particularly affecting tire repair professionals. Not all manufacturers
of tire inflators agree that a nonflammable propellant is necessary,
given there are tire inflators using hydrocarbons already on the
market. Although HFO-1234ze(E) can ignite under higher temperature
conditions using the standard test ASTM E 681, a relevant question is
whether data indicate that an aerosol tire inflator using HFO-1234ze(E)
would be flammable under the pressure, temperature, and likely ignition
sources specific to this use. This will ensure a relevant risk
comparison and will not compare to other flammable substances used in
other parts of a motor vehicle. One manufacturer of aerosol tire
inflators has tested a formulation using HFO-1234ze(E) and has found it
is nonflammable under the conditions that exist for use of a tire
inflator (RSC, 2014). Therefore, other alternatives are available
besides HFC-134a that sufficiently mitigate flammability risks for this
use. Concerning RSC's suggestion for a change of status date of January
1, 2018, to give sufficient time for additional testing, the commenter
provided insufficient information on the types of testing or timeframes
involved to warrant providing additional time. Further, in this final
rule, we are providing roughly an additional seven months beyond the
date in the proposal to meet commenters' general comments about
requiring additional time for testing. Based on the information
available, HFO-1234ze(E) is an option that other manufacturers of
aerosol tire inflators are using to formulate products that are not
flammable under the conditions expected for that use.
    Comment: Commenters from the aerosol industry requested that EPA
include additional uses for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to
use conditions. These uses include certain aerosols used for testing
smoke detector sensitivity and ``emergency safety horns exclusively
used for marine emergency situations and/or industrial emergencies and
evacuations.'' Reasons cited include allowing time for developing and
approving new smoke detector sensitivity testing equipment and the need
for nonflammability because emergency safety horns function where
flames or other ignition sources are present. An environmental group
states that it disagrees with comments that request continued use of
HFC-134a in freeze sprays, tissue freezes, portable safety horns and
personal defense sprays, as these applications can use other lower-GWP
alternatives such as dimethyl ether, HFO-1234ze(E), and CO2.
    Response: For aerosols used for smoke detector sensitivity testing,
EPA received information from a manufacturer of such products that this
use requires redesign of equipment for testing smoke detectors, and not
just reformulation of the aerosol. This information indicates that the
equipment for such testing is designed based on the vapor pressure of
HFC-134a and would not work with another propellant. Therefore, we are
adding aerosols for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors to the list
of use conditions.
    For portable safety horns, personal defense sprays, and freeze
sprays for wastes (as opposed to electronic freeze sprays), there are
other alternatives that are available or potentially available that
reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. Products using
HFO-1234ze(E) already exist or are in development for these uses. EPA
received no information indicating that alternatives other than HFC-
125, HFC-134a or HFC-227ea, or blends thereof, cannot be safely used in
tissue freeze sprays.
    Comment: ITW Polymers Sealants requested that EPA either clarify
that canister adhesives and sealants are not considered to be aerosols,
or else that EPA add this use to the list of use conditions for HFC-
134a. ITW Polymers Sealants provided information indicating that
flammability of the propellant is of concern in the fabrication
facilities with this use, and that use of hydrocarbon propellants would
exceed VOC limits set for these products in many areas of the country.
The commenter also indicated that HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and
N2, the only other propellants that would address
flammability concerns for this use besides HFC-134a, have vapor
pressures outside of the range that would provide sufficient
performance. In the absence of sufficient vapor pressure, as with HFO-
1234ze(E), the commenter claims that there will be performance problems
such as lower bond strength or bumps and mounds in furniture surfaces;
with the higher pressure propellants N2 and CO2,
the commenter states that these will result in exceeding Department of
Transportation internal pressure limits at elevated temperatures.
    Response: We do consider canister adhesives and sealants to be
aerosols because they are pressurized containers and they use a
propellant, as opposed to solely mechanical means, to expel the other
ingredients of the formulation from the container. The information
provided by the commenter on vapor pressure concerns is plausible,
based on the relative vapor pressures of the different propellants. It
is possible for fabrication facilities to use flammable adhesives and
propellants safely, but it would require time to make the necessary
upgrades to address these risks. It is also of concern that in VOC
nonattainment areas, large amounts of hydrocarbons in these large
canister adhesive containers would cause canister adhesives and
sealants to exceed their VOC limits. Of the

available propellant options that are not VOC or are exempted from the
definition of VOC--HFC-134a, HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and
N2--to date, only HFC-134a has been shown to be in a
pressure range that provides sufficient performance. Thus, it is likely
that HFC-134a is the only available propellant for canister adhesives
and sealants in many areas of the country. Therefore, this final rule
adds adhesives and sealants in large canisters to the list of uses
where HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions.
    Comment: A number of members of the aerosol industry requested that
EPA consider adding aerosols for use on energized electrical equipment
as a use for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions.
Specific products mentioned include dusters for use on live electric
circuits, contact cleaners for energized circuits, mold cleaners, and
electronic freeze sprays.
    Response: EPA agrees that, given the high temperatures and high
electrical energy present on energized electrical equipment, it is
necessary to retain the option of a propellant that remains
nonflammable at high temperatures. As described elsewhere in the
preamble, compressed gases such as CO2 and N2 may
be nonflammable but are not appropriate in some situations, due to
pressure drop-off and reactions with other formulation ingredients.
HFO-1234ze(E) is nonflammable in many situations, but it is not yet
clear if it remains nonflammable in the presence of the high
temperatures and high electrical energy in the specific uses mentioned
by the commenters. If additional information becomes available showing
that HFO-1234ze(E) remains nonflammable in such situations, we may
revisit this decision in the future. In this final rule, we are adding
mold cleaners, electronic freeze sprays, and dusters for use on
energized electrical circuits to the list of aerosol products that may
continue to use HFC-134a under the use conditions. We consider
electrical contact cleaners for energized electrical equipment to be
part of the use ``cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and
other soils from electrical equipment or electronics'' and therefore
covered by the use condition.
    Comment: MicroCare, a company specializing in cleaning, and
Traulsen, a manufacturer of commercial refrigeration equipment, request
that refrigeration system flushes be added to the use condition
specifying which end-uses may still use HFC-134a. They explain that
after removing refrigerant and flushing any oils or particulates left,
the lines are brazed, soldered or welded back together at high
temperatures well above the level at which HFO-1234ze(E) becomes
flammable (e.g., above 1,995 [deg]C).
    CSPA stated that it should be clarified that ``Cleaning products
for removal of grease, flux, and other soils from electrical equipment
or electronics'' includes cleaners for refrigeration coils because of
similar requirements for nonflammability. NAA stated that its members
did not reach consensus on whether refrigerant flushes should be added
to the acceptable list. This commenter states that it is common
practice in the industry to remove flushing agents from lines and
blowing them dry with nitrogen or compressed air after flushing, which
eliminates risks posed by welding lines after flushing.
    Response: Because of the extremely high temperatures cited by
MicroCare and Traulsen that may be present in a refrigerant line after
flushing, EPA agrees that it is necessary to have a nonflammable
propellant available for refrigerant flushes. The term ``refrigerant
flushes'' also refers to cleaners for refrigerant coils. Although
nitrogen can be used to purge refrigerant lines to remove refrigerant
flushes prior to brazing or welding, it is not clear that this is a
universal practice in the industry. Therefore, we are adding
refrigerant flushes to the use condition specifying uses that may
continue to use HFC-134a.
    Comment: SAE International and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(AAM) commented that there are aerosol products available for servicing
MVAC systems which contain additives in a can propelled by HFC-134a
which the commenters believe should be acceptable, subject to use
conditions. The commenters stated that the use of propellants other
than HFC-134a could cause technical problems, could contaminate
refrigerant so that EPA-approved Recovery, Recycling and Recharging
(RRR) equipment cannot be used, or could be incompatible with SAE
standards if the propellant goes into the MVAC systems.
    Response: EPA considers an aerosol can containing HFC-134a used to
recharge an MVAC system to fall under the MVAC end-use and not the
aerosol propellant end-use. Under the SNAP lists for the MVAC end-use,
HFC-134a remains an acceptable substitute for servicing existing
systems. An aerosol can containing HFC-134a refrigerant and oil or leak
sealant, which is used to inject oil or repair leaks and to then
recharge MVAC systems, would also fit in the MVAC end-use and remains
acceptable for use on existing systems. These cans must have the unique
fittings required by SNAP for HFC-134a as a motor vehicle air
conditioner refrigerant. However, an aerosol can primarily intended to
inject additives, e.g., dye, rather than to add HFC-134a as a
refrigerant would be considered an aerosol, and use of HFC-134a as the
propellant would not be allowed as of July 20, 2016, under this final
rule. We do not consider this type of product to fit under the
commenter's request for products for servicing. Further, we disagree
with the commenter that it is necessary to have a propellant that is
the same as the refrigerant used in MVAC. We note that in the future,
HFO-1234yf or other refrigerant substitutes will be used as a
refrigerant in many vehicles; thus, in the future, automotive products
will need to be formulated to include propellants other than HFC-134a,
as well as formulated with propellants that are different from the
refrigerant used in the MVAC system.
    Comment: DuPont recommended that EPA establish use conditions
rather than narrowed use limits in implementing any changes of status
for HFCs used in aerosols. The commenter stated that acceptable
conditions of use are a relatively straightforward, self-implementing
regulatory approach that would limit the burden on aerosol companies,
most of which are small businesses, in complying with the changed
status. DuPont commented that narrowed use limits are a much more
administratively intensive approach for both the Agency and the
regulated community, and would impose significant burdens on these
small businesses, as well as on EPA.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that narrowed use limits are
more administratively burdensome. We are establishing use conditions in
the final rule.
(d) HFC Consumption and Climate Impact of Aerosols
    Comment: DuPont, Mexichem and the Consumer Specialty Products
Association (CSPA) commented on the relatively small contribution of
non-medical aerosols to HFC consumption, stating that it represents
between 1 and 2% of all HFC consumption. A producer of tire inflators
noted that tire inflators make up less than 0.2% of the current use of
HFC-134a. Mexichem stated that the continued availability of HFC-134a
for the small businesses and consumers that produce/rely on aerosol
products, will make no appreciable difference to EPA's goal of reducing
GHG emissions, because aerosol products account for only five percent
of total HFC consumption, and of that portion, only

24% serve non-medical purposes. This commenter suggested that EPA
should accommodate these uses through exemptions or a delay in the
``de-listing'' of HFC-134a. In contrast, Honeywell mentions that its
new technologies in the aerosol sector could reduce GHG emissions by
more than 6 MMTCO2eq per year in 2016.
    Response: EPA agrees that the aerosol sector comprises a small
portion of the total consumption of HFCs. However, we disagree that we
should not change the status of HFCs for the aerosol propellant end-use
because GHG emissions from that end-use are small. We note that any
given end-use within the 50-some SNAP end-uses may be relatively small
compared to the whole. Section 612(c) of the CAA directs EPA to publish
lists of substitutes prohibited for specific uses and safe alternatives
for specific uses. Thus, we make our decision by considering the
overall risk to human health and the environment posed by the available
or potentially available substitutes within each end-use, rather than
comparing risks in different end-uses to each other. We disagree with
the commenter's suggestion that EPA provide a later change of status
date for aerosol uses because of their relatively low GHG emissions.
Instead, EPA considers the time in which alternatives are available for
use, which involves the feasibility of implementing alternatives with
lower overall impacts on human health and the environment. EPA
appreciates the information provided by one commenter that indicates
that for the aerosol sector, the change in status for HFC-134a, HFC-
227ea, and HFC-125 could reduce GHG emissions by more than 6
MMTCO2eq per year.
(e) Small Business Impacts
    Comment: Falcon Safety Products comments that they transitioned
from HCFCs to HFCs in 1993, after which it began transitioning from
HFC-134a (with a GWP of 1,430) to HFC-152a (with a GWP of 124) in
compressed gas dusters, at a significant cost to its company, in terms
of retooling and installing new gas tanks and filing lines. Falcon
Safety Products supports the EPA's high-GWP emissions reduction
efforts, but believes that they should not negatively impact small
businesses or have a detrimental impact on the safety, affordability,
or efficacy of its product categories. Falcon Safety Products comments
that transitioning to HFO-1234ze(E) is very expensive for small
businesses like itself, in terms of changing tanks, filling lines, and
revising labels and marketing materials.
    Response: EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a change in
status for HFC-152a in aerosols. See preamble section V.A.3 for EPA's
status changes for HFCs in the aerosols sector, and supporting document
Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives (ICF, 2014f; ICF, 2015b).
(f) Imports
    Comment: CSPA expressed concern about noncomplying products from
offshore, which they state has been a large problem in the past. CSPA
stated that for retail products, more time is needed to adjust
contracts and to work with EPA to ensure that CSPA member complying
products are not displaced by non-complying products from offshore.
    Response: For aerosol products, the rule applies to imported
products as well as to manufacture of products in the United States. By
providing a full year after finalization of the rule before a change of
status is required for the HFCs covered by this action known to be in
current use for aerosol product manufacture, there is now additional
time to adjust contracts and work with retailers. EPA welcomes the
suggestion that we should work together with the aerosol industry and
retailers to avoid sale of non-complying products that might be
imported.

