freezer utilizes refrigerant from a larger, multi-compressor (rack)
system. In addition, equipment within the class descriptor Dedicated
System, Outdoor System (regardless of temperature and capacity) may
fall under the remote condensing units end-use category, i.e., if
connected to a remote condensing unit and not integrated into a larger,
multi-compressor (rack) system. Furthermore, equipment falling in the
class descriptor Dedicated System, Indoor System (regardless of
temperature and capacity) may fall in the stand-alone equipment end-use
category, i.e., if the equipment is manufactured and fully charged with
refrigerant at the factory.
    EPA's review indicates that equipment covered by the Beverage
Vending Machine Standards (including Class A, Class B and Combination
vending machines) falls under the vending machines end-use.
    In all cases, the DOE Standards apply to new equipment, not
retrofitted equipment. Also, any foam used in such systems or
components that are also covered (e.g. various panels and doors within
the Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Standard), may fall under the rigid PU
commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel end-use and be affected by
the changes of status discussed in section V.D below.
(c) The Terms ``New'' and ``Retrofit'' and How They Apply to Servicing
    Several commenters, including the Food Marketing Institute (FMI),

Supermarket Company ABC, and Hussmann sought clarification of the terms
``new'' and ``retrofit'' and how these terms might affect store
remodels and the use of cases or other equipment that in the future are
added to or replaced for existing cases or equipment.
    For the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, the SNAP program
has, since the inception of the program, made a distinction between new
equipment and retrofitted equipment. In some cases, a particular
refrigerant is acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions only
in new equipment, not in retrofits. In other cases, a particular
refrigerant is only acceptable in retrofits, not new equipment. In the
NPRM, EPA evaluated whether to change the status of refrigerant
substitutes for retrofits separate from its evaluation of whether to
change the status of refrigerant substitutes for new equipment in each
of the four end-uses and categories--supermarket systems, remote
condensing units, stand-alone equipment, and vending machines--
addressed. Since the inception of the SNAP program, EPA has made
separate determinations for refrigerants used in ``new'' equipment and
as a ``retrofit'' to existing equipment. We are likewise today making
separate decisions for new and retrofit equipment within the retail
food refrigeration and vending machines end-uses.
    EPA uses the term ``retrofit'' to indicate the use of a refrigerant
in an appliance (such as a supermarket system) that was designed for
and originally operated using a different refrigerant \60\ and does not
use the term to apply to upgrades to existing equipment where the
refrigerant is not changed. For instance, we drew this distinction when
we found R-290 acceptable for use in retail food refrigerators and
freezers (stand-alone units) subject to use conditions (76 FR 78832;
December 20, 2011) stating ``none of these substitutes may be used as a
conversion or `retrofit' refrigerant for existing equipment designed
for other refrigerants'' (40 CFR part 82, subpart G, appendix R). Some
alternative refrigerant providers describe their retrofit products as
``drop-ins'' but EPA does not use that term interchangeably with
retrofit (see 79 FR 64270). We recognize that some changes typically
would be required for equipment to use a refrigerant other than the one
for which it was designed. In many cases, lubricants need to be changed
(for instance, changing from a mineral oil to a polyolester lubricant
when retrofitting from a CFC to an HFC). Due to different performance
characteristics, other changes may need to occur when retrofitting,
such as adjustments to or replacement of thermostatic expansion valves
(TXVs) and filter-driers. In addition, gaskets and other materials may
need to be replaced due to different compatibility properties of the
different refrigerants. Such changes could occur as part of maintenance
as well as during a retrofit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ A chemical or mixture that is not the same as that used
before the retrofit, typically denoted by different ``R'' numbers
under ASHRAE Standard 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to drawing a distinction between new and retrofit for
the SNAP program, EPA also included a distinction between new and
existing equipment in its regulations implementing the HCFC phaseout
and use restrictions in section 605 of the CAA. As of January 1, 2010,
use of HFC-22 and HFC-142b was largely restricted to use as a
refrigerant in equipment manufactured before that date (40 CFR
82.15(g)(2); 74 FR 66412). Similarly, as of January 1, 2015, use of
other HCFCs not previously controlled was largely restricted to use as
a refrigerant in equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020 (40 CFR
82.15(g)(4); 74 FR 66412). In that context, EPA defined
``manufactured,'' for an appliance, as ``the date upon which the
appliance's refrigerant circuit is complete, the appliance can
function, the appliance holds a full refrigerant charge, and the
appliance is ready for use for its intended purposes'' (40 CFR 82.3,
82.302). We provided further explanations and example scenarios of how
the HCFC phaseout and use restrictions apply to supermarkets in the
fact sheet Supermarket Industry Q & A on R-22 Use (www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/Supermarket_Q&A_for_R-22.html).
