, location or contact information. In addition, EPA encourages reclamation companies to provide their customers with the same updated information they provide to EPA.

   >    Polar Technology also supports the listing of reclaim facilities by capability, such as the ability to reclaim different types of refrigerants, on-site vs off-site testing, if they are TRI registered, and if they are presently in compliance. [0059]
EPA Response: The agency has a list of EPA certified reclaimers on its website at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/reclamation/reclist.html. The agency believes that the capabilities and specializations of a reclaimer are best communicated by the company itself. With regards to compliance, EPA has a public database called Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), available at: https://echo.epa.gov/. The agency also posts information related to enforcement and settlements under Title VI regulations at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/enforce/index.html.  
 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
EPA received comments from eight commenters related to reporting and recordkeeping requirements for reclaimers. Six commenters support EPA's proposal to require disaggregated information/records on each reclaimed refrigerant as part of annual reporting. 

With regard to future possible reporting and recordkeeping changes, four commenters believe EPA's desire to increase oversight of the reclamation industry is misguided, and the focus should instead be on enforcement and requirements for contractors. Two commenters state that reclaimers should not be required to report the means and technology used since it is proprietary, and three commenters caution EPA against requiring reclaimers to report on how much refrigerant is in inventory. Three commenters note that reclaimers are already subject to reporting requirements, and caution against creating overlapping and potentially inconsistent reporting requirements.

   >    Golden Refrigerant agrees that any reclaimer should be able to provide a breakdown of numbers by refrigerant type. Concerning the reporting of inventory and storage quantities, Golden Refrigerants believes that while reporting inventory would not be that difficult, it would not lead to an accountability system that would allow EPA to track refrigerant losses. The commenter believes that there are numerous difficulties in trying to bring this concept to a reality. Golden Refrigerants could provide a lengthy explanation if requested by EPA, as they have spent considerable resources developing their tracking system. Specifically, Golden Refrigerant believes some of the issues include: cumulative scale error when collecting from smaller cylinders; incorrectly labeled tare weights on older refrigerant recovery cylinders; recirculation and mixing of process remnants with newer batches of collected refrigerant; reclassification of refrigerants from one type to another (vapor pulled off of the top of a marginal cylinder may be mixed, where the main cylinder was not); additional refrigerant added to inventory from fractional distillation of mixed refrigerants; dilution of mixed refrigerant into unmixed streams; and heel weights in refrigerant cylinders weighed but not recovered past EPA requirements. Golden Refrigerant believes these issues and others prevent the simple tracking of weights by refrigerant to determine overall losses per refrigerant on a gross scale. Golden Refrigerant comments that additional reporting of this type would greatly burden the reclaimer. 
   