B. MVAC Systems for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor Vehicles

1. Background
    MVAC systems cool passenger cars, light-duty trucks, buses, and
rail vehicles. CFC-12 was the refrigerant historically used in the
manufacture of MVAC systems. HFC-134a, along with a number of other
substitutes, was found acceptable for use in light-duty vehicles in
1994 and at the same time, CFC-12 was being phased out of production.
By the mid-1990s, use of CFC-12 in manufacturing new light-duty
vehicles ceased in the United States and manufacturers of light-duty
vehicles uniformly decided to adopt HFC-134a for use in MVAC. Today,
while MVAC systems in some older vehicles may still be using CFC-12,
HFC-134a remains the dominant refrigerant used in light-duty vehicles
worldwide. More recently, additional alternatives for MVAC have been
listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions,\31\ including HFO-
1234yf, HFC-152a, and carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744).
Manufacturers are currently manufacturing or are actively developing
light-duty models using HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2. The
development of MVAC systems using lower-GWP refrigerants has been
encouraged by MVAC refrigerant requirements in Europe, where the
European Union Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC Directive)
mandates transition to a refrigerant with a GWP below 150 by January 1,
2017,\32\ and in the United States by the availability of credits under
the Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) Rule, described in further
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
    \32\ Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is
accessible at: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither HFC-134a nor any of the refrigerants listed more recently
is ozone-depleting. HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2 have much
lower GWPs than HFC-134a. HFO-1234yf has a GWP of 4, HFC-152a has a GWP
of 124, and CO2 (by definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC-
134a has a GWP of 1,430. HFC-134a and CO2 are nonflammable;
HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are flammable. All of the gaseous refrigerants
can cause asphyxiation at high concentrations. CO2
concentrations that could potentially result from refrigerant leaks
into the passenger compartment without mitigation measures could reduce
a driver's attentiveness and performance. HFC-134a and the three lower-
GWP alternatives are exempt from the definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs
to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. As
discussed in the NPRM, EPA has created use conditions for HFC-134a,
HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2 that establish unique fittings
and labeling requirements, and where appropriate, mitigate flammability
and toxicity risks.
    HFO-1234yf is being used in cars on the road today in the United
States. At the time of the proposal for this rule, EPA was aware that
HFO-1234yf was in use in MVAC systems in approximately nine \33\ models
in the United States produced by several manufacturers of light-duty
vehicles. EPA expects, and several commenters indicated that,
additional models have or will be introduced using HFO-1234yf systems
over the next several years. The results of a 2014 industry survey
submitted by

AAM and the Association of Global Automakers (Global Automakers) as a
public comment to this rule found that automobile manufacturers who
responded to the survey had plans in place to transition 90% of light-
duty models sold in the United States by or before MY 2021.\34\
According to comments submitted by Honeywell, there are approximately
28 different automobile brands selling around 60 different models
designed to use HFO-1234yf globally.\35\ DuPont stated that more than 7
million vehicles using HFO-1234yf are estimated to be on the road by
the end of 2015 globally, and in addition to infrastructure being in
place at vehicle assembly plants, equipment suppliers are already
producing the under hood, in factory, and service equipment.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Nelson, 2013. Gabe Nelson. Automakers' switch to new
refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate.
Automotive News. Available online at www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea.
    \34\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113.
    \35\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0170.
    \36\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA was aware in the 1990s that CO2 might be a
feasible alternative in this application, the state of research and
development indicated that it was not yet available because a design
had not yet been developed that would allow safe use in MVAC systems in
light-duty vehicles. More than 20 years later, EPA is still not aware
of current commercial use of CO2 in MVAC systems. However,
significant research and development are occurring in order to design a
system that will ensure CO2 can be used safely as an MVAC
refrigerant. At least one global manufacturer of light-duty vehicles
has announced its intention to commercialize vehicles that use
CO2 as the MVAC refrigerant in the next five years, and
perhaps as early as 2016.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Daimler, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, EPA found HFC-152a acceptable subject to use conditions.
MVAC systems using HFC-152a have not been commercialized to date;
however, EPA is aware of a demonstration project in India with a major
Indian motor vehicle manufacturer considering HFC-152a in secondary
loop MVAC systems.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Andersen et al., 2015. ``Secondary Loop Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Systems (SL-MACs). Using Low-Global Warming Potential
(GWP) Refrigerants in Leak-Tight Systems In Climates with High Fuel
Prices and Long, Hot and Humid Cooling Seasons. Building on the
Previous Success of Delphi, Fiat, General Motors, Volvo, Red Dot,
SAE Cooperative Research Projects, And Other Engineering Groups.''
MACS Briefing, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the use and development of HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and
CO2 MVAC systems, EPA is aware of ongoing research and
development which could ultimately result in future listings of
additional alternatives for light-duty MVAC systems. For example, since
the publication of the proposed rule, the SNAP program received a new
submission for another low-GWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP
below 150.
    There are also several blend refrigerants that have been listed as
acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions, since 1994, but
that have never been developed for use in MVAC or used in manufacture
of new vehicles. Today's action will change the status of these
refrigerant blends to unacceptable as of MY 2017 for use in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles. These substitutes include HFC blends
SP34E and R-426A (also known as RS-24) with GWPs of 1,380 and 1,508,
respectively, and the HCFC blends, R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend
Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or
GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta
(also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda
(also known as GHG-HP), with GWPs ranging from 1,480 to 2,340 and ODPs
ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. For simplicity, we refer to these
substitutes as ``the refrigerant blends'' in the following discussion.
    As noted above, none of these are currently used by the original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) nor are we aware that any models are
being developed for use with these substitutes. All of these
refrigerant blends have GWPs that are significantly higher than the
GWPs for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2 and the blends
containing HCFCs have ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. As discussed,
there are alternatives with lower overall risk to human health and the
environment that are available for this use.
2. What is EPA finalizing regarding MVAC systems for newly manufactured
light-duty motor vehicles?
    The change of status determinations for MVAC are summarized in the
following table:

              Table 3--Change of Status Decisions for MVAC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use                 Substitutes            Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle air             HFC-134a............  Unacceptable as of
 conditioning (new equipment                         Model Year (MY)
 in passenger cars and light-                        2021, except where
 duty trucks only).                                  allowed under a
                                                     narrowed use limit
                                                     through MY 2025.
                                                     Acceptable, subject
                                                     to narrowed use
                                                     limits, for
                                                     vehicles exported
                                                     to countries with
                                                     insufficient
                                                     servicing
                                                     infrastructure to
                                                     support other
                                                     alternatives, for
                                                     MY 2021 through MY
                                                     2025; Unacceptable
                                                     for all newly
                                                     manufactured
                                                     vehicles as of MY
                                                     2026.
Motor vehicle air             R-406A, R-414A (HCFC  Unacceptable as of
 conditioning (new equipment   Blend Xi, GHG-X4),    MY 2017.
 in passenger cars and light-  R-414B (HCFC Blend
 duty trucks only).            Omicron), HCFC
                               Blend Delta (Free
                               Zone), Freeze 12,
                               GHG-X5, HCFC Blend
                               Lambda (GHG-HP), R-
                               416A (FRIGC FR-12,
                               HCFC Blend Beta),
                               SP34E, R-426A (RS-
                               24, new
                               formulation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

that do not have infrastructure in place for servicing with other
acceptable refrigerants. This narrowed use limit will be in place
through MY 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Because the MVAC system used is so closely related to
vehicle design, we are using model years and not calendar years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This change of status applies to MVAC systems for passenger cars
and light-duty trucks as defined at 40 CFR 86.1803-01, referred to
jointly in this FRM as light-duty vehicles. As discussed in the NPRM
and above, three alternatives currently on the SNAP list of substitutes
that are acceptable, subject to use conditions--HFC-152a,
CO2, and HFO-1234yf--are in use or under various stages of
development and have significantly lower GWPs than HFC-134a. Use
conditions for these substitutes mitigate flammability and toxicity
risks, as relevant, and thus for the other factors EPA evaluates, there
was not an appreciable difference in risk. Because HFC-134a has a
significantly higher GWP than HFC-152a, CO2, and HFO-1234yf,
and because the use conditions for these three refrigerants ensure that
other risks are not appreciably higher than for HFC-134a, we are
listing HFC-134a as unacceptable for use in MVAC systems in new light-
duty vehicles in MY 2021.
    Without the use conditions these other substitutes do not pose
overall lower risk than HFC-134a. Thus, in deciding when the
unacceptability determination should apply, we considered when it would
be feasible for manufacturers to develop systems meeting the use
conditions. We proposed MY 2021 while also requesting comment on MY
2017, MY 2019 and MYs later than 2021. As explained in the NPRM, EPA
considers MY 2021 the date by which automobile manufacturers will be
able to redesign all vehicle models (including design of the MVAC
systems) for use with a lower-GWP alternative, consistent with the use
conditions.
    EPA previously considered the model year by which manufacturers of
light-duty vehicles would be able to transition away from use of HFC-
134a in support of the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for MY
2017-2025 light-duty vehicles issued jointly by EPA and NHTSA on August
28, 2012.\40\ As part of that rulemaking, EPA established the
availability of credits for the use of alternative refrigerants with
lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a towards meeting the LD GHG standards.
For today's action, EPA relied on the analysis conducted in support of
the LD GHG standards for MYs 2017-2025. The analysis considered the
practices used by the automobile manufacturing industry in introducing
new technologies into their vehicles through manufacturing redesign
changes and refresh cycles. For each vehicle model, manufacturers
establish a product development cycle over which they plan any
significant technological changes or ``redesigns'' to that vehicle.
Between the major redesign model years, they may make only minor
``refresh'' changes.\41\ At any point in time, a manufacturer may have
some vehicles at or approaching a major redesign point and others that
are earlier in their product cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 77 FR 62624, 62807-810 (October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR
25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue for MY
2012-2016 light-duty vehicles)
    \41\ See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for a more detailed
discussion of this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the LD GHG standards, EPA assumed that the transition
to alternative refrigerants would generally need to occur during
manufacturer model redesigns because of changes to the system design
that are needed to allow the safe use of these alternatives consistent
with the regulatory use conditions.\42\ EPA used the overall typical
industry redesign cycle of five model years to estimate how the
expected industry-wide transition to new refrigerants might occur.
Thus, EPA projected that the industry, in order to safely make use of
the credits offered for use of lower-GWP refrigerants, would fully
transition to these refrigerants over the time between MY 2017 and MY
2021, beginning with 20 percent transition in MY 2017, to be followed
by a 20 percent increase in substitution in each subsequent model year,
completing transition in MY 2021.\43\ EPA continues to rely on the
projections made in support of the LD GHG Rule as well as all other
information currently available to the Agency to support the decision
in this action that MY 2021 is the MY by which it will be feasible for
manufacturers to safely, but expeditiously, transition MVAC systems for
all light-duty vehicle models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ As previously noted, HFO-1234yf, CO2 and HFC-
152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and many
of the use conditions address the design of systems to account for
flammability or exposure.
    \43\ 77 FR 62720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed to modify the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable as
of MY 2021 for light-duty vehicles, and sought comment on MYs 2017,
2019, and MYs later than 2021. Some commenters argued that full
transition cannot occur until after MY 2021 because a limited number of
models do not currently have plans in place to transition by MY 2021.
For these models, commenters claimed that two full design cycles, which
could take 10 years, will be necessary in order to transition.
Commenters also provided information that the vehicle redesign is not
``locked-in'' until two years before the model year. EPA understands
that because MY 2016 vehicles are being produced in the 2015 calendar
year, this means most manufacturers have ``locked-in'' their planned
product designs for MY 2016 and MY 2017, or potentially even out to MY
2018.\44\ EPA did not receive information on why manufacturers cannot
redesign models that are not yet locked-in or why MVAC system redesign
cannot occur during a product refresh for those models that are locked-
in. According to the 2014 survey of the automobile industry,
manufacturers who participated in the study indicated that they already
expect to have transitioned 90% of the fleet by MY 2021. We did not
receive any information indicating it was not technically feasible to
also transition the remaining 10% of models by MY 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Global Automakers, in their comments on the NPRM, stated,
``These major model re-designs typically occur every five or six
model years, and are staggered year-by-year so that the
manufacturer's full product line is refreshed over time rather than
all at once. Because of the need to lock in suppliers to support
production well in advance, vehicle designs are usually locked in
about two years before the model year.'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA expressly requested specific information supporting claims that
a transition by MY 2021 would not be technically feasible because
specific model vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative
refrigerants by MY 2021. No such information was forthcoming. Although
one manufacturer did provide information on the increase in cost to
transition for a particular type of vehicle that was originally not
planned for a refrigerant change by MY 2021,\45\ commenters did not
submit specific information, confidential or otherwise, that showed it
would not be technically feasible for any specific model vehicles to
adjust their redesign cycle, switch refrigerants mid-cycle, or switch
during a refresh. After thoroughly reviewing all of the information in
the possession of the Agency, EPA did not find a technical basis for
extending the change of status date beyond MY 2021. We believe the
information in the record supports a conclusion that it is feasible for
vehicles and the associated MVAC systems to be redesigned to safely use
alternative refrigerants by MY 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ As explained in more detail in the responses to comments,
under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only
cost information that EPA considers as part of its SNAP review is
the ``cost and availability of the substitute.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also received comments on this rule requesting an earlier
change of

