before the January 1, 2020 change of status date (for appliance foam).
Whirlpool requested that the change of status date be set to July 1,
2021, in order to provide an equitable transition period, assuming that
this rule would be finalized in late 2016.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and is finalizing the
change of status dates as proposed. We disagree with Whirlpool that it
is necessary or equitable for manufacturers of products outside the
United States containing closed cell foams, such as appliances, to have
until July, 2021, to continue using unacceptable HFC blowing agents for
the U.S. market. Their domestic counterparts, in comparison, must stop
using unacceptable HFC blowing agents as of January 1, 2020. EPA first
signaled its interest in regulating use of foam products in an August
6, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 46125, 46154) and did not withdraw that
proposal. Manufacturers with both domestic and foreign manufacturing
facilities have gained experience and knowledge with use of new blowing
agents, and thus we expect that future transitions will be quicker. In
addition, sufficient supplies of alternatives are anticipated to be on
the market beginning in 2017 to allow product development, which was an
important consideration when we set the change of status date for a
number of rigid PU foam end-uses, including appliance foam, in the July
2015 rule (80 FR 42925-26). Thus, we consider that the proposed January
1, 2020, change of status date for appliances containing appliance foam
blown with unacceptable alternatives still provides adequate time. For
substitutes listed as unacceptable with a change of status date after
January 1, 2017, the unacceptability determination applies to use of
closed cell foam products and products that contain closed cell foam
manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent on or after the
change of status date for each end-use (January 1 of 2019, 2020, or
2021).
iii. SNAP Authority, Interpretation, and Impacts
    Comment: Chemours, Honeywell, NMMA, Compsys and Structural
Composites, NRDC, and IGSD all supported EPA's proposal to prohibit the
import of closed cell foams, and appliances containing them, that have
been produced with and contain blowing agents whose status has been
changed to unacceptable. They considered this to be fairer than the
current situation, in which products containing foam blown with
unacceptable foam blowing agents may be imported and sold in the United
States while domestic manufacturers are prohibited from making and
selling an identical product. Compsys and Structural Composites and
Honeywell noted that EPA's proposal would remove the current incentive
for U.S.-based manufacturers to move production outside of the United
States in order to use less expensive substances with higher
environmental impacts in nations that do not have such stringent
requirements, thereby protecting the environment, U.S. jobs, and U.S.-
based small businesses.
    In contrast, CPI opposed EPA's proposal and urged EPA to reconsider
or redefine its interpretation of use. This commenter raised concerns
about potential unintended consequences and inconsistency in the
treatment of foams produced domestically and overseas. CPI believed
this interpretation leads to the possibility of prohibiting the import
of products manufactured prior to the change of status date and thus
treating imported products inconsistently with domestically-produced
products manufactured prior to the change of status date. CPI believed
that this inconsistency suggests that EPA's proposed action is beyond
its authority under the CAA or contrary to the intent of the statute.
CPI stated that they were unaware of any precedent or authority that
would allow EPA to interpret ``use'' differently based on the location
of a manufacturer's facility, and thus opposed EPA's reinterpretation
of use for foam products. In addition, CPI elsewhere had suggested that
EPA should consider the change of status date to be the date a
manufacturer packages polyol resin blends, including the blowing agent,
into a drum, canister, or can, and believed EPA's interpretation of
``use'' for products was inconsistent with that suggestion.
    Response: EPA agrees with the first set of commenters that our
proposed interpretation of ``use'' provides for more equitable
treatment of domestic and foreign manufacturing. We also

find, as discussed by the commenters, that this interpretation of
``use'' will have environmental and other benefits. EPA clarifies that
the use prohibition would not apply to closed cell foam products, or
products containing such foams, manufactured with unacceptable blowing
agents prior to the change of status date, whether the product was
manufactured in the United States or abroad. Thus, EPA would be
interpreting use the same way, irrespective of the location of the
manufacturer's facility. Concerning CPI's suggestion that use should be
based upon the date of manufacturing and packaging a polyol resin, see
section IV.C.1.c.ii above. We note that the definition of use in the
initial SNAP rule at 40 CFR 82.172 refers to use as ``including but not
limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by
the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging
for other subsequent uses.''

D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Acceptable Listing of 2-BTP for Total Flooding and Streaming
a. Background
    The fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses addressed in
this action are total flooding and streaming. Total flooding systems,
which historically employed halon 1301 as a fire suppression agent, are
used in both normally occupied and unoccupied areas. In the United
States, approximately 90 percent of installed total flooding systems
protect anticipated hazards from ordinary combustibles (i.e., Class A
fires), while the remaining ten percent protect against applications
involving flammable liquids and gases (i.e., Class B fires).\208\ It is
also estimated that approximately 75 percent of total flooding systems
protect electronics (e.g., computers, telecommunications, process
control areas) while the remaining 25 percent protect other
applications, primarily in civil aviation (e.g., engine nacelles/APUs,
cargo compartments, lavatory trash receptacles), military weapons
systems (e.g., combat vehicles, machinery spaces on ships, aircraft
engines and tanks), oil/gas and manufacturing industries (e.g., gas/oil
pumping, compressor stations), and maritime (e.g., machinery space,
cargo pump rooms). Streaming applications, which have historically used
halon 1211 as an extinguishing agent, include portable fire
extinguishers designed to protect against specific hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to Replace Halon
Fire Extinguishing Agents. March, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. What is EPA's final decision?
    EPA is listing 2-BTP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for
the total flooding end-use. The use condition requires that 2-BTP be
used only in engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft in total flooding
fire suppression systems. In addition, EPA is listing 2-BTP as
acceptable, subject to use conditions for the streaming end use. The
use condition requires that 2-BTP be used as a streaming agent only for
handheld extinguishers in aircraft.
i. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire suppressants for these end-uses
with respect to SNAP criteria?
(a) Total Flooding
    EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable for the total
flooding end-use. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18, 2016)
EPA provided information on the environmental and health properties of
2-BTP and the various substitutes in this end-use. Additionally, EPA's
risk assessments for 2-BTP and a technical support document that
provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP
criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable
alternatives in the relevant end-uses are available in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In addition to halon 1301, the
current market for total flooding systems also includes HCFCs, HFCs,
inert gases, and a variety of NIK extinguishing agents (e.g., powdered
aerosols, foams, water).\209\ 2-BTP has an ODP of 0.0028, and the ODPs
of other total flooding alternatives are zero to 0.048. 2-BTP has a GWP
of 0.23-0.26. As shown in Table 22, the GWPs of other total flooding
alternatives range from zero to 3,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
    \210\ Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ``OH reaction rate
constant, IR absorption spectrum, ozone depletion potentials and
global warming potentials of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,'' J.
Geophys. Res., 117, D22301, doi:10.1029/2012JD019051.

        Table 22--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of 2-BTP Compared to Other Total Flooding and Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fire suppressants                GWP             ODP                VOC               Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-BTP.............................   \1\ 0.23-0.26          0.0028  Yes..................  Acceptable, subject
                                                                                to use conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone)              <1               0  Yes..................  Acceptable.
CF[ihel3]I........................             0.4           0.008  Yes..................  Acceptable.
CO[ihel2].........................               1               0  No...................  Acceptable.
HCFC Blend A\2\...................           1,546           0.048  No...................  Acceptable.
HFC-227ea.........................           3,220               0  No...................  Acceptable.
HFC-125...........................           3,500               0  No...................  Acceptable.
Water, Inert gases, Powdered                     0               0  No...................  Acceptable.
 aerosols A-E.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Streaming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCFC Blend B\3\...................              77         0.00098  No...................  Acceptable.
HFC-227ea.........................           3,220               0  No...................  Acceptable.
HFC-236fa.........................           9,810               0  No...................  Acceptable.
FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone)              <1               0  Yes..................  Acceptable.
CF[ihel3]I........................             0.4           0.008  Yes..................  Acceptable.
CO[ihel2].........................               1               0  No...................  Acceptable.
Water.............................               0               0  No...................  Acceptable.

H Galden HFPEs....................     2,790-6,230               0  No...................  Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GWP range represents GWPs for 30[deg]N. to 60[deg]N. and 60[deg]S. to 60[deg]N. emissions scenarios for a
  100-year time horizon. A tropospherically well-mixed approximation of the GWP is equal to 0.59.\210\
\2\ HCFC Blend A is a blend consisting of HCFC-123 (4.75 percent), HCFC-22 (82 percent), HCFC-124 (9.5 percent),
  and D-limonene (3.75 percent).
\3\ HCFC Blend B is a proprietary blend consisting largely of HCFC-123.

    In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA evaluated potential impacts of
emissions of 2-BTP on local air quality. 2-BTP meets the definition of
VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is not excluded
from that definition for the purpose of SIPs to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. EPA compared the annual VOC emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a
total flooding agent to other anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions
considering both worst-case and more realistic scenarios. Under either
scenario, emissions are a small fraction of a percentage (5.6 x
10-5 percent to 2.1 x 10-3 percent) of all
anthropogenic VOC emissions in the United States in
2014.211 212 Given this emission level, we determined it was
not necessary to perform an assessment of the effect of these emissions
on ambient ozone levels; any effect would be insignificant. This is
particularly true since use will be limited to aircraft and thus most
releases of 2-BTP are expected to be at altitude, not in the lower
troposphere. Other acceptable fire suppression agents currently in use
in this end-use are also VOC (e.g., C6-perfluoroketone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
    \212\ Based on the 2014 annual total VOC emissions for the
United States (i.e., approximately 17.13x10\6\ MT) as reported in
the National Emissions Inventory (EPA, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA evaluated the risks associated with potential exposures to 2-
BTP during production operations and the filling of fire extinguishers
as well as in the case of an inadvertent discharge of the system during
maintenance activities on the fire extinguishing system. EPA's review
of the human health impacts of 2-BTP, including the summary of
available toxicity studies, is in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0663).213 214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ ICF, 2016j. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes as a Streaming Agent in Civil Aviation Applications.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
    \214\ ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exposure to 2-BTP is not likely during installation or servicing of
2-BTP total flooding systems for engines and APUs on aircraft. These
are both considered to be unoccupiable areas, meaning personnel cannot
physically occupy these spaces, thus reducing the risk from exposure to
an inadvertent discharge. The risk of accidental activation of the fire
extinguishing system while personnel are present near the protected
space is low if proper procedures, including those of the 2-BTP system
manufacturer as well as the aircraft manufacturer, are followed.
Instructions on system installation and servicing included in manuals
for the 2-BTP systems should be followed. In the case of an inadvertent
discharge of the system during maintenance activities on the fire
extinguishing system or surrounding equipment, the cowl doors that
would be open to allow access to the area will allow personnel to
immediately egress and avoid exposure. Protective gloves and tightly
sealed goggles should be worn for installation and servicing
activities, to protect workers in any event of potential discharge of
the proposed substitute, accidental or otherwise. Filling or servicing
operations should be performed in well-ventilated areas. EPA's
evaluation indicates that the use of 2-BTP is not expected to pose a
significant toxicity risk to personnel or the general population. The
risks after exposure are common to many total flooding agents,
including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same
end-use such as C6-perfluoroketone.
    EPA is listing 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a
total flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft
because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by the
substitute is lower than or comparable to the overall risk posed by
other alternatives listed as acceptable in the same end-use.
(b) Streaming Uses
    EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable for the
streaming end-use. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18,
2016) EPA provided information on the environmental and health
properties of 2-BTP and the various substitutes in this end-use.
Additionally, EPA's risk assessments for 2-BTP and a technical support
document that provides the Federal Register citations concerning data
on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses are available in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In addition to halon
1211, the current market for streaming applications also includes
HCFCs, HFCs, and a variety of other agents (e.g., dry chemical,
CO2, water).\215\ Specific alternatives used for streaming
uses include HCFC Blend B (with an ODP of roughly 0.01 and a GWP of
roughly 80), HFC-227ea (with an ODP of zero and a GWP of 3,220), and C7
Fluoroketone (with an ODP of zero and a GWP of approximately one). The
ODP, GWP, and VOC status of 2-BTP and other alternatives that are also
used as streaming agents are described in Table 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding local air quality impacts, EPA compared the annual VOC
emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a streaming agent to other
anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions considering both worst-case and
more realistic scenarios, as described in the previous section. Other
acceptable fire suppression agents currently in use as streaming agents
are also VOC (e.g., C6-perfluoroketone, C7-fluoroketone).
    EPA evaluated occupational and general population exposure at
manufacture and at end-use to ensure that the use of 2-BTP as a
streaming agent will not pose unacceptable risks to workers or the
general public as discussed in the previous section. Also