    Under today's rule, existing systems may continue to be serviced
and maintained for the useful life of that equipment using the original
refrigerant, whereas new systems (including new supermarket systems)
manufactured after the change of status date will not be allowed to use
refrigerants for which the status has changed to unacceptable.
Consistent with the definition in subparts A and I of part 82, quoted
above, EPA will consider a system to be new for purposes of these SNAP
determinations as of the date upon which the refrigerant circuit is
complete, the system can function, the system holds a full refrigerant
charge, and the system is ready for use for its intended purposes. As
explained in the fact sheet referenced above, a supermarket may undergo
an expansion and continue to use the existing refrigerant ``if there is
sufficient cooling capacity within the system to support the
expansion'' as EPA would consider that in such a situation ``the store
is not changing the intended purpose of the system.'' As pointed out by
FMI, the replacement of existing display cases with ones that operate
at a higher evaporator temperature, but still provide the same purpose
of maintaining products at required temperatures, is one way in which a
system may be remodeled without changing the intended purpose of the
system. On the other hand, if a supermarket remodel or expansion
changes the intended purpose of the original equipment, for instance by
adding additional cases, compressors, and refrigerant that were not
supported by the original compressor system, EPA would consider the
expanded system a ``new'' system. In that situation, a supermarket
would not be allowed to use a refrigerant that was listed as
unacceptable as of the date that new system was expanded or remodeled,
even if the system had been using that refrigerant before the expansion
or remodel.
2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (supermarket
systems)?
    The change of status determinations for retail food refrigeration
(supermarket systems) are summarized in the following table:

    Table 4--Change of Status Decisions for Retail Food Refrigeration
                         (Supermarkets Systems)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                   Substitutes           Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration       HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-   Unacceptable as
 (supermarket systems) (new).    407B, R-421B, R-422A,   of January 1,
                                 R-422C, R-422D, R-      2017.
                                 428A, R-434A, R-507A.

Retail food refrigeration       R-404A, R-407B, R-      Unacceptable as
 (supermarket systems)           421B, R-422A, R-422C,   of July 20,
 (retrofit).                     R-422D, R-428A, R-      2016.
                                 434A, R-507A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) New Supermarket Systems
    For new supermarket systems, EPA had proposed to change the status,
as of January 1, 2016, for nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea to
unacceptable: The HFC blends are R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-
422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. In today's final rule, we are
changing the status of these ten refrigerants to unacceptable in new
supermarkets as of January 1, 2017 (i.e., one year later than
proposed), based on information the Agency received concerning
timelines for planning new stores; this information implied that
contractual arrangements for specific equipment purchases could have
already been in place at the time the proposal was issued but that new
systems will not be completed by January 1, 2016. A January 1, 2017,
status change date will address this concern. We note that systems not
ready for use by January 1, 2017 would not be able to use a substitute
listed as unacceptable as of that date.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
    A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for new
supermarket systems: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A,
R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-448A,
R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.\61\ In addition, R-717 is
listed as acceptable in new supermarkets when used as the primary
refrigerant in a secondary loop system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ HFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several of these alternatives, such as R-407A, R-407F, and R-744,
are in widespread use today in supermarket systems in the United
States. EPA considers this widespread use as indicative of the
availability of these acceptable alternatives. HFC/HFO blends are also
entering the market. For instance, R-448A and R-449A are being used in
supermarkets in the United States and R-450A is in use in a supermarket
in Spain.\62\ The producer of R-450A, Honeywell, indicated in their
comments that supply of this acceptable alternative was ``soon to
become available.'' They indicated that they have invested in their
U.S. facility ``to ensure high-volume manufacturing capability for HFO-
1234ze(E),'' one component of R-450A. The other component, HFC-34a, is
widely available from multiple producers and refrigerant suppliers.