   Golden Refrigerant believes EPA's desire to increase oversight is a misguided use of resources. Instead, the commenter thinks EPA should focus on enforcement operations instead of adding burden to the reclamation industry. The commenter also mentions that EPA has already caused material harm to the reclamation industry with the Final Rule in 2013. [0029]
   >    AHRI and NRI support EPA's proposal to clarify the regulations to require disaggregated information on all reclaimed refrigerants as part of the annual reporting. However, AHRI cautions EPA against requiring reclaimers to regularly report how much refrigerant is in inventory. Reclaimers are already subject to reporting requirements that deal specifically with inventory losses and require them to track inventory loss rates. AHRI believes that creating another level of reporting will not achieve any of the purposes stated by EPA and will put an undue burden on reclaimers. In addition, AHRI states there is no evidence that would suggest that reclaimers are careless and emit more than the 1.5% all refrigerant reclaimed as allowed under 40 CFR 82.164(c). AHRI believes that EPA should focus its efforts on reducing emissions from the servicing of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment where the vast majority of refrigerant emissions occur. According to AHRI, efforts to ensure compliance with HCFC regulations should properly focus on the contractor industry which handles a majority of the HCFCs in use today. Further, AHRI comments that an increased enforcement of the prohibitions against re-use and venting needs to occur as well as perhaps an awareness program to the homeowner warning against poor service practices and the improper re-use of used refrigerant. AHRI comments that EPA could also consider additional record keeping requirements for contractors, similar to those of system owners. [0071, 0078]
   >    Airgas supports requiring reclaimers to maintain records on each refrigerant reclaimed. [0064]
   >    Hudson urges EPA to require reclaimers to maintain records on each refrigerant reclaimed. [0081]
   >    HARDI is generally supportive of EPA's efforts to enhance reporting and recordkeeping requirements, so long as the requirements are not overly burdensome for the many small businesses which make up the reclaim industry. [0050]
   >    Polar Technology believes that the comment, "Reclaimers must maintain records of the quantity of material (the combined mass refrigerant and contaminants) sent to them for reclamation, and mass of waste products," is very detailed and will create too many deviations in the outcome of the product. According to Polar Technology, reclaimers shouldn't be required to report the means and technology used since this is proprietary. Polar Technology comments that the intention of this information was to ensure companies were not blending impurities, but if blending is a means to an end, then those companies should be listed regardless of how they do it. Polar Technology believes that if data is already required to be reported to the Agency, mandating the same information under this proposal is redundant. Polar Technology suggests that EPA coordinate with TRI and build any additional reporting requirements into that mechanism, rather than create overlapping but potentially inconsistent reporting requirements via this program. Polar Technology suggests that EPA take two steps: 1) Displace or report a new category of refrigerant in the RECSUM report, which details the refrigerant reclaim volumes collected labeled as mixed gas to clarify issues that may be occurring in the marketplace. Many reclaim companies do not have the tools or resources to properly categorize mixes that are so blended that they do no resemble any of the existing categories, so one catchall category for mixed would remedy this issue; and 2) Enact a provision in the CAA that would collect data from technicians and service providers related to their refrigerant usage. Polar Technology believes that by submitting this information, market information will be available to guide industry members in making better and more acute decisions about allocations. Polar Technology comments that an analysis of market data suggest that these last two line items may account for as much as 20+MM pounds of inventory missing from EPA's Service Tail Report, which equals as much as 20 percent of the market demand for HCFC-22. [0059]
   >    RMS comments that most reclaimers with whom they have business relationships go above-and-beyond to minimize losses during their process since they equate to losses in money. RMS suggests focusing the recordkeeping requirements on the contractor and industrial sectors rather than on reclaimers. RMS states that most contractors believe there are no recordkeeping requirements, much like the no venting rules for HFCs. As such, RMS asks EPA to do a better job in writing these rules. RMS supports having a dialogue with EPA about their processes for reclamation, but would caution that certain processes and specialized equipment might be considered confidential. RMS urges EPA to set forth recordkeeping requirements for all entities within this industry (i.e., wholesale, contractor, large industry, alternative refrigerant producers) as well as the large chemical producers that would provide accurate accounting for all refrigerants sold and used at the end of a year. [0048, 0102]
EPA Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed change to require that reclaimers provide reclamation data disaggregated by refrigerant type. EPA appreciates all comments on future possible reporting and recordkeeping changes, and will consider them as it determines whether to take additional action in future. As such, those comments are beyond the scope of this 2015-2019 HCFC allocation rulemaking. Please see sections VIII.C.3 and VIII.C.4 of the preamble for more detail on the regulatory revisions clarifying that reclamation data submitted to EPA must be disaggregated by refrigerant type. 
Technical and process information required in reclaimer certification application
EPA received submissions from four commenters related to the technical and process information required in the reclaimer certification application. NRI and AHRI do not believe that a more robust reclaimer certification process will be achieved by requiring more information from reclaimers. Polar Technology opposes requirements for reclaimers to provide information on proprietary operating procedures. RMS supports more stringent requirements, but urges EPA to have an open discussion with all reclaimers before finalizing a rule. 