discussed previously, EPA has evaluated the risks associated with
potential exposures to 2-BTP during production operations and the
filling of fire extinguishers as well as in the case of an inadvertent
discharge of the fire extinguisher during maintenance activities.
    The risks after exposure are common to many streaming agents,
including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same
end-use, such as C6-perfluoroketone.
    EPA is listing 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a
streaming agent on aircraft because the overall environmental and human
health risk posed by the substitute is lower than or comparable to the
overall risk posed by other alternatives listed as acceptable in the
same end-use.
ii. What further information is EPA providing in the acceptability
listing for 2-BTP?
    In the ``Further Information'' column of the regulatory listings
for total flooding agents, EPA is providing the following information:
     This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 0.23-
0.26 and a short atmospheric lifetime of approximately seven days.
     This agent is subject to requirements contained in a TSCA
section 5(e) Consent Order and any subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2)
SNUR.
     For establishments manufacturing, installing, and
servicing engine nacelles and auxiliary power units on aircraft using
this agent:
    (1) This agent should be used in accordance with the safety
guidelines in the latest edition of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems;
    (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be
immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is
difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention;
    (3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In
case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes,
including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area.
    (4) Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated clothing and
footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should be sought if
irritation develops or persists;
    (5) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s)
should consult a physician immediately;
    (6) Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized
engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system
and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential
occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace
atmosphere should be conducted;
    (7) Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the
appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles,
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation;
    (8) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with
good industrial hygiene practices;
    (9) Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all
employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or
extinguishing units filled with the agent;
    (10) Safety features that are typical of total flooding systems
such as pre-discharge alarms, time delays, and system abort switches
should be provided, as directed by applicable OSHA regulations and NFPA
standards; use of this agent should also conform to relevant OSHA
requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, subpart L, sections 1910.160 and
1910.162.
    In the ``Further Information'' column of the regulatory listing for
the streaming agent end use, EPA is providing the following
information:
     This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 0.23-
0.26 and a short atmospheric lifetime of approximately seven days.
     This agent is subject to requirements contained in a Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and any
subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).
     For establishments manufacturing, installing and
maintaining handheld extinguishers using this agent:
    (1) Use of this agent should be used in accordance with the latest
edition of NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire Extinguishers;
    (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be
immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is
difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention;
    (3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In
case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes,
including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area.
    (4) Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated clothing and
footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should be sought if
irritation develops or persists;
    (5) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s)
should consult a physician immediately;
    (6) Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized
engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system
and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential
occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace
atmosphere should be conducted;
    (7) Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the
appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles,
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation;
    (8) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with
good industrial hygiene practices;
    (9) Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all
employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or
extinguishing units filled with the agent; and
    (10) 2-BTP use as a streaming fire extinguishing agent in handheld
extinguishers in aircraft should be in accordance with UL 711, Rating
and Testing of Fire Extinguishers, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Minimum Performance Standard for Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/
FAA/AR-01/37), with regard to the size and number of extinguishers
depending on the size of aircraft, and FAA Stratification and
Localization of Halon 1211 Discharged in Occupied Aircraft Compartments
(DOT/FAA/TC-14/50).
iii. When will the listing apply?
    EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same
as the effective date of this regulation, to allow for the safe use of
this substitute at the earliest opportunity.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from organizations with various
interests in the fire protection industry on the proposed listing of 2-
BTP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a total flooding and
streaming agent in certain aircraft applications. Comments were in
reference to EPA's approach to the end-use categories for fire
suppression, an expedited listing for 2-BTP based on international
halon replacement deadline for handheld extinguishers on new aircraft,
conditions for use including minimum volumes for aircraft compartments
for safe handheld extinguisher use and labeling of extinguishers, and
broadening the acceptable applications for 2-BTP. All commenters
supported the proposed

listing decision, however, several commenters requested that EPA
consider a listing date of no later than August 2016 for 2-BTP in order
to meet an international target date of the end of 2016 for all
aircraft entering service to use handheld extinguishers that do not use
halon. Several commenters suggested the reference to aviation-specific
guidance rather than UL standard as more comprehensive analysis of safe
agent levels for handheld extinguishers used onboard aircraft.
    Commenters included the International Coordinating Council of
Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA) representing Aerospace
Industries Associations of the United States, Europe, Canada, Brazil,
Russia, and Japan; the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, Inc.
(HARC), a trade association; NAM; NEDA/CAP; Boeing; Airbus also
representing the aircraft manufacturers Bombardier, Dassault Aviation,
and Embraer; and P3Group.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed
acceptability listing of 2-BTP; these included Airbus, Boeing, ICCAIA,
NAM, NEDA/CAP, and P3Group. Airbus noted the ``complexity of fighting
fires in aircraft cabins and cockpits requires fire-fighting agents and
equipment which also minimize health impacts on aircraft crews and
occupants while ensuring continued safe flight and landing.'' Airbus
also cited the ``need for . . . EPA approval of 2-BTP as a pre-
requisite to allow commercialization in the leading US civil aviation
market. Others including Boeing, ICCAIA, NAM, and NEDA/CAP noted the
importance of this acceptability listing to meeting the ICAO Annex 6
deadline of December 31, 2016, for halon replacement in handheld
extinguishers for all new production aircraft, and requested EPA to
consider an expedited listing for 2-BTP. Airbus and HARC both urged EPA
to continue review of other potential applications of 2-BTP and broaden
its acceptability listings in other uses which would support the long-
term availability of the agent on the market. HARC expressed concern
that the restriction to only aircraft use impacts the agent's
commercial viability as an aircraft halon replacement.
    Response: EPA appreciates the interest and support offered by the
commenters in the acceptability listing of 2-BTP. EPA is aware of the
ICAO requirement to replace halons on handheld extinguishers on newly
produced aircraft entering service after the end of this year. EPA has
worked expeditiously to issue a final rule as quickly as possible
noting that the comment period closed June 16, 2016. Regarding comments
urging EPA to consider use of 2-BTP in other fire protection
applications, as stated in the proposed rule, EPA is reviewing
additional potential fire suppression applications for 2-BTP as
identified by the submitter.
ii. Listing Date
    Comment: ICCAIA urged a final acceptability listing of 2-BTP by
August 2016 in order to meet an international deadline for halon
replacement in handheld extinguishers for all aircraft placed into
service on or after December 31, 2016. That deadline was incorporated
by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in 2011 into
the revised Chicago Convention Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPs) for Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, which affects already
certified aircraft, and Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft, which
affects new aircraft types, to include deadlines for halon replacement
in various applications on aircraft including in handheld
extinguishers. Considering the additional design, reviews, and
certifications required following EPA's acceptability listing for 2-
BTP, ICCAIA requested that EPA also consider the option of issuing a
separate final rule for 2-BTP to meet this August timeline. Other
commenters in support of ICCAIA's request for expedited listing for 2-
BTP included Airbus, Boeing, NEDA/CAP, and NAM. Airbus, Boeing, and NAM
cited the adoption of halon replacement deadlines for civil aviation
into the ICAO SARPs; in 2011, ICAO amended its Annex 6, Operation of
Aircraft.
    Response: EPA appreciates the significant interest in the
acceptability listing of 2-BTP to meet the ICAO requirement to replace
halons on handheld extinguishers on aircraft. EPA has worked
expeditiously to issue a final rule as quickly as possible noting that
the comment period closed June 16, 2016. The commenters did not provide
sufficient information to explain how an August 2016 acceptability
listing fits into the design, specification, review, and certification
process for new production aircraft and how it would have specifically
affected this timeline. It is also worth noting that while the United
States strongly supported related actions taken at ICAO on halons
including the amendments to Annexes 6 and 8, following the final
amendment of Annexes 6 and 8, the United States filed a difference to
these new SARPs. As a Contracting State to the Chicago Convention, the
United States is required to either comply with or file differences to
the Standards contained in the ICAO Annexes; differences filed by
member States are not considered permanent, but rather States are meant
to continuously review the status of their differences and inform ICAO
if and when a difference is no longer necessary.
iii. Use Conditions
    Comment: ICCAIA, Airbus, P3Group, and Boeing referred to discussion
in the preamble regarding EPA's evaluation of potential exposure risk
at end-use, specifically to 2-BTP discharged from handheld
extinguishers onboard aircraft. The NPRM made reference to the UL 2129
standard, Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers, which prohibits
discharge in a confined space exceeding the cardiotoxic LOAEL for any
fire suppressant. EPA stated that ``per UL 2129, labels for 2-BTP
extinguishers will contain the statement, `Do not use in confined
spaces less than 896 cubic feet per extinguisher.' '' P3Group noted
that the UL 2129 value of 896 ft\3\ minimum confined space volume was
based on the LOAEL for the extinguishing agent, and the extinguisher
containing 3.75 lbs. of 2-BTP. Airbus noted that implementing the 896
cubic feet compartment size limit as a strict requirement would exclude
2-BTP handheld extinguishers from any smaller aircraft or even from use
in large transport aircraft cockpits, service or crew rest compartments
if considered, in terms of fire-fighting, as individual compartments.
All commenters noted that the industry utilizes FAA guidance for
determining appropriate minimum volumes relevant to aircraft
compartments as this guidance provides more comprehensive analysis of
acceptable agent levels under aircraft operating conditions. Airbus
suggested text for proposed use conditions for 2-BTP including required
labeling per UL 2129, and a listing of the minimum space volume in
order to discharge other sizes of extinguishers on aircraft. Boeing
commented that they disagreed with the Airbus proposed use conditions
for 2-BTP citing that these requirements for aircraft are specified by
the FAA guidance which the industry intends to follow.