status date based on the availability of alternative refrigerants and
the fact that transition is already occurring in the United States and
globally. The available information indicated that many of the models
that have already transitioned are being sold in Europe rather than in
the United States. There is no information showing that it is
technically feasible for all or most models to transition to
alternatives safely by MY 2017 or MY 2019, which begin in 2016 and 2018
respectively. As discussed below in the responses to comments, MY 2021
is the earliest year that we find provides sufficient time to
transition refrigerant during vehicle redesign cycles or to plan a mid-
cycle transition to alternatives that ensures safety through compliance
with SNAP use conditions.
    We also considered the supply of the alternative refrigerants in
determining when alternatives would be available. At the time the
light-duty GHG rule was promulgated, there was a concern about the
potential supply of HFO-1234yf. Some commenters indicated that supply
is still a concern, while others, including two producers of HFO-
1234yf, commented that there will be sufficient supply. Moreover, some
automotive manufacturers are developing systems that can safely use
other substitutes, including CO2, for which there is not a
supply concern for the refrigerant. If some global light-duty motor
vehicle manufacturers use CO2 or another acceptable
alternative, additional volumes of HFO-1234yf that would have been used
by those manufacturers will then become available. Based on all of the
information before the Agency, EPA believes production plans for the
refrigerants are in place to make available sufficient supply no later
than MY 2021 to meet current and projected demand domestically as well
as abroad, including, but not limited to, the EU.
    Based on information the Agency possessed at the time of the
proposal and additional information submitted during the comment period
regarding the technical feasibility of transitioning the fleet of
light-duty vehicles and refrigerant supply, we conclude that MY 2021
represents the time by which other alternative refrigerants that pose
less overall risk than HFC-134a can be used in all light-duty vehicle
models consistent with the use conditions. Thus, MY 2021 is the time at
which those alternative refrigerants will be ``available'' within the
meaning of CAA section 612(c)(2).
(b) Refrigerant Blends
    In today's action, EPA is also finalizing changes to the listing
status of SP34E, R-426A, R-416A, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC
Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC
Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC
Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) from acceptable to unacceptable for
use in newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning in MY
2017, as proposed. The GWPs of HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and CO2
are significantly lower than those of the refrigerant blends and all
but two of these blends have ODPs, whereas HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and
CO2 do not. Moreover, if used consistent with the
established use conditions, the three lower-GWP refrigerants do not
pose greater overall risk than any of the refrigerant blends. At the
time of the proposal, EPA was not aware of current or projected future
use of these refrigerant blends in any MVAC systems in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles. We did not receive any comments
providing information suggesting current or projected use of these
refrigerant blends in any newly-manufactured light-duty MVAC systems
and received several comments supporting this aspect of the proposal.
EPA is changing the listing status for the refrigerant blends to
unacceptable for use in new light-duty vehicles as of MY 2017, the next
model year in production after this rule is issued.
3. MVAC Servicing
    EPA did not propose and is not making any changes that would alter
the ability to service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC-134a
or a refrigerant blend.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ EPA is also clarifying that thermostatic expansion valves
(TXVs) are not impacted by today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MVAC systems designed to use lower-GWP substitutes and installed in
vehicles will need to be serviced. Some stakeholders and commenters
have expressed a concern that the price differential between HFO-1234yf
and HFC-134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO-1234yf with
HFC-134a during servicing.\47\ HFC-134a is listed, and will remain
listed, as an acceptable refrigerant for retrofit of existing systems
designed to use CFC-12, but because of the use restrictions for
refrigerants listed as acceptable, it cannot be used as a retrofit for
MVAC systems using other alternatives. Specifically, the SNAP listings
for all MVAC refrigerants require the use of unique fittings for each
alternative refrigerant. These fittings are found at attachment points
on the car itself, on all recovery and recycling equipment, on can taps
and other charging equipment, and on all refrigerant containers. The
purpose of these fittings is to prevent cross-contamination. Using an
adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different
refrigerant is a violation of these use conditions. If used properly,
the unique fittings will not allow for the introduction of HFC-134a
refrigerant to an HFO-1234yf system. Furthermore, the SNAP regulations
prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to `top-off' a system that uses
another refrigerant and the SNAP use conditions for refrigerants in
this end-use require that the original refrigerant be recovered, in
accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of the CAA, prior
to charging with a substitute (40 CFR 82.34). Thus, the SNAP use
conditions prohibit adding a new refrigerant to the system without
first recovering the refrigerant already in the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See also 77 FR 62807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For vehicles for which the manufacturer counts air conditioning
credits toward its LD GHG compliance, the MVAC systems (or elements of
those systems) are considered emission-related components as defined in
40 CFR 86.1803. This designation includes provisions for emission-
related warranty, requirements that they operate properly for the
specified useful life, as well as tampering restrictions. For example,
if a manufacturer claims air conditioning credits for an MVAC system
that uses a lower-GWP refrigerant on a particular vehicle as part of
the LD GHG program, removing and replacing that refrigerant with any
other refrigerant that has a higher GWP, including HFC-134a, would be
considered tampering with an emission-related component under Title II
of the CAA.
4. Would this action affect EPA's LD GHG Rule?
    In their comments, AAM stated that ``EPA should state clearly and
unequivocally in the final rule that EPA is committed to continuing the
A/C credits through MY 2025 and beyond.'' Global Automakers made a
similar request. EPA in fact stated in the NPRM, and reiterates here,
that nothing in this final rule changes the regulations establishing
the availability of air conditioning refrigerant credits under the GHG
standards for MY 2017-2025, found at 40 CFR 86.1865-12 and 1867-12.
Those standards and credits are established by rule and EPA did not
reopen that rule in this proceeding.

Thus, manufacturers can generate credits from use of lower-GWP
alternative refrigerants through MY 2025, and the ability to generate
and use those credits towards compliance with the LD GHG standards will
not change under this final rule. \48\ We do note further, however,
that the LD GHG standards do not require any specific means of
compliance, so that manufacturers have the flexibility to either switch
refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means. If a
manufacturer chooses to comply with the LD GHG standard by a strategy
not involving refrigerant substitution, for MY 2021 and later vehicles,
this final rule would still require the manufacturer to use refrigerant
other than HFC-134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 77 FR 62804-809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. How will the change of status apply to exports of MVAC systems?
(a) SNAP Interpretation
    Under 40 CFR 82.174, no person may introduce a refrigerant
substitute into interstate commerce without notifying EPA 90 days in
advance. Our longstanding interpretation of this regulatory provision
is that the notification requirement applies to products manufactured
in the United States and exported. EPA has defined interstate commerce
in our labeling regulations at 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: ``The distribution
or transportation of any product between one state, territory,
possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory,
possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture
of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or the
District of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is
introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from
the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a
warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for
sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs
clearance.'' While this definition appears in EPA's labeling
regulations, EPA's practice is to use it for purposes of the SNAP
program as well. See e.g., 76 FR 78846, December 20, 2011 (``This
definition applies to any appliances produced in the United States,
including appliances that will be exported.'')
    In addition, under the SNAP regulations EPA regulates ``use'' in
the United States and ``use'' is defined at 40 CFR 82.172 to include
``use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end
user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for
other subsequent uses.'' Charging a MVAC system with refrigerant during
the manufacturing of a vehicle in the United States is considered a
``use'' under the SNAP program. This is consistent with our statement
in the initial SNAP rule that ``Substitutes manufactured within the
U.S. exclusively for export are subject to SNAP since the definition of
use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs
within the United States.'' (59 FR 13052; March 18, 1994)
(b) Narrowed Use Limit for MVAC
    Based on comments received, we understand that certain countries to
which vehicles are exported do not, and may not for some period of
time, have in place the infrastructure for servicing MVAC systems with
flammable refrigerants. Because this raises concerns with the safe
usage of HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf, we have determined that there may be
circumstances in which alternatives that pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment will not be available for MVAC systems
in those vehicles by MY 2021. Therefore, EPA is providing a narrowed
use limit for MVAC systems that applies to vehicles being exported to
countries that do not have infrastructure to service vehicles
containing the alternatives found to pose less overall risk.
    Under a narrowed use limit, the manufacturer needs to ascertain
that these other alternatives are not technically feasible because of
the lack of infrastructure for servicing with the alternative
refrigerants and document the results of their analysis. See 40 CFR
82.180(b)(3). Users are not required to report the results of their
investigations to EPA, but must retain the documentation in their files
for the purpose of demonstrating compliance.
    Documentation should include descriptions of:
     Products in which the substitute is needed;
     Substitutes examined and rejected for the destined
country;
     Reason for rejection of other alternatives; and
     Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
    Based on the comments received, EPA does not anticipate that a
significant number of countries will lack the necessary infrastructure
needed to service MVAC systems with the alternatives for which the
equipment is designed by MY 2021. Also, based on the comments received,
we do not believe that an extensive additional amount of time will be
needed before the necessary infrastructure is in place. Therefore,
under this final rule, the narrowed use limit will no longer be
available beginning with MY 2026 vehicles.
6. How is EPA responding to comments concerning this end-use?
(a) Timeline
    Comment: EPA received several comments on the current and projected
pace of adoption of alternative refrigerants. Several commenters stated
that transition to HFO-1234yf is already occurring. Honeywell commented
that there are approximately 28 different automobile brands selling
around 60 different models designed to use HFO-1234yf globally and that
more than a dozen models are being manufactured by U.S. manufacturers.
Other commenters provided similar statistics. One of these commenters,
DuPont, estimated that globally, more than 7 million vehicles using
alternatives other than HFC-134a will be on the road by the end of
2015. They also commented that in addition to infrastructure being in
place at vehicle assembly plants, equipment suppliers are already
producing the under-hood, in-factory, and service equipment necessary
for the transition.
    AAM and Global Automakers ``conducted an industry survey to create
a `non-confidential' blinded summary of individual manufacturer
refrigerant changeover plans.'' \49\ Ten automobile manufacturers,
representing 85% of light-duty vehicles sold in the United States in MY
2013, submitted information. The survey found that out of 139 vehicle
platforms, manufacturers currently plan to transition 90% of the models
by MY 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA recognizes some manufacturers have already
transitioned to use of HFO-1234yf in a limited number of models. In the
United States the transition began in a small number of MY 2013
vehicles, and increased in MY 2014 \50\ and MY 2015. As of the
beginning of 2015, the U.S. fleet was continuing on a trajectory that
we expect to achieve 20% adoption by MY 2017, which aligns with EPA's
projection in the supporting documents for the light-duty GHG rule.\51\
While adoption is occurring in the United States, most of the estimated
7 million vehicles mentioned by DuPont are in Europe where the EU MAC
Directive