   >    AHRI does not believe that a more robust reclaimer certification process will be effectively achieved by requiring more information from reclaimers as suggested in the NOPR. AHRI believes a more effective way to ensure quality of reclaimed refrigerants would be to subject reclaimers to an independent third-party certification process, such as those certification processes in place for recovery/recycling equipment. AHRI believes this would provide a level playing field for all reclaimers while providing EPA, OEMs, and consumers assurances that reclaimed refrigerants on the market meet the specification of AHRI 700. [0078]
   >    NRI supports AHRI's comments on technical and process information required. [0071]
   >    Polar Technology comments that under no circumstances will they deliver proprietary operating procedures. Polar Technology states that under the Freedom of Information Act, this information will become part of the public domain and will decrease competitiveness in the market. According to Polar Technology, reclaim companies list equipment at the time of registration and many reclaimers only have one machine, so their capacities will vary depending on the refrigerant. Although Polar Technology has a variety of equipment in different capacity ranges, this is not the case among most reclaimers and would be unfair for reclaimers to have to define their total volume per pound when they may not process those pounds. For example, a reclaim machine may process R-22 at one rate and process R-410 at another rate and it would be subjective as to how that rating is supplied to EPA. [0059]
   >    RMS supports more stringent standards and requirements, but urges EPA to include all reclaimers in an open format to facilitate answers before a rule is written. [0048]
EPA Response: EPA appreciates all the comments submitted on future possible changes EPA could make to the technical and process information required in the reclaimer certification application. The agency will consider these comments as it determines whether to take additional action in future. As such, those comments are beyond the scope of this 2015-2019 HCFC allocation rulemaking, Please see section VIII.C.4 of the preamble for more detail on the potentional future actions EPA is considering.
Expanded end product testing requirements
EPA received submissions from four commenters related to expanding end product testing requirements. A private citizen comments that EPA should establish a schedule for testing reclaimed refrigerants. Polar Technology supports the idea that reclaim companies should be required to meet AHRI standards, but encourages the use of an open bid process for third party vendors in the verification process. RMS urges EPA to visit all reclaiming facilities to see how processes are handled. RMS also states that most reclaimers will not be in support of a certification program due to its cost and lack of return on investment. In regards to the random testing of reclaimer product, Golden Refrigerant believes a better approach would be to require reclaimers to keep a record of the AHRI certification and number of cyclinders that were packaged under each certification. 

   >    A private citizen comments that EPA should establish a schedule for testing reclaimed refrigerants. The commenter believes that the anticipated increase in consumption of reclaimed refrigerants is likely to result in increased illegal venting unless there is 1) an accountability method to ensure the quality of the refrigerant and 2) regulations that specify how often testing of reclaimed refrigerant should occur. [0036]
   >    Polar Technology supports the idea that reclaim companies are required to meet AHRI standards, but doesn't want to be forced to join a program that at times has struggled to provide success on cross lab evaluation and has restricted data or openness that has limited objectivity. Polar Technology encourages the use of an open bid process for third party vendors in the verification process that can deliver more objective results that support integrity and challenge industry insider control over program management. Polar Technology comments that they use a third party because they exceed the standard of the market designated AHRI certified lab but can deliver the results to Polar Technology in both the AHRI and other higher accuracy formats. [0059]
   >    RMS urges EPA to visit all reclaiming facilities so as to see exactly how some of these processes are handled, including: sampling procedures and specific testing protocols beyond what is currently in section 5; how frequently testing should be required; how a batch of refrigerant would be defined and whether testing should be on a per batch basis, or if multiple test should be required and on what time frame. Additionally, RMS believes that it will be hard to give or get support for anything that increases cost with no way to collect a return on investment, such as a third party certification. RMS states that most reclaimers didn't support this the last time there was a certification program due to its cost and perceived low value of the market. [0048]
   >    Golden Refrigerant states that a stronger and more impactful approach than the random testing program would be requiring reclaimers to keep a record of the AHRI certification and the number of cylinders that were packaged under each certification. According to the commenter, a reclaimer who puts substandard product into the marketplace has little to worry about once the refrigerant leaves their facility. Golden Refrigerant also thinks that reclaimers should be required to dispose of any material they receive that they do not have the capability to process within a set time frame, such as 12 months. According to the commenter, several reclaimers are collecting and storing mixed refrigerant because it is less expensive to accumulate than to have it destroyed. [0029]
EPA Response: EPA appreciates all the comments submitted on future possible changes EPA could make to expand end product testing requirements. The agency will consider these comments as it determines whether to take additional action in future. As such, those comments are outside of the scope of this 2015-2019 HCFC allocation rulemaking. Please see section VIII.C.4 of the preamble for more detail on the potential future actions EPA is considering.
Other Issues
EPA received 28 comments concerning issues associated with the proposed rule. Comments were in reference to the following categories:

