as to other substitutes for the same end-use, and to prohibit the use
of those substitutes found, based on the same comparisons, to increase
overall risks [emphasis added]'' (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR
82.170). In addition, Arkema's reference to a single document
containing language mentioning a substitute-to-ODS comparison ignores
the large number of risk screens that EPA has prepared over the years
that compare the ODP and GWP, and other environmental and health
attributes, of substitutes to those of other substitutes, as well to
those of ODS (e.g., risk screens in the following dockets: EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0798 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118.) Further, EPA's listings over the
years have included comparisons of substitutes to other available
alternatives in the same end-uses (e.g., 67 FR 13272, 67 FR 77927, 68
FR 50533, 69 FR 58903, 71 FR 15589, 71 FR 55140, 71 FR 56359, 74 FR 21,
74 FR 50129, 75 FR 34017, 76 FR 17488, 76 FR 61269, 76 FR 78832, 77 FR
47768, 77 FR 58035, 78 FR 29034, 79 FR 62863). The substitute-to-
substitute comparison is essential to fulfilling EPA's obligation under
section 612(c) to determine whether there are alternatives that reduce
overall risk as compared with the substitute under review.
    To the extent possible, the Agency has always sought to ensure that
our SNAP decisions are informed by the most current overall
understanding of environmental and human health impacts associated with
available and potentially available alternatives. In that regard, the
Agency has, since the inception of the SNAP program, asserted its
authority, consistent with the language of section 612(c) and the
section's statement of congressional policy, to review substitutes
listed as acceptable and to take action with respect to those
substitutes on the basis either of new information generally, including
that related to overall risk, or of the availability of new
alternatives that pose less overall risk. Specifically, in the preamble
to the initial SNAP rule, EPA made clear that ``the Agency may revise
these [listing] decisions in the future as it reviews additional
substitutes and receives more data on substitutes already covered by
the program'' (59 FR 13044, 13047). We interpret section 612 as
allowing both addition of new, safer alternatives to the listings and
removal from the listings of substitutes found to pose more risk
overall than other available alternatives.
    With regard to additional data on substitutes already covered by
the program, the Agency has previously responded to the evolution of
scientific and technical information by revisiting the listing status
of a substitute. For

example, on the basis of new information on toxicity, EPA took action
in January of 2002 to change the listing for HBFC-22B1 from acceptable,
subject to use conditions to unacceptable (67 FR 4185, January 29,
2002; 40 CFR 82 subpart G, appendix J).
    With regard to additional alternatives, the suite of available or
potentially available alternatives changes over time. For example, over
the past several years, and as standards and familiarity with the safe
use of various alternatives has developed, EPA has listed several
specific flammable refrigerants as acceptable for some end-uses subject
to use conditions (e.g., 76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 40 CFR 82
subpart G appendix R; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015). Most of these
refrigerants (e.g., ethane, propane, isobutane, HFC-32) are not new
molecules; rather, their recent listing as acceptable subject to use
conditions is based on an increased understanding of their ability to
be used in a manner that would reduce overall risk. The availability of
those alternatives enables a broader review of comparative risk under
section 612(c).
    Further, we disagree with the notion that our understanding of the
impact of HFCs has remained static. Our understanding of the impact
that HFCs have on climate has evolved and become much deeper over the
years. As mentioned elsewhere in this rulemaking, a significant
indication of that change can be seen in EPA's December 7, 2009,
Endangerment Finding (74 FR 66496, 66517, 66539) which makes clear that
like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs. In addition, HFCs are
now in widespread usage. The most commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-
134a is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate system than carbon
dioxide (see Table A-1 to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98). Further, HFC
emissions are projected to accelerate over the next several decades; if
left unregulated, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple
by 2030.\92\ Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed
scientific literature and emission scenarios related to HFCs is
available in the docket for this rulemaking (e.g., Akerman, 2013; EPA,
2013b and 2014; IPCC, 2007 and 2013; IPCC/TEAP 2005; Montzka, 2012;
Velders et al., 2009). This information was taken into account in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Climate Change and President Obama's Action Plan. June,
2013. Available in the docket and online at www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Second Generation Substitutes
    Comment: Several comments focused on the term ``replace'' in
section 612(c), suggesting that once a company has switched to a non-
ODS alternative, it is no longer ``replacing'' a Class I or Class II
ODS in its products, and that it is unsupportable to read
``replacement'' as a continuous process rather than as a single event.
Solvay stated that the proposed rule would require users that have
already ``replaced'' ODS with non-ODS to make a second replacement, and
that EPA lacks authority to require this second replacement. Arkema
stated that the statutory terms ``replace'' and ``replacement'' must be
given their ordinary meanings, and that to replace an ODS means to take
the place of an ODS. Arkema further noted that EPA defines a
``substitute or alternative'' in its SNAP regulations as something
``intended for use as a replacement for'' an ODS (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18,
1994 and 40 CFR 82.172). Arkema concluded that Congress and EPA
designed the SNAP program to regulate things taking the place of ODS,
not to replace substances with no ozone depletion potential. Arkema
contended that EPA has interpreted the statute and regulations as
excluding non-ODS. In support of this argument, Arkema quoted the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule as saying that ``a key issue'' was
``whether there exists a point at which an alternative should no longer
be considered a class I or class II substitute as defined by 612'' (59
FR 13044, 13052). The commenter further quoted the preamble to that
rule as saying that ``if a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is introduced as a
first-generation refrigerant substitute for [an ODS], it is subject to
review and listing under section 612. Future substitutions to replace
the HFC would then be exempt from reporting under section 612 . . . .''
(id.). In addition, Arkema quoted a 1996 petition response \93\ as
stating that EPA does not review substitutes for non-ozone-depleting
substances such as HFC-134a. Arkema also quoted the SNAP Instruction
Manual \94\ as instructing applicants to specify the ODS being
replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Response to Oz Technology's Petition (Aug 30, 1996).
    \94\ www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/submit/appguide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that the appliance industry no longer intends HFCs
as a substitute or replacement for ODS. The commenter stated that there
are very few remaining models that ever used ODS, and that the
substances used in today's models are not substitutes or replacements
in the common-sense meaning of those words.
    Arkema further stated that EPA should be precluded from comparing
non-ODS first-generation alternatives (such as HFC-134a) to second-
generation non-ODS alternatives (such as HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-
744). Arkema contended that none of these second-generation compounds
is a ``substitute'' for SNAP purposes.
    Response: In this rulemaking, the Agency is revising the listing
status of substitutes that are direct replacements for ODS. Arkema
admits as much on p. 8 of their comment letter, where they describe
HFC-134a as a ``first generation refrigerant substitute.'' While we are
not exploring the full scope of the ``first generation'' concept in
this action, there is no question that HFC-134a directly replaced ODS
in the relevant sectors. For example, with respect to foam blowing,
when HFC-134a was listed as acceptable in foam blowing applications,
foam was still being blown with HCFCs (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994; 64
FR 30410, June 8, 1999). In this action, we are not addressing the
extent of EPA's authority to revise the listings of alternatives that
are arguably indirect replacements for ODS, sometimes termed ``second-
generation alternatives.''
    EPA does not agree with the commenters who suggest that while HFC-
134a may have replaced ODS at one point in time, it no longer does so.
The term ``replace'' is not defined in section 612, EPA therefore
interprets this term as it is commonly used. Dictionary definitions can
provide insight into how a reasonable or ordinary person would
interpret the term. Dictionary definitions of ``replace'' include the
following: ``to be used instead of'' \95\ ``to take the place of,''
\96\ and ``to provide a substitute or equivalent for.'' \97\ None of
these definitions suggests that something used ``instead of'' or ``to
take the place'' of something else ceases to ``replace'' it simply due
to the passage of time. Nor does the Agency view the replacement of a
ODS with a substitute (e.g., HFC-134a) as limited to the first time a
product manufacturer uses the substitute. Indeed, in the preamble to
the initial SNAP rule, we interpreted the term ``replace'' to apply
``each time a substitute is used.'' (59 FR 13044, 13047). We noted that
``[u]nder any other interpretation, EPA could never