mandates transition to refrigerant with a GWP below 150 by January 1,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Nelson, 2013.
    \51\ 77 FR 62720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency recognizes and appreciates the factual information
supplied by the commenters, including the information shared as a
result of the 2014 industry-led survey conducted by AAM and Global
Automakers. EPA's responses to the comments submitted by AAM and Global
Automakers within the context of the survey are provided below. EPA
relied on all of the information in our possession as we made our
decision on the change of status for HFC-134a.
    Comment: Several commenters noted that the transition from CFC-12
to HFC-134a was achieved in about three to four model years and claimed
that the transition from HFC-134a to lower-GWP alternatives could also
happen in the same timeframe.
    Response: Regarding the comments suggesting that the current
transition could occur in a similar period of time to the transition
from CFC-12 to HFC-134a for MVAC, EPA disagrees because the system
changes required for this transition are more extensive than those
required for the transition from CFC-12 to HFC-134a. It is EPA's
understanding, as confirmed by comments, such as those from the
automobile associations, that many models will need to transition
during a redesign cycle.
    EPA understands that many model types will require hardware changes
that normally occur during a redesign, unlike the transition from CFC-
12 to HFC-134a. HFO-1234yf has a slightly lower cooling efficiency than
that of HFC-134a; offsetting this efficiency difference usually
requires hardware changes, specifically the incorporation of an
internal heat exchanger and potentially other system adjustments, which
in some cases could result in changes to overall air conditioning
system design and layout. CO2 MVAC systems will require
significantly more hardware changes, which in many cases is expected to
result in changes to the system design and layout. This transition
contrasts with the case of the transition in the 1990s from CFC-12 to
HFC-134a, where the systems did not require changes to the components
of the MVAC system, besides the fittings, allowing manufacturers to
switch many vehicles mid-cycle. Some models were already being
manufactured using HFC-134a as early as 1992, with a significant
proportion already being manufactured with HFC-134a by the time that
EPA listed it as acceptable in the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13044;
March 18, 1994).
    Comment: EPA received several comments related to the proposed time
for changing the listing status of HFC-134a in MVAC. Several commenters
support accelerating the proposed transition to earlier than MY 2021,
and recommended implementation dates of MYs 2017, 2018, and 2019. Many
cited the progression of transition in the EU, as well as the
transition already seen in the United States as a result of EPA's LD
GHG Rule in support of an earlier transition timeframe. Honeywell, a
producer of HFO-1234yf, commented ``that given manufacturers'
experience in the EU and United States there is already an
understanding and capability to transition vehicles for U.S. car
production'' and they recommended a transition date of MY 2018. DuPont,
another producer of HFO-1234yf, stated ``there are no technology,
supply or engineering barriers to rapid transition'' and recommended a
transition date of MY 2019. EIA commented that there is no reason to
delay the change in status and recommended MY 2017 as the
implementation date. Two commenters, NRDC and IGSD, jointly commented
that EPA should adopt MY 2017, a deadline that would be set based on
the leaders in the industry that are already using safer chemicals,
rather than the laggards. Effective Altruism at the University of
Maryland commented that HFC-134a should be listed as unacceptable as of
January 2017, and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) commented
that MY 2018 is a reasonable timeframe for the unacceptable listing to
apply.
    Some commenters stated that aligning with the EU transition by
January 1, 2017, will signal to the international community that the
United States is taking steps to ``promote the rapid deployment of
climate-friendly and safe alternatives in motor vehicle air
conditioning'' as agreed to in the Leaders' statement at the G-7 Summit
in June 2014. Some commenters suggested an accelerated transition date
is needed to achieve the President's environmental goals, and would
have a significant trickle-down effect in other markets around the
world, specifically commenting that selecting MY 2017 would encourage
Japan to ``set the same global motor vehicle air-conditioning phaseout
schedule for HFC-134a.'' Also, NRDC and IGSD commented that ``matching
the MY 2017 European schedule is protecting against American automakers
finding themselves unprepared when other markets close their doors to
automobiles made with HFC-134a.'' Some commenters stated that the
transition can be achieved by an earlier date and that greater
environmental benefits would be achieved with an earlier transition.
These commenters stated that MY 2021 would not provide benefits beyond
those achieved under ``business as usual.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that suggested that an
earlier transition year would result in greater environmental benefits
to the extent that it would result in earlier reduction of use of HFC-
134a in MVAC. However, in considering whether other listed alternatives
are available that pose lower overall risk, EPA needs to consider
whether there are any technical challenges that would prevent use of
those alternatives consistent with the use conditions which are
necessary to ensure that they pose lower risk than HFC-134a. EPA does
not agree that a safe, smooth transition in compliance with the use
conditions required for the lower-GWP alternatives can be made for all
vehicles prior to MY 2021 in the United States. This is based on the
need to transition most vehicles during redesign cycles, which in many
cases requires hardware changes, as discussed above. EPA has also
considered the potential benefits to aligning our domestic transition
to the EU's, in light of the fact that the transition to MVAC systems
using one of the three alternatives began earlier than we predicted,
and in light of the adequate supply of alternatives. Based on our
current understanding and the information provided by commenters,
especially the automobile manufacturers, the Agency has concluded that
MY 2021 is the earliest date by which all model vehicles can be safely
transitioned to lower-GWP alternatives in accordance with the use
conditions.
    We note that even though we are establishing MY 2021 as the date by
which HFC-134a will be unacceptable,\52\ EPA expects health and safety
benefits will be realized sooner, as manufacturers will be designing
new models each year using lower-GWP refrigerants for MVAC. The
benefits analysis provided with the NPRM (EPA, 2014) and the analysis
associated with this final action (EPA, 2015b) use a ``business as
usual'' scenario that assumes a transition in refrigerant for MVAC will
occur for vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States, in order
to be consistent with the LD GHG Rule, and that assumes no regulatory
action, and thus no benefits, under SNAP. However, our analysis of

the effects of a change of status for MVAC as of MY 2021 shows some
benefits beyond the ``business as usual'' scenario, reflecting the use
of lower-GWP refrigerants in exported vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ As noted elsewhere, we are creating a narrowed use limit
for vehicles exported to countries without adequate facilities for
servicing vehicles with the other acceptable alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While not relevant to EPA's decision regarding the appropriate date
for changing the status of HFC-134a for use in MVAC, EPA also agrees
its action to change the status of HFC-134a will send a valuable signal
to the international community regarding the continued use of high-GWP
alternatives.
    Comment: NRDC and IGSD suggested that EPA set a status change date
as of MY 2017, and address any sub-sectors that have problems meeting a
transition date earlier than MY 2021 through a narrowed use limit. EIA
recommended transition in MY 2017 and suggested EPA grant a limited
exemption until MY 2021 for companies who publicly pledge to convert to
CO2 systems.
    Response: EPA is not finalizing today's rule with a change of
status for HFC-134a as of MY 2017, as recommended by these commenters.
As discussed above, it is our understanding that because of the
necessary changes to hardware, manufacturers will need to transition
most vehicles during a redesign cycle. Although in some cases where
less extensive hardware changes are required, it will be possible to
transition mid-cycle, it is not reasonable to expect that most
manufacturers will be able to do so. Achieving a transition by MY 2017,
approximately one year from now, would not be feasible for any
manufacturers that had not already started transition planning before
issuance of the NPRM, and in such a circumstance, we do not consider it
reasonable to require compliance based on actions that would have been
necessary before issuance of the NPRM. Rather than setting a change of
status date that we expect manufacturers may have difficulty meeting,
we are setting the change of status date at the earliest model year by
which the best information indicates that all model vehicles can be
safely transitioned to lower-GWP alternatives in accordance with the
use conditions.
    Concerning EIA's suggestion for a limited exemption until MY 2021
for companies who publicly pledge to convert to CO2 systems,
because we have set MY 2021 as the status change date for all vehicles,
there is no need for an exemption related to adoption of CO2
MVAC systems.
    Comment: A private citizen commented in support of a MY 2021 change
of status.
    Response: EPA is finalizing a MY 2021 transition date for the
reasons previously stated.
    Comment: Several commenters supported transition in MY 2025 or
later, including AAM, Global Automakers, NADA and Mexichem. The
majority of these commenters stated that reengineering and system
design requirements for alternative refrigerants require significant
lead time and necessitate transition during a vehicle redesign cycle.
Commenters stated that two full design cycles lasting beyond MY 2021
may be necessary in order to complete the transition due to timing of
publication of the proposed status change rule, and the relationship of
that to where manufacturers are in the redesign cycle for each model.
Global Automakers commented that the vehicle redesign cycle is usually
locked in about two years before the model year. Commenters supporting
a transition date of MY 2025 or later also commented that a later date
would align with the existing LD GHG Rule with no measurable
environmental impact at stake, and address supply concerns. With regard
to the 10% of vehicle platforms identified in the 2014 industry survey
as planning to transition after MY 2021, AAM, and Global Automakers
commented that those are not all small volume platforms and the
production will account for a small, but not insignificant percentage
of production after MY 2021.
    Response: Regarding comments by AAM, Global Automakers, and
Mexichem suggesting that two full design cycles, extending past MY
2021, would be needed to transition all vehicle models to alternative
refrigerants, the commenters failed to provide any specific, technical
support for such a claim. EPA appreciates the submission of 2014 survey
data indicating that automobile manufacturers have plans in place to
transition 90% of vehicle models to alternative refrigerants by MY
2021. However, the commenters did not provide support or an explanation
of why it will not be technically feasible to transition each of the
remaining individual models by MY 2021. According to commenters, the
vehicle redesign is locked in two years before the model year;
therefore, time still exists to make the necessary alterations to MY
2017, MY 2018 and later vehicles. While we believe it would be possible
for the majority of models to transition by MY 2021 during a redesign
cycle, EPA is aware that sometimes it is technically feasible to
transition between redesign cycles during a mid-cycle redesign, or
refresh. A manufacturer shared with EPA information claimed as
confidential that more than one vehicle model in the United States has
been transitioned to HFO-1234yf, in compliance with the SNAP use
conditions, between scheduled redesign cycles. Although it would not be
feasible to expect most models to transition mid-redesign cycle, for
such a small number of models, this is likely to be feasible. EPA did
not receive any information that provides specific and sufficient
information to show that transition by MY 2021 is not technically
feasible for any specific model vehicle. One automobile manufacturer
provided information claimed as confidential concerning vehicles used
for a specific purpose but did not provide sufficient justification
that transition by MY 2021 was not feasible for technical reasons. EPA
is aware of two automobile manufacturers that will have the majority of
their U.S. fleet transitioned by MY 2016. EPA is also aware of several
automobile manufacturers intending to transition all of their vehicle
models by MY 2021.
    While the AAM and Global Automakers survey does not indicate the
impetus for the transition plans for the various manufacturers and
models, EPA assumes the plans were adopted in response to the credits
offered under EPA's LD GHG Rule. EPA further assumes these transition
plans were based on strategic utilization of credits available under
the rule as a flexibility measure, rather than technical feasibility of
transition, and EPA did not receive any information to the contrary.
    Comment: AAM stated that a MY 2025 transition date would
accommodate ``run-out'' models. ``Run[hyphen]out'' models are defined
as models that, for a variety of reasons, will continue to be produced
and marketed without any updates to major vehicle sub[hyphen]systems,
including AC systems. Commenters indicated that to require an early end
of production for such run[hyphen]out models would increase the levels
of stranded investment associated with ending the production of such
models prematurely.
    Response: Commenters did not indicate what portion of the vehicle
models with current plans to transition in MYs after 2021 is made up of
``run-out'' models, if any, as compared to other models captured in the
results of the industry survey. In the proposed rule, EPA requested
comment on changing the status of HFC-134a in a MY later than 2021,
``including specific information supporting claims that a transition by
MY 2021 would not be technically feasible because specific model
vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by
MY 2021.'' EPA did not receive this type of