      7.1	Timely completion of the rule
      7.2	Statutory and executive order reviews
      7.3	Labeling requirements
      7.4	Other issues

Count
Commenter
Organization
Docket ID No
                                       1
Patricia A. Burns
A-Gas RemTec
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0080
                                       2
Charles McCrudden
Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0075
                                       3
Karim Amrane
Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0078
                                       4
Kevin Fay
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0049
                                       5
Jeff Gibson
American Pacific Corporation (AMPAC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0042
                                       6
William J. Hamel
Arkema Inc. (Arkema)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0045
                                       7
41 Members of U.S. Congress
Congress of the United States(41 Members of the U.S. Congress)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0063
                                       8
Jason Crawford
Coolgas
N/A
                                       9
Mark W. Roberts
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0067
                                      10
Jeff Cohen
EOS Climate
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0053
                                      11

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0100
                                      12
Greg Canniff
GC Refrigerant Supply, Inc
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0047
                                      13
Gary Clark
Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0060
                                      14
Jonathan Melchi
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0050
                                      15
Dave Stirpe
Honeywell International, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0051
                                      16
Hilary O. Shelton
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0038
                                      17
Maureen Beatty
National Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0071
                                      18
David Doniger; Benjamin Longstreth; Emily Davis
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0103
                                      19
Peter V. Williams; Linda T. Leak-Ransom
New Era Group, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0043
                                      20

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0101
                                      21
J. Gordon Arbuckle
Patton Boggs LLP
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0111
                                      22
Anonymous
Private Citizen Comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0033
                                      23

Rapid Recovery
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0116
                                      24
Kenneth M. Ponder
RMS of Georgia, LLC (RMS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0048
                                      25

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0102
                                      26
John M. Mandyck
UTC Building & Industrial Systems (Carrier)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0056
                                      27
Carole Poindexter
Watsco, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0046
                                      28
 January 23, 2014 Public Hearing on the 2015-2019 Proposed Rule
                           EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263-0030

Stephen Van Maren; Kevin Faye
Alliance for responsible Atmosphere Policy

Mack MacFarland; Michael Parr; James Bachman
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont)

                                                                               
Rusty Tharp; Dave Ransom
Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman)

                                                                               
John Melchi
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)

                                                                               
Dave Stirpe
Honeywell

                                                                               
Steve Porter
Johnstone Supply

Timely completion of the rule
EPA received comments from 19 commenters urging EPA to issue the final rule in a timely manner. One commenter, RMS, requests that EPA obtain up-to-date information on HCFC-22 inventory before finalizing the rule, even if it results in a delay of the final rule. One commenter, ICOR International, requests that EPA postpone the final rule until models can be updated with the most up-to-date information and data. One commenter, Patton Boggs LLP, requests that EPA withdraw the rule and reissue a revised Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

   > Eighteen commenters urge EPA to finalize the rule as quickly as possible, and well before January 1, 2015. The commenters believe that finalizing the rule in a timely manner will allow the industry to properly plan and prepare for compliance; provide certainty and stability for business planning; minimize market disruption; and foster a smoother transition in the final stages of the HCFC-22 phaseout. [0033, 0045, 0046, 0047, 0049, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0063, 0067, 0071, 0075, 0078, 0080, 0082, 0116, Coolgas, and two additional commenters from the public hearing 0030]
   EPA Response: EPA appreciates commenters' support for a timely rule. The agency explains in section VI.A.4 of the preamble why it also believes a timely rule is important. 
   
   > GC Refrigerant Supply, Inc believes that EPA is not taking quick enough action. [0047] 
   EPA Response: See section VI.A.4 of the preamble.
   