    Response: EPA appreciates the clarification of the UL 2129 standard
and the information on the relevant FAA guidance that is intended to be
used by the industry to determine appropriate minimum volumes for
aircraft handheld extinguishers. EPA is revising the additional
information on 2-BTP use as a streaming fire extinguishing agent in
handheld extinguishers in aircraft to indicate that use should be in
accordance with UL 711, Rating and Testing of Fire Extinguishers, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Minimum Performance Standard for
Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/FAA/AR-01/37), with regard to the size and
number of extinguishers depending on the size of aircraft, and FAA
Stratification and Localization of Halon 1211 Discharged in Occupied
Aircraft Compartments (DOT/FAA/TC-14/50).
2. Change of Listing Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons for Total
Flooding
    While EPA proposed and requested comments on listing the PFCs
(C4F10 and C3F8) as
unacceptable in fire suppression total flooding uses, EPA is deferring
final action at this time. EPA plans to continue assessing the merits
of taking action in this sector more broadly, based on additional
information provided during the comment period on the use of
alternatives in this end use. EPA requested advance comments on other
alternatives, specifically SF6 and HFC-125 in total flooding and HFC-
227ea in both total flooding and streaming applications, to improve our
understanding. We received several comments in support of the proposed
action on PFCs and several commenters requested that EPA eliminate or
limit the use of additional high-GWP HFCs. Other commenters requested
that EPA take no action at this time with regard to the other
alternatives for which EPA sought advance comments, citing current use
in challenging applications such as aviation and the need to ensure
their availability for these uses in the future. These comments
provided us with additional but limited information on uses of
SF6, HFC-23, HFC-125, HFC-227ea, HFC-134a, and HFC-236fa,
confirming the specialized, niche applications for some of these
agents.
3. Removal of Use Conditions for Powdered Aerosol D
a. Background
    Powdered Aerosol D is a pyrotechnic particulate aerosol and
explosion suppressant that also is marketed under the trade names of
Aero-K[supreg] and Stat-X[supreg]. This fire suppressant is supplied to
users as a solid housed in a double-walled hermetically-sealed steel
container. When the unit is triggered by heat (300 [deg]C), the product
is pyrotechnically activated to produce gases and aerosol particles
from a mixture of chemicals. EPA listed Powdered Aerosol D as
acceptable subject to use conditions as a total flooding agent (71 FR
56359; September 7, 2006). The use conditions required that Powdered
Aerosol D be used only in areas that are not normally occupied, because
the Agency did not have sufficient information at that time supporting
its safe use in areas that are normally occupied. Based on a review of
additional information from the submitter to support the safe use of
Powdered Aerosol D in normally occupied spaces, EPA subsequently
determined that Powdered Aerosol D is also acceptable for use in total
flooding systems for normally occupied spaces (79 FR 62863; October 21,
2014). The listing provides that Powdered Aerosol D is acceptable for
total flooding uses, which includes both unoccupied and occupied
spaces. In the October 2014 listing action, EPA noted that in a
subsequent rulemaking, the Agency would remove the previous listing of
acceptable subject to use conditions.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is removing the previous listing in appendix O to
subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 for Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable
subject to use conditions as a total flooding agent (71 FR 56359;
September 7, 2006). This has been superseded by the listing of October
21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) listing Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable for
total flooding uses, which includes both unoccupied and occupied
spaces.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    Comment: Chemours stated that it opposed the removal of the use
restrictions for Powdered Aerosol D based on the fatalities from the
recent incident in a bank vault in Thailand after the inadvertent
discharge of a powdered aerosol system. Chemours noted that the
industry still needed to learn about the appropriate use of this
technology.
    Response: EPA is aware of the incident at the Thai bank and
understands the investigation continues. We note that the substitute
involved was not Powdered Aerosol D. Regarding the listing of Powdered
Aerosol D under the SNAP program, a decision to not modify the
acceptable subject to use conditions, as advocated by the commenter,
will not achieve the result they are seeking. As noted, Powdered
Aerosol D is listed as acceptable for all total flooding uses. If the
commenter believes that there is evidence to support that Powdered
Aerosol D cannot be used safely in some total flooding uses, they
should submit that information to EPA and EPA could consider it to
determine whether it should initiate rulemaking to change the
acceptable listing.

VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?

    EPA received additional comments on topics not addressed in other
sections of this document. These comments address a host of issues,
including EPA's CAA authority to change the status of alternatives;
perceived inconsistencies with the SNAP program's ``guiding
principles;'' perceived inconsistency with other actions; and
interactions with other rules. Additionally, some commenters requested
status changes for end-uses or alternatives that were not included in
the proposed rule.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).

A. General Comments

1. Proposed Status Listing Changes
    Comment: Several commenters, including the Alliance, Clayton, EIA,
NRDC, IGSD, Honeywell, NASA, Dow, and CARB generally supported EPA's
actions related to the proposed status changes. While these commenters
expressed their support for the SNAP program, the Alliance emphasized
the importance of an amendment to the Montreal Protocol for a gradual
phase-down approach to HFCs and urged caution when changing listing
status of substitutes under the SNAP framework. The Alliance believe
that a gradual phasedown approach is important in order to allow for
effective technology development and introduction, to allow for the
building codes and safety standards process to align with the newly
available low-GWP technologies and applications, and to ensure energy
efficiency performance is not diminished. Honeywell commented that the
proposed listing changes would lead to significant emission reductions,
setting an example for other countries around the world to follow.
Clayton noted that EPA was extremely thorough in considering challenges
posed by the proposal and engaging with

stakeholders. NASA noted that they take regulatory compliance seriously
and have committed significant time and resources to implementing
environmentally acceptable materials in their facilities and programs.
Dow stressed that any new technologies should be built upon success
with attainable timelines that allow the industry to innovate, develop,
and commercialize alternative technologies for our stakeholders.
    Response: EPA thanks these commenters for supporting the proposed
listing changes. As noted elsewhere in this document, EPA views this
final action as complementary to the United States' support for
adopting an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down production
and consumption of HFCs.
    Comment: Chemours and Honeywell supported EPA's efforts to reduce
GHG emissions associated with the use of HFCs in the production of
insulating foams and other foam products by listing high-GWP foam
blowing agents as unacceptable and approving technically appropriate
lower-GWP alternatives as sufficient quantities of those lower GWP
solutions become commercially available.
    Response: EPA appreciates the commenters' support for changing the
status of high- GWP foam blowing agents.
    Comment: NEDA/CAP, an organization representing manufacturers of a
variety of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment among others,
commented that its members have recently made substantial capital
investments replacing IPR and commercial building ACs, warehouse
chillers, and other equipment that utilized ODS refrigerants that have
been phased out because acceptable non-ODS refrigerants were available
for these uses. NEDA/CAP's members are concerned that there are almost
no acceptable, commercially available alternatives for the refrigerants
proposed for a status change and the proposed rule would reduce demand
for non-ODS refrigerants for new equipment. NEDA/CAP believe it is
``unfair and unreasonable'' for EPA to propose to change the status of
certain HFCs from acceptable to unacceptable in new equipment without
simultaneously listing acceptable, commercially available alternatives.
For these reasons, NEDA/CAP recommended that EPA evaluate the actual
availability of alternatives, not their theoretical availability, in
its examination of alternatives under CAA section 612. Specifically,
NEDA/CAP recommended that EPA evaluate the continued availability of
acceptable alternatives for existing equipment (e.g., IPR, and
commercial comfort and industrial cooling equipment) that may be
affected by the proposed rule.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that there are almost no
available alternatives for the substitutes for which EPA proposed a
status change. As noted in the NPRM and section VI.A.5-9 of the
preamble to the final rule, EPA has listed a number of alternatives as
acceptable in new equipment in residential and light commercial AC and
heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and centrifugal and positive
displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC. CO2,
propane, isobutane, R-441A, ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and not-in-kind technologies such as
Stirling cycle, water/lithium bromide absorption, dessicant cooling, or
evaporative cooling, are acceptable in new equipment for one or more of
the end-uses for which EPA proposed a change in status. The commenter
also did not provide information as to why they believe these
alternatives would not be viable in new equipment. Moreover, EPA does
not agree that the change of status for certain refrigerants in
specific uses would result in a corresponding reduction in demand for
non-ozone-depleting refrigerants in new equipment. The overall global
demand for refrigeration and air conditioning equipment has expanded
while ODS are being phased out and EPA anticipates this expansion will
continue. There will be continued use of other non-ozone-depleting
alternatives not subject to this action in new equipment.
    Comment: NEDA/CAP commented that EPA should address in the
rulemaking (1) EPA's analysis of the impact of the proposed status
changes on the refrigerant supply base for existing affected
refrigeration and cooling equipment; (2) whether the supply base for
this existing equipment will remain viable for the expected life of
recently replaced equipment; (3) what the economic impacts are for
businesses related to the inevitable drop in demand for existing
refrigerants; (4) whether alternative refrigerants other than propane
will be available and what the conditions for their use will be; (5)
the impact of the proposal on the production of current acceptable HFCs
and propylene and indicate what the alternatives available are for
retrofit of existing equipment if existing chemical producers cease
manufacturing these compounds as a result of the proposed rule.
    Response: EPA has provided information in the docket to this
rulemaking and in the preamble to the July 2015 rule concerning changes
in the production of both fluorinated and non-fluorinated alternatives
to ODS. EPA has no information to suggest there will be a shortage in
refrigerant supply for existing equipment.
    This action does not require retrofitting existing equipment. EPA
is confident there will be adequate supply to service existing
equipment either based on continued production or based on recovery and
reuse of existing supplies of the refrigerants undergoing a change of
status. EPA bases this judgment on our historical experience. For
example, CFC chillers can still be serviced even though we have had no
production or import of newly produced CFCs since 1996. Similarly,
halons continued to be used even though we ceased production and import
of newly produced halons in 1994. HCFC-22 was phased out of production
for new equipment as of 2010, but is still being produced and used for
existing equipment.
    EPA's action does not ban production of any HFC and as noted above,
some of the HFCs will be blended with HFOs to develop new refrigerants.
While there may be a shift between chemical or refrigerant producers,
it is not clear that there will be a loss for these companies and
demand may increase in other global markets. It is possible that the
price of refrigerants undergoing a status change will increase if
supplies decrease relative to demand. End users with existing equipment
may take steps to reduce the impact of price changes on the open market
such as recovering and recycling their refrigerant, as many
supermarkets currently do with HCFC-22.
    As noted throughout this rule, we anticipate many refrigerants will
be available and not just propane. Propane is only acceptable for a
limited number of refrigeration and AC end-uses, including household
refrigerators and freezers, and is not currently listed as acceptable
for chillers, cold storage warehouses, or retail food refrigeration--
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. EPA has listed a
number of HFO and HFO/HFC refrigerants as acceptable with no use
conditions for use in each of the refrigeration and AC end-uses
undergoing a change of status in this rule (e.g., R-450A and R-513A for
all these end-uses; HFO-1336mzz(Z), HCFO-1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E) and
R-514A for centrifugal chiller). In addition, CO2 and
ammonia are acceptable refrigerants in retail food

refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment
and ammonia is acceptable in cold storage warehouses.
    Chemical producers may continue to produce the HFCs undergoing a
change of status for uses that are acceptable including for servicing
of existing equipment and for end-uses that are not subject to a change
of status. In the case of propylene, that refrigerant has only been
listed as acceptable as a refrigerant in IPR, and EPA has not proposed
to change that status. Nothing in this action calls for retrofitting.
However, we note that EPA has published lists of acceptable
refrigerants for new equipment and retrofits, and these are available
at https://www.epa.gov/snap/refrigeration-and-air-conditioning.
2. Proposed Status Change Dates
    Comment: The Alliance appreciated that EPA considered the DOE
energy conservation standards for the rulemaking, but urged the Agency
to better coordinate the proposed status change dates with the ongoing
DOE energy conservation rulemaking schedules.
    Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Agency and DOE have
increased our dialogue to better understand the timing that each is
taking under our separate authorities.
    Comment: Arkema, NAFEM, and UTC requested that EPA delay the change
of status dates to provide adequate time for product research and
development, product testing, certification, and time for the approved
alternatives to become widely available on the marketplace. Arkema
noted that the proposed rule seems to acknowledge these difficulties
only for uses involving either the federal government or the
aeronautics industry, giving extra time for military, space, and
aeronautics applications to transition from HFCs in foam blowing and in
chillers. Arkema also stated that if the rule is finalized as proposed,
EPA should allow all users to claim an exemption based on the
unavailability of feasible alternatives or explain the standard (e.g.,
availability of alternatives, cost, environmental benefits, etc.) it is
trying to satisfy in setting the change of status dates. NAFEM
requested an extension of at least 10 years for the proposed status
changes to allow sufficient time for safe product development and
testing, while Arkema suggested specific dates for specific substitutes
and end-uses, ranging from 2021 for 407A-F in new chillers,
refrigerated food processing and dispensing, and cold storage
warehouses to 2025 for most applications of R-134a and R-410A. UTC
stated that EPA should not implement the change of status for HFC-134a
before 2025, which would allow time for system redesign, testing, and
to change state and local codes in cases where the refrigerants are
flammable. UTC believes that any change of status dates earlier than
January 1, 2025, would effectively lead to a ban on the sale of air
cooled chillers in many states and force customers to use existing
units or to switch to lower efficiency packaged products and VRF
systems that are still allowed to use R-410A. While EPA and large parts
of the industry are committed to a transition away from HFC
refrigerants, there is simply no forcing mechanism at the state and
local level that would lead to near-immediate adoption of the necessary
code changes.
    Response: EPA looked at each change of status independently and has
provided a rationale for the specific date for each end-use affected by
this final rule. EPA does not agree that any specific minimal number of
years should be required for a change of status and notes that there
may be instances where immediate action is justified. With regards to
NAFEM's comments supporting an extension, it is not clear if NAFEM is
requesting additional time for an end-use covered in this action or
whether the request concerns the July 2015 rule, which is beyond the
scope of this action. EPA disagrees with Arkema's comments regarding
the availability of alternatives. EPA has listed as acceptable
alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment than the substitutes we are listing as unacceptable, which
supports a transition away from the substitutes that we have concluded
provide a greater risk to human health and the environment. The
commenter did not provide information as to why these alternatives
would not be viable in the end-uses addressed in this action.
    Comment: NAFEMF suggested that EPA provide manufacturers an
opportunity to qualify for additional status change extensions under
SNAP's grandfathering provisions. They noted that EPA has historically
allowed manufacturers that transitioned to a substitute deemed
acceptable by the Agency to continue using the previously acceptable
substitute until the current supply was used up, even if that occurred
after the rule's compliance date.
    Response: While EPA is not applying ``grandfathering'' in this
rulemaking, we have established status change dates for different
sectors and end-uses that reflect the date by which we expect
alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment will be available, both for existing and new users of
certain substitutes. In considering when alternatives will be available
for these other end-uses, we have considered the technical challenges
that the end users are facing with the transition. Under both the
approach used in this rule and the grandfathering approach, we consider
whether there is a basis to establish the change of status later than
the effective date of the rulemaking and thus the approaches result in
a similar outcome.
    Comment: Johnson Controls commented that there is speculation that
EPA chose the change of status dates in this rule to meet obligations
proposed in the North American amendment proposal to the Montreal
Protocol.
    Response: The change of status dates in this rule were arrived at
after careful consideration of the availability of other substitutes in
each end-use. These decisions were informed by extensive consultation
with stakeholders throughout the rulemaking process. While the United
States is seeking an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, it is not
clear what control measures, if any, might be adopted. The changes in
status here relate to use in the United States of alternatives that are
safer overall for human health and the environment.
    Comment: Arkema provided a list of steps needed for ``product line
development'' including ``researching options, risk assessment,
analyzing existing manufacturing capabilities, working with component
suppliers, building test units, testing beta units, updating
manufacturing processes (including employee training), building pre-
production units, field testing, completing the customer approval
process, phasing in production, disposing of trapped inventory, and
training installation and maintenance personnel'' and ensuring
``products conform to local building codes.'' For new cold storage
warehouses and for refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment, Arkema suggested a 2021 transition date for R-407A, R-407B,
R-407C, R-407D, R-407E, and R-407F, claiming that ``[t]his decision
should mirror previous supermarket decisions for new and retrofit
applications.'' For HFC-134a, they proposed a 2025 status change date
and as their ``[r]ationale'' only stated ``[s]upply, suitability of
alternatives.''
    Response: The commenter is mistaken as to EPA's previous action for
the supermarket systems end-use category within the retail food
refrigeration end-use. In SNAP Rule 20 (80 FR 42870; July

20, 2015), EPA changed the status of only one of the identified
refrigerants (R-407B) for this end use and established a January 1,
2017 status change date for new equipment.
    For the reasons provided in section VI.A.6 and in our proposal, we
have determined that January 1, 2023 is a reasonable but expeditious
date for the change of status for new cold storage warehouses. For new
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, the recommended
2021 date for the R-407 series refrigerants matched our proposal and
for the reasons provided in section VI.A.7 and our proposal we have
finalized that change of status date.
    The commenter did not otherwise provide any support for why a
bifurcated 2021 and 2025 change of status date was sufficient and
needed to address the technical challenges for either the cold storage
warehouse end-use or the refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment end-use category. For the 2025 date, the commenter provided
no justification for why the supply or suitability of existing
alternatives was not sufficient to support the proposed January 1,
2023, status change date for cold storage warehouses but would be to
support a January 1, 2025, date. The commenter did not provide any
evidence that supply of alternatives was lacking to justify their
proposed 2025 status change date for HFC-134a in both end-uses. EPA had
already determined that not to be true in a previous rulemaking (80 FR
42904; July 20, 2015). Further, the commenter did not indicate why the
supply for HFC-134a alternatives in either end-use would not be
available until 2025 yet the supply of alternatives for the R-407
series refrigerants would be available by 2021, or why the set of
alternatives would be different.

B. Authority

1. General Authority
    Comment: EIA supported EPA's authority to regulate substances
within a comparative risk framework. EIA commented that EPA's SNAP
program was created to assure the health and environmental safety of
alternatives for ODS that were being phased out, which is achieved
through EPA's comparative review process. EIA also indicated that the
proposed rule is an important step towards implementing the President's
CAP.
    Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the rule.
    Comment: Arkema, AHAM, and Mexichem expressed the opinion that the
proposed rule is outside the scope of EPA's regulatory authority.
Similar to their comments submitted in response to the NPRM for the
July 2015 rule, the commenters stated that the purpose of the original
SNAP program was to evaluate substitutes for ODS, and that now using
this same framework to evaluate non-ODS against other non-ODS on the
basis of GWP, for example, violates the authority granted under CAA
section 612. They argued that these new compounds are not substitutes
for ODS, and thus are not real ``substitutes'' in the context of the
original SNAP framework. Arkema emphasized its support for an HFC
amendment to the Montreal Protocol, but asserted that EPA is proposing
to ``replace non-ODS with new non-ODS chemicals based on [GWP],'' which
goes against the mandate of CAA section 612 to ``replace'' ODS. AHAM
stated that CAA Title VI was not intended to ``provide EPA broad,
general and roving authority to regulate refrigerants, foams and
chemicals in whatever circumstances it deems desirable if they are
unrelated to ozone depletion.'' Likewise, Mexichem asserted that the
repeated references to class I and class II substances in Title VI
demonstrate that, in enacting CAA section 612, Congress was concerned
with phasing out ODS, and that there is ``no mention in section 612 (or
its legislative history) that Congress ever intended for this law to be
used to regulate second-generation substances on the basis of [GWP].''
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that it lacks the
authority to regulate the continuing replacement of ODS with the
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. There is no question that the
substitutes subject to a change in status in this action (e.g., HFC-
134a) directly replaced ODS in the relevant sectors. See section
VII.A.2 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule for additional discussion
of non-ODS alternatives.
    Comment: AHAM stated that this proposal violates Executive Orders
12866 (9-30-93), 13563 (1-18-2011), and 13610 (5-10-12) requiring that
agencies consider the cumulative effects of regulations, including
cumulative burden. AHAM commented that given the new energy efficiency
standards placed on the appliance industry, being forced to also comply
with the timeline and additional restrictions proposed in this
rulemaking would be unnecessarily burdensome on affected entities. They
especially emphasized the minimal difference in emissions saved by
prematurely transitioning the industry to these substitutes.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
proposed rule violates Executive Order 13563, given that there is
currently no DOE standard that results in cumulative regulatory burden
with this rule. Further, we expect that with a change of status date of
January 1, 2021, for household refrigerators and freezers, companies
would be able to coordinate compliance with an energy conservation
standard with a compliance date in 2020. Thus, we believe that in fact,
the potential cumulative impacts of the two sets of regulations are
reasonable. See also the discussion in section VI.A.8.ii on the change
of status dates for household refrigerators and freezers.
2. GWP Considerations
    Comment: Mexichem commented that EPA focuses the analysis of HFC-
134a on comparative GWP instead of conducting a comprehensive analysis
that considers all of the agency's criteria--atmospheric effects,
exposure assessments, toxicity data, flammability, and other
environmental impacts, such as ecotoxicity and local air quality
impacts--as well as a full alternatives analysis of performance,
availability, hazard, exposure, and cost of the alternatives. Arkema
also commented that EPA relies on the differences in GWP to justify the
proposed status changes, but fails to explain why those differences
result in a larger risk for certain HFCs in each end-use. For example,
Arkema stated that EPA does not explain the rationale for proposing to
change the status from acceptable to unacceptable for some high-GWP
substitutes, such as R-407A with a GWP of 2,107, but not R-407F with a
GWP of 1,824, for cold storage warehouses.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that it relies solely
on GWP in the evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. In
all cases, EPA considers the intersection between the specific
alternative and the particular end-use and the availability of
substitutes for those particular end-uses. When reviewing a substitute,
EPA compares the risk posed by that substitute to the risks posed by
other alternatives and determines whether that specific substitute
under review poses significantly more risk than other alternatives for
the same use. In our analysis of overall risk, we evaluate the criteria
at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). . For particular substances, EPA found
significant potential differences in risk with respect to one or more
specific criteria, such as flammability, toxicity,