information. EPA is not aware of any technical barriers that preclude
transition of ``run-out'' models by MY 2021 given the time available
between now and MY 2021 to implement a transition for these models.
    Comment: Commenters indicated the challenges associated with
designing MVAC systems to use alternative refrigerants, especially
CO2. AAM provided information on the hardware changes and
component supply, as well as industry standards needed for MVAC systems
to use CO2. AAM commented that ``a MY 2025 date would allow
extra time for commercialization of CO2 MVACs.''
    Response: EPA is aware that CO2 systems require
significantly more complex redesign and hardware development than HFO-
1234yf systems, primarily because the operating pressures of these
systems will be significantly higher than that of a HFC-134a system.
Therefore, EPA understands that incorporation of CO2 MVAC
systems would most likely need to occur during product redesign, not
product refresh. At least one manufacturer has stated that it plans on
using CO2 systems. These systems are currently in prototype
phase, and we understand that there may be significant technical
hurdles yet to overcome. However, those pursuing this option have
announced plans to introduce cars in Europe with CO2 MVAC
systems as early as MY 2017. This timing allows for several years after
initial deployment of these systems for automobile manufacturers to
redesign models prior to the MY 2021 date in the United States.
    Given the transition plans in place, EPA disagrees that other
alternatives, including CO2, cannot be used consistent with
the use conditions by MY 2021. However, even if a particular
alternative could not be used in some or any vehicles consistent with
the use conditions by MY 2021, for the reasons already provided, we
have determined that other alternatives can be safely used consistent
with the use conditions by MY 2021. Because alternatives that pose
lower risk than HFC-134a will be available by MY 2021, we do not
believe there is a basis for selecting a later date for changing the
status of HFC-134a.
    Comment: AAM raised concerns about the transition of manufacturing
facilities and the need to modify or upgrade refrigerant storage
facilities and charging stations on assembly lines. Also, the
commenters stated that because many manufacturing facilities produce
multiple vehicle models, some plants may not have the space necessary
to accommodate infrastructure for both refrigerants.
    Response: EPA understands that there are challenges associated with
transitioning refrigerants. EPA is also aware that prior to issuance of
the NPRM, manufacturers were planning a gradual, model-by-model
transition, in which some models would be filled with HFC-134a while
others are filled with HFO-1234yf or another alternative refrigerant at
the same plant.
    Comment: In the proposed rule EPA requested specific information
supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021 would not be technically
feasible because specific model vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely
use alternative refrigerants by MY 2021. AAM commented stating that
``EPA did not properly consider confidentially submitted information
that alternatives will not be available until after MY 2021.''
    Response: EPA has considered information provided to the Agency and
claimed as confidential as support for this and other decisions that
are part of this action. As described elsewhere in this section, EPA
did not receive sufficient information, whether claimed confidential or
not, to conclude that other alternatives cannot be used consistent with
their use conditions by MY 2021.
    Comment: Many commenters provided comments about the impact the
supply of acceptable alternatives could have on the timeline for
transition. Several commenters believe there is enough supply of
alternatives to transition prior to MY 2021.
    The comments submitted by Honeywell and DuPont, current suppliers
of HFO-1234yf, indicate that both companies are confident in their
ability to supply enough HFO-1234yf to support a full transition by MY
2018 and MY 2019, respectively. According to comments submitted by
Honeywell ``there is one commercial scale HFO-1234yf production plant
operating today in China, a second one is expected to be commissioned
in the first half of 2015 in Japan via a strategic supply relationship
between Honeywell and Asahi Glass Company Ltd, and a third world-scale
plant will be commissioned by Honeywell by the end of 2016 in Geismar,
Louisiana.'' DuPont submitted similar comments on announced or planned
production capacity in Asia, the United States and Europe by multiple
producers, including DuPont, Honeywell, and Asahi Glass Co. (AGC),
indicating that production will begin in 2015-2017 at most of these
facilities.
    CARB commented that they understand that chemical manufacturers
expect to be capable of providing a sufficient supply of HFO-1234yf for
complete U.S. transition away from HFC-134a starting with MY 2018. In
support of a MY 2017 transition date, NRDC and IGSD commented that the
supply of alternatives (HFO-1234yf and others) is not a constraint;
they believe EPA correctly recognizes that ``production plans for the
refrigerant appear to be in place to make it available in volumes that
meet current and projected domestic auto industry demand.''
    Response: EPA appreciates information provided by commenters
supporting EPA's understanding at the time of the proposal that
sufficient supply will be available to support a transition in MY 2021.
The companies producing HFO-1234yf commented that sufficient supplies
should be available for MY 2018 or 2019, indicating that there will be
sufficient supplies prior to MY 2021. In addition, the commenter
submitted additional information to the Agency that they claimed as
confidential and that further supports that adequate supply will be
available by MY 2021.
    Comment: Several commenters supported MY 2025 or later, expressing
concerns about ongoing uncertainty in sufficient supply of HFO-1234yf
for a full U.S. transition by MY 2021 due to limited production, as
well as lack of competition, artificial constraints, and other factors.
Arkema commented that they estimate the global demand for HFO-1234yf in
2021 will be around 45,000 metric tons and they believe Honeywell and
DuPont will only be able to supply half that amount. Arkema commented
that the supply shortage would cause a serious dislocation in supply
and demand (i.e., willing buyers would be unable to find willing
sellers of HFO-1234yf) and having only two suppliers would create
highly restricted competitive conditions. Arkema also commented that
the manufacturer has not publicly announced production capacities for
the coming years and EPA has not provided reliable evidence, and none
exists, that adequate volumes of HFO-1234yf are or will be available to
``meet current and projected domestic auto industry demand.'' Global
Automakers commented that it is too soon to conclude that there will be
adequate supplies of alternative refrigerants to meet U.S. demand as
well as other possible demands for alternative refrigerants worldwide
by MY 2021.
    Response: Based on EPA's understanding of refrigerant supply at the
time of the proposed rule, the information received from commenters

in response to the proposed rule, and information claimed as
confidential and provided during meetings, EPA remains confident that
sufficient supply of alternatives will exist to transition MVAC systems
in all new light-duty vehicles manufactured in the United States by MY
2021. EPA is fully aware of delays with the launch of some production
facilities prior to the implementation of the European Union
regulations. However, EPA notes that those facilities are now online
and are producing supplies well in excess of what is needed to meet EU
demand. They are not currently operating at full capacity. Moreover,
Honeywell and DuPont, two producers of HFO-1234yf, provided information
regarding plans to launch additional facilities, one of which will be a
joint effort between Honeywell and a third chemical manufacturer,
AGC.\53\ For these reasons, EPA does not agree with commenters that
there will be an insufficient supply of alternatives by MY 2021.
Further, EPA is also aware of public announcements by Arkema indicating
planned production in 2017 of HFO-1234yf.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ AGC, 2014. ``AGC to Supply Honeywell with HFO-1234yf--New-
generation Automobile Refrigerant,'' January 23, 2014. This document
is accessible at: https://www.agc.com/english/news/2014/0123e.pdf.
    \54\ Arkema, 2013. ``Arkema is announcing the construction of
production capacities for new refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf,''
September 4, 2013. This document is accessible at: www.arkema.com/en/media/news/news-details/Arkema-is-announcing-the-construction-of-production-capacities-for-new-refrigerant-fluorinated-gas-1234yf/?back=true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters indicated concern because available supply of
HFO-1234yf will need to go to Europe for the January 1, 2017,
transition before automobile manufacturers will have access to supply
to transition in the United States. These commenters believe a MY 2025
or later transition date would allow sufficient time to alleviate
supply concerns.
    Response: EPA does not agree that the January 1, 2017, transition
in the EU will limit supply in the United States. The SNAP transition
date is several years after the transition in the EU will be complete
and, as noted above, the manufacturers of HFO-1234yf have provided
information supporting that supply will be adequate by MY 2021. EPA
does acknowledge that supply in the United States would likely not be
adequate by MY 2017. The main suppliers of HFO-1234yf stated as much in
their comments.
    Comment: Mexichem commented that the ``pending re-examination
proceedings involving sham patents registered by Honeywell, continue to
be a barrier to the effective development of HFO-1234yf.'' Arkema
commented that EPA overlooks the considerable efforts that Honeywell
has undertaken to maintain its exclusive control over the manufacture
of HFO-1234yf. Arkema commented that ``Although legal proceedings and
investigations regarding Honeywell and DuPont's exclusive control of
HFO-1234yf are underway at the European Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and elsewhere, those
proceedings and investigations are not yet resolved.'' Arkema stated
that ``until those investigations are resolved, Honeywell and DuPont
will control the manufacture of HFO-1234yf and will impose restrictive
supply conditions, all with the apparent de facto endorsement of the
EPA in violation of the Sixth Principle to ``not endorse products
manufactured by specific companies''. Arkema adds that this will slow
the transition to HFO-1234yf and add to its cost.
    Response: EPA is aware that proceedings and investigations are
occurring related to the patents on HFO-1234yf; however, EPA is not
involved and cannot comment on these proceedings. EPA believes that
based on the information available today, sufficient supply will be
available of HFO-1234yf for a full transition in MY 2021 for new light-
duty MVAC systems even if all manufacturers choose to use HFO-1234yf.
Regarding the comment that this action is in violation of the ``Sixth
Principle,'' we disagree that EPA endorsed HFO-1234yf or the companies
producing it by its inclusion on the list of acceptable substitutes for
the MVAC end-use at issue in this action. HFO-1234yf is one of three
acceptable lower-GWP alternatives and EPA does not believe it is
appropriate to assume manufacturers will use only HFO-1234yf. In
addition to HFO-1234yf, CO2 and HFC-152a are listed as
acceptable and the manufacturers can choose which substitute they wish
to use in their product. EPA does not recommend or require the use of a
specific refrigerant and does not endorse products manufactured by
specific companies. At least one global motor vehicle manufacturer has
announced plans to have cars with MVAC systems using CO2 on
the road in Europe by MY 2017; we are not aware of any reason why such
models would not be introduced into the United States by MY 2021. EPA
is also aware of a demonstration project planned by a major Indian
motor vehicle manufacturer considering HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf in MVAC
systems using secondary loops (Andersen et al., 2015). As noted
elsewhere in this final action, EPA is aware of ongoing research and
development which could ultimately result in future listings of
additional alternatives and notes that since the issuance of the
proposal the Agency received a submission for one additional MVAC
alternative.
(b) Interaction With EPA's LD GHG Rule
    Comment: EPA received several comments related to the interaction
of this rulemaking with EPA's LD GHG Standards. Commenters requesting a
MY 2025 or later transition, including AAM, Global Automakers, the
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and Mexichem, commented
that the later date would preserve the integrity and commitments made
under the GHG program, preserve the compliance flexibilities granted to
automakers and provide the same environmental benefits. Commenters
stated that a MY 2025 transition allows for full compliance
flexibility, in addition to credits, allotted to manufacturers in the
vehicle GHG rulemakings throughout MYs 2012-2025. AAM requested that
EPA ``state clearly and unequivocally that EPA is committed to
continuing the A/C credits through MY 2025 and beyond'' and asked EPA
to include this certainty in the regulatory text of the final SNAP rule
and not just in the preamble.
    Response: Nothing in this final rule changes the regulations
establishing the availability of air conditioning refrigerant credits
under the GHG standards for MY 2017-2025, found at 40 CFR 86.1865-12
and 1867-12. The stringency of the standards remains unchanged. As
stated above, manufacturers may still generate and utilize credits for
substitution of HFC-134a through the 2025 model year. Further, this
final rule is also not in conflict with the Supplemental Notice of
Intent (76 FR 48758, August 9, 2011) that described plans for EPA and
NHTSA's joint proposal for model years 2017-2025, since EPA's GHG
program continues to provide the level of air conditioning credits
available to manufacturers as specified in that Notice. Specifically,
the Supplemental Notice of Intent states that ``(m)anufacturers will be
able to earn credits for improvements in air conditioning . . .
systems, both for efficiency improvements . . . and for leakage or
alternative, lower-GWP refrigerants used (reduces [HFC] emissions).''
76 FR at 48761. These credits remain available under the light-