effectively prohibit the use of any substitute, as some user could
always start to use it prior to EPA's completion of the rulemaking
required to list it as unacceptable'' (Id.). Thus, the fact that HFC-
134a is already in use as a replacement for ODS does not mean that its
future use is any less of a replacement. In context, the language that
Arkema quotes (``whether there exists a point at which an alternative
should no longer be considered a class I or II substitute'') does not
suggest that a substance that directly replaces the ODS might somehow
cease to qualify as an ODS substitute. Rather, it raises the question
of whether a substance that indirectly replaces the ODS might fail to
qualify. That question is not addressed in this rulemaking because this
rulemaking addresses only substances that are direct replacements for
ODS in the relevant sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replace.
    \96\ Collins, www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/replace.
    \97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the mere passage of time does not mean that the
substances addressed in this rulemaking have somehow ceased to be
``substitutes or alternatives'' under the regulatory definition at 40
CFR 82.172. No commenter suggests that at the time of their initial
SNAP listing these substances were anything other than ``chemicals . .
. intended for use as a replacement for a class I or II compound.''
Rather, commenters assert that these substances are no longer intended
for use as an ODS replacement. However, introducing a temporal aspect
into this definition would mean that a product manufacturer could make
an initial substitution for a class I or II substance 90 days after
providing the required notification to EPA and thereafter continue to
use the substitute while disclaiming any intent to replace the ODS.
This is not a supportable interpretation because it would allow the
manufacturer to circumvent SNAP requirements simply by beginning to use
a substitute prior to its SNAP listing.
    In addition, EPA implements the section 612(c) mandate to list
substances as acceptable or unacceptable ``for specific uses'' by
listing substitutes on an end-use or sector basis.\98\ Similarly, the
Agency views transition as occurring on an end-use by end-use or
sector-by-sector basis, not--as one commenter suggests--on a model-by-
model basis. Thus, the act of ``replacing'' is not limited to the
redesign of a particular model, or the introduction of a new model, but
instead occurs repeatedly within a given end-use or sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ This is reflected in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to Solvay's comment, EPA has authority to regulate the
continuing replacement of ODS with HFC-134a and the other substitutes
whose listing status is addressed in this action. In this rulemaking,
EPA considered whether such replacement should continue to occur given
the expanded suite of other alternatives to ODS in the relevant end-
uses and our evolving understanding of risks to the environment and
public health. The commenter's line of reasoning would undermine EPA's
ability to comply with the statutory scheme reflected in section
612(c), under which EPA's authority to prohibit use of a substitute is
tied to information on overall risk and the availability of
substitutes.
    Regarding Arkema's suggestion that HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744
are not ``substitutes'' for SNAP purposes and thus they cannot be used
as part of a review of whether EPA should change the status of HFC-
134a, we disagree. HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a and R-744 (as well as the other
substances we used for comparison purposes in this rulemaking) \99\ are
currently listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions
under SNAP. Thus, we have separately taken action to treat these
substances as substitutes for the purposes of section 612(c) and the
corresponding regulatory provisions. We are not re-examining in this
rulemaking whether the substances used for comparison purposes in this
action qualify as substitutes. Rather, in this rule, we are making
listing determinations for substances that are direct substitutes for
ODS based on their overall risk compared to these other alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ We note that the requirement under section 612 does not
limit our analysis of whether there are ``safer'' alternatives only
to ``substitutes'' listed under the SNAP program. Rather section
612(c) refers to ``alternatives'' that are currently or potentially
available. Thus, in instances where we are aware of other
alternatives that may not have completed SNAP review and we have
sufficient information for those alternatives relative to the SNAP
review criteria, we may include those alternatives in our
comparative analysis. In this action, for purposes of the
refrigeration end-uses, we included in our comparative analysis
several substances we were concurrently reviewing under SNAP and
which we have taken action to list as acceptable, subject to use
conditions (April 10, 2015, 80 FR 19453) and for which we are taking
action concurrently with this rule to list as acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. GWP Considerations
    Comment: The Agency received several comments relating to EPA's
authority to consider GWP in its comparative risk evaluation, and to
take action on the basis of GWP. Specifically, Solvay and Mexichem
stated that while section 602 of the CAA requires EPA to publish the
GWP of each listed class I and class II substance, the Agency's
authority is limited by the language stating that it ``shall not be
construed to be the basis of any additional regulation under this
chapter.'' Solvay stated that this language expresses Congress's intent
that no provision of Title VI--including, but not limited to, Sec.
602, Sec.  608, Sec.  612, and Sec.  615--provides statutory authority
for the Agency to implement an overarching program under which it can
force users to cease using substances with global warming, but not
ozone-depleting, potentials. Mexichem commented that if GWPs of listed
compounds cannot be the basis of further regulation under Title VI, it
follows that regulation based on comparisons of GWPs of both listed
substances and unlisted alternatives was intended by Congress equally
to be foreclosed. Commenters asserted that EPA inappropriately used the
physical characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for risk; failed to
assess the significance to climate change of the emissions reductions
estimated to be brought about by the action as they relate to risk for
each substance in each sector covered; failed to assess and account for
indirect climate impacts; and failed to apply its customary tests for
consideration of atmospheric effects.
    BASF commented that EPA proposed to find HFCs unacceptable because
they have ``high GWPs as compared with other available or potentially
available substitutes in those end-uses and pose significantly greater
overall risk to human health and the environment.'' BASF noted that
while CAA section 612 does require an assessment of risk, it does not
explain how that assessment should be done. BASF added that whatever
that assessment should involve, it is possible that Congress did not
intend GWP to be part of that assessment.
    Response: As noted by some commenters, section 602 of the CAA calls
on EPA to publish the GWP for each class I or class II substance, but
goes on to say that this mandate ``shall not be construed to be the
basis of any additional regulation under this chapter.'' Consistent
with this provision, we are not relying on section 602 as authority for
the action being taken in this rulemaking. Rather, we are relying on
section 612, which specifically provides that EPA is required to list a
substance as unacceptable if it ``may present adverse effects to human
health or the environment'' where EPA has identified

alternatives that are currently or potentially available and that
``reduce the overall risk to human health and the environment.''
    Considerations of atmospheric effects and related health and
environmental impacts have always been a part of SNAP's comparative
review process, and the provision of GWP-related information is
required by the SNAP regulations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and 82.180). The
issue of EPA's authority to consider GWP in its SNAP listing decisions
was raised in the initial rule establishing the SNAP program. In the
preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule, EPA stated: ``The Agency believes
that the Congressional mandate to evaluate substitutes based on
reducing overall risk to human health and the environment authorizes
use of global warming as one of the SNAP evaluation criteria. Public
comment failed to identify any definition of overall risk that
warranted excluding global warming'' (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994).
    Consistent with that understanding, the 1994 SNAP rule specifically
included ``atmospheric effects and related health and environmental
impacts'' as evaluation criteria the Agency uses in undertaking
comparative risk assessments (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994; 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7)(i)). That rule also established the requirement that
anyone submitting a notice of intent to introduce a substitute into
interstate commerce provide the substitute's GWP (see 40 CFR
82.178(a)(6)). Accordingly, we have considered the relative GWP of
alternatives in many SNAP listing decisions. For example, in the
decision to list C7-Fluoroketone as acceptable we noted that ``C7
Fluoroketone's GWP of about 1 is lower than or comparable to that of
other non-ozone-depleting substitutes in heat transfer uses, such as
HFE-7100 with GWP of 297, HFC-245fa with a GWP of 1030, and
CO2 with a GWP of 1'' (77 FR 47768, August 10, 2012). In
that same action, EPA also considered ODP, VOC status, flammability,
toxicity and exposure, concluding that ``EPA finds C7 Fluoroketone
acceptable in the end-use listed above because the overall
environmental and human health risk posed by C7 Fluoroketone is lower
than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found
acceptable in the same end-use'' (id). Similarly, in finding the use of
isobutane and R-441 acceptable subject to use conditions in household
refrigeration, we included an-in depth discussion of the relative GWP
of these and other alternatives listed for household refrigeration (76
FR 78832, December 20, 2011).
    In response to comments that EPA inappropriately used the physical
characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for risk and that EPA failed to
assess the significance to climate change of the emissions reductions
estimated to be brought about by the action, as they relate to risk for
each substance in each sector covered, we note that GWP is a relative
measure and that if comparable amounts of two substitutes are used,
then the relative climate effects of resultant emissions will be higher
for the substitute with higher GWP. EPA considers factors such as
charge size of refrigeration equipment and total estimates of
production in its assessment of environmental and health risks of new
alternatives, so we can consider if there would be substantial
differences that might affect total atmospheric emissions. We believe
that we have appropriately considered GWP as a metric for comparing
climate effects of substitutes.
    In response to comments that EPA failed to assess and account for
indirect climate impacts, we note that we do not have a practice in the
SNAP program of including indirect climate impacts in the overall risk
analysis. We do consider issues such as technical needs for energy
efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether
alternatives are ``available,'' and have followed that practice in this
rulemaking. We believe that there is a sufficient range of acceptable
alternatives that end users will be able to maintain energy efficiency
levels We also note that federal energy conservation standards will
continue to ensure that equipment regulated by this rule will not
increase its indirect climate impacts. See in particular section V.C.7
for a discussion on energy efficiency for commercial refrigeration
products and section V.D.3.c for a response to comments on energy
efficiency of foams.
    In this action, EPA used the same comparative risk approach it has
used in the past, including the consideration of GWP.
4. Takings
    Comment: Solvay asserted that the delisting of already approved
alternatives constitutes a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. Solvay commented that the delisting would
effectuate a regulatory taking for which the United States would owe
``just compensation'' to regulated parties, including Solvay, that have
made significant investments in furtherance of U.S. policies under the
CAA and the Montreal Protocol. Solvay quoted the Supreme Court case
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council as saying that ``any limitation
[that prohibits all economically beneficial uses of real property] . .
. cannot be newly legislated or decreed (without compensation), but
must inhere in the title itself, in the restriction that background
principles of the State's law of property and nuisance already place
upon land ownership'' (505 U.S. 1003, 1029 (1992)).
    Response: The first question in a takings analysis is whether there
is a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment. The commenter
does not identify the property interest that is the subject of the
alleged ``taking.'' While the commenter cites a case involving real
property, no real property is at stake here. To the extent the
commenter has a property interest in the HFCs it imports or produces,
such interest would be limited to quantities already in existence, and
not those that might be produced or imported in the future. In any
event, EPA's change in the listing status of HFCs does not effectuate a
taking. First, EPA's action does not ``completely deprive'' the
commenter of ``all economically beneficial us[e]'' of the HFCs it
produces or imports. See Lingle v. Chevron, 544 U.S. 528, 538 (2005),
quoting Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019
(1992). EPA is not listing all HFCs as unacceptable in all end-uses;
rather, EPA is listing certain HFCs as unacceptable in specified end-
uses. In addition, EPA is adopting change of status dates that provide
ample time for HFCs already in existence to be sold. Thus, some
``economically beneficial use'' of the HFCs remains. In such
situations, courts typically consider several factors in determining
whether a regulatory taking has occurred. Those factors include ``the
character of the governmental action, its economic impact, and its
interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations.''
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74, 83 (1980).
    Here, the change in the listing status of certain HFCs for
specified end-uses is designed to ``promote the common good'' (see Penn
Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978)).
The alternatives to which EPA compared these HFCs in this action were
found to pose less overall risk to human health and the environment in
the specified end-uses. Thus, removing these HFCs from the list of
acceptable substitutes for these end-uses provides a public benefit.
Regarding the economic impact of this action, EPA recognizes