Honeywell noted that ``commercial quantities of HFO-1234yf and HFO-
1234ze [are] available today.'' Likewise, DuPont indicated an
increasing supply of HFO-1234yf, a component in a number of acceptable
refrigerants for new supermarket systems, specifically R-448A, R-449A
and R-513A, amongst other applications discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test new R404A
``drop-in.'' October 5, 2014. Available online at
www.coolingpost.com/world-news/spanish-store-first-to-test-new-r404a-drop-in/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the NPRM, 79 FR at 46144, EPA provided
information on the risk to human health and the environment presented
by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable as compared with
other available alternatives. In addition, EPA listed as acceptable R-
450A on October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) and included information on its
risk to human health and the environment. Concurrently with this rule,
EPA is also listing R-448A, R-449A and R-513A as acceptable in this
end-use category and is including information on their risk to human
health and the environment. A technical support document that provides
the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP
criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these
alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA,
2015d). In summary, the other available substitutes all have zero ODP
and have GWPs ranging from 0 to 2,630. The refrigerants we are finding
unacceptable through this action also have zero ODP, but they have GWPs
ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. With the exception of R-717, the other
available refrigerants have toxicity lower than or comparable to the
refrigerants whose listing status is changing from acceptable to
unacceptable. Also, with the exception of R-717, the other available
refrigerants, as well as those that we are finding unacceptable, are
not flammable. R-717 is classified as B2L (higher toxicity, lower
flammability, low flame speed) under the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34-2013.
However, since it is acceptable only for use as the primary refrigerant
(i.e., the one housed in the machine room and limited-access
condensers) in secondary loops systems, potential exposure is limited
to technicians and operators who are expected to have had training on
its safe use. Because of this limited access, the fact that R-717 has
been used successfully as a refrigerant for over 100 years, and because
building codes and OSHA regulations often apply specifically to the use
of R-717, EPA previously determined that in this end-use the risk posed
with regard to toxicity and flammability is not significantly greater
than for other available refrigerants or for the refrigerants we are
listing as unacceptable. Some of the refrigerant blends listed as
acceptable, as well as some of the substitutes that we are finding
unacceptable include small amounts (up to 3.4% by mass) of VOC such as
R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane). These amounts are small, and
EPA's analysis of hydrocarbon refrigerants show that even when used
neat (i.e., as the sole refrigerant, not as a component within a blend)
they are not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone
formation (ICF, 2014e). In the original actions listing these
refrigerants as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions, EPA
concluded none of these refrigerants pose significantly greater risk
than for the refrigerants that are not or do not contain VOC. Because
the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other
available alternatives than for those we proposed to list as
unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we proposed to
list as unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses
significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants
as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-
422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A.

(2) When will the status change?
    As explained here and in our responses to comments, EPA is
finalizing a change of status date for new supermarket systems of
January 1, 2017.
    EPA noted in the NPRM, and multiple commenters echoed, that
supermarket equipment using some of the acceptable alternatives,
notably HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F and R-744, is available today
and has been used in supermarkets for several years. While some, but
not all, manufacturers argued more time was warranted to develop
additional equipment and address performance issues, they did not
provide adequate justification or specificity on when such equipment
would be available or when such issues would be addressed.
    A supermarket system manufacturer believed time was needed to
develop contractor training materials. While EPA agrees that training
is valuable, we note below that such training is already available and,
given that acceptable alternatives have already been implemented in new
supermarkets, we do not see the need to delay our proposed status
change date for new equipment in this end-use category more than one
year.
    However, one system manufacturer noted that supermarket plans are
developed in time frames that could hinder the proposed status change
date of January 1, 2016. EPA understands that such planning is
necessary and we are establishing a status change date of January 1,
2017, to accommodate those end users who have already planned changes
to their systems or may have plans to manufacture a new system (e.g.,
for a new store) but that may not have such systems operational in the
period between the time this rule is issued and January 1, 2016. As
noted earlier, this change in the proposed status change date will
affect those end users who are currently in the midst of planning for a
new system or a change to their existing system. A new system not ready
for use by January 1, 2017, would not be able to use a refrigerant
listed as unacceptable as of that date.