   > 41 members of the U.S. Congress comment that they do not support a re-proposal of the rule, but were disappointed that the Agency did not solicit comment on a zero allocation of virgin HCFC-22. [0063]
   EPA Response: See sections VI.A.3.i and VI.A.4 of the preamble. In addition, the agency appreciates that the commenters recognize the importance of a timely rule, even if the proposal did not include their preferred allocation option.
   
   > AHRI believes issuing a final rule in a timely manner is particularly relevant to the residential HVAC market, which on January 1, 2015, will transition to new minimum energy efficiency standards. AHRI comments that the industry's lack of knowledge regarding refrigerant allocations adds complexity to this transition and could be detrimental to manufacturers and small business owners. [0078]
   EPA Response: See section VI.A.4 of the preamble.
   
   > RMS requests that EPA obtain the most current information on R-22 inventories before deciding this rule change, even if that results in a delay of the final rule. RMS believes this proposed rule falls short of its ability to properly address the environment in many areas. [0048]
   EPA Response: See sections VI.A.2 and VI.A.4 of the preamble. In the preceding sections about the HCFC-22 consumption allocation, the agency explains why and how the information that EPA has is sufficient for justifying a linear approach, starting at 10,000 MT in 2015. The agency specifically addresses the environmental considerations of the HCFC-22 allocation in preamble section VI.A.3.i.
   
   > ICOR International comments that the final rule should be postponed until models can be updated with the most up-to-date information and data to reflect the current market place. [0107]
   EPA Response: EPA disagrees. See sections VI.A.2 and VI.A.4 of the preamble and previous responses.
   
   > Patton Boggs comments that EPA does not properly and timely notify the public of the data and analyses informing EPA's conclusions. Patton Boggs believes that inaccurate data will result in an inadequate rule that will be damaging to HCFC-22 reclaimers, alternative refrigerant producers, and the environment. Patton Boggs believes that for these reasons, the rule needs to be withdrawn and the Notice republished and immediate steps need to be taken to mitigate the serious damage to small companies they represent and human health and the environment. [0111]
   EPA Response: With regards to inventory data, the agency explains in the April 2014 NODA and section VI.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule, how it collected and considered data, and why it could not make these data publicly available at the time of the December 2013 proposal. However, the agency did give the public the opportunity to comment on the data once it was made public in the NODA. Withdrawing the December 2013 proposal would be counter to the agency's and many stakeholders' goal of a timely rulemaking. See section VI.A.4 of the preamble, with justification for the chosen allocation provided throughout preamble section VI.A.3.
Statutory and executive order reviews
EPA received submissions from three commenters regarding Statutory and Executive Order Reviews VIII (J).

   >    The NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program supports a petition that was filed with EPA on June 3, 2013 in an attempt to correct the previous rule pertaining to HCFC-22 and lessen the impact that this chemical could have on the communities of color. The commenter states that HCFCs not only contribute to ozone depletion, but climate change as well. NAACP requests EPA's compliance with Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," and would like to be included in the drafting of this new rule. In addition, NAACP requests notification regarding the status and any future meetings pertaining to the "Petition for Reconsideration," filed on June 3, 2013. [0038]
EPA Response: The agency responds to the NAACP's comments in the preamble to the final rule at section IX.J.  EPA also invited representatives of the NAACP to meet with the agency during development of the final rule. The email inviting NAACP to discuss this rule in person with EPA is available in the docket.