that the impact will vary for the different end-uses. For example, for
some foam blowing agent end-uses, transitioning to other alternatives
is likely to require capital costs and investments in research, updated
equipment, and their related financial impacts. In comparison, for some
aerosol propellant uses and some refrigeration end-uses, depending on
the alternative selected, there may be little or no need for capital
costs or research. However, EPA notes that chemical producers have been
investing in low-GWP alternatives for years, and many have either
submitted SNAP notifications or expressed interest in submitting SNAP
notifications concerning new molecules and blends of existing
molecules.
    The commenter could not have had a reasonable investment-backed
expectation that these HFCs would continue to be listed as acceptable
indefinitely in all end-uses, or in any specific end-use, because EPA
expressly stated in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule that ``the
Agency may revise these [listing] decisions in the future as it reviews
additional substitutes and receives more data on substitutes already
covered by the program'' (59 FR 13044, 13047). In addition, EPA also
noted the ``significant global warming potentials'' of some HFCs and
stated ``EPA is concerned that rapid expansion of the use of some HFCs
could contribute to global warming'' (id. at 13,071). EPA characterized
HFCs as a ``near-term option for moving away from CFCs,'' not as a
long-term solution.
5. Montreal Protocol/International
    Comment: Solvay comments that HFCs are not regulated under the
Montreal Protocol and are not Class I or Class II substances under
Title VI. Mexichem states that the United States, Canada, and Mexico
have proposed to amend the Montreal Protocol to provide an across-the-
board phase down of HFCs, but until then, EPA's regulatory authority
under Title VI is limited to ODS. AHAM adds that if at some point EPA
is authorized to phase out HFCs consistent with future international
obligations that may constitute a more appropriate avenue for phase-
down measures. AHAM believes there is minimal purpose in promoting an
international regulatory regime if EPA is going to apply what it
considers to be a ``blunt and inappropriate'' regulatory instrument
domestically, regardless of the shape of a future international scheme.
AHAM comments that the appliance industry's transition from HFCs is
well underway, and EPA's proposal should reflect and support this
progress, rather than impede it. Five commenters commented on the
perceived inconsistency of the proposed timeline and the proposed
amendments to the Montreal Protocol to adopt a gradual phase down of
HFCs.
    Response: EPA agrees that the Montreal Protocol does not currently
regulate HFCs. Nevertheless, several sections of Title VI call on EPA
to take measures that are not required by the Montreal Protocol but are
complementary to the ODS phaseout. These sections include, in addition
to section 612, sections 608 (national emissions reduction program),
610 (nonessential products), and 611 (labeling). In addition, while
HFCs are not a Class I or Class II substance under the Clean Air Act,
HFCs are substitutes for Class I and Class II ODS, and section 612 and
its implementing regulations specifically call on the agency to
restrict substitutes for ODS where the Agency has identified other
available or potentially available alternatives that reduce overall
risk to human health and the environment.
    The CAP considers both domestic and multilateral action to address
HFCs. The United States co-proposed and is strongly advocating for an
amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down production and
consumption of HFCs. EPA sees no conflict between the United States'
strong support for a global phase-down and this domestic action. The
amendment proposal calls for a phase-down of production and consumption
of a group of HFCs, including HFC-134a as well as HFC-125 and HFC-143a
(components of R-404A, R-507A and other blends), on a total
CO2-equivalent basis. It applies phase-down steps to this
group of HFCs as a basket and does not assign individual deadlines to
specific HFCs or address specific uses.
6. Absence of Petitions
    Comment: Solvay questioned whether the Agency has the authority to
issue this proposed rule in the absence of one or more petitions that
fully satisfy the requirements of Sec.  612(d). Solvay commented that
while Congress granted EPA the authority to create an initial list of
approved substitutes for ODS under Sec.  612(c), Sec.  612(d) specifies
that additions or deletions to the SNAP list must be proposed via
petition, and that petitions ``shall include a showing by the
petitioner that there are data on the substance adequate to support the
petition.'' Solvay stated that the CAA puts the burden on a petitioner
to demonstrate that the substance it proposes to list satisfies all of
the SNAP criteria. Solvay contended that EPA should not attempt to
delist any substances on its own initiative. Solvay commented that to
the extent it does, EPA has the burden, standing in the shoes of a
petitioner, to demonstrate that it has data adequate to support the
petition.
    Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter regarding EPA's
authority to independently review and, where appropriate, change the
status of substitutes under the SNAP program. In the preamble to the
initial SNAP rule, the Agency stated that ``section 612 authorizes it
to initiate changes to the SNAP determinations independent of any
petitions or notifications received. These amendments can be based on
new data on either additional substitutes or on characteristics of
substitutes previously reviewed'' (59 FR 13044, 13047). Nothing in
section 612(c) contravenes this interpretation. The existence of
section 612(d), which provides a right for persons to petition the
Agency to revise a listing, does not address in any manner whether EPA
has authority to change a listing on its own. Furthermore, section
612(c) requires EPA to take action when the Agency (1) determines that
a substitute may present adverse effects to human health and the
environment, and (2) identifies an alternative that reduces overall
risk to human health and the environment and is currently or
potentially available. Section 612(c) does not limit such EPA
determinations to initial review of substitutes.
    For petitions under section 612(d), the petition must ``include a
showing . . . that there are data on the substance adequate to support
the petition.'' The Agency disagrees that EPA stands in the shoes of a
petitioner under 612(d) when it proposes to change the listing status
of an alternative. Rather, EPA's action is governed by section 612(c),
and EPA considers the criteria used in reviewing substitutes as
provided in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). Regardless, we note that we also
review section 612(d) petitions based on the same SNAP criteria and
thus the ``data on the substance adequate to support the petition''
necessarily are the data required for review under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
    EPA has changed the listing status of substitutes in the past
without having received a petition under section 612(d), as, for
example, when we changed the listing status of MT-31 (64 FR 3861, Jan.
26, 1999; 40 CFR part 82 subpart G appendix E) and HBFC-22B1 (67 FR
4185, Jan. 29, 2002; 40 CFR part 82 subpart G appendix J).
    While EPA has the right to act in the absence of a petition, as
described above, EPA did receive three petitions filed under section
612(d) that are

relevant to this rulemaking. Specifically, NRDC filed a petition on May
7, 2010. On February 14, 2011, EPA found that petition complete for
MVAC in new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it
was incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. This rule responds to the
aspect of that petition that we found complete. In addition, EIA filed
a petition on April 26, 2012, and NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a petition
on April 27, 2012. Although EPA found both of these petitions
incomplete, our action in this final rule may be considered responsive
to certain aspects of the petitions, given that we are changing the
listing of certain HFCs used in sectors noted in those petitions from
acceptable to unacceptable for most uses, and placing use conditions or
narrowed use limits on some of the remaining uses. A more detailed
discussion of the petitions can be found in section IV of this rule.
7. Application of Criteria for Review of Alternatives
    Comment: Solvay commented that EPA has failed to properly apply the
SNAP factors to a delisting situation, has given undue weight to GWP in
its analysis, and has based its decision on comparative GWPs of various
non-ODS options to the exclusion of all other factors. Solvay commented
that the proposal was deficient in that EPA failed to consider many
relevant codes, standards and regulations, including parallel energy
efficiency regulations issued by the DOE; building code standards; fire
code requirements; and Coast Guard regulations. Solvay also stated that
EPA should have considered technical concerns like solubility,
compatibility, and shelf stability; equipment limits; supply chain
considerations; and safety concerns that affect many end-use products.
    Solvay further commented that in making a determination whether to
list a substance as an approved substitute to replace an ODS, the
Agency must conduct a comprehensive analysis of each alternative in
each end-use, including considerations of the cost of the alternative,
availability, and the overall practicability of effectuating a
replacement. Solvay focused on the phrase ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' in section 612(a) of the CAA, stating that Congress
deliberately chose the term ``practicable'' to mandate an orderly
transition from ODS. Solvay stated that the term ``practicable''
ordinarily includes consideration of cost and availability. Solvay
further argued that EPA had acknowledged and agreed with this
understanding of the term by including cost and availability in its
list of criteria. Solvay referred to dictum in Honeywell v. EPA, 374
F.3d 1363, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 2004) stating that ``it is at least facially
plausible to read the term `available' in section 612(c) as permitting
consideration of `economic or practicality' concerns.''
    Mexichem commented that the text of the proposed rule and the
underlying docket, including the SNAP program's comparative risk
framework, are vague on how EPA reached the required section 612(c)
conclusion that the alternatives reduce overall risks to human health
and the environment, leaving the impression that it considered only
GWP. Specifically, they state that out of the seven documents that may
be relevant to the comparative risk framework analysis, only the
``Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule'' report
refers to human health and the environment, with a focus on climate
benefits, but that the report itself is silent on estimated reduction
of ``overall risks to human health.'' Mexichem also noted that EPA
promised to prepare a consolidated analysis document in the proposed
rule, but no such document was available at the time the comments were
drafted. Mexichem further stated that an assessment of HFC-134a and
related alternatives is missing, and that such an assessment should
have included several specific questions related to the following
factors: Performance, availability, hazard, exposure, and cost of the
alternatives. These questions include whether the other alternatives
perform as well as HFC-134a in the specific end-use; whether the other
alternatives will be available in the necessary quantities; whether the
other alternatives present a better overall hazard profile; whether the
other alternatives present a better overall exposure profile; whether
use of the other alternatives involves an equivalent cost; and whether
use of the other alternatives represents a cost-effective mitigation of
CO2 emissions in each end-use.
    Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc. questioned whether the CAA
authorizes EPA to delist non-ODS solely on the basis of GWP. Arkema
commented that EPA is focusing on the potential hazard of GWP alone and
stated that EPA is not evaluating HFC-134a within a comparative risk
framework. Arkema stated that if the CAA were to authorize the SNAP
program to ``delist'' previously approved non-ozone depleting
substances based on climate, then EPA would need to develop an
objective measure for deciding which substitute poses a greater risk
and communicate that standard to the regulated community. Arkema
claimed that any such measure would need to include methods for
weighing different types of risks against one another (such as
flammability versus climate) and for including mitigation, as the
existing SNAP program, which did not originally provide for
quantitative indexing of risks, does not convey sufficient information
to the Agency or the regulated community regarding risk management
decisions.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' views regarding the
Agency's consideration of overall risk. In this rule, we applied the
same comparative risk framework that was established for the SNAP
program in 1994 and that has been used successfully for over 20 years.
When we issued the proposal, we did not re-open fundamental parts of
the SNAP program, such as the factors we evaluate and the manner in
which we weigh them. Under the SNAP regulations, proponents of a
substitute are required to submit a wide array of information,
including information on ODP, GWP, toxicity, environmental fate and
transport, flammability, exposure data and the cost and availability of
the substitute under review (see 40 CFR 82.178 for a full list of the
information required with SNAP submissions). EPA reviews these data and
applies the regulatory criteria adopted in 1994, which include, in
addition to atmospheric effects, general population risks from ambient
exposure to compounds with direct toxicity and to increased ground-
level ozone, ecosystem risks, occupational risks, consumer risks,
flammability, and cost and availability of the substitute under review
(see 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7)). As regards specific quantification of
reductions in overall risk to human health and the environment, in the
1994 rulemaking, we considered and rejected comments suggesting that we
develop an index to rank all substitutes based on risk. In the preamble
to the rule, we specifically noted that ``a strict quantitative index
would not allow for sufficient flexibility in making appropriate risk
management decisions'' (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). Our subsequent
experience with the SNAP program has given us no reason to revisit this
approach.
    While EPA prepared a variety of documents in association with the
proposed rule, the bulk of the comparison of human health and
environmental impacts of alternatives appeared in the preamble to the