or local air quality concerns, while otherwise posing comparable levels
of risk to those of other alternatives in specific end-uses. Regarding
GWP, that is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall
evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. There are a
number of examples in this rulemaking where we determined not to change
the status of HFC-134a, for example, because the GWP of other
alternatives is a concern for a specific use. For particular
substances, such as R-407A, EPA found significant potential differences
in risk with respect to one or more specific criteria, such as GWP,
while otherwise posing comparable levels of risk to those of other
alternatives in specific end-uses. EPA also notes that several
decisions included in this action are based on significant potential
differences with respect to other factors including flammability, and
local air quality. For example, we are listing propylene and R-443A as
unacceptable in centrifugal chillers, positive displacement chillers,
cold storage warehouses, and residential and light commercial AC and
heat pumps in particular because of concerns about local air quality.
We are listing all refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and all refrigerants meeting the criteria
for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 as
unacceptable for use in retrofit unitary split AC systems and heat
pumps in the residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps end-use.
    Concerning differences in GWP values and how EPA decided to change
the status of certain alternatives while other alternatives remained
acceptable, EPA did not establish bright-line cutoffs but rather
considered which substitutes are available on an end-use by end-use
basis. For the example of refrigerants in the cold storage warehouse
end-use that Arkema cites, we considered that R-407F has the lowest GWP
of the refrigerant blends that are both widely commercially available
and can be used for those situations and types of equipment where HCFC-
22 is used. R-407A has a higher GWP and otherwise is comparable to R-
407F, and thus results in higher overall risk to human health and the
environment.
    See also section VII.A.3 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule and
section 6.3.3 of the Response to Comments for the NPRM for that rule
for additional information on GWP considerations under the SNAP
program.
    Comment: Arkema commented that EPA makes GWP the sole criterion for
decisions about atmospheric effects, instead of basing it on the
``total [GWP] of the substitute and the indirect contributions to
global warming caused by the production or use of the substitute (e.g.,
changes in energy efficiency), and environmental release data,
including available information on any pollution controls used or that
could be used in association with the substitute.''
    Response: EPA disagrees that GWP was the only criterion considered
in determining whether to change the status of a substitute. Further
information and explanation on use of GWP as a metric is provided in
section VII.A.3 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule and in the
following response. 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. EPA did not propose to
revise its regulations to abandon consideration of GWP in this rule.
    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. EPA initially contemplated such considerations in the initial
SNAP rule, but our experience has been that it is impractical to
perform a detailed analysis of indirect global warming impacts
associated with a particular substitute. For example, the inherent
energy efficiency of the substitute is not the same as the energy
efficiency of equipment using that substitute. To analyze energy
efficiency and other indirect climate impacts would require EPA to
identify not only every type of equipment but also each model, identify
or predict the amount of each available substitute that might be used
in each type of equipment, make assumptions about how the equipment
would be operated, assess what type of electricity was used to both
manufacture the substance and power the equipment or manufacturing
process, and so on. See the July 2015 rule, 80 FR at 42921 and section
6.4.2 of the response to comments document for that rule. We do,
however, 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.
    Comment: Honeywell commented that even greater emissions reductions
could be projected by using more up-to-date GWP values. Honeywell
commented that the use of out-of-date GWP values in such an important
rule can cause confusion, especially among those trying to evaluate and
compare low-GWP technologies. Instead of GWP values from the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Honeywell suggested that EPA consider
adopting the IPCC AR5 GWP values in the future.
    Response: EPA used the GWP values in the IPCC AR4 in the NPRM and
continues to use these in this final rulemaking to maintain consistency
with other rules and facets of the SNAP program and with other U.S.
domestic programs (e.g., EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting program,
codified at 40 CFR part 98). Using consistent GWPs allows for more
efficient operation of U.S. climate programs and facilitates
integration with other public and private sector programs on
international, national, state, and local levels. It also reduces the
burden on stakeholders of keeping track of separate GWPs when
interacting with these programs. Use of the AR4 GWPs will also ensure
compatibility with the Climate Action Report and other reporting
requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries, including the United States,
that submit GHG inventories under the UNFCCC have decided to use AR4
GWPs for the GHGs that have AR4 GWPs, beginning with the inventories
submitted in 2015.\216\ Adoption of AR5 GWPs while other EPA and
international programs are using AR4 GWPs likely would cause
stakeholder confusion, create an ongoing need to explain the
distinction in GWPs in subsequent actions, and complicate decision-
making. Also, use of AR4 GWPs ensures that the SNAP program uses widely
relied on, published, peer-reviewed GWP data. EPA may consider adoption
of AR5 GWPs or other GWP values in the future. In any event, use of AR5
GWPs would not result in a change in EPA's conclusions about the
comparative risk posed by the substitutes addressed in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ The IPCC publishes Scientific Assessment Reports,
including updated and expanded sets of GWPs, approximately every six
years. The countries that submit annual GHG inventories under the
UNFCCC update the GWPs that they use for those inventories less
frequently. For example, the GWPs from the IPCC Second Assessment
Report have been used for UNFCCC reporting for over a decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: CARB recommended establishing specific numerical limits
for GWP of acceptable substitutes in certain end-uses. They recommended
prohibiting all refrigerants with a GWP greater than 150 in cold
storage warehouses, refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment and household refrigerators and freezers. For chillers, CARB
recommended prohibiting all refrigerants with a GWP greater than 750.
    Response: EPA has not set ``bright line'' cut offs based on GWP or
the other SNAP criteria, for reasons explained in numerous actions,
including section IV.B of the SNAP Proposed Rule 20 (79 FR 46135;
August 6, 2014), sections IV.B and V.C.6.(a) of the corresponding final
Rule 20 (80 FR 42920; July 20, 2015), section I.A of the proposed rule
(81 FR 22812-22813; April 18, 2016), and section I.A of this final
rule. As noted in those actions, the structure of the SNAP program,
which is based on a comparative framework of available substitutes for
a specific end-use at the time a decision is being made, does not
support the use of such bright lines.
3. SNAP Review Criteria and Guiding Principles
    Comment: Arkema commented that the proposed rule fails to follow
EPA's policies in the guiding principles, fails to consider all
relevant information as defined by regulation, and fails to apply the
regulatory criteria for SNAP evaluation when determining if a
substitute poses more risk than other alternatives for the same end-
use. Arkema stated that EPA's policy has been to restrict a SNAP
substitute only if it is significantly worse than the alternatives;
however, the proposed rule ``relies on differences in [GWP] to justify
reclassification.'' Arkema further commented that, according to 40 CFR
82.178(a)(6), EPA is to consider information concerning GWP, including
both the total GWP of the substitute and the indirect contributions to
global warming caused by the production or use of the substitute, and
environmental release data, including available information on any
pollution controls used or that could be used in association with the
substitute. Arkema believes EPA fails to follow these principles and
instead, makes GWP the sole criterion for decisions about atmospheric
effects. Finally, Arkema commented that the proposed rule states ``EPA
is not setting a risk threshold for any specific SNAP criterion, such
that the only acceptable substitutes pose risk below a specified level
of risk.'' Arkema believes this statement violates EPA's policy to
regulate only significant risk in a specific end-use because it asserts
that the Agency ``can ban a substance to reduce any risk, regardless of
the magnitude of the risk.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the proposed rule
violates the Agency's regulations or guiding principles. See the
preamble to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42940-42. We consider the
proposed and final rules to be consistent with the SNAP guiding
principles:
    1. First guiding principle: Evaluate substitutes within a
comparative risk framework. As suggested by the first guiding
principle, in all of the actions that EPA proposed and is today
finalizing, EPA evaluated the risk of substitutes compared to available
or potentially available alternatives. In that effort, a range of risk
factors are well described in this action. The factors that EPA
considers are stated at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
    2. Second guiding principle: Do not require that substitutes be
risk free to be found acceptable. EPA has not required substitutes to
be risk free. We acknowledge in the proposed and final rules that both
the substitutes changing status and the other available alternatives
have risks. In this rule, as in past SNAP rules, we have considered
whether there are alternatives that are available or potentially
available that pose a lower overall risk to human health and the
environment in specific end-uses and end-use categories.
    3. Third guiding principle: Restrict those substitutes that are
significantly worse. EPA has based our decisions on whether substitutes
have significantly greater risk than other available substitutes for
the same uses. For example, we did not propose and are not finalizing
today changes in status where there is only a marginal difference in
risk between two alternatives available or potentially available in the
same end-use. As described in the preambles to the proposed and final
rules, the Agency carefully considered the substances addressed in this
action on the basis of the SNAP criteria, and concluded that other
alternatives presented a degree of reduced overall risk sufficient to
warrant the actions being taken in this rulemaking. In response to the
comment that the NPRM compares GWPs without explaining the significance
of the differences for any effect on climate, EPA did not estimate
differences in temperature change or other physical climate metrics due
to the impacts of the rule. EPA has not used these metrics in the past
as measures of climate impact for other SNAP decisions. See section
II.G and III on the use of GWP as a metric for climate impact and the
significance of the rule for climate.
    4. Fourth guiding principle: Evaluate risks by use. EPA evaluated
substitutes for specific uses and reached different conclusions for the
same substitute in different uses, depending on the specific risks and
other available or potentially available alternatives in the relevant
uses. For example, we are listing propane as acceptable, subject to use
conditions in new self-contained commercial ice machines, new water
coolers, and new very low temperature refrigeration equipment, while
listing propane and all other ASHRAE flammability Class 3 refrigerants
as unacceptable for retrofitting existing unitary split systems within
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps. No action was taken
to ban any one HFC or other alternative across all end-uses.
Additionally, as noted by the commenter, we considered the potential
risks of alternatives used for servicing of MVAC or commercial
refrigeration apart from new equipment or from retrofits of existing
equipment. See section 6.3.6 of the Response to Comments for the NPRM
for the July 2015 rule.
    5. Fifth guiding principle: Provide the regulated community with
information as soon as possible. EPA provided the regulated community
with information as soon as possible by holding a series of workshops
and public meetings