(b) Retrofit Supermarket Systems
    For retrofit supermarket systems, EPA proposed to list, as of
January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends as unacceptable: R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. In today's
final rule we are finding these refrigerants unacceptable in retrofit
supermarkets as of July 20, 2016.
    Consistent with the proposal, this action does not apply to
servicing equipment designed to use these nine refrigerants or
servicing equipment that was retrofitted to use those refrigerants
before the July 20, 2016, status change date. For example, supermarket
systems designed for use with or retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior
to July 20, 2016, may continue to operate and to be serviced using
those refrigerants.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
    A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for
retrofit supermarket systems: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F,
R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-437A, R-438A,
R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.\63\ A technical support
document that provides the additional Federal Register citations
concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity,
flammability) for these alternatives may be found in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several of the alternatives that remain acceptable are in use today
in the United States for supermarket system retrofits. While blends
such as R-407A and R-407F have become the norm, GreenChill partners
also report use of other refrigerants as retrofits in supermarket
systems.\64\ Also, as noted earlier, R-450A was used to retrofit a
supermarket system in Spain (Cooling Post, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is a
voluntary program with food retailers to reduce refrigerant
emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer and climate
change. See
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk
to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable and those that remain acceptable. In
addition, EPA listed R-450A as acceptable on October 21, 2014 (79 FR
62863) and included information on its risk to human health and the
environment. Concurrently with this rule, EPA is also listing as
acceptable R-448A, R-449A and R-513A and including information on their
risk to human health and the environment. As discussed above, the
producers of the substitutes that will remain acceptable do not expect
supply problems. In summary, the refrigerants listed above that remain
acceptable have zero ODP as do those that we are finding unacceptable.
The refrigerants remaining acceptable have GWPs ranging from below 100
to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the nine blends we are finding
unacceptable, which have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. All of the
refrigerants remaining acceptable have toxicity lower than or
comparable to the refrigerants whose listing status is changing from
acceptable to unacceptable. None of the refrigerants that remain
acceptable or those that are being listed as unacceptable are
flammable. Some of the refrigerant blends that remain acceptable and
some of those that we are finding unacceptable include small amounts
(up to 3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R-600 (butane) and R-600a
(isobutane). Because these amounts are small, and EPA's analysis of
hydrocarbon refrigerants shows that even when used neat (100% by mass),
they are not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone
formation (ICF, 2014e), these blends would also not contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation. Because the risks other
than GWP are not significantly different for the other available
alternatives than for those we proposed to list as unacceptable, and
because the GWP for the refrigerants we proposed to list as
unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses significantly
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as
unacceptable: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A,
R-434A, and R-507A.
    EPA regulations have eliminated or will eliminate by 2020 the
production and import of HCFC-22. These and other regulations also
affect end users who are using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-
containing blends such as R-401A, R-402A and R-408A. Therefore, we
believe that the impact of this action addressing retrofits will
primarily affect those owners who are faced with the choice of
continuing to operate systems with a refrigerant that has been phased
out of production and import or to switch to a refrigerant listed as
acceptable for retrofit at the time the retrofit occurs.
    Many retail chains maintain their own stockpile of HCFC-22, for
instance by recovering from stores that are decommissioned or
retrofitted and using such supplies to service stores that continue to
operate with HCFC-22. In addition, over four millions pounds of HCFC-22
has been reclaimed every year since at least 2000 and over seven

million pounds every year since 2006.\65\ Equipment operating with ODS
refrigerants may continue to do so given the supply of such materials
in stockpiles and through the reclaim market. Thus, owners have the
option to continue to operate this equipment through its useful life
with the refrigerant they are using, such as HCFC-22. Regardless of the
continued supply of HCFC-22 and other ODS refrigerants, we believe that
the majority of retrofits are planned for reasons other than the supply
of the refrigerant currently in use; for instance, owners may decide to
retrofit when upgrading to more energy efficient equipment or during
planned maintenance overhauls of their stores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ EPA, 2012a. The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can
be found on EPA's Web site at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum_merged.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We see that many retrofits are already directed towards lower-GWP
blends such as R-407A and R-407F, which are widely available and remain
acceptable for such use under today's rule, and not those of the
refrigerants whose status will change to unacceptable under today's
rule. These two refrigerants (R-407A and R-407F), other available HFC
blends, the additional HFC/HFO options that EPA recently listed as
acceptable, and other HFC/HFO blends that are being evaluated by
chemical producers and equipment manufacturers, as well as the option
of continuing to operate with HCFC-22, are sufficient to meet the
various features--such as capacity, efficiency, materials
compatibility, cost and supply--that affect the choice of a retrofit
refrigerant.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ For example, see CCAC, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) When will the status change?