NPRM.\100\ For this final rule, we have added a technical support
document to the docket which provides the Federal Register citations
for information such as ODP, GWP, VOC status, flammability, and
workplace exposure limits both for the substitutes remaining acceptable
and for those with a changed status (EPA, 2015d). This information was
discussed in the preambles to both the NRPM and the final rule and is
provided in tabular format in the technical support document for easier
comparison and consistency of presentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ EPA also placed in the docket a document on exposure
limits for alternatives in the foam blowing sector, titled,
``Information on workplace exposure limits for foam blowing
agents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the NPRM, the documentation associated with the
proposed rule includes ``market characterizations, analyses of costs
associated with sector transitions, estimated benefits associated with
the transition to alternatives, and potential small business impacts''
(79 FR 46126). These documents provide information to the public about
estimated environmental benefits, the affected markets, and potential
cost impacts, as well as provide EPA's screening analyses to determine
whether this rule may have significant economic impacts or significant
impacts on a substantial number of small businesses; they are not part
of EPA's comparison of human health and environmental effects of
alternatives.
    Mexichem noted in its comments that EPA had included these
documents in the docket for the proposed rule, but raised a concern
about the availability of the consolidated analysis document
anticipated in the NPRM. The consolidated analysis is included in the
docket for the final rule, but was not available during the public
comment period (ICF, 2015a). This document is a consolidated sector-by-
sector market characterization for those sectors addressed in this
action. While it incorporates some suggestions and information provided
by commenters, it otherwise does not add new substantive information
other than that provided in the individual market characterizations at
the time of the proposed rulemaking. It merely consolidates the
information for ease of reference.
    We disagree with the comments suggesting that EPA did not consider
factors other than GWP. In the NPRM, for each end-use or sector, EPA
provided information comparing the alternatives and applying the full
set of regulatory criteria, not solely GWPs, in deciding whether to
change the status of a listed substitute, consistent with SNAP's past
practices. As one example, in discussing the change in status for HFC-
227ea in the aerosol propellant end-use, the Agency explained in the
preamble that other available substitutes have zero ODP, are relatively
low in toxicity, are capable of remaining below their respective
exposure limits, and are expected to have negligible impact on ground-
level ozone levels (79 FR 46126, 46173). In each case, consistent with
the decision criteria listed at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), EPA has considered
environmental impacts, flammability, toxicity, and exposure. In the
context of this review, we considered a large amount of information
including, among other things: Scientific findings, information
provided by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) that
supports the Montreal Protocol, journal articles, submissions to the
SNAP program, dockets for other EPA rulemakings, presentations and
reports presented at domestic and international conferences, and
materials from trade associations and professional organizations.
References cited in the NPRM were listed in section IX of that document
and the references cited in this final action are listed in section IX
of this document.
    Solvay suggested a number of considerations they believe should
have been included as part of EPA's decision-making criteria, such as
various standards and codes, product shelf-life, and equipment limits.
Solvay does not discuss how the various considerations mentioned relate
to the existing SNAP review process. In general, we took such
considerations into account to the extent relevant to the criteria for
review of a substitute or to the availability of other alternatives.
For example, we considered such issues as the supply and
characteristics of alternatives as well as the status of various
regulations and codes and standards as they relate to the availability
of the alternatives and thus the appropriate time for the change of
status. EPA specifically mentioned building codes (id. at 46143) and
energy efficiency and requested comment on ``the effect, if any, [the]
proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE standards.'' (id. at
46147). We also noted that plans for the production of an alternative
to HFC-134a in the MVAC end-use ``are in place to make it available in
volumes that meet current and projected domestic auto industry
demand.'' (id. at 46141)
    We also addressed certain of these issues in the context of the
potential mitigation of risks both for those substitutes subject to the
status change and those that remain available. For example, we noted in
the preamble to the NPRM, in the context of alternatives in several of
the foams end-uses, that flammability issues would be addressed in the
process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes (id. at 46,152,
46,153); and in the context of the retail food refrigeration and
vending machine end-uses, that exposure limits for the alternatives,
including workplace exposure limits of the AIHA and from OSHA and
NIOSH, would be met. (id. at 46,144). Concerning other technical
concerns such as solubility, compatibility, and shelf stability, this
is not information that the SNAP program has routinely requested or
received, either for the substitutes used for comparison purposes or
for those being evaluated for listing. We have recognized, and when
warranted, made changes responding to such technical considerations in
this final rule where commenters provided information relevant to the
availability of alternatives: For example, in establishing the change
of status date for stand-alone refrigeration equipment, we took into
consideration that certain larger capacity commercial stand-alone
refrigeration equipment requires charge sizes larger than those
established in the use conditions for most flammable refrigerants.
    Similarly, Mexichem suggested that EPA was required to evaluate
specific questions regarding performance, availability, hazard,
exposure, and cost. Again, this ignores the established criteria that
EPA uses in determining whether a substitute is acceptable or
unacceptable in a specified end-use. In the NPRM, in determining
whether other substitutes were available that posed lower risk than
those for which we proposed to change the status, EPA evaluated the
ozone-depletion, climate, local air quality, toxicity and flammability
risks of the substitutes undergoing a change of status as well as of
other alternatives, thereby addressing hazard and exposure concerns. We
note that the statute refers to overall risk to human health and the
environment, and does not require that the substitutes be better in
terms of each potential human health and environmental concern. EPA
does not typically compare the performance or efficacy of substitutes
except in considering whether a substitute is technically feasible (see
definition of ``potentially available'' at 40 CFR 82.172). In other
words, it is not necessary for EPA to evaluate whether other
alternatives perform as well as HFC-134a (or other HFCs) in the
specific end-use in order to determine that overall risks to human
health and

the environment would be reduced through use of those alternatives.
    We have considered whether other alternatives will be available in
sufficient quantities as part of our analysis of the availability of
alternatives. As discussed in the NPRM, we set dates for the proposed
status changes that reflect when there will be a sufficient supply of
the alternatives. (id. at 46,141) In some instances, we have revised
those dates in this final action after taking into account information
on supply of alternatives submitted by commenters.
    One of the regulatory criteria for review of a substitute is the
``cost and availability of the substitute'' (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18,
1994; 40 CFR 82.180(7)(vii)). The consideration of cost under this
criterion is limited to the cost of the substitute under review; it is
distinct from consideration of costs associated with the use of other
alternatives to which the substitute is being compared. See Honeywell,
374 F.3d at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in part and dissenting in
part) (``While the SNAP regulations make the `cost and availability of
the substitute' an element of acceptability . . . that concern is
limited to whether EPA `has . . . reason to prohibit its use,' not to
whether cleaner alternatives for the substance are already `currently
or potentially available'. . . . Consideration of transition costs is
thus precluded by the SNAP regulations as currently written,
irrespective of whether it might be permitted under CAA Sec.  612(c). .
. .'') Contrary to Solvay's contention, including the cost of the
substitute in the list of review criteria does not amount to an
acknowledgment that the term ``practicable'' as used in section 612(a)
necessarily involves consideration of the costs associated with using
other alternatives. EPA has not determined whether the term
``practicable,'' the term ``available,'' or other terms in section 612
provide discretion to consider such costs. Similarly, our existing
regulations do not direct us to consider whether use of the other
alternatives involves an equivalent cost to that of HFC-134a or a cost-
effective mitigation of CO2 emissions. We are not addressing
in this rulemaking whether to revise the regulatory criteria to include
an expanded role for the consideration of costs in SNAP listing
decisions. We have simply applied the existing regulatory criteria in
determining whether to change the listing status of the substitutes
addressed in this action. Thus, we have not considered the costs of
transition to other alternatives.
    Several commenters suggested or implied that EPA's action was based
``excessively'' or solely on GWP. As discussed above, we performed a
full comparative risk analysis for each of the substitutes and for each
end-use for which we are changing the status. However, as noted in the
preamble to the NPRM, EPA issued this proposal in response to the CAP.
As such, in determining which substitutes and end-uses to address in
the proposed rule, we evaluated the existing listing decisions in the
eight sectors covered by the SNAP program. In three of the sectors, we
identified a subset of substitutes that have a high GWP relative to
other listed alternatives and for which we also had reason to believe
other alternatives were ``available'' for the end-use. For those
substitutes included in the proposed rule on the basis of having a
relatively higher GWP, in most cases, EPA did not find significant
potential differences in risk with respect to the other criteria, with
the exceptions of flammability and local air quality impacts. However,
where flammability risk was a potential concern, we concluded that such
risk is mitigated by the existing use conditions or through other
existing regulations (e.g., OSHA). In the case of spray foam, we
proposed to change the status of fewer HFCs than in other foam blowing
end-uses in consideration of greater flammability risks in that end-
use. Regarding VOC emissions and potential impacts on local air
quality, for the aerosol propellant end-use, we did not propose to
change the status of HFC-152a, a VOC-exempt aerosol propellant.

B. Cost and Economic Impacts of Proposed Status Changes

    EPA received a number of comments on the cost and economic impacts
of the proposed rule. Some of these comments are summarized in the
response to comments sections for the end-uses addressed in this final
rule. We summarize and respond to the more general cost comments below.
1. Costs of Proposed Rule
    Comment: EPA received several comments indicating that the
commenters believe EPA should provide more time in order to avoid undue
burden on the U.S. economy. NAFEM comments that if this rule is
finalized as proposed, the change from using R-404A will be very
costly. NAFEM stated that compliance cost estimates range from $500,000
to several million dollars depending on the number and variety of
custom products the manufacturer offers. They further comment that
testing costs are routinely several hundred thousand dollars and
increase with the variety and level of customization. NAFEM comments
that in addition, manufacturers will lose revenues waiting for the
limited number of testing facilities able to accommodate the industry's
products. The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the
Alliance) requests that greater weight be given to economic
considerations where the Agency is determining dates for availability
of new alternatives, or changing the listing status, which unlike SNAP
listing, may require businesses to alter practices and business models.
The Alliance also requests that these economic considerations also be
undertaken cognizant of competing regulatory initiatives. The Alliance
also comments that the SNAP change of status process should be used
sparingly, since its economic implications should require a higher
scrutiny in considering transition dates and market assumptions than is
needed for the SNAP listing approval process. DuPont comments that it
is important to reduce emissions in a way that does not slow down
global trade, and to achieve emissions reductions in a cost-effective
manner. Arkema comments that no SNAP rule should impose unreasonable
burdens on the U.S. economy. Arkema believes that EPA must allow more
time for transitions to avoid that outcome. Mexichem believes EPA
failed to take into account the economic implications of the proposed
rule.
    Response: As discussed more fully in section VII.A.7, 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 of
substitutes is the cost of the substitute under review. The transition
timelines in this final rule are based on information concerning the
availability of alternatives.
    Comment: Arkema commented that EPA underestimated the costs of the
NPRM. Arkema believes EPA's cost estimates are unduly optimistic given
all that must be done to redesign equipment. Arkema further commented
on three areas of economic analysis that they state need to be
addressed. First, Arkema stated that EPA does not include the ``wasted
costs'' incurred by those manufacturers that have actually changed
designs of their equipment to meet DOE standards, based on the
continued availability of existing SNAP substitutes, but that now may
need to change their designs again. Second, Arkema suggested that EPA
should account for ``economic effects'' on U.S. plants that produce
HFC-134a and the other HFCs and HFC blends whose listing the Agency
proposed to change. Third, Arkema suggested that the