duty program at the level specified in the Supplemental Notice of
Intent, and using the same demonstration mechanisms set forth in that
Notice. Moreover, the supporting assessment for this rulemaking is
consistent with the assumptions set forth in the 2017-2025 LD GHG Rule
that automakers would switch to lower-GWP refrigerants by MY 2021.
Indeed, the standards' stringency was predicated on 100% substitution
beginning in MY 2021.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See id. at 62,779; see also id. at 62778 and 62805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not adding a statement to the regulatory text in the final
SNAP rule. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, and
reiterated here: ``The light duty standards do provide that
manufacturers can generate credits from use of alternative refrigerants
with lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a through MY 2025, and the ability
to generate and use those credits towards compliance with the light
duty standards will not change if this action is finalized as
proposed.'' (79 FR 46142)
(c) Environmental Impacts
    Comment: Several commenters addressed the climate impacts of the
proposed HFC-134a unacceptability determination for MVAC. The vast
majority of commenters on this section of the rule support a transition
to climate-friendly alternatives in MVAC due to HFC-134a's high global
warming potential. Several commenters supporting transition prior to MY
2021 related these impacts to the proposed timeline for the transition
and we addressed those comments above (e.g., that if an earlier change
of status date were adopted, there would be additional environmental
benefits). Commenters requesting a transition date of MY 2025 or later
commented that the environmental benefits of a delayed change of status
date will be substantially the same as a MY 2021 transition because the
majority of vehicles will transition by MY 2021 as a result of the LD
GHG Rule. These commenters stated that any benefits of a MY 2021 or
earlier transition may be averaged out against tailpipe emissions, and
could result in automobile manufacturers slowing other fleet GHG
reductions. DuPont commented that it is unlikely that any additional
credits achieved under the LD GHG regulations from a MY 2019 transition
date would be fully offset and instead there would likely be net
additional CO2 reductions over those achieved by current
regulations. Arkema commented that there is no significant climate risk
reduction to be had from any SNAP action on HFC-134a in the MVAC
sector, and that no further control, beyond that imposed by the LD GHG
Rule, is necessary.
    Response: EPA anticipates that if a change of status date earlier
than MY 2021 were shown to be feasible and thus were adopted,
additional environmental benefits would be gained beyond those
accounted for under EPA's analysis to support the LD GHG Rule.\56\ In
EPA's analysis of the environmental benefits associated with the
proposed and final change of status rule, EPA assumed no environmental
benefits from domestic transition of MVAC systems in light-duty
vehicles given that the environmental benefits resulting from a full
transition by MY 2021 were accounted for in the LD GHG Rule. The LD GHG
Rule anticipated that transition for MVAC systems manufactured for use
in the United States, while continuing to provide flexibility to
manufacturers until MY 2025. This rule, however, ensures a complete
transition away from HFC-134a by MY 2021 to a refrigerant that reduces
the overall risks to human health and the environment for all MVAC
systems manufactured in the United States, including those exported to
other countries,\57\ and those imported into the United States. The
benefits analysis includes these benefits. Also, the analysis was
updated to reflect the potential impact of the narrowed use limits in
this final rule that allow continued use of HFC-134a for vehicles
exported to countries with inadequate infrastructure to support safer
alternatives. For additional information on environmental benefits
analysis conducted for this rule, see the supporting document ``Climate
Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule'' (EPA, 2014; EPA,
2015b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Chapter 7 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final
Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-
12-016, August 2012.
    \57\ Except those vehicles subject to the narrowed use limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Arkema commented that the NPRM deprives U.S. plants of
existing global business in HFC-134a without yielding any environmental
benefit. Arkema also noted that EPA said, as part of its regulations
for HCFCs, that production of HCFC-22 for export from the U.S. might
displace production in other countries that do not control their
emissions as stringently as U.S. chemical producers. Arkema stated,
``if U.S. production of HCFCs reduces overall environmental risks, then
so does U.S. production of HFC-134a, and EPA should not be using the
risk-based SNAP program to restrict auto exports.''
    Response: This rule does not directly regulate production of HFC-
134a, unlike the rulemaking on the phaseout of HCFCs that Arkema cited;
rather, we are regulating use of HFC-134a as a substitute in specific
uses. Further, we disagree with Arkema's assertion that U.S. production
of HFC-134a would potentially reduce overall environmental risks if
U.S. production of HCFCs reduces environmental risks. EPA's HCFC
allocation rule specifically mentioned that HCFC-22 production (and not
production of HCFCs in general) results in byproduct emissions of HFC-
23, a gas with a very high GWP of 14,800. The commenter has not
provided any information indicating that emissions from production of
HFC-134a, with a GWP of 1,430, or its byproducts would have a similar
high environmental impact. We disagree with the commenter's assumptions
as well as the conclusion that the SNAP program should not regulate
exports of vehicles.
    Comment: AAM stated that the MVAC-related climate benefits of this
rulemaking have been incorrectly calculated and that ``the
environmental benefits of a MY 2025 change of listing status date are
substantially the same as in MY 2021 date.'' AAM also commented that
the cessation of exports of vehicles containing HFC-134a to EU
countries should not be included in the benefits calculation because
the EU already prohibits the use of HFC-134a and that subtracting
exports to EU countries and to Canada would reduce the climate benefit
due to exports by half to 1 MMTCO2eq.
    Response: EPA directs commenters to the benefits analysis
associated with the final rule and in particular to the anticipated
long term change in the trajectory for high-GWP HFCs and alternatives.
The benefits analysis is available in the docket and reflects the final
decisions in this action. It has been updated since the issuance of the
NPRM to reflect changes between the NPRM and the final rule. The
benefits analysis for the final rule does not include vehicles sold
into the EU or Canada, given the EU's existing F-gas regulations and
MAC Directive, and for Canada, the relationship between their market
and ours.
(d) Cost Impacts of Rule
    Comment: EPA received several comments concerning the cost impact
of this rulemaking for the MVAC end-use. AAM, Global Automakers, and
Mexichem commented that delaying transition to MY 2025 or later would
avoid costs and engineering burdens on

manufacturers resulting from making adjustments to their refrigerant
change-over plans for both vehicles and manufacturing plants. NRDC and
IGSD commented that a transition date of MY 2017 would align the U.S.
and EU markets and erase these competitive disadvantages with minimal
impact to industry. The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute
(ARPI) and Auto Care Association commented that a change from HFC-134a
to lower-GWP refrigerants should not cause any substantial economic
hardship to car owners. Additional comments relating to EPA's economic
analysis are included in section VII.B of the preamble, ``Cost and
economic impacts of proposed status changes.''
    Response: EPA understands that there are challenges associated with
transitioning refrigerants, including costs to manufacturers in
redesigning equipment and making changes to manufacturing facilities.
However, as explained in more detail in the response to comments later
in this preamble, under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the
substitute under review, and that consideration does not include the
cost of transition when a substitute is found unacceptable. Moreover,
we note that during model redesigns, many other engineering changes are
being made and that changing the MVAC system during a planned redesign
cycle could reduce costs when compared to MVAC system changes mid-
redesign cycle. We anticipate that a change of status in MY 2021 will
allow manufacturers to make changes to the MVAC systems for most
vehicle models as part of the model redesign process.
    Comment: A few commenters noted the high price of HFO-1234yf
relative to HFC-134a. One commenter, referring to the NPRM, stated that
EPA continues to believe that HFO-1234yf is unlikely to ever be as
inexpensive as HFC-134a is currently. Commenters stated that the high
price of HFO-1234yf is likely to slow the transition away from HFC-134a
in the United States.
    Response: As explained in more detail in the response to comments
later in this preamble, under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7), the only cost information that EPA considers as part of
its SNAP review is the cost of the substitute under review. As part of
EPA's cost analysis conducted in support of this rulemaking, the
potential costs to manufacturers were estimated based on per-system
costs of alternative systems, as identified in EPA's report on Global
Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030 (EPA, 2013a), and
converted to 2013 dollars. The incremental per-system cost of an
alternative MVAC system compared to an HFC-134a system is estimated to
be about $62/unit. EPA previously analyzed these costs in documents
supporting the LD GHG Rule and in that analysis accounted for the cost
of 100% of domestic vehicles to transition to use of HFO-1234yf by MY
2021. These incremental costs are less than 1% relative to the total
direct manufacturing cost for a light-duty vehicle.\58\ EPA does not
believe an incremental cost of less than 1% of the total direct
manufacturing cost will slow the transition away from HFC-134a. EPA
understands that often new alternatives have higher initial costs, but
this is not always true. In addition, over time the cost of the
alternative often drops as demand and supply increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2012. Joint Technical Support
Document: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards. August 2012. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12901.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Global Automakers and AAM commented that if EPA includes
exports in this regulation, EPA would be placing U.S.-based
manufacturers of export vehicles at a competitive disadvantage compared
to automakers producing vehicles outside of the United States. Global
Automakers stated in their comment that ``this rulemaking will
unnecessarily cause substantial economic harm to the U.S. economy, U.S.
jobs, and balance of payments if exports are included in the regulatory
provisions.'' Arkema, Mexichem, and BMW also commented on the potential
economic impacts of regulating exports.
    Response: An inability to export vehicles manufactured with HFC-
134a could be a competitive disadvantage in any countries where
vehicles manufactured with other alternatives cannot be supported.
However, as discussed above, the additional cost of a vehicle
manufactured using an alternative (e.g., HFO-1234yf) is anticipated to
be approximately $62 more per vehicle; this is not sufficient to create
a competitive disadvantage in countries where both HFC-134a and other
alternatives are supported. Further, EPA is providing a narrowed use
limit in this final action that would allow vehicles destined for
export to a country with insufficient infrastructure to be manufactured
with HFC-134a through MY 2025. Thus, U.S. manufacturers should not
experience a competitive disadvantage.
(e) Servicing and Retrofits
    Comment: EPA received comments related to the continued servicing
of MVAC systems manufactured to use HFC-134a. Two commenters support
the continued acceptability of HFC-134a for servicing, and one
commenter requests assurance that continued servicing will be
permitted. ARPI and the Auto Care Association, representing the
automotive aftermarket industry, jointly commented that they support
the change of status of HFC-134a in MVAC provided that systems using
replacement refrigerants are available at the time at a reasonable
price and that the ``phase out'' does not adversely affect the use of
HFC-134a in the millions of vehicles which will then still have MVAC
systems designed for that refrigerant.
    Response: EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a change of
status for HFC-134a used for servicing MVAC systems designed to use
HFC-134a. Thus, vehicles manufactured to use HFC-134a may, consistent
with this rule, continue to be serviced with HFC-134a.
    Comment: EPA received a comment requesting clarification on the
ability to retrofit or service an HFO-1234yf system with HFC-134a.
    Response: As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, the SNAP
regulations include use conditions and other requirements that limit
the ability to service an MVAC system designed to use an alternative
with a refrigerant other than the one the system was designed to use.
See section V.B.3 for a detailed description.
    Also, as discussed in more detail in section V.B.3, for vehicles
for which the manufacturer counts air conditioning credits toward its
LD GHG compliance, the MVAC systems (or elements of those systems) are
considered emission-related components as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803.
This designation includes provisions for emission-related warranty,
requirements that they operate properly for the specified useful life,
and tampering restrictions.
(f) Refrigerant Blends for Retrofits of MVAC Systems
    Comment: Two commenters requested that EPA also list the
refrigerant blends as unacceptable for use in retrofits in the final
rule as well as in new equipment. SAE Interior Climate Control
Committee (SAE ICCC), the leading standards writing body in the United
States for MVAC, commented that they support the extension of the
unacceptability finding to retrofits because they have never written
any