concerning this action and other regulatory issues relevant to various
industrial sectors over the course of more than a year before we issued
our proposal. See section 6.3.6 of the Response to Comments for the
NPRM for the July 2015 rule.
    6. Sixth guiding principle: Do not endorse products manufactured by
specific companies. Our change of status decisions reflect the
availability of multiple alternatives for each end-use. Regarding
endorsements, see section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the July 2015 rule
at 80 FR 42896.
    7. Seventh guiding principle: Defer to other environmental
regulations when warranted. We note that this reads ``Defer to other
environmental regulations when warranted'' (emphasis added). Other
regulations may not ensure that substitutes that pose significantly
greater risk are prohibited where safer alternatives are available
because those regulations do not address all or address sufficiently
the risk posed. EPA has considered the potential impacts of other
environmental, health, and safety regulations. EPA carefully considered
these and other existing regulations under other programs when
reviewing substitutes. For example, we considered the presence of OSHA
regulations in addressing flammability risk in factories where foam is
blown. EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a change in how this
principle is applied. EPA continues to consider other environmental,
health and safety regulations and notes these regulations where
appropriate in our decisions. We also considered the existing MACT
standard that prohibits the use of methylene chloride in flexible PU
foam production for major sources, including relying on the risk
analysis performed for EPA's recent risk review of the MACT. See
sections VI.A.2 and VI.C.4 regarding EPA's consideration of other
stratospheric ozone regulations.
    Concerning consideration of all relevant information as defined by
regulation, we note that it is within the discretion of the Agency to
determine which information is relevant out of the total set of
information in EPA's possession. The specific information that must be
provided to EPA for review under the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR 82.178
informs, but does not govern, EPA's decisional criteria for review of
substitutes under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
    Concerning Arkema's quotation from the proposed rule, it states
that we do not use the same ``bright line'' risk threshold for all
substances. This is consistent with EPA's guiding principles, where we
consider comparative risk of the available substitutes within an end-
use. From a scientific point of view, it would be inappropriate, and
potentially not protective, for EPA to use the same concentration in
ppm to determine flammability risks or toxic concentrations for
different substitutes, rather than considering the LFL or exposure
limit for the specific substitute.
    Comment: Arkema commented that the military, NASA, and the
aeronautics industry would have special exceptions for certain chiller
and spray-foam applications for which there appears to be little
supporting technical detail in the record, but that at least for
chillers are based on the relative significance of the associated
emissions. Arkema asked what the effect on the atmosphere would be if
the entire private sector had the benefits of the proposed narrowed use
limits for military marine vessels, human-rated spacecraft, and related
support equipment.
    Response: We expect that the rest of the private sector would not
meet the requirements for a narrowed use limit because substitutes that
are acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, may only be used where
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.
Multiple alternatives with lower GWPs are available for chillers and
equipment manufacturers are already implementing them;
217 218 thus, other alternatives are technically feasible.
See also sections VI.A.5.i and VI.A.6.i of this rule for a discussion
of available alternatives. This is different from the situation for
military marine vessels and human-rated spacecraft and related support
equipment which have many unique characteristics that make it more
difficult and time-consuming to evaluate and implement alternatives;
see the preamble to the NPRM at 81 FR 22844, 22848 (April 18, 2016). In
addition, the time periods for qualification of products to meet
specifications for the military or for space flight and aeronautics-
related applications are significant. For example, in the case of
foams, one aerospace company stated that it would take more than two
years to develop, test and qualify a new alternative, and it will take
at least another five years ``to manufacture flight-representative foam
samples, followed by ground and flight testing,'' and then additional
time to retool their facilities to manufacture the foam with an
alternative blowing agent.\219\ NASA began development of spray
polyurethane foams using HFC-245fa in 2007 and only now in 2016 expects
to complete qualification.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Press release, ``Ingersoll Rand Innovates HVAC Portfolio
Using Next Generation, Low Global Warming Refrigerant, R-452B'',
June 16, 2016.
    \218\ Press release, ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal
Chiller Line Expansion and Services for the United States and
Canada.'' July 13, 2016.
    \219\ The Boeing Company. Comments on Proposed Rule to Change
the Status of Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. October, 2014.
    \220\ Spray Foam Magazine, 2016. ``SPF and SLS Help NASA Explore
Deep Space'' September/October issue, 2016. This document is
accessible at: http://sprayfoammagazine.com/spf-sls-help-nasa-explore-deep-space/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not base the narrowed use limits for centrifugal and
positive displacement compressor chillers for military marine vessels
or for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
applications on the relative significance of the associated emissions;
rather, for informational purposes, we indicated that emissions were
not expected to be significant. EPA's decisions are based on the
comparative risk of various alternatives considering the SNAP criteria,
not based on achieving a specific climate benefit. EPA provided
information concerning the estimated climate benefits associated with
the proposed and final rule. EPA did not calculate the benefits or
atmospheric impacts from every possible scenario.
    Comment: AHRI, the Alliance, HARC and NEDA/CAP all urged
consistency in EPA's stance on and implementation of the SNAP program.
AHRI and HARC encouraged EPA to adhere closely to the principles of the
Agency's position at the Montreal Protocol and the initial 1994 SNAP
framework. The Alliance requested (1) that EPA clarify how the proposal
is consistent with a global phase-down approach to HFCs, (2) that EPA
articulate how the SNAP program would be used in the context of
implementing an HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol, and (3) that
for any future rulemakings for a change of SNAP listing status, EPA
publish a clear and predictable evaluation process by which risk
factors are compared in the comparative risk framework to make SNAP
change of status decisions with transparency on how the factors will be
weighted. NEDA/CAP expressed concern about the greater frequency of new
rules and listings and the ``rolling and complex schedule'' of change
of status dates, which could complicate industry's ability to operate
the installed base of existing equipment using refrigerants proposed to
undergo a change of status in new equipment. NEDA/CAP suggested that
EPA provide a ``master schedule'' for the review and

listing of substitutes, given the fact that ``EPA's increasingly
`piecemeal' new approach to SNAP revisions creates other business
planning problems and potentially significant equipment compatibility
issues for existing refrigerant, chiller and cooling equipment.''
    Response: EPA considers this final rule to be consistent with the
framework in the initial SNAP rule, as explained in section II of the
NPRM at 81 FR 22816-9 and in section II of this preamble. This rule
concerns specific uses of certain alternatives to ODS, including some
HFCs, while the North American Proposal to amend the Montreal Protocol
to add a global phase-down of HFCs concerns HFC production and
consumption generally without reference to specific uses. Reductions in
use of certain HFCs in specific end uses due to changes of status under
the SNAP program are expected to result in decreased production of
those HFCs, which would contribute to the United States' ability to
implement reductions in production and consumption of HFCs under a
global phase-down of HFCs along the lines of the North American
Proposal.
    With regard to 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). See July 2015 SNAP rule at
80 FR 42940. Concerning NEDA/CAP's comment about the frequency of
recent rulemakings and listings, EPA notes that we have the authority
to change the status of a previously listed alternative and mentioned
this as a possibility in the initial SNAP rulemaking. See the preamble
to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42939-40. Further, the CAP has guided
EPA in our decision to issue more frequent listings as well as
rulemakings including changes of status. We also note that some of our
recent decisions mentioned by NEDA/CAP have provided additional
alternatives for both new and retrofits of existing equipment, which
would have no impact on the production of other alternatives or on
existing equipment manufactured with other alternatives. Concerning
NEDA/CAP's comment about the potential impact of the rule on existing
equipment, see the discussion in section VII.A.1.
    Comment: AHAM commented that EPA has no justification for changing
the listing status of compounds of which the toxicity, GWP, efficiency
and other criteria of evaluation remain unchanged.
    Response: EPA disagrees. The suite of available or potentially
available alternatives changes over time and the availability of those
alternatives enables a broader review of comparative risk under section
612(c). Further, our understanding of the impact that HFCs have on
climate has evolved and become much deeper over the years. See the
preamble to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42935-6.
    Comment: Arguing that we should not change the status of R-407A and
R-407B for cold storage warehouse, and should find R-448A and R-449A
acceptable for that end-use as well as for refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment, AHRI stated that the ``direct refrigerant
emissions in these end uses represent a small percentage of the overall
life cycle climate performance'' and that overall greenhouse gas
emissions will increase if a less efficient product were used.
    Response: EPA interprets this comment to be based on the SNAP
review criteria of ``atmospheric effects,'' which is discussed above in
section II.E.1. We have noted that part of our review of the overall
risk to human health and the environment that substitutes pose includes
the GWP of a particular substitute, and the GWPs of R-407A and R-407B
are higher than those of other alternatives in the cold storage
warehouse end-use. Our conclusion as discussed in section VI.A.6.b.i
above was that these refrigerants pose overall greater risk than other
alternatives. With respect to R-448A and R-449A in both end-uses, we
noted in sections VI.A.6.c.i and VI.A.7.b.ii above that EPA is
currently evaluating those refrigerants for these end-uses but has not
yet issued either a proposed decision or a Notice of Acceptability for
these refrigerants in these end-uses.
    The reader is referred to sections VII.B.2 above and VII.D.3. As
discussed in response to other comments in section VII.D.3 below,
energy efficiency is not a specific criterion under SNAP, and indirect
GHG emissions may vary based on energy efficiency of the appliance. As
discussed in response to comment in section VII.B.2 above, EPA
initially contemplated considering indirect climate impacts as part of
our overall risk analysis in the initial SNAP rule, but our experience
has been that it is impractical to perform a detailed analysis of
indirect global warming impacts associated with a particular
substitute.