economic analyses should disclose how EPA expects prices and
availability to change once it eliminates competing products, including
stimulation of short-term demand for the HFCs and HFC blends whose
listing the Agency proposed to change, longer term increases in prices
for the HFCs and HFC blends, and increased demand for next-generation
fluorinated products. Solvay commented that given the cumulative
regulatory burden, EPA has dramatically underestimated the costs of the
NPRM. As an example, Solvay pointed to the DOE energy conservation
standards.
    Response: Although EPA did not consider the costs of transitioning
to other alternatives in making the listing decisions in this
rulemaking, we did prepare a cost analysis and a small business impacts
analysis for this rule for businesses that are directly regulated.
    We do not typically analyze cumulative regulatory burden in our
cost analyses. Nonetheless, EPA notes that to the extent that affected
entities recently incurred costs to comply with DOE rulemakings, the
change of status dates in the final rule for the foam blowing sector
and for some of the refrigeration end-uses (e.g., vending machines) may
reduce the potential for additional costs due to complying with both
rules compared to the change of status dates in the NPRM, since
equipment manufacturers should better be able to coordinate DOE's
requirements and these SNAP requirements. For example, the change of
status date for rigid PU appliance foam is January 1, 2020, while based
on the 2014 compliance date of the most recent DOE standards, the
compliance date for any revised energy conservation standard for
household refrigerators and freezers would be no earlier than 2020. For
vending machines, the final change of status date is January 1, 2019,
which will likely coincide with compliance requirements for any new or
amended DOE refrigerated beverage vending machine standards, as
compliance with such standards would be required three years after the
publication of a final rule. Material in the docket for that action
indicate DOE's plans for a final rule with a compliance date three
years later (see EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022).
    Second, EPA has analyzed the costs of users that are directly
regulated and has not analyzed the impacts on chemical producers, which
are indirectly affected by the regulation. The commenters did not
provide specific cost or supply information regarding redesigning
equipment or specific information on operating costs for chemical
plants that would have allowed us to analyze the impacts as requested
by Arkema. We disagree with Arkema that it is necessary or appropriate
to analyze the indirect impacts upon chemical plants and producers.
Such analysis would be highly speculative about the degree of cost
pass-through from producers to consumers of these chemicals. The total
cost estimates would be unchanged; rather such an analysis would relate
to transfers between producers of the substitutes undergoing a change
of status, producers of the acceptable alternatives for the same uses,
and consumers of these products rather than losses to the economy or to
a market sector as a whole. We note that the transition affecting the
majority of HFC-134a production, the transition away from HFC-134a in
MVAC, is already occurring because of other regulations, and therefore
changes to production and cost of HFC-134a cannot easily be attributed
to this action.
    EPA recognizes that transitioning to other alternatives is likely
to require capital costs and investments in research, updated
equipment, and their related financial impacts. Many chemical producers
have either submitted SNAP notifications or expressed interest in
submitting SNAP notifications concerning new molecules and blends of
existing molecules. EPA agrees with Arkema that this rule is likely to
stimulate demand in next-generation alternatives further.
    EPA also notes that, for example, HFC-134a likely will be a
component of many low-GWP blends that are being developed specifically
to replace HFC-134a. EPA listed as acceptable one of those blends, R-
450A, on October 21, 2014 at 79 FR 62863. The Agency is aware of
additional blends that multiple chemical producers are developing. As
noted throughout this document, the range of alternatives includes new
molecules and existing compounds, encompassing fluorinated, non-
fluorinated and in some cases not-in-kind alternatives.
    Third, we question Arkema's assumption that competition will
decrease and thus cost for low-GWP alternatives will rise. For each of
the status changes in this final action, more than one other
alternative is currently listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to
use conditions, for the relevant end-use. Moreover, we expect new SNAP
submissions that would result in the introduction of further
alternatives to increase, rather than reduce, competition. Further,
because this rule does not regulate production of individual chemicals
directly and allows servicing of existing refrigeration and AC
equipment with the refrigerants for which they are designed, we expect
there will continue to be a market for HFC-134a and other HFC
refrigerants for years to come.
    In those cases where commenters provided specific, detailed cost
information, we used that information to revise the cost assumptions in
our updated cost analysis for this final rule. For additional
information on economic analysis conducted for this rule, see the
supporting document ``Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives'' (ICF, 2015c).
    Comment: NRDC and IGSD commented that the rule is important because
it provides a needed signal to various industrial sectors that as safer
alternatives are brought to market, substitutes with high GWPs will be
removed from the SNAP list. NRDC and IGSD commented that this provides
American companies with an opportunity to become industry leaders as
the global market moves away from high-GWP substances, by developing
new chemicals and processes to transition the refrigeration, cooling,
aerosol and foams markets as quickly as possible. NRDC further
commented that this rule will establish U.S. industry as a leader in
safer chemicals, helping pave the way for global action under the
Montreal Protocol. NRDC noted that when EPA previously proposed phasing
down CFCs and ODS, there were warnings about dire impacts on industry
that did not come to pass, and NRDC expects this will be true for this
rule as well. NRDC commented that 25 years of experience with the
Montreal Protocol and the CAA has shown us that transitioning to safer
chemicals works smoothly.
    Response: EPA appreciates this comment and agrees that there are
many innovative U.S. companies bringing new low-GWP, energy-efficient
products to market.
2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening Analysis
    Comment: EPA received a number of comments indicating that small
businesses bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden and
that the NPRM represents a ``significant regulatory action,'' NAFEM
comments that EPA must conduct a complete analysis of the impacts on
small entities before any final regulation can be promulgated. NAFEM
comments that EPA's analysis is too narrow, is incomplete, and that its
conclusions are unsupported. NAFEM further comments that the NPRM
disproportionately affects small entities. NAFEM comments

that the NPRM represents a major rule and will have a $100 million
effect on the economy and a major impact on the commercial
refrigeration industry and its consumers. NAFEM commented that the
docket lacks a robust industry analysis of the effects on small
business manufacturers and customers, or reasonable support for EPA's
Regulatory Flexibility Act conclusions. NAFEM recommends that EPA
initiate a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
Small Entity Representative review panel to help inform final
rulemaking, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Solvay also
commented that EPA should convene a Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel under the SBREFA.
    Response: E.O. 12866 states that rules that have an impact on the
economy of $100 million per year qualify as significant regulatory
actions. EPA disagrees that this rule would have an impact on the
economy of $100 million more per year. We performed an analysis of the
costs of the proposed rule on businesses and estimated the total
annualized upfront compliance costs to range from $8.9 million to $41.6
million; total annual savings are estimated to be about $25.1 million
(ICF, 2014g). This cost analysis did not evaluate the share of costs
likely to be borne by consumers, since it is not clear what proportion
of cost impacts may be carried on to consumers, and further, such
economic analyses typically look at costs to the regulated community
rather than indirect impacts on consumers. We updated this analysis
based upon the regulatory options and change of status dates in the
final rule, and using cost information provided by commenters. The
changes in the final rule--especially with respect to compliance
dates--reduce the cost impacts on small businesses, while the updated
cost information resulted in higher cost estimates. In this updated
analysis, we estimated the total annualized upfront compliance costs to
range from $28.0 million to $50.6 million, using a 7% discount rate,
and from $19.5 million to $37.8 million, using a 3% discount rate.
Total annual savings are estimated to be about $19.3 million (ICF,
2015c). In either case, this is well below the $100 million per year
threshold to consider this an economically significant rule on economic
grounds.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter that the ``docket lacks a robust
industry analysis on the effects on small business manufacturers and
customers, or reasonable support for EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Act
conclusions.'' The Agency's screening analysis at proposal stage is
included in the docket (ICF, 2014f). The commenters do not point to any
specific aspect of that analysis that they believe are deficient. A
Small Business Advocacy Panel is convened when a proposed rulemaking is
expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities, or ``SISNOSE.'' We have updated our small business impacts
screening analysis using the change of status decisions and dates in
the final rule, adding boat manufacturers as affected entities, and
using detailed cost information provided by commenters (ICF, 2015b).
EPA's preliminary and final screening analyses concluded that this
rulemaking would not pose a SISNOSE. In the analyses, EPA recognized
that some small businesses may experience significant costs, but
concluded that the number of small businesses that would experience
significant costs was not substantial.
    Both the screening analysis for purposes of determining whether
there was a SISNOSE and the analysis to determine whether the rule was
significant based upon economic grounds were conducted based on the
best market and cost information available to the Agency. Where
commenters provided specific market or cost information, the Agency
used that information to update these analyses. The updated analyses
came to the same conclusions: That the final rule would not pose a
SISNOSE and that it is not an economically significant rule (ICF,
2015b,c).

C. Environmental Effects of Proposed Status Changes

    EPA received submissions from 42 commenters related to the
environmental impacts of the proposed status changes. Additionally, EPA
received 7,022 mass mailing letters commenting on the importance of
transitioning away from HFCs to more climate-friendly alternatives. Ten
commenters referred to the CAP.
1. General Comments
    Comment: EPA received over 7,000 substantially identical comments
regarding the climate impacts of HFCs and supporting action to address
the growth in usage of these potent greenhouse gases. The commenters
also stated that that the rest of the world, including Europe and
Japan, is taking action to reduce HFC emissions, so the United States
should also transition away from HFCs to protect the planet from the
catastrophic impacts of climate change. They also stated that it is of
the utmost importance to limit ``super-potent'' greenhouse gases from
use in refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosols and foams and
substitute them with safer, more climate-friendly alternatives. They
also noted that some HFCs remain in the atmosphere for decades or even
centuries after they are released, so that they have a strong
cumulative effect. NRDC stated that if EPA were only considering human
health risks, HFCs should be banned immediately given the climate
risks. NRDC commented that we know these chemicals are extremely potent
agents of climate change, and we know that continuing to use them only
exacerbates the climate problem. EIA requested that EPA continue to
remove high GWP HFCs from the lists of acceptable substitutes, given
that HFC emissions are set to double by 2020 and triple by 2030, and
given that this rule has the potential to reduce 42 MMTCO2eq
by 2020. EIA urged EPA to address all sectors covered in the SNAP
program, given the needs of climate and the existence of climate-
friendly alternatives. DuPont commented that they acknowledge the
environmental need to avoid future growth in GHG emissions, and have
thus developed low-GWP, energy efficient products.
    Response: The Agency appreciates the support of actions to list
change the status of certain HFCs. Other actions urged by the
commenters are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
2. EPA's Benefits Analysis
    Comment: EPA received a number of comments regarding the
importance, significance, and magnitude of the environmental benefits
of avoided HFC emissions that would result based on the proposed rule.
    CARB comments the current regulations and the SNAP proposal meet
only half of the 80% reduction necessary for the HFC sector if
California is to meet its overall GHG reduction goal contained in
California Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 (2005). Therefore, CARB believes
additional HFC reductions are required to reduce this fastest-growing
source of GHGs.
    NRDC and IGSD comment that even though HFCs may currently make up a
small piece of global climate emissions, their projected rapid growth
underscores the urgent need to replace these chemicals with lower-GWP
alternatives. Further, NRDC and IGSD comment that without stringent
rules in place, HFC emissions increases could counteract the progress
EPA is striving to make in other sectors to reduce carbon pollution.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support for reducing GHG emissions,
and appreciates the estimates of the benefits in terms of
MMTCO2eq that the