    As explained here and in our responses to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for retrofit supermarkets of July
20, 2016.
    In the NPRM and above, EPA pointed out that retrofits of
supermarkets using acceptable alternatives are already occurring.
Supermarket Company ABC indicated that their experience with the use of
R-407A in retrofits indicates the availability and viability of it and
other alternatives. FMI similarly indicated that many of its members
have already stopped performing retrofits with refrigerants we are
finding unacceptable. EPA considers these comments directly from the
supermarket retailer to indicate that adequate performance can be
achieved using refrigerants that will remain listed as acceptable.
    As indicated in section V.C.1.c above, retrofits may require
various changes to the existing equipment, such as different
lubricants, new materials such as gaskets and filter driers, and
adjustments to expansion valves. These changes include readily
available materials and common refrigeration practices. Such retrofits
to acceptable alternatives are already occurring, and the option to
continue to operate and service existing systems remains; however, EPA
received comment that users may plan a ``new store layout'' in advance.
While not specifically referencing retrofits, a new layout of an
existing store may include the retrofitting of the existing supermarket
system. Therefore, EPA is modifying the change of status date to
provide a full year from publication of the final rule to ensure that
any supermarkets that may have retrofits underway using a refrigerant
that will no longer be acceptable will be able to complete those
retrofits ahead of the change of status date. While EPA did not receive
specific comments on the time to complete retrofits that are underway,
it is our understanding that any ongoing retrofits can be completed
within this timeframe .
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration
(supermarket systems)?
    Comment: Several commenters commented on the proposed January 1,
2016 change of status date for new supermarket systems. One supermarket
owner, Supermarket Company ABC, specifically supported the proposed
2016 date for both new and retrofit systems. An industry organization
representing supermarkets, FMI, stated that ``a majority of our members
have already voluntarily and proactively discontinued the use of R-
404A, R-507 and R-422D for new systems and as a retrofit refrigerant.''
Two environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD, supported the proposed
2016 date for both new and retrofitted supermarket systems. One
manufacturer of supermarket systems, Hillphoenix, supported the change
of status date of January 1, 2016, for HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A and R-434A in new and retrofit supermarket
systems.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ They addressed the change of status date for R-404A and R-
507A with regard to stand-alone units but not supermarket systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several other manufacturers of supermarket equipment, including
Hussmann, Master-Bilt, Lennox, and Zero Zone, and an association
representing such manufacturers--AHRI--suggested later dates for the
change of status. Hussmann suggested a change of status date of 2018
for new equipment as store layouts of their customers are planned ``up
to three years in advance.'' Another manufacturer, Lennox, requested
three years from the date of any final rule, a position supported by
AHRI, which also noted ``alternatives are available and manufacturers
have started re-designing products to minimize or eliminate the use of
high GWP refrigerants.'' Master-Bilt indicated that under the proposed
January 1, 2016, change of status date for new supermarket systems,
they would convert to HFC-134a and R-407A, but would have to address
issues of energy efficiency and reliability. They believed ``these HFCs
will also be banned as soon as lower GWP alternatives are available''
and therefore did not offer a long-term solution. Instead, they stated
blends with even lower GWPs than the ones remaining acceptable would be
available in 1-3 years and requested a minimum of 3 years from then to
develop products. Zero Zone indicated that it has products available
for R-407A and R-407C, but needs time to address performance issues.
    Response: Several commenters indicated that many stores were
already using alternatives other than the ones we proposed to list as
unacceptable. While two manufacturers of equipment, Zero Zone and
Lennox, and AHRI advocated for a later change of status date, they also
indicated that products using refrigerants that will remain acceptable
are already in use. Hillphoenix and Hussmann, both of whom offer
supermarket systems with such refrigerants, and Supermarket Company ABC
and FMI, who have used such products, did not indicate that there were
performance, efficiency or reliability issues when using R-407A, R-407C
or R-407F in supermarket systems.