   >    New Era Group, Inc. believes EPA blocks organizations such as the NAACP from engaging in this issue by stating, "the effects of ozone depletion, skin cancer have a lesser effect on people of color." The commenter believes this is absurd and thinks climate change is a significant issue for minorities and people of color. [0043]
EPA Response: EPA has not blocked the NAACP or any other entity from involvement in this rulemaking; as noted above, EPA specifically invited representatives of the NAACP to meet with the agency during development of the final rule. In the proposed rule, EPA did not state that this rule concerns environmental or health impacts that have a lesser effect on people of color. As explained in section IX.J of the preamble to the final rule, EPA takes seriously its mandate to phase out production and import of HCFCs because HCFCs are ozone-depleting substances and also greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. As noted in that section, the final HCFC consumption allocation for 2015 is more than 95 percent below the United States' HCFC consumption baseline; this rulemaking outperforms requirements set by the Montreal Protocol and by Title VI of the Clean Air Act. In addition, both stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change are global issues. That is, the impact of HCFC emissions on stratospheric ozone or atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is independent of where the HCFCs were used or eventually emitted.  Also, as stated in the preamble, the EPA Administrator has considered climate change risks to minority or low-income populations and has found that certain parts of the population may be especially vulnerable based on their circumstances. 

   >    New Era Group, Inc. believes the RFA and SBREFA issues have not been met. New Era Group, Inc. states that in recent conversation with senior managers of SBA's Office of Advocacy, they challenged EPA's certification of the rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to the commenter, SBA stated that EPA asserts that the proposed rule does not have an adverse effect on a significant number of small businesses. The commenter believes this statement is directed toward the section of the rule that deals with "right holders," and states that this rule alters or changes other elements of 40 CFR Title VI, Sections 608 and 609. [0101]
EPA Response: The agency addresses this comment in section IX.C of the preamble.  The Agency concluded that this final rule will relieve regulatory burden for directly affected small entities.  See Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Labeling requirements 
Five commenters commented on the Labeling Requirements in Section 611(c).

   >    Honeywell believes that EPA can maximize the impact of the labeling requirements if the label is required on both transactional paperwork for class II substances and on the actual trailer, container, or panels containing the substance, in clear unobstructed locations. Honeywell requests that EPA require, or at a minimum issue guidance recommending, that the label be placed in the following locations: (1) on the rear of the internal side wall in close proximity to the thermo-performance plate; (2) in close proximity to the plate stating the Vehicle Identification Number; and (3) mid-way up the external front part of the side panels. [0051]  
EPA Response: The agency addresses the comments on the existing HCFC labeling requirements and the minor regulatory changes in section IV.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule. Additionally, changing where the label must be placed was beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, the agency could consider Honeywell's suggestions moving forward. 

   >  Honeywell notes that closed cell polyurethane insulated refrigerated trailers and refrigerated containers manufactured in part (e.g., manufacture of panels only) or wholly outside the U.S. are made using HCFC-141b, while refrigerated trailers produced wholly in the U.S. are made using HCFC-245fa. [0051]
EPA Response: The agency addresses the comments on the existing HCFC labeling requirements and the minor regulatory changes in section IV.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    Carrier believes EPA should ensure that labeling requirements that apply to products containing and products manufactured with class II ODS apply to "dry-shipped" HCFC-22 units and systems using HCFC-123 (i.e., chillers). [0056]
EPA Response: The agency addresses the comments on the existing HCFC labeling requirements and the minor regulatory changes in section IV.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    In reference to the CAA requirements that begin in 2015, AMPAC confirms that the noted memo (on page 78077) contains the product it has manufactured since 1994 (HCFC Blend B) for nonresidential fire suppression use. AMPAC states that in the case of HCFC-123-based fire extinguishants, the ODP is so low that, in contrast to the severe ozone depleting chemical that this compound substitutes for (i.e., Halon 1211), the labeling stating that there is harm to public health should be removed since there is no measurable effect on stratospheric ozone by use of this product. [0042]
EPA Response: The agency addresses the comments on the existing HCFC labeling requirements and the minor regulatory changes in section IV.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

   >    The Alliance comments that the benefits of an HCFC labeling program would be insignificant and they prefer that the Agency spend its staff resources on better enforcement of Section 608 rules. The Alliance believes EPA's list of products potentially affected by the 2015 changes is complete, and the Alliance does not support additional labeling of HCFC products. [0049]
EPA Response: The agency addresses the comments on the existing HCFC labeling requirements and the minor regulatory changes in section IV.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
   
   >    RMS does not believe that that the section 605(a) use restrictions and section 611 labeling requirements will be an effective way to increase awareness and ensure compliance because EPA does not have an enforcement arm to handle complaints. [0048]
EPA Response: The agency addresses the comments on the existing HCFC labeling requirements and the minor regulatory changes in section IV.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
Other issues
EPA received comments on other issues from seven entities. Two commenters, EOS Climate and NRDC, support the adoption of a use condition requiring a minimum percentage of reclaimed HCFC-22 starting in either 2015 or 2016.