commenters provide. CARB's comment concerning meeting GHG reduction
goals in a California EO are beyond the scope of this rule; we may
consider additional status changes in a future rule. We agree with NRDC
and IGSD that HFC emissions are growing rapidly and that it is timely
to act now to encourage use of lower-GWP alternatives and ensure
continuing progress. The Agency notes that both EPA's estimates cited
in the NPRM and the estimates the commenters provide are based on the
provisions of the proposed rule, and that the benefits from this final
rule differ. For further information, see EPA, 2014 and EPA, 2015b.
    Comment: Arkema comments that at this time, it is not possible to
provide a more detailed critique of the Vintaging Model's assumptions
and the levels of sector emissions given the lack of meaningful
information in the docket. Arkema comments that the docket does not
provide all the model inputs, nor does EPA disclose the specific
emission factors that it used to derive its estimates, how recent those
estimates are, and how they are expected to change over time. Arkema
comments that EPA's benefits analysis nowhere details the extent of the
uncertainties in its emissions estimates, even though the record
elsewhere acknowledges that such emissions estimates may be unreliable.
    Response: As an initial matter, EPA did not rely on the Vintaging
Model in reaching decisions about whether other alternatives present
lower overall risk. Nor did EPA otherwise rely on the benefits analysis
that accompanied the proposed rule. We estimated emissions reductions
resulting from this rulemaking in order to provide information to the
public. Consistent with section 612(c) of the CAA, EPA relied on the
criteria for review specified in the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7) in determining whether the substitutes for which we
proposed to change the status presented greater risk to human health
and the environment than other available alternatives.
    As part of the process for listing alternatives, EPA evaluates
information concerning a substitute according to the criteria in EPA's
regulations at 82.180(a)(7) (e.g., atmospheric effects, ecosystem
risks, occupational and consumer risks, availability) in comparison
with other available substitutes for the same end-uses. At the time of
review, we prepare a risk screen and place it in the relevant public
docket for our listing decisions. It is rare for risk screens to
include information from the Vintaging Model, although such information
may be used in some cases to estimate emissions (e.g., VOC emissions
from an end-use where the submitter has provided insufficient
information). The preambles to this final rule and the NPRM include
information summarizing the comparisons to other alternatives. In
addition, we also have docketed a document which provides the Federal
Register citations for the information on the health and environmental
characteristics of various alternatives in the end-uses covered in this
final rule (EPA, 2015d).
    See the next response for further information about where one can
find information on the modeling assumptions and methodology.
    Comment: Arkema commented that in order to calculate HFC sector
emission savings, the Vintaging Model needs to be revised since it is
over-estimating chemical demand. Arkema also commented that the basis
and methodology for the Vintaging Model's emissions estimates are
unclear, but a comparison to publicly available information should have
raised red flags because a steady growth rate of HFC emissions in the
U.S. is extremely unlikely for at least three of the four covered
sectors (i.e., MVAC, aerosols, and foams). For MVAC, Arkema comments
that refrigerant charge sizes have been dropping, and new cars will be
transitioning to low-GWP alternatives over time. Arkema notes that for
aerosols, a significant portion of the aerosol product manufacturing
industry has already transitioned out of the HFCs proposed for
regulation. In addition, Arkema points out that UNEP's 2014 TEAP report
shows that hydrocarbon technologies already dominate the foam sector.
    Response: EPA's Vintaging Model has been explained annually in the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks \101\ report and other
places. For example, the 2015 annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks report, EPA Report 430-R-15-004 (EPA, 2015c),
covers emissions, including emissions of HFCs used as ODS alternatives,
for the years 1990 through 2013 and provides in detail the basis and
methodologies used. The commenter is misinformed with respect to the
assumptions used in the model. Specifically, the model does assume that
MVAC refrigerant charge sizes have dropped over time, and it utilizes
detailed sector information to calculate such changes. In addition, it
does assume that a significant portion of the aerosol product
manufacturing industry has transitioned out of HFCs. Although the cited
2014 TEAP report--which the commenter states indicates hydrocarbon
technologies dominate the foam sector--applies globally rather than
specifically to the United States, EPA notes that its Vintaging Model
does specifically assume that significant transition in the foam
industry to non-ozone-depleting, low-GWP substances, including
hydrocarbons, has occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Available online at www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/2014.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Arkema comments that as far as they are aware, EPA has
never submitted its Vintaging Model for external peer review. Arkema
comments that the Vintaging Model qualifies under the Agency's Peer
Review Handbook as ``influential scientific information'' for which
external peer review is warranted. Arkema believes that the underlying
data has been kept a secret. Arkema comments that EPA's NPRM is not
consistent with Administrator McCarthy's three pillars of EPA's
scientific conclusions: Transparency, rigorous peer review, and robust,
meaningful public comment. Arkema comments that EPA cannot obtain
robust, meaningful comments if the Vintaging Model is not subject to
peer review and if underlying data is kept secret.
    Response: As explained above, EPA used its Vintaging Model to
provide information to the public, but does not rely on that
information to support today's rule. Thus, the issue of whether the
Vintaging Model should be subject to a peer review process is outside
the scope of this rulemaking action.
3. Energy Efficiency
    Comment: EPA received a number of comments regarding energy
efficiency and LCCP of refrigeration equipment. NAFEM commented that
the life-cycle climate performances of manufacturers show that only
about 10% of the environmental impact is due to a combination of
refrigerant leak, charge amount and GWP of the refrigerant; the rest
relates to energy efficiency. NAFEM asserted that the proposed SNAP
rule does not account for nor can EPA claim any significant
environmental benefits to offset significant costs. The Alliance noted
that given the important energy efficiency consequences of this
proposed rule, it is unclear how this action will meet the statutory
standard of no greater risk to human health and the environment. The
Alliance commented that by taking previously acceptable substitutes off
the market, these proposals could result in less efficiency in the near
term. The Alliance further comments as EPA evaluates the

timing of transitions in various end-use segments, it is important that
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, including those associated with
energy use, are given proper consideration as part of ensuring the
alternative presents ``no greater risk to human health and the
environment.''
    Response: EPA provided estimates of the climate benefits associated
with the NPRM, and we have also estimated the climate benefits
associated with this final rule (EPA, 2014; EPA, 2015b). These
estimates are based on avoided direct HFC emissions. They are distinct
from our evaluation of whether other alternatives are currently or
potentially available that present less overall risk to human health
and the environment. EPA does not have a practice in the SNAP program
of including indirect climate impacts or energy efficiency in the
overall risk analysis. We do consider issues such as technical needs
for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining
whether alternatives are ``available.'' Elsewhere in this final action,
EPA addressed and responded to comments concerning energy efficiency
(see in particular sections V.C.3.c, V.C.4.c, V.C.7 and V.D.3.c). EPA
notes that the refrigerant is only one of many factors affecting energy
efficiency. Moreover, even as refrigerant transitions have taken place
over past decades, we have seen improved energy efficiency. This is
often due to equipment redesigns and technology advancements that
include factors besides the choice of refrigerant. EPA notes that a
number of models are already commercially available that do not use the
refrigerants subject to a change of status in this final rule and also
meet or exceed the relevant energy conservation standards and thus
reduce both direct and indirect climate impacts.
4. The Climate Action Plan
    Comment: EPA received six comments commending the EPA for quickly
proposing a rule to achieve the goals in the President's CAP.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support from this wide variety of
interested stakeholders on addressing the goals in the President's CAP.
    Comment: EPA received two comments questioning whether the
President's CAP provides authority to regulate HFCs.
    Response: Section 612 of the CAA, not the CAP, provides the
authority for this action. CAA section 612(c) requires EPA to list a
substitute as unacceptable if other available alternatives pose lower
risk to human health and the environment.
    Comment: Two comments stated that EPA's response to the President's
CAP in the NPRM did not consider full ramifications of the challenges
to industry.
    Response: The NPRM proposed changes to listings based on the
information the Agency had at the time of the proposal. We requested
comments to further our understanding of any potential challenges
relating to technical feasibility or supply. We considered that
additional information as we developed the final rule.

D. Potential Exemptions

    Comment: EIA commented on potential exemptions, specifically the
need for a mechanism to petition for an essential use exemption or for
more time with a valid basis. The commenter recognized that the
potential for the misuse of such a mechanism could overwhelm the
resources of the EPA available for this transition. As a result, EIA
recommended that EPA grant no blanket exemptions or delays due to the
needs of one or a few sectors but that EPA establish an exemption
mechanism with a penalty clause to avoid misuse.
    Response: The SNAP regulations do not currently contain an across-
the-board mechanism for petitioning for an exemption, and EPA did not
propose such a mechanism in the NPRM. To make such a change in our
regulations, we would first need to provide an opportunity for public
comments. In some instances in the final rule EPA has changed a listing
to acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits. The narrowed use limits
identify a narrow part of the end-use in which an end user could use an
otherwise unacceptable substitute if they can support that no other
acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application.

E. Interactions With Other Rules

    Comment: The Alliance, AHAM, AHRI, and a number of other commenters
in the commercial refrigeration and home appliance industries expressed
concern about the feasibility of using other alternatives to meet DOE
energy conservation standards. AHRI and Coca-Cola stated that DOE's
federal minimum energy conservation standards are based on refrigerants
and foam blowing agents that EPA is now proposing to list as
unacceptable. NAFEM comments that manufacturers are now finding that
developing a product to meet both the energy conservation standards and
also utilizes acceptable alternative refrigerants and blowing agents is
daunting if not impossible. Commenters pointed out that they have
redesigned products to meet DOE energy conservation standards due to
take effect in 2017. See section V.C.1.b for a discussion of DOE energy
conservation standards that apply to the equipment affected by this
rule.
    Response: Given that today's rule contains later deadlines than
proposed, as well as a phased-in approach with different status change
dates for different kinds of equipment as suggested by many commenters,
this should address commenters' concern about meeting both sets of
requirements.\102\ EPA continues to coordinate with DOE as EPA reviews
alternative refrigerants and foam blowing agents, DOE tests energy
efficiency of certain alternative refrigerants, and the two agencies
discuss each other's rulemakings in development. EPA sees the redesign
of products as an integral part of business operations, and believes
redesigning equipment to use refrigerants that pose a lower overall
risk to human health and the environment is in many ways similar to
past redesigns. We believe that manufacturers can incorporate lower-GWP
refrigerants in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and
remote condensing units while designing for DOE energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration equipment and for walk-in
coolers and freezers, both of which have compliance dates in 2017, and
can incorporate lower-GWP foam blowing agents while designing for DOE
standards for household refrigerators/freezers. Based on the 2014
compliance date of the most recent DOE standards for residential
refrigerators and freezers, the compliance date for any revised energy
conservation standard for household refrigerators and freezers would be
no earlier than 2020. As discussed in the previous and following
responses and in sections V.C.7 and V.D.3.c) as well as other sections
of this preamble, there are both refrigerants and foam blowing agents
with lower GWPs available that allow for improved energy efficiency
compared to the substitutes we are finding unacceptable in this rule.
EPA anticipates that innovative companies