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

    EPA received comments from Arkema, NAFEM, Structural Composites and
Compsys, AHAM, and UTC in which commenters provided data on the cost
and economic impacts of the proposed rule. 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 in this section.
1. Costs of Rule
    Comment: EPA received comments suggesting that EPA provide more
time for the changes in status in order to avoid undue burden on the
U.S. economy. UTC commented that if this rule is finalized as proposed,
industries and companies utilizing many of the refrigerants and
propellants affected by this rule will need to invest substantial
resources in order to promote compliance with the intended transition
over the next decade. AHAM stated that under EPA's proposed change of
status dates, the costs would be significantly higher during the
transition to an alternative refrigerant as compared to a date three
years later, which would allow companies adequate time to structure
costs and decrease risk over multiple years and at almost half the
cost. AHRI noted that accelerating the process for changing multiple
product platforms by even a single year can significantly impact
manufacturers' costs and resources burden. Arkema commented that no
SNAP rule should impose unreasonable burdens on the U.S. economy.
Arkema recommended that EPA allow more time for transitions to avoid
that outcome.
    Response: EPA understands that there are challenges associated with
transitioning substitutes, including costs to manufacturers in
redesigning equipment and making changes to manufacturing facilities.
As an initial matter, and as discussed more fully in section VII.A.3,
under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7),
consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under
review, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition
when a substitute is found unacceptable.
    The transition timelines in this final rule are based on
information concerning the availability of alternatives. While EPA does
not consider the cost of transition in its analysis, EPA recognizes
that later dates allow industry time to plan and to spread out capital
costs over longer time

periods. We have selected the change of status dates, both as proposed
and as finalized, considering technical factors, such as time required
for research and development, time required for testing to meet
industry and regulatory standards, time to adjust their manufacturing
processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes, and
supply of alternatives.
    Comment: NAFEM commented that if the proposed changes are
finalized, the rule will limit manufacturer productivity, threaten less
profitable but important niche product lines that currently meet
marketplace needs, and shift significant costs to end users of
commercial refrigeration equipment. NAFEM further commented that costs
and impacts for niche product lines, safety concerns, and evaluation,
research, redesign, testing, implementation and training should be
included in EPA's revised analyses. Structural Composites and Compsys
comments that costs will dramatically increase if alternatives fail and
several rounds of trials are required.
    Response: Although EPA did not consider the costs of transitioning
to other alternatives in making the listing decisions in this
rulemaking, for informational purposes, we did prepare a cost analysis
and a small business impacts analysis for this rule for businesses that
are directly regulated. EPA recognizes that transitioning to other
alternatives is likely to require capital costs and investments in
research, updated equipment, and their related financial impacts.
However, EPA's 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 passed on to consumers, and further, such economic
analyses typically look at costs to the regulated community rather than
indirect impacts on consumers. NAFEM did not provide specific cost or
cost impact information for niche users or specific information for
profit losses that would have allowed us to analyze the impacts for
niche product lines. In the 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 ``Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening Analysis
    Comment: EPA received comments indicating that small businesses
bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden. NAFEM and
Structural Composites and Compsys stated that the proposed rule was
overly burdensome to small businesses. NAFEM comments that if this rule
is finalized as proposed, the available supply of equipment models will
decrease because manufacturers will not be able to sell existing
supply, will not have a portfolio of products ready to sell that comply
with the new rule, and will have to pause the current development
process for new projects already in the planning stage, further
burdening small businesses. AHAM commented that the EPA's estimates for
one time investments and annualized costs for facility conversion were
``grossly'' understated and EPA does not capture the ``full financial
impact to manufacturers.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. We prepared a
preliminary small business screening analysis during the development of
the proposed rule. We have updated our small business screening
analysis using the change of status decisions and dates in the final
rule and using detailed cost information provided by commenters.\222\
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.
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.'' EPA's preliminary and final screening
analyses concluded that this rulemaking would not pose a SISNOSE:
Accordingly, we did not convene a Small Business Advocacy Panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire
Suppression. ICF International. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More broadly, for purposes of E.O. 12866, we performed an analysis
of the costs of the proposed rule on all-sized businesses and estimated
the total annualized upfront compliance costs to range from $59.2-$71.3
million, using a 7% discount rate, and $58.8-$70.6 million, using a 3%
discount rate.\223\ Total annualized compliance costs across affected
small businesses are estimated at approximately $11.8 [hyphen]$14.4
million at a 7% discount rate, or $11.5[hyphen]$14.0 million at a 3%
discount rate.\224\ We updated both analyses based upon the regulatory
options and change of status dates in the final rule. The changes in
the final rule--especially with respect to compliance dates--do not
change the cost impacts on businesses. The commenters did not point to
any specific aspects of that analysis that they believe are deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. ICF International.
September, 2016.
    \224\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High[hyphen]GWP
    Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams,
and Fire Suppression. ICF International. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the screening analysis for purposes of determining whether
there was a SISNOSE and the analysis for purposes of E.O. 12866 were
conducted based on the best market and cost information available to
the Agency.
    EPA also disagrees with the comment regarding the inability to sell
existing supply as the status changes in the rule relate to new
manufacturing and do not limit the sale of existing supply.
    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.

    Response: See response above and see also section VII.B.1 of the
preamble to the July 2015 rule.
    Comment: Structural Composites and Compsys generally agreed with
the economic impact of transitioning to an alternative, as outlined in
EPA's ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
    Response: EPA appreciates this comment.
    Comment: AHAM noted the anticipated development costs fluctuate
depending on the transition deadline. According to data collected by
AHAM, EPA's proposed date of 2021 for new household refrigerants has
the highest transition cost per company, while the 2024 deadline
proposed by industry allows companies adequate time to structure costs
over multiple years at nearly half the cost.
    Response: The cost of transition to other alternatives is not a
consideration under the SNAP review criteria. See sections VI and VII.C
for additional information on considerations of cost under the SNAP
program. With regard to AHAM's analysis, it is not clear what years
AHAM considered. For example, we could not determine if AHAM considered
dates earlier than 2021 or limited their evaluation to 2021 and later
dates.

D. Environmental Impacts of Status Changes

1. General Comments
    Comment: UTC commented that EPA should avoid utilizing specific GWP
limits in this or subsequent rulemakings.
    Response: EPA agrees with this commenter, and notes that no SNAP
action has established a maximum GWP above which a substitute would be
unacceptable. EPA recognizes that different end-uses have different
technical demands and available alternatives, and so has always sought
to determine which substitutes are safer overall in the intersection of
each substitute and end-use.
    Comment: NRDC and EIA expressed their support for the rule,
encouraged similar actions be taken in other sectors and end-uses, and
stated that promotion of alternatives with lower GWPs than those that
are still acceptable is necessary.
    Response: We appreciate the support of these commenters and their
concurrence in the importance of the benefits of this rule. Regarding
requests for finding unacceptable substitutes with GWPs in the range of
600 to 1,400, the agency must consider the availability of other
alternatives that are safer overall in each end use. We encourage the
development of such alternatives, and as technologies continue to
evolve, the agency intends to continue to evaluate present and new
alternatives.
    Comment: Hudson encouraged EPA not to approve substitutes for
retrofit purposes unless they have a lower GWP and are more energy
efficient than the current chemical in that equipment.
    Response: This action does not approve substitutes for retrofit
purposes.
2. EPA's Climate Benefits Analysis
    Comment: AHAM, FPA, Johnson Controls, NEDA/CAP, Flexible Packaging
Association, and Sub Zero Group stated that the environmental benefits
of this action are small when compared with the total of the United
States' GHG emissions or in comparison with the benefits of other EPA
rules.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the notion that the environmental
benefits of this rule are ``miniscule,'' as one commenter said, or that
the benefits to human health and the environment are too small to make
this action worthwhile. While the Agency agrees that some other
sectors, such as electricity generation, currently emit more GHGs than
the sectors affected by this rule, the estimated benefits of this rule
are significant. To place the benefits in perspective, the 10-11
MMTCO2eq of prevented emissions in 2030 are equivalent to the total
energy use of over one million homes, or equivalent to taking well over
two million cars off the road.\225\ Further, the problem of climate
change is of the type that is the result of many small acts of
pollution rather than one giant spill or other polluting event. It is
the sum of all the small releases of gases that leads to the problem,
and to claim that individual sources of emissions should not be reduced
because their contributions, taken alone, are not as large as those of
others would make control of the problem impossible. In fact, due to
the high GWPs of many of the gases affected by this rule, reducing
emission of HFCs is widely considered low-hanging fruit in terms of the
efficiency of approaches to reduce GHG emissions.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Accessible
at www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
    \226\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: UTC commented that the environmental analysis underlying
this rule is flawed, and that benefits should be calculated based on a
projection of state-by-state code adoption.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter. In our consultation
with stakeholders, we have frequently heard that patchworks of local
regulations often make matters more difficult for businesses. This
action will change the status of certain substitutes in certain end-
uses uniformly across the country. Hence our approach of calculating
benefits assuming similar adoption rates nationally is appropriate. It
is true that some localities may implement regulations that nudge or
force businesses to transition faster than the transition dates in this
rule, just as some businesses may make the decision to transition more
quickly, but that simply means that the cumulative benefits estimated
are conservative in this respect. Benefits in given years after the
transition dates would not be affected by such early transitions.
    Comment: NAFEM requested that EPA conduct a study to determine the
effect on the environment of this action using refrigerant escape
estimates rather than overall use of refrigerants in various end-uses.
    Response: EPA does consider the rates at which substitutes leak or
are otherwise emitted in its estimation of environmental benefits. The
Agency's Vintaging Model accounts for emissions from use, servicing,
and disposal of equipment and materials as each year's worth, or
``vintage,'' of that equipment goes through its life cycle. This model,
and the estimates of leak rates within it, is peer-reviewed and
regularly updated.
3. Energy Efficiency
    Comment: Hudson and UTC both claim that the energy efficiency
implications of changes in refrigerant should be considered, and Hudson
specifically suggests that finding alternatives acceptable for retrofit
uses can lead to losses in efficiency.
    Response: The SNAP regulations for review of substitutes include
both a list of ``information required to be submitted'' (section
82.178) and ``criteria for review'' of SNAP submissions (section
82.180). The list of required information includes global warming
impacts and mentions changes in energy efficiency as an example of
indirect contributions to global warming. The criteria for review do
not mention energy efficiency. While EPA uses all information submitted
to inform its general understanding of the substitute, the end-use, and
the sector, the Agency does not use all the