   >    In reference to section II.B of the proposed rule, AMPAC agrees with EPA's approach that allowances for one compound can be transferred for allowances for another compound with a 0.1 percent offset, stating that it allows for desirable flexibility. 
   In reference to Section V.H of the proposed rule, AMPAC comments that they are not aware of any other HCFCs used for fire suppression that the agency has not already addressed. According to AMPAC, HCFC-124 was previously commercialized under the trade name FE-241, but this activity has since stopped. [0042]
EPA Response: The agency appreciates AMPAC's support of the existing regulations that allow for calendar-year inter-pollutant trades. There is a 0.1 percent offset that accompanies every transfer, as established at 40 CR 82.23. The agency shares AMPAC's understanding that HCFC-124 is no longer used in any commercialized fire suppression blends. 

   >    ACCA urges EPA to couple the issuance of the final rule for this allocation with a concerted public information campaign targeted to homeowners and building owners. One of the benefits of the linear drawdown is "that it is simple and easy to explain." What service technicians will need is EPA branded materials outlining the phase out plan and its potential impacts on refrigerant price and availability in the future. [0075]
EPA Response: The agency appreciates the importance of accessible information about the HCFC phaseout, particularly targeted towards homeowners and building owners. EPA has several useful resources on its phaseout website at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/classtwo.html. In addition, EPA developed four factsheets directed at owners and operators of HCFC-based equipment. One of these factsheets is specific to residential split-system air conditioning, and is available in the docket to this rulemaking, and on the EPA website.

   >    EOS Climate acknowledges EPA's intent to encourage greater recovery, recycling, reclamation, and re-use of HCFC-22. To meet this goal, EOS Climate suggests that EPA specify a minimum percentage by volume of reclaimed HCFC-22 that is sold in the United States (e.g., 25% starting in 2016). EOS Climate proposes that the requirement is monitored and applied at the point of refrigerant sale, where refrigerant distributors would certify the presence of reclaimed HCFC-22 in cylinders. EOS Climate notes that data from distributors and reclaimers could be entered through chain-of-custody tracking systems that are already in use around the country or another type of auditing/certification system could be created. EOS Climate suggests that the industry be given flexibility in how the minimum targets are met, and that the targets progressively increase over the next five years. EOS Climate proposes that EPA adopt this minimum reclaim target into a future SNAP rulemaking as a condition for HCFC-22 use, but asks that EPA account for such a limit in the final HCFC allocation rulemaking. EOS Climate suggests that the requirement could be monitored and enforced through a self-certification, self-reporting system, similar to the existing regulatory requirements for reclaimers. EOS Climate notes that this system would account for the point-of-origin of gas sold in the U.S. for the first time, which will be increasingly important as a way to control for illegal imports, for successful implementation of a possible future HFC production phasedown, and to monitor compliance with potential HFC use conditions under the SNAP program. [0053, 0100]
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates EOS's recommendation to require that 25% of all HCFC-22 sold in the U.S. be reclaimed HCFC-22, and EOS's suggestion to consider a future rulemaking to create such a requirement. Such a requirement is outside the scope of this 2015-2019 HCFC allocation rulemaking. However, the agency could consider EOS' recommendation moving forward. While EPA has not accounted for a specific reclaim target in this final rule, EPA notes that the 2015 HCFC-22 allocation is approximately 20 percent of the total estimated servicing need in 2015 and is more than a 55 percent decrease from the 2014 allocation. This significant drop should encourage recovery, recycling and reclamation, while also allowing equipment owners time to transition to alternative refrigerants.