will seize this opportunity to develop more efficient and profitable
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to
undue hardship by DOE's regulations, the manufacturer may petition
DOE's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or
exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA's authority under
section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as
implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority
to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a
manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause
hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A number of manufacturers of commercial refrigeration
products commented on the relative energy efficiency of alternative
refrigerants, compared to the refrigerants proposed to be unacceptable.
Lennox commented that the substitution of R-407 family refrigerants in
place of R-404A and R-507A will negatively affect the efficiency
performance of refrigeration equipment for walk-in coolers and
freezers. Structural Concepts stated that switching from R-404A to R-
744, and consequently switching to thicker piping and new compressors,
would increase energy usage overall by 45%, which would cause the unit
to exceed the allowable energy level determined by the DOE. AMS
commented that after studying the suitability of the acceptable (R-744)
and proposed acceptable (R-290, R-600a and R-441A) alternatives
extensively, it concluded that only R-290 will allow it to meet DOE
energy conservation mandates. NAMA stated that because of DOE
requirements, CO2's use would be limited to indoor self-
contained units, limiting locations of refrigerated vending machines,
reducing revenues for the entire supply chain and reducing consumer
choice. Information in the Agency's possession describes a
manufacturer's testing of the energy efficiency of condensing units
with R-404A compared to R-407A, finding that the energy efficiency was
typically higher with R-407A in medium-temperature equipment but was
typically lower with R-407A in low-temperature equipment (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-1098-0184). Structural Concepts comments that R-744 is not
flammable, but it is less energy efficient than the acceptable,
flammable refrigerant propane, and to meet the EPA proposed regulation
would likely mean they fail to meet DOE regulations or go out of
business trying to meet them.
    Response: EPA expects that no single refrigerant will improve
energy efficiency compared to the unacceptable refrigerants in every
type of equipment or in every situation. For example, the information
regarding a manufacturer's test results indicates that R-407A may
provide improved energy efficiency compared to R-404A for medium-
temperature refrigeration equipment (refrigerators), but not
necessarily for low-temperature refrigeration equipment (freezers);
this information indicates that Lenox's comment about lower energy
efficiency of R-407A compared to R-404A or R-507A may be correct for
low-temperature equipment and incorrect for medium-temperature
equipment. We agree with the commenters who noted that R-744 may be
more energy efficient in locations with lower ambient temperatures and
thus may be more suitable for use indoors than outdoors. R-290 may
provide better energy efficiency than HFC refrigerants in many
situations, but not necessarily all, and not all end users will want to
use a flammable refrigerant. In response to the comment from Structural
Concepts expressing concern about the ability to meeting energy
conservation standards using CO2 and the cost of using
propane, we note that there are additional refrigerant choices
available for stand-alone refrigeration equipment and vending machines
besides CO2 and hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as the
nonflammable refrigerants R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A. As
discussed in section V.C.7, these blends may show improved energy
efficiency over HFC-134a and R-404A. In addition, design and operation
of refrigeration equipment affects energy efficiency and not just the
refrigerant used. Given the variety of currently or potentially
available alternatives, EPA believes it is unlikely that manufacturers
will have to use refrigerants that will result in reduced energy
efficiency compared to the refrigerants being listed as unacceptable or
otherwise restricted in this final rule, and we expect that
manufacturers will be able to meet DOE energy conservation standards
with the remaining available alternatives.
    Comment: Some manufacturers of commercial refrigeration products
commented on how design changes needed to accommodate alternative
refrigerants may negatively affect energy efficiency. Parker Hannifin
stated that most of the alternatives result in higher discharge
temperatures and that some of the discharge temperature control methods
employed negatively affect system efficiency. Nor-Lake and Structural
Concepts indicated that they expected to need dual compressor systems,
and stated that the increased energy usage of the dual system may
outweigh the environmental gains of using the alternate lower-GWP
refrigerant.
    Response: EPA agrees that some design changes could have negative
impacts on energy efficiency if they were done without broader
considerations for the overall performance of the appliance. As stated
elsewhere, many models that comply with DOE energy conservation
standards are already commercially available that do not use the
refrigerants subject to a change of status in this final rule. We agree
with Nor-Lake and Structural Concepts that dual compressor systems are
more likely needed for larger equipment, particularly larger equipment
using hydrocarbon refrigerants which have use limits restricting the
refrigerant charge in a single refrigeration circuit. Recent listings
of additional nonflammable refrigerants (e.g., R-450A) allow for
additional options that would not require dual compressors. In response
to Parker Hannifin's comment about discharge temperatures, we note that
producers of some alternative refrigerant blends under review by the
SNAP program claim that these new blends have operating properties
similar to those of HFC refrigerants, such as similar operating
pressures and discharge temperatures.
    Given the variety of currently or potentially available
alternatives, EPA believes it is unlikely that manufacturers will have
to use refrigerants that will result in reduced energy efficiency
compared to the refrigerants being listed unacceptable in this final
rule.
    Comment: The Alliance, AHAM, AHRI, and a number of other commenters
in the commercial refrigeration and home appliance industries suggested
that the SNAP rulemaking schedule should be better coordinated with the
ongoing DOE energy conservation standard rulemaking schedules. AHAM
comments that firms have invested millions of dollars to meet new DOE
conservation standards that were based on the assumption of the
availability of HFCs, and have diverted the scarce capital that is
available for regulation-driven investment. The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM) requested that the EPA harmonize the rule with the
DOE rule in order to ease the capital- and design-intensive
manufacturer transition. Scotsman Ice Systems and Whirlpool Corporation
stated that as a result of the potential regulatory measures, their
ability to develop any customer focused products or new product
features during this time will be constrained. GE Appliances notes that
the burden of overlapping regulatory requirements between SNAP and the
DOE require consideration and review under the executive orders issued
by President Obama and his predecessors that require consideration of
cumulative regulatory burden.
    Response: EPA's timeframes are based upon our understanding of the
availability of alternatives, considering technical challenges and
supply. The timeframes in this final rule take into account additional
information on availability provided to the Agency

during the comment period. These timeframes account for the time needed
to meet the technical challenge of designing equipment using
alternative refrigerants that can meet the DOE requirements. We note
that EPA and DOE coordinate to the extent possible. For example, each
agency has reviewed the other's rules. The list of acceptable SNAP
alternatives is evolving. EPA is also coordinating with DOE to ensure
more alternative refrigerants are being tested for energy efficiency.
We recognize that as manufacturers focus on designing equipment to meet
the DOE standards and to use refrigerants acceptable under the SNAP
program, they may need to divert design resources from other projects
for that period of time. However, as provided in section VII.A.7, this
type of transition cost is not a part of the SNAP review criteria. As
explained in the Statutory and Executive Order sections at the end of
the NPRM and of this final rule, EPA has complied with those
requirements.
    Comment: The National Restaurant Association (NRA) comments that
the food industry is already being affected by the EPA's rule Listing
of Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of
the Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes. NRA
believes the EPA should consider the impacts of the cumulative
regulatory burden of rulemakings and standards imposed nearly
simultaneously on manufacturers of this equipment in the final
rulemaking.
    Response: The rule entitled ``Listing of Substitutes for
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting
Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes'' lists additional
substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions. It does not
mandate use of the newly listed substitutes. Thus, it is unclear how it
might result in cumulative regulatory burden together with this rule.
Equipment designed using the refrigerants in that rule is not affected
by this rule, which concerns different refrigerants. Finally, that rule
also has an exemption from requirements under section 608 of the CAA
that will reduce regulatory burden.
    Comment: Danfoss commented that several of the refrigerants listed
as acceptable in the rule titled Listing of Substitutes for
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting
Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes are severely restricted
by building codes and would not be acceptable for use in most areas of
the U.S, mainly due to their flammability. Danfoss stated they believe
that the proposed replacement refrigerants are not able to be used as
short term alternatives to those being found unacceptable because
changes to model building codes and subsequent adoption by states and
localities will likely be much later than 2020.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that some building codes may currently
restrict or prohibit use of flammable refrigerants. We note that other
available or potentially available refrigerants that are not flammable
and have relatively low GWP (roughly 600 or less), including R-744 and
R-450A, are listed as acceptable for use in retail food refrigeration
and in vending machines.
    Comment: A number of manufacturers of laboratory refrigeration
equipment and several foam manufacturers suggested that EPA align the
timelines for transition of foam blowing agents and refrigerants with
the requirements of the EU F-Gas regulations. The commenters summarized
the deadlines for foams as: 2008 for one-component foams, January 1,
2020, for XPS, January 1, 2023, for other foams, and provisions for a
four-year extension of time where (1) ``alternatives are not available
or cannot be used for technical or safety reasons'' or (2) ``the use of
technically feasible and safe alternatives would entail
disproportionate costs.'' Commenters summarized the deadlines for
refrigerants in commercial refrigerators and freezers as being January
1, 2020, for HFCs with GWP of 2,500 and January 1, 2022, for HFCs with
GWP of 150 or more.
    Reasons given for this coordination of timeline with EU regulations
include: Many companies are trans-national and had already been
planning on a transition in line with the EU regulatory deadlines; the
SNAP program has deferred to other regulations in the past; and the
later deadlines will allow for redesign of refrigeration equipment for
both alternative, flammable refrigerants and for new foam blowing
agents and for needed third-party testing. Commenters stated that the
proposed deadlines would create an extreme burden, particularly on
small businesses; that part supplies needed for compliance are not
offered in the United States; and that the transition is a complicated
undertaking that cannot be performed in 18 months.
    Response: EPA disagrees that it should align the timelines in this
rule with the EU timelines. The EU regulations are based upon different
authority from the SNAP program and we must decide upon timelines based
upon the availability of alternatives in the United States. Concerning
the suggestion that EPA has deferred to other regulations, we note that
there are several key differences. As an initial matter, we have
deferred to U.S. regulations. More importantly, we have not deferred to
other regulations in a manner that overrides the statutory mandate
governing the SNAP program. Rather, in the context evaluating risks of
alternatives under our comparative risk framework we have looked to
regulations in effect, such as workplace regulations from OSHA or the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, to determine
whether a specific alternative may be used as safely as other available
alternatives. This is different from aligning with a timeline in
another nation's regulations that are not effective within the United
States or deferring to considerations in those regulations, such as
transition costs, that are not part of the SNAP decision criteria.

F. Other Comments

    Additional public comments not already discussed above along with
EPA's responses are available in the Response to Comments document
which accompanies this action (EPA, 2015a).

VIII. Additional Analyses

    EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives
in making listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review
in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the
substitute under review. However, EPA has prepared technical support
documents including analyses of costs associated with sector
transitions, estimated avoided GHG emissions associated with the
transition to alternatives, and potential small business
impacts.103 104 105
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ ICF, 2015a. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes
to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. July 2015.
    \104\ ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--
Revised. July 2015.
    \105\ EPA, 2015. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status
Change Rule, July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transition scenarios analyzed possible ways to comply with the
final rule. The transition scenario in the cost analysis reflects a
direct compliance cost method and does not assume the regulated
community chooses higher-cost solutions where known less costly
solutions exist. The scenarios analyzed in the avoided GHG emissions
analysis reflect possible transitions for compliance based on
considerations of the market and activity towards lower-GWP solutions.
While the emission reductions have been quantified, they have not been
monetized. Thus, higher or lower GHG emission reductions do

not necessarily correlate to higher or lower costs due to the different
assumptions and methodologies used in the different analyses. However,
the transitions assumed in the lower, less aggressive scenario here are
similar to the transitions assumed in the cost analysis.
    To extend the assessment to all-sized businesses potentially
affected by the rulemaking, EPA conducted an analysis on costs to all-
sized businesses building on the approach taken to estimate potential
economic impacts on small businesses. Using a 7% discount rate, total
annualized compliance costs across affected businesses are estimated to
range from $28.0 million to $50.6 million; total annual savings are
estimated to be about $19.3 million. Using a 3% discount rate, total
annualized compliance costs across affected businesses are estimated to
range from $19.5 million to $37.8 million, total annual savings are
estimated be about $19.3 million.
    EPA conducted an analysis on the potential avoided GHG emissions
associated with implementation of this final rule. The emissions
avoided from this final rule are estimated to be 26 to 31
MMTCO2eq in 2020. The avoided emissions are estimated to be
54 to 64 MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 78 to 101 MMTCO2eq in 2030
(EPA, 2015b) .