standards for these refrigerants. The other commenter, DuPont,
recommended that because the refrigerants are not currently in use and
it would be undesirable to have them used, EPA should also change the
SNAP status for the blend refrigerants to unacceptable for retrofit (in
addition to new) MVAC uses.
    Response: EPA has not undertaken the full analysis necessary to
determine whether to list these refrigerant blends as unacceptable for
retrofits. Accordingly, EPA did not propose to find the refrigerant
blends unacceptable for retrofits. Additional information, as well as
an opportunity for public comment, would be necessary before we would
be able to potentially find the refrigerant blends unacceptable for use
in retrofits (e.g., information on the extent of use of the refrigerant
blends). EPA appreciates the comments submitted on this topic and will
take them into consideration when preparing additional status change
rules.
(g) Use Conditions for HFC-134a
    Comment: Arkema commented that it is ``arbitrary and capricious''
for EPA to find acceptable substances that could compete with HFC-134a
in MVAC only because those other substances are subject to use
conditions, and then to find HFC-134a unacceptable based on comparisons
to those other substances without considering any comparable use
restriction on HFC-134a. The commenter referred to a discussion in the
proposed rule concerning establishing charge limits through use
conditions for a number of high GWP refrigerant blends for use in
supermarket systems and condensing units as an example.
    Response: EPA has not proposed additional use conditions for HFC-
134a comparable to those for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2
because the ways of addressing risks for these substitutes are not
comparable. The use conditions unique to HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a
address flammability risks through engineering strategies that will
keep refrigerant concentrations below the lower flammability limit in
each vehicle and by requiring labels providing information on the
flammability risk. The use conditions unique to CO2 address
toxicity and consumer exposure risks through requiring engineering
strategies that will keep refrigerant concentrations at safe levels in
the passenger compartment of the vehicle. In contrast, the
environmental risks from HFC-134a are due to the collective global
impact of refrigerant emissions released over time from the entire
automotive industry.
    In past cases where the SNAP program has regulated other
substitutes that posed high environmental risk due to collective global
emissions, we have taken three different approaches. One approach has
been to restrict the substitute to a niche use through a narrowed use
limit, where it was particularly difficult to find any feasible
substitute and the niche use was unlikely to result in significant
total emissions (e.g., narrowed use limit on high-GWP fire suppressant
SF6 for use only as a discharge agent in military
applications and in civilian aircraft at appendix B to 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G). A similar approach has been to restrict the substitute
through a narrowed use limit to use only ``where other alternatives are
not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements''
(e.g., narrowed use limits on perfluorocarbon solvents for precision
cleaning and C6F14 as a total flooding agent for
fire suppression at appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G). The third
approach EPA has used to address environmental risks from global
emissions of a substitute, and the only approach we have taken to date
for such a substitute that is already widespread in industry, is to
find the substitute unacceptable (e.g., HCFC-141b in solvent cleaning
at appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G and HCFC-141b in foam
blowing at appendix M to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G). MVAC is not a
niche use, and there are clearly other technically feasible substitutes
that will be available by the status change date specified in this
final rule for use in vehicles that will be sold domestically, so it is
not reasonable to provide a narrowed use limit for HFC-134a beyond that
established in this final rule for export to nations with insufficient
infrastructure for other alternatives.
    Concerning Arkema's reference to a discussion on use conditions for
charge size limits, we note that in the proposed rule we also stated,
``However, given the high GWP of these refrigerants compared to other
refrigerants that are available in these end-uses, we do not believe
that use with a small charge size adequately addresses the greater risk
they pose.'' This is even more so in MVAC than in commercial
refrigeration products, due to the more widespread use of MVAC in
hundreds of millions of vehicles and the greater difference in GWP
between the unacceptable substitute and other, lower-GWP alternative,
compared to supermarket systems and remote condensing units.

(h) Flexibility for Exports

    Comment: NRDC, IGSD, and DuPont suggested that if EPA finalizes MY
2017 or MY 2019, respectively, EPA could consider narrowed use limits
to address any sub-sectors that have problems meeting a transition date
earlier than MY 2021, if, for example, the Agency believed there was a
basis to claims of country-specific performance barriers (e.g., due to
high ambient temperatures) or lack of infrastructure for safer
alternatives.
    Response: As discussed further in this section, EPA has finalized a
narrowed use limit for certain vehicles to be exported to countries
that have not yet developed sufficient infrastructure for using safer
alternatives. EPA has received no documentation supporting a narrowed
use limit related to ambient temperature conditions, and therefore, has
not included such a narrowed use limit in this final action.
    Comment: EPA received comments from several commenters related to
the servicing infrastructure for lower-GWP alternatives outside the
United States. Some details are provided below and the remaining
details can be found in the Response to Comments document. Arkema,
Mexichem, BMW, AAM, and Global Automakers raised concerns including
whether destinations for exported vehicles will have sufficient service
sector support and refrigerant distribution networks for HFO-1234yf;
and the ability to conform to SNAP use conditions, given the large
proportion of automobiles manufactured in the U.S. for export (up to
one-fourth). Commenters question whether the alternatives are truly
``available'' for use in export markets if there is a lack of service
sector support and comment that this regulation could lead to
manufacturers having to limit export production at U.S. assembly
plants. Commenters are also concerned about the time needed to overcome
regulatory and legislative barriers. AAM suggested that EPA designate
certain export markets that can still receive U.S. exports of HFC-134a
vehicles, which they believe currently should be all export markets
except Canada and Europe.
    In contrast, DuPont and Honeywell, manufacturers of HFO-1234yf,
asserted that service supply follows demand and the equipment for low
GWP refrigerant service is readily available. These commenters stated
that dealers and service shops can be expected to acquire the necessary
equipment and materials to serve the market demand and that it is the
responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that their
authorized dealers in those countries are able to provide all the
necessary service to these exported cars under warranty. Honeywell and
DuPont both stated that

they have already developed an extensive network of distributors that
are capable of supplying HFO-1234yf globally. DuPont stated that based
on demand from the motor vehicle aftermarket, they have distribution
covering more than 40 countries, 11 more than the combined EU member
states and the United States, and including Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
    Response: EPA is aware that many countries, in addition to Canada
and those in the EU, already have servicing infrastructure in place,
and anticipates that the number will grow by MY 2021. However, EPA also
recognizes that there may be some markets where additional time may be
needed to ensure servicing infrastructure is available. EPA is
providing a narrowed use limit for HFC-134a in new MVAC systems
destined for use in countries that do not have infrastructure in place
for servicing with other acceptable refrigerants. This narrowed use
limit will remain in place through MY 2025. The remaining information
in this response explains why EPA believes it is not necessary to have
a narrowed use limit in place indefinitely. EPA is particularly
encouraged to learn that there is currently distribution for HFO-1234yf
in 40 countries, 11 more than the combined EU member states and the
United States and, that these countries include Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Israel and the United Arab Emirates, which indicates that
infrastructure is already being put in place in a significant number of
countries.
    EPA does not agree that every country in the world would need as
much time as was needed in North America and Europe to resolve barriers
to transition. Many countries look to the SNAP program and the EU's
REACH program as a source of information to inform their domestic
programs and, thus transition for those countries should proceed more
quickly. EPA notes the widespread use of flammable refrigerants for
various end-uses in other countries (more so than in the United States)
as well as the inclusion of such refrigerants for projects considered
by the Executive Committee of the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral
Fund. We anticipate that many countries that do not have adequate
infrastructure in place in 2015 will have it in place in time to
service MY 2021 vehicles.
    In many cases international agencies, such as the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), have been working with developing
countries to facilitate changes in domestic regulations to allow for
the use of lower-GWP solutions. This has been particularly true since
2007 when the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted a more
aggressive phaseout schedule for HCFCs, for end-uses using HCFCs such
as stand-alone commercial refrigeration appliances. Thus there are
systems in place for communicating information on new refrigerants and
for sharing experience. Further, the experiences of the United States
and Europe are being shared widely. We have provided information to the
Montreal Protocol's Secretariat and to UNEP. We already are also seeing
information shared through a range of mechanisms by the Secretariat and
UNEP as well as included in reports of the Montreal Protocol's
Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), SAE, and other bodies.
    In addition, EPA notes that the G-7 leaders committed in June 2014
to promote the rapid deployment of climate-friendly and safe
alternatives to HFCs in motor vehicle air-conditioning and to promote
public procurement of climate-friendly HFC alternatives. EPA notes that
many countries already are committed to take action to promote public
procurement of climate-friendly lower-GWP alternatives whenever
feasible and would likely consider MVAC as a potentially feasible end-
use. For the reasons above, we believe that sufficient progress is
being made and will continue to be made such that the narrowed use
limit need not apply beyond MY 2025.
    Comment: Global Automakers commented that it is imperative to have
trained technicians and shops equipped with the necessary equipment to
service and repair MVAC systems using flammable refrigerants, and
special equipment is needed to recover, recycle, and re-charge
flammable refrigerants before vehicles using such refrigerants can be
marketed in a specific country. AAM commented that on average, every
vehicle gets completely recharged with new refrigerant at least once
during its lifetime, and therefore, the unique need for such widespread
service support for MVAC differentiates this situation from past SNAP
considerations of export markets for other appliances.
    Response: EPA agrees with the value of providing information and
training to technicians. In the United States, we are currently working
with technician certification programs to include information on HFC-
152a, R-744, and HFO-1234yf. EPA agrees with commenters that there is
value in technician training and education on a global basis.
International agencies such as UNEP could potentially be a source of
such training in developing countries. EPA does not agree that it is
necessary to ensure such training is in place in all markets worldwide
in order to fully accommodate U.S. exports with the new refrigerants.
EPA has already developed information on the newer alternative
refrigerants acceptable in the United States that is available on our
Web site and could be a resource for others. In addition, the use
conditions requiring labeling and unique fittings for refrigerants for
MVAC for service equipment and vehicle service ports serves as a means
for informing technicians as to what refrigerant is being used.
    EPA understands that the commenters are suggesting that there still
may be markets that do not have infrastructure in place by MY 2025.
Based on the speed of transition that we are seeing, EPA does not
agree. However, the Agency could consider proposing a change in the
future if needed.