   >    NRDC strongly supports EOS Climate's proposal for a use condition that would require a minimum percentage of reclaimed HCFC-22 material and formally petitions EPA to adopt such an amendment to the Significant New Alternatives Program. NRDC comments that reclaimed HCFC-22 reduces the risk to the environment compared to virgin HCFC-22 and thus applying a use condition is consistent with the statutory objectives of SNAP and the Clean Air Act. NRDC states that this amendment would provide EPA with an additional method of achieving additional reclamation that EPA had intended on generating with the 2009 allocation rule. NRDC states that EPA should require a minimum of 25% HCFC-22 from reclaimed sources as a use condition starting in 2015; NRDC believes this value is reasonable given that 4,264 MT was reclaimed in 2012 and the reclaimer capacity is approximately 20,000 MT. NRDC notes that the total quantity of virgin HCFC-22 used will decline during the 2015 to 2019 control period but the total supply of used HCFC-22 is not expected to decrease. The commenter states that it is critical that the use condition be designed so that over the five-year drawdown period, the percent of sales that must be from reclaimed HCFC-22 must increase in order to avoid an unnecessary decrease in the actual amount of reclaimed HCFC-22 sold. NRDC states that the use condition will provide an essential backstop to the allowance levels set in the Proposal so that EPA can ensure that the transition to alternatives, reclaimed HCFC-22, and recycled HCFC-22 happens efficiently and smoothly. NRDC comments that while EOS Climate's proposal to focus on distributors for compliance makes sense, NRDC is open to considering other ways to structure a standard. [0103]
EPA Response: EPA appreciates NRDC's suggestion to implement a use condition that would require a minimum percentage of reclaimed HCFC-22 material. The requested regulatory action is outside the scope of this 2015-2019 HCFC allocation rulemaking. However, the agency may consider EOS' and NRDC's suggestions moving forward.

   >    The Alliance supports requiring the export of class II controlled substances and the request for additional consumption allowances (RACAs) to occur in the same calendar year that consumption allowances were issued. The Alliance also supports treating class I and class II RACAs the same and not allowing any consumption allowances for HCFCs after the phaseout date. [0049]
EPA Response: As explained in section VII.B, EPA is finalizing its proposed text, which will clarify the requirements for class II RACAs, and ensure that class II RACAs are treated in the same manner as class I RACAs. Specifically, EPA added the clarification that both the export and the request for additional consumption allowances must occur in a year in which consumption allowances were issued. For example, it is possible that virgin HCFC-22 will be exported in the year 2020; however, the phaseout date for production and consumption is January 1, 2020, thus there will be no option after that date to request additional consumption allowances following export of virgin material.

   >    RMS believes that if EPA would require all reclaimers to attend meetings in Washington to discuss issues prior to a rule being written, it would greatly benefit the rule. [0048, 0102]
EPA Response: While the agency cannot require reclaimers to attend a specific meeting in Washington, the agency appreciates RMS's interest in involving reclaimers. EPA did hold a public hearing, as well as a small business environmental roundtable, both in January, 2014, following publication of the proposed rule. In addition, EPA regularly engages with stakeholders one-on-one and in larger settings for allocation rules and rules promulgated under other authorities, such as section 608. A list of meetings is available in the docket for this rulemaking at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263. 

> EIA also takes issue with EPA encouraging stakeholders to submit comments after the comment period closes. They feel that because FMI supports a higher allocation, and because EPA encouraged them to submit comments that EPA is signaling its intention to finalize an unnecessarily large allocation, which they contend is in direct conflict to the Clean Air Act, the Montreal Protocol, and President Obama's recent Climate Action Plan. [0119]
EPA Response: EPA's Stratospheric Protection Division encourages all affected stakeholders to submit comments as a matter of practice, and typically considers late comments in developing the final rule as long as sufficient time remains for this to be practicable. The docket includes, and this document responds to, several other comments that were submitted late. In EPA's opinion, having a full range of perspectives posted in the docket and available for all stakeholders to read improves everyone's understanding of the concerns raised by different stakeholders. In addition, while EPA considered FMI's comment, EPA is not finalizing the allocation that FMI recommended.