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control
number 2060-0226. This final rule contains no new requirements for
reporting or recordkeeping.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The requirements of
this final rule with respect to HFCs, will impact manufacturers of some
consumer and technical aerosol products, retail food refrigeration
equipment, vending machines, motor vehicles, and products containing
phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, PU, and polystyrene foams. The
requirements of this final rule with respect to HCFCs could
theoretically affect manufacturers of aerosols, foams, industrial
cleaning solvents, fire suppressants, and adhesives, coatings, and
inks; however, due to existing regulations that restrict the use of
HCFCs in these products, no actual impact is expected. In some uses,
there is no significant impact of the final rule because the
substitutes proposed to be prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use of
HFC-134a as a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC-134a
as a foam blowing agent in various polyurethane foams). A significant
portion of the businesses regulated under this rule are not small
businesses (e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers). About
500,000 small businesses could be subject to the rule, although more
than 99% of those businesses are expected to experience zero compliance
costs because other available substitutes for supermarket refrigeration
systems and condensing units have costs similar to those of the
refrigerants listed as unacceptable. For those small businesses with
compliance costs, impacts are estimated to range from 0% to 48% of
annual sales, with approximately 57 businesses expected to experience
an impact of 3.0% of annual sales or more. Details of this analysis are
presented in the document, Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--
Revised (ICF, 2015b). In our analysis, we found that while some small
businesses may experience significant costs, the number of small
businesses that would experience significant costs is not substantial.
We have therefore concluded that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in EO 12866, and because the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action restricts the use of certain substitutes that
have greater overall risks for human health and the environment,
primarily due to their high global warming potential. The reduction in
GHG emissions would provide climate benefits for all people, including
benefits for children and future generations.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol uses are not related to the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. For the end-uses that are
related to energy effects, including refrigeration and air conditioning
and some rigid cell PU and polystyrene insulation foams, a number of
alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants and foam
blowing agents that are listed as unacceptable in this action; many of
the alternatives are as energy-efficient or more energy-efficient than
the substitutes being listed as unacceptable. As described in more
detail in this document, energy efficiency is influenced, but not
determined, by the refrigerant. Similarly, although foam blowing agents
influence the insulation properties of rigid cell foams, this also can
vary due

to other properties of the foam (e.g., thickness). Thus, we have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This action would prohibit a number of substances
with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and GWP emissions would
assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and provide climate
benefits.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

X. References

    This preamble references the following documents, which are also in
the Air Docket at the address listed in section I.B.1. Unless specified
otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the
Federal Docket Management System, Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198.

AGC, 2014. AGC to Supply Honeywell with HFO-1234yf--New-generation
Automobile Refrigerant, 23 January 2014. This document is accessible
at: https://www.agc.com/english/news/2014/0123e.pdf.
Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries
of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
Andersen, S.O., Sherman, N.J., Craig, T., Baker, J., ``Secondary
Loop Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL-MACs). Using Low-
Global Warming Potential (GWP) Refrigerants.'' In Leak-Tight Systems
in Climates with High Fuel Prices and Long, Hot and Humid Cooling
Seasons. Building on the Previous Success of Delphi, Fiat, General
Motors, Volvo, Red Dot, SAE Cooperative Research Projects, and Other
Engineering Groups.'' MACS Briefing, 2015.
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.
Ben and Jerry's, 2014. Cleaner, Greener Freezers. This document is
accessible at www.benjerry.com/values/how-we-do-business/cleaner-greener-freezers.
CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on Climate-Friendly Alternatives in
Commercial Refrigeration. Meeting Summary, December 8, 2012.
Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible
at: assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-gri-report.pdf.
Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 Millionth HFC-Free Cooler
Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, January
22, 2014. This document is accessible at: www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing-525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2.
Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol
Pressurized Products Survey--61st Annual Products Survey. April 15,
2012.
Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test new R404A ``drop-
in.'' October 5, 2014. This document is accessible at:
www.coolingpost.com/world-news/spanish-store-first-to-test-new-r404a-drop-in/.
Daimler, 2014. ``Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler's Safety
Concerns About New Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,'' Stephen
Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily Environment Report, March 11, 2014. This
document is accessible at: news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=0.
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:HTM.
Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 13, 2014.
EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act.
Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009.
EPA, 2011a. Greenchill. ``Advanced Refrigeration''. This document is
accessible at: www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gc_storecertprogram08232011.pdf.
EPA, 2011b. GreenChill. ``Best Practices Guidelines: Commercial
Refrigeration Retrofits''. August 2011. This document is accessible
at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pdf.
EPA, 2012a. Factsheet: Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation 2000-2013.
This document is accessible at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum_merged.pdf.
EPA, 2012b. 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.
EPA, 2013a. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-
2030, September 2013.
EPA, 2013b. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol,
June, 2013.
EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule,
June 2014.
EPA, 2015a. Response to Comments on the SNAP Status Change Rule.
July 2015.
EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule,
July 2015.
EPA, 2015c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2013, EPA Report 430-R-15-004. April 15, 2015. This document is
accessible at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.
EPA, 2015d. Table of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered in the
Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing
Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. February, 2015.
FTOC, 2010. 2010 Report of the Foams Technical Option Committee.
Gaved, 2015. Emerson Climate Technologies Offers to Help Supply
Chain Move to Lower-GWP Refrigerants. January 28, 2015. This
document is accessible at: http://www.racplus.com/news/-emerson-climate-technologies-offers-to-help-supply-chain-move-to-lower-gwp-refrigerants/8677708.article.
GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, October 2008.
Honeywell, 2014a. Aerosols Overview-Honeywell Solstice[supreg]
Propellant. EPA meeting. February 27, 2014.
Honeywell, 2014b. Honeywell International Comments on Proposed Rule:
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for
Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program. October 20, 2014.
Honeywell, 2015. Honeywell Starts Full-Scale Production of Low-
Global-Warming Propellant, Insulating Agent, and Refrigerant.
January 6, 2015. This document is accessible at: honeywell.com/News/Pages/Honeywell-Starts-Full-Scale-Production-Of-Low-Global-Warming-Propellant-Insulating-Agent-And-Refrige.aspx.
ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry.
Prepared for the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.
ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory
Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June
2014.
ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost-Analysis for Regulatory Options
to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014.
ICF, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Rigid Polyurethane
Appliance Foam; Rigid Polyurethane Commercial Refrigeration and
Sandwich Panels; Rigid Polyurethane & Polyisocyanurate Laminate
Boardstock; Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock; Flexible Polyurethane;
Integral Skin Polyurethane Substitute: Methylal October, 2014.
ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry,
and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015.
ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory
Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--Revised.
July, 2015.
ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. July, 2015.
IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe
K. (eds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
(IGES), Japan. This document is accessible at: www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L.
Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at: www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M.,
G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and
P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and
the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and
Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
ITW Polymers Sealants, 2014. Comments of ITW Polymers Sealants North
America on Proposed SNAP Status Change Rule. October 15, 2014.
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0071.
Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and
Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
Nelson, 2013. Nelson, Gabe ``Automakers' switch to new refrigerant
will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate'' Automobile
News, December 30, 2013. This document is accessible at:
www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea.
NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone
Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.'' Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
PepsiCo, 2009. PepsiCo Brings First Climate-Friendly Vending
Machines to the U.S., March 30, 2009. This document is accessible at
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pepsico-brings-first-climate-friendly-vending-machines-to-the-us-61975262.html.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015. ``Coca Cola to
narrowly miss HFC-free global refrigeration target.'' This document
is accessible at: www.racplus.com/news/coca-cola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global-refrigeration-target/8680290.article).
Shapiro, Doron. ``System Drop-In Tests of R-134a, R-1234yf,
OpteonTM XP10, R-1234ze(E), and N13a in a Commercial
Bottle Cooler/Freezer'', January 25, 2013. This document is
accessible at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI%20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt-008.pdf.
Shecco, 2013a. Guide 2013: Natural Refrigerants--Market Growth for
North America. This document is accessible at
publication.shecco.com/publications/view/6.
Shecco, 2013b. HCs Gaining Market Prominence in US--View from the
NAFEM Show--Part 1, February 18, 2013. This document is accessible
at http://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/3891.
Shecco, 2015. New Regulations Inspire Hydrocarbon Displays at U.S.
NAFEM Show, February 24, 2015. This document is accessible at http://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/6143.
UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options
Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at:
ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the
Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document
is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information
on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. This document is accessible
at: conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/cop10-mop26/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20o1/Corrigendum_TEAP_TaskForce%20XXIV-7-September2013.pdf.
UNEP, 2014. Summary of the Information Submitted By Parties on Their
Implementation of Paragraph 9 of Decision XIX/6 to Promote a
Transition from Ozone-Depleting Substances That Minimizes
Environmental Impact (Decision XXV/5, Paragraph 3). November, 2014.
This document is accessible at: conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/cop10-mop26/presession/PreSession%20Documents/MOP-26-9E.pdf.
Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O.
Andersen (2009). ``The large contribution of projected HFC emissions
to future climate forcing.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report: Analyses
of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.'' Department of
Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September
26, 2011.
Weissler, Paul, ``A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R-
1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,'' Automotive Engineering
International, April 2, 2013.
WMO, 2010. World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project--Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland,
2011.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.

    Dated: July 2, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended
as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

0
2. Appendix B to subpart G of part 82 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the first entry and adding four entries in its place in
the table titled ``Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions''.
0
b. By adding a new entry at the bottom of the table ``Refrigerants--
Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits''.
0
c. By adding three new entries at the end of the table titled
``Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes

                               Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Application                Substitute           Decision           Conditions           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle   HFC-134a..........  Acceptable subject  --must be used      EPA is concerned
 Air Conditioning (New Equipment/                      to use              with unique         that the
 NIKs only).                                           conditions, for     fittings.           existence of
                                                       passenger cars     --must be used       several
                                                       and light-duty      with detailed       substitutes in
                                                       trucks              labels.             this end-use may
                                                       manufactured for                        increase the
                                                       Model Year 2020                         likelihood of
                                                       or earlier, and                         significant
                                                       for vehicles                            refrigerant cross-
                                                       other than                              contamination and
                                                       passenger cars or                       potential failure
                                                       light-duty trucks.                      of both air
                                                                                conditioning