information as part of its comparative assessment to support listing
decisions. As EPA previously stated, ``[w]e note that we do not have a
practice in the SNAP program of including energy efficiency in the
overall risk analysis. We do, however, consider issues such as
technical needs for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in
determining whether alternatives are `available' '' (80 FR 42921; July
20, 2015).
    The Agency agrees with the commenters that energy efficiency can
have significant impacts on the GHG emissions. However, we disagree
that this action will have unintended detrimental effects on energy
efficiency. As described in the July 2015 rule (80 FR 42902), the
energy efficiency actually achieved will depend on both the refrigerant
used and the design and settings of the equipment. It is impractical
for EPA to evaluate all possible equipment design and refrigerant
combinations. As part of its consideration of whether available
alternatives exist in particular end-uses, SNAP considers as part of
its evaluation whether use of potential alternatives is feasible. For
example, if use of a particular alternative made it impossible for end
users to comply with DOE energy conservation standards, that chemical
would not be considered a truly available substitute, and this would be
considered in decisions on the status of other alternatives in that
end-use. In fact, many substitutes that remain acceptable can lead to
better energy efficiency in that end-use than the alternatives that are
having their status changed in this rule.
    Comment: For new cold storage warehouses, Daikin recommended that
R-410A remain acceptable in direct expansion systems ``in order to
maintain the energy efficiency and safety of Cold Storage Warehouses.''
They provided an explanation of why R-410A is more energy efficient
than R-404A. Arguing that we should not change the status of R-407A and
R-407B, and should find R-448A and R-449A acceptable, for both cold
storage warehouses and for refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment, AHRI stated without identifying any specific substitutes
that ``[s]ome of the SNAP listed low-GWP refrigerants in this
application will result in less efficient products.''
    Response: See responses above. For new cold storage warehouses, we
noted that some equipment could be subject to DOE energy conservation
standards, and have considered this in determining a reasonable yet
expeditious change of status date. For new refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment, as an equipment manufacturer indicated, there
are not applicable DOE energy conservation standards.

E. Interactions With Other Rules

    Comment: CPI and BASF stated that there needs to be an alignment
between EPA and the Canadian regulatory framework for HFC emissions.
Both organizations encouraged EPA to work with Environment and Climate
Change Canada (ECCC) to align regulatory controls under development to
limit HFC emissions from foam products that impact similar end-uses.
The commenters stated that a consistent approach would reduce confusion
in the marketplace and facilitate compliance with any use restrictions.
    Response: The regulatory frameworks and decisions of the U.S. and
other countries may vary due to differences in the statutes on which
the regulations are based as well as public input and other factors.
While EPA agrees that certain countries, such as Canada, look to the
work already done in the United States and some similarities may
result, each country's regulations are based on its domestic statutes
and regulatory processes. ECCC proposals to date have considered EPA's
rules,\227\ and EPA appreciates the value of consistency where
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ See the ECCC's permitting and reporting requirements for
HFCs, which take effect in February 2017. Canada Gazette, June 2016.
Ozone-depleting Substances and Halocarbon Alternatives Regulations.
Available at: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-06-29/html/sor-dors137-eng.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Other Suggestions or Requests

    Comment: Zero Zone recommended that EPA add R-448A and R-449A to
the list of acceptable alternatives for stand-alone equipment. NAFEM
commented that there are no acceptable alternatives for R-404A, other
than propane, and recommended that EPA add R-448A and R-449A to the
list of acceptable alternatives for medium temperature stand-alone
equipment. NAFEM stated that ``R-448A and 449A have lower GWPs and
deliver fewer emissions than 404A, and in most cases, these
refrigerants can be used as a drop in replacement for 404A.'' NAFEM
commented that the same public health arguments that the EPA cited in
deeming R-450A and similar refrigerants as acceptable for medium
temperature stand-alone (retail food refrigeration) equipment should
also apply to R-448A and R-449A. NAFEM noted that EPA performed
assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of R-450A in
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118. NAFEM indicated that it would be
burdensome for manufacturers using R-404A for medium temperature
applications to transition to R-450A, for example, given that R-450A
``was designed to replace R-134A and has significantly different
performance characteristics when compared to R-404A.'' NAFEM stated
that R-450A is a low pressure gas compared to the R-404A, which is a
medium-pressure gas, and cited technical challenges with transitioning
to R-450A would require redesign of current systems and regulatory
testing. These factors, NAFEM stated, would reduce productivity of the
equipment, increase manufacturing costs, and threaten market supply of
medium temperature equipment. Conversely, NAFEM believe the use of R-
448A and R-449A would only require valve adjustments in current system
design, reduce GWP by \2/3\, and would require about 10 percent effort
for manufacturers to implement when compared to R-450A. In support of
their argument for the acceptable listing of R-448A and R-449A for
medium temperature equipment, NAFEM also stated that stand-alone
equipment has lower leak rates and refrigerant charge than remote
systems.
    Response: These comments go beyond the scope of the current
rulemaking as they concern end-uses and/or substitutes not addressed in
this action. EPA appreciates receiving this information and will
consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions.
    Comment: While CARB supported EPA's efforts to change the status of
certain high-GWP alternatives for use in several end-uses, the agency
encouraged EPA to list additional high-GWP refrigerants as unacceptable
in the refrigeration and AC sector and work with refrigerant safety
standards committees, such as ASHRAE and UL, to accelerate the
transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. CARB also stated that the
proposed rule is a valuable early action item that will assist in
developing additional HFC reduction measures in their SLCP Reduction
Strategy that they plan to finalize in the fall of 2016.
    Response: EPA appreciates receiving this information and will
consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions. EPA is
committed to its engagement with stakeholders in the refrigerants
industry, including ASHRAE and UL. For example, EPA staff are currently
members of ASHRAE, and participate in relevant subcommittees, such as
ASHRAE Standing Standard Project Committees 15 and 15.2, some of the
leading safety

standards for refrigerants in the United States, and EPA staff
regularly attend industry conferences intended for the refrigerants
industry.
    Comment: The Alliance requested that EPA disclose the timeline for
finalizing the Agency's proposal to amend the section 608 refrigerant
management regulations (80 FR 69458; November 9, 2015). The Alliance
indicated that its members are supportive of the proposal, but are
concerned that the Agency has not finalized the rule, given that the
public comment period closed on December 9, 2015. They also noted that
they submitted a petition on January 31, 2015, requesting the proposed
rule. The Alliance believe that ``promoting effective refrigerant
management practices, including recovery, reclamation and reuse, is an
important immediate element of reducing the GHG footprint associated
with the use of HFCs and will allow production to be focused primarily
for use in new equipment.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the Alliance that the 608 rule will
strengthen refrigerant management practices and reduce emissions of ODS
and gases with high GWPs. For information on the final 608 rule, see
the docket for the rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453).
    Comment: HSIA encouraged EPA to postpone the publication of the
rule until relevant cases still pending, which challenged the July 2015
rule, have been settled.
    Response: EPA disagrees. We are finalizing this rule in a timely
fashion in response to public comments to provide information to the
regulated community, some of whom have requested expedited
finalization.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://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. It raises
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. EPA prepared analyses of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. These are available in docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663 under the titles, ``Climate Benefits of the SNAP
Program Status Change Rule'' and ``Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes
to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0226. This 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 under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, EPA evaluated small businesses as defined by the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The
Agency has determined that about 90 small businesses could be subject
to the rulemaking, and roughly 76 percent of the small businesses
subject to this rulemaking would be expected to experience compliance
costs of less than one percent of annual sales revenue. Details of this
analysis are presented in the document entitled, ``Economic Impact
Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of
High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioners, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' \228\ EPA
evaluated the potential costs to small businesses associated with the
rule. EPA estimates that the total annualized compliance costs for all
small businesses would be approximately $11.8 to $14.4 million at a
seven percent discount rate, or $11.5 to $14.0 million at a three
percent discount rate.\229\ This action allows equipment manufacturers
the additional options of using propane, HFO-1234yf, and 2-BTP in the
specified end-uses but does not mandate such use. Because these
substitutes are not yet being used in the United States for the end-
uses (with the exception of limited test-marketing), no change in
business practice would be required to meet the use conditions,
resulting in no adverse impact compared to the absence of this rule.
Provisions that allow venting of HC refrigerants in the uses of propane
addressed by this rule would reduce regulatory burden. We have
therefore concluded that this action would relieve regulatory burden
for all small entities that choose to use propane as a refrigerant in
the end-uses in this listing. The use conditions of this rule apply to
manufacturers of commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low
temperature refrigeration equipment that choose to use propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire
Suppression. September, 2016.
    \229\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements of this rule with respect to HFCs would impact
small businesses that manufacture food processing and dispensing
equipment, household refrigerators and freezers, cold storage
refrigeration systems, and polyurethane foams; operators of cold
storage refrigeration systems, including refrigerated warehouses,
wholesalers, and food manufacturers; and manufacture and use cold
storage warehouses, and small businesses that import products
containing closed cell phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, PU, and
polystyrene foams manufactured with HFC or HCFC foam blowing agents.
The prohibition of methylene chloride as a foam blowing agent is not
anticipated to impact small businesses because this substance is not
expected to be used currently as a blowing agent. This rule's
provisions do not create enforceable requirements for refrigeration and
AC technicians, but they would indirectly affect technicians servicing
motor vehicle AC systems, certain types of retail food refrigeration
equipment, cold storage warehouses, and commercial AC equipment where
the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC equipment owner,
purchases servicing equipment for different refrigerants. EPA expects
these indirect impacts on technicians are minimal, because the
transitions to different refrigerants required by this rule are already
occurring due to corporate social responsibility initiatives (e.g.,
Consumer Goods Forum pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and because
many of the still-acceptable alternatives are already used for these
refrigeration or AC equipment types. Further, most acceptable HFC
refrigerant blends can be recovered and serviced using equipment that
service technicians already own. In some uses, there is no significant
impact of the rule because the substitutes prohibited are not widely
used (e.g., use of perfluorocarbons for fire suppression,

use of methylene chloride as a foam blowing agent in various types of
foam). A significant portion of the businesses regulated under this
rule are not small businesses (e.g., commercial AC manufacturers). We
have therefore concluded that this action will not have a significant
impact on a significant 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. The 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. EPA is
aware that the California Air Resources Board has proposed regulation
of a number of the substitutes and end-uses in this rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. 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 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and