C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines

1. Background
(a) Overview of SNAP End-Uses, End-Use Categories and Commonly-Used
Refrigerants
    EPA refers readers to section V.C.1 of the preamble to the proposed
rule for a detailed discussion of the end-uses within the refrigeration
sector covered by this rule as well as information on some of the
refrigerants used within those end-uses.
    In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to change the listing for
certain refrigerants for two end-uses within the ``commercial
refrigeration'' sector--retail food refrigeration and vending machines.
Retail food refrigeration, as affected by today's rule, is composed of
three main categories of equipment: Stand-alone equipment; remote
condensing units; and supermarket systems. Stand-alone equipment
consists of refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open
or with doors) where all refrigeration components are integrated and,
for the smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or
welded. These systems are termed ``stand-alone'' within the SNAP
program because they are fully charged with refrigerant at the factory
and typically require only an electricity supply to begin operation.
    Condensing units, called remote condensing units in this final
action as discussed below, exhibit refrigerating capacities that
typically range from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons) and
are composed of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser,
and one receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally

located external to the sales area. The modifier ``remote'' indicates
that the condenser (and often other parts of the system) are not
located in the space or area cooled by the evaporator but are instead
located outside the room, typically ejecting heat to the outdoor
ambient environment. Remote condensing units are commonly installed in
convenience stores and specialty shops such as bakeries and butcher
shops, as well as in supermarkets, restaurants and other locations
where food is stored, served or sold.
    Typical supermarket systems are known as multiplex or centralized
systems. They operate with racks of compressors installed in a
machinery room. Two main design classifications are used: Direct and
indirect systems. At least 70% of supermarkets in the United States use
centralized direct expansion (DX) systems to cool their display
cases.\59\ In these systems, the refrigerant circulates from the
machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in display-case
heat exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the suction headers
of the compressor racks. Another direct supermarket design, often
referred to as a distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of
separate compressor racks located near the display cases rather than
having a central compressor rack system. Indirect supermarket designs
include secondary loop systems and cascade refrigeration. Indirect
systems use a chiller or other refrigeration system to cool a secondary
fluid that is then circulated throughout the store to the cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigeration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge (i.e., the
amount of refrigerant a system is designed to contain under normal
operating conditions), the product temperature required, energy
efficiency, system performance, ambient temperatures, operating
conditions, potential impact on community safety, potential risk to
personal safety, cost, and minimization of direct and indirect
environmental impacts, among other things. In addition, federal or
local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance,
regulations from the OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use
of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R-717). Building codes from
local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the amount of
particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a
number of factors that retailers must consider when selecting the
refrigerant and operating system design. While a number of approaches
exist, there is no uniformly accepted holistic analysis of the multiple
factors listed above. EPA recognizes that there must be a range of
options, and that the decision as to which option to select must remain
with the owner and operator of the system.
(b) Terms and Coverage
    During a meeting with EPA just prior to publication of the proposed
rule, an industry trade organization representing manufacturers of
refrigeration equipment, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI), raised concerns that in some situations the
definitions and categories used in the SNAP program differ from those
used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and/or the industry and
they submitted a document identifying those definitions and categories
(see EPA Meeting on Commercial Refrigeration Equipment--June 10, 2014
under Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0005). They indicated that the
term ``commercial refrigeration'' is often first divided by the type
and location of the condensing unit, using two broad terms. ``Remote
condensing'' is used to indicate systems where the condensing unit and
compressors are located remotely from where food is stored or displayed
and instead the refrigerant or secondary-fluid is piped to the cases or
rooms where the food is located. ``Self-contained'' is used to indicate
that the condensing unit (along with the compressor and evaporator) is
integrated into the case in which the food is stored and displayed.
These units are generally initially charged by the case manufacturer at
the manufacturing plant.
    EPA notes that the term ``self-contained'' is synonymous with the
SNAP end-use category ``stand-alone'' and we are retaining use of the
term stand-alone for this rulemaking action. The term ``remote
condensing'' applies to the SNAP end-use categories of ``supermarket
systems'' and ``condensing units.'' For the latter end-use category, in
this final rule we are revising the term ``condensing units'' to be
``remote condensing units.'' EPA draws a distinction between
``supermarket systems'' and ``remote condensing units'' based on the
number of compressors in the remote condensing system. Supermarket
systems generally have more than two compressors arranged in a ``rack''
whereas remote condensing units typically have only one or two
compressors linked to a single condenser. For purposes of this rule, we
are keeping these two categories separate.
    The AHRI document (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0005) also
attempts to draw an additional distinction regarding commercial walk-in
coolers and freezers. We note that we do not treat such units separate
from the categories described above. Rather such units would fall
within the end-use category ``supermarket system'' if the refrigerant
is supplied on the same multi-compressor circuit used to cool food
elsewhere in the store or within the end-use category ``remote
condensing unit'' if only a one- or two-compressor system is used
(generally dedicated to just the individual walk-in cooler or freezer).
    AHRI further notes that both supermarket systems and remote
condensing units can be connected to various types of display cases
designed to maintain products at various temperatures, often subdivided
as ``medium-temperature''--roughly between 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and 41
[deg]F (5 [deg]C)--and ``low-temperature''--roughly between -40 [deg]F
(-40 [deg]C) and 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C). EPA notes that within the SNAP
end-uses and categories described above, no distinction is currently
made based on application temperature (medium or low) and so the
decisions finalized in today's rule apply to all equipment fitting
within the supermarket and remote condensing units end-use categories
as described; however, based on comments received, within the stand-
alone equipment end-use category a distinction is made between
equipment designed for ``low'' temperatures and other equipment.
    During the comment period on the proposed rule, we received
additional questions and comments about whether certain types of
equipment were included in the end-uses addressed in this action. We
are clarifying here that specific types of equipment used in the food
industry do not fall within the end-uses and end-use categories
affected by this rule: Blast chillers, ice making machines not
connected to a supermarket system, very low temperature refrigeration,
and certain food and beverage dispensing systems.
    A ``blast chiller'' or ``blast freezer'' is a type of equipment in
which cold air is supplied and circulated rapidly to a food product,
generally to quickly cool or freeze a product before damage or spoilage
can occur. Such units are typically used in industrial settings (e.g.,
at a factory or on a large fish-catching vessel) and fall under the
SNAP end-use ``Industrial Process Refrigeration'' and hence are not
subject to this rule.

    ``Ice makers'' are machines designed for the sole purpose of
producing ice, in various sizes and shapes, and with different
retrieval mechanisms (e.g., dispensers or self-retrieval from bins).
Under SNAP, ``commercial ice machines'' are identified as a separate
end-use not part of the retail food refrigeration end-use (e.g., not a
``stand-alone'' unit). See e.g., 59 FR 13070 (March 18, 1994) where EPA
clearly designated ``commercial ice machines'' as a separate end-use
than ``retail food refrigeration.'' Thus, both self-contained ice
makers, as well as ice-making units solely connected via piping to a
dedicated remote condenser, do not fall under the retail food
refrigeration end-use and hence are not subject to this rule. In
contrast, ice-making units that are connected to a supermarket system
are subject to this rule. For instance, if a supermarket rack system
supplies refrigerant to a unit to make ice, such as for use in meat and
seafood storage, display and sales, and that refrigerant and compressor
rack are part of a larger circuit that also provides cooling for other
products in the store, the entire system would be classified as a
``supermarket system'' and hence would be subject to today's rule. EPA
would like to clarify that since remote condensing ice makers designed
solely to be connected to a supermarket remote rack are not sold or
manufactured with a condensing unit, they do not meet the definition of
automatic commercial ice maker used by DOE in the automatic commercial
ice maker energy conservation standards.
    Several commenters, including Master Bilt Products and Thermo
Fisher, identified products they manufacture to reach temperatures of -
50[deg]F (-46[deg]C) or even lower. These products fit under the end-
use ``very low temperature refrigeration'' and hence are not covered by
this rule. EPA also notes that it recently found R-170 (ethane) as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the very low temperature
refrigeration end-use. (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453)
    Other commenters, such as Emerson, HC Duke/Electro-Freeze, and
United Technologies, mentioned equipment designed to make or process
cold food and beverages that are dispensed via a nozzle, including
soft-serve ice cream machines, ``slushy'' iced beverage dispensers, and
soft-drink dispensers. Such equipment can be self-contained or can be
connected via piping to a dedicated condensing unit located elsewhere.
EPA does not consider this equipment to fall under either the ``stand-
alone'' or ``remote condensing unit'' categories of retail food
refrigeration. While our definition of retail food refrigeration
includes ``cold storage cases designed to chill food for commercial
sale,'' these units generally do more than just store food or
beverages. For instance, United Technologies states such equipment
``transform[s] a liquid product into a frozen beverage or confection
with the incorporation of air to provide uniformity and specific
customer requirements. These products are transformed and manufactured
within the equipment, held in a frozen state and ultimately dispensed
into a serving vessel that is provided to an end customer.'' Hence,
these types of products are in a category separate from the three
``retail food refrigeration'' end-use categories addressed in today's
rule.
    We also received several comments and questions regarding energy
conservation standards established by DOE and how the equipment subject
to this rule is also subject to the DOE standards. While EPA is not
making any decisions on the applicability of the DOE standards to
specific equipment, we see that at least three such standards and
perhaps more apply to types of equipment that are also subject to this
rule. These three standards are titled Energy Conservation Standards
for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (79 FR 17725; March 28, 2014),
Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers (79 FR
32049; June 3, 2014) and Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated
Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines (74 FR 44914; August 31,
2009). These are referred to in this rule using shortened names or a
generic name such as ``DOE Standards.''
    The Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards have an effective
date of May 27, 2014 and a compliance date of March 27, 2017. The Walk-
In Coolers and Freezers Standards have an effective date of August 4,
2014 and a compliance date of June 5, 2017. The Beverage Vending
Machines Standards have effective dates of October 30, 2009 and August
31, 2011 and a compliance date of August 31, 2012. DOE posted a notice
of a public meeting and availability of the Framework document for an
expected proposed rule to amend the standards for refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machines (78 FR 33262; June 4, 2013).
Material in the docket for that action indicate DOE's plans for a final
rule with a compliance date three years later (see EERE-2013-BT-STD-
0022).
    EPA's review indicates that equipment designated in the Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment Standards may fall under the supermarket
systems, remote condensing units, and stand-alone equipment end-use
categories. Specifically, equipment classes designated in the DOE
Standard as XXXX.RC.T, where XXXX is the equipment class, RC specifies
a remote condensing operating mode code, and T indicates a rating
temperature (e.g., M and L for medium and low temperature,
respectively), may fall under either the supermarket system or remote
condensing unit end-use category, depending on how that equipment is
applied. In addition, equipment classes designated as XXXX.SC.T, where
SC specifies a self-contained operating mode code, may fall under the
stand-alone equipment end-use category.
    EPA's review indicates that equipment designated in the Walk-In
Cooler and Freezers Standards may fall under the supermarket systems,
remote condensing units, and stand-alone equipment end-use categories.
Specifically, equipment within the class descriptor Multiplex
Condensing (either Medium or Low Temperature) may fall under the
supermarket systems end-use category, i.e., if such a walk-in cooler or