    We recognize the concern raised by Hussmann regarding store layout
plans for new systems. Store design plans are generally developed well
in advance of the physical change-over or construction, because of
several different factors related to construction and installation as
well as the need to address any commissioning, performance optimization
or start-up procedures. Hussmann suggested a change of status date of
2018 to allow up to three years for design. Hussmann did not indicate
if the ``up to three years in advance'' for planning a new design was a
typical planning cycle or a rare maximum, nor did they indicate that
any particular customer currently is in the planning stage but will not
have equipment designed to use a refrigerant

we are listing as unacceptable operational until 2018. We further note
that the NPRM was proposed on August 6, 2014, and thus supermarkets
were on notice at that time that the refrigerants currently listed as
acceptable would possibly be unacceptable for use as of January 2016.
In order to address concerns about those end users who began planning
prior to the proposal, we are establishing a change of status date one
year later than proposed for new supermarket systems and July 20, 2016
for retrofits. This will provide those end users who were in the
planning stage prior to the time of the proposal over two years after
issuance of the proposal to ensure new supermarket systems are in place
and operational and likewise approximately two years to complete any
retrofits.
    Comment: Lennox noted that supermarket system designs exist for R-
407 series refrigerants, but stated that manufacturers ``need at least
3 years to develop complete product lines, technical literature and
contractor training materials.'' Lennox did not indicate specifically
how much time was needed to complete their equipment development. Zero
Zone Inc. comments that the industry needs at least six years to make a
smooth complete transition away from R-404A, R-507A, and HFC-134a; they
indicated this time was needed ``to eliminate the performance issues
and design product that uses these refrigerants in the most energy
efficiency manner.'' In its comments regarding supermarket systems,
AHRI indicated low-GWP alternatives are available and stated research
on other, lower-GWP refrigerants was underway but requested ``a minimum
of 3 years'' to transition. AHRI contended that ``manufacturers have
started re-designing products to minimize or eliminate the use of high
GWP refrigerants'' but that ``manufactures need more time'' on ``the
re-design effort that started [a] few years ago.'' In general comments
not specific to the three retail food refrigeration end-use categories
addressed in the proposal, AHRI also indicated that ``a typical design
cycle takes an average 7 years from start to finish'' for non-flammable
alternatives. Supermarket Company ABC referenced the NPRM discussion of
new supermarket systems (79 FR 46144) and stated that their ``own
experience and testing with R134a, CO2 and the R-407 series
of refrigerants have demonstrated to our satisfaction that
implementable alternatives to R-404A and R-507A are available to meet
that time frame'' of January 1, 2016.
    Response: The commenters have not provided sufficient information
to support that alternatives will not be available for several years
because of technical constraints. As indicated in the comments from
AHRI, Lennox, and Zero Zone, manufacturers have been working for the
past several years to design systems using low GWP alternatives and as
FMI noted many supermarkets are already choosing to use them. EPA noted
in the proposal that R-407A systems have already become a norm for
supermarkets and Supermarket Company ABC indicated it was using R-407A
in its comments. In fact, EPA notes that the amount of R-404A in use
from partners participating in EPA's GreenChill partnership program
reporting in 2012 and 2013 increased only 1.3%, while the amount of R-
407A in use increased 24%. Hence, we do not agree that a several year
delay in the change of status date is needed to accommodate design of
systems.
    With respect to contractor training, EPA agrees proper education
and training is important, and we note that there are already many
manufacturers and suppliers who have been conducting such training. For
example, Hillphoenix, a manufacturer of supermarket systems and other
equipment affected by this rule, operates a learning center with
courses available including several on R-744 equipment.\68\ Learning
material is also available from EPA's GreenChill program, including for
instance the GreenChill retrofit guidelines,\69\ which contain material
on refrigerants R-407A, R-407F and R-427A, all of which remain
acceptable in retrofit supermarket systems. For supermarket systems, we
note that alternatives such as R-407A have been in the market and have
been used successfully for many years. Other alternatives, such as R-
448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A, are nonflammable and operate with
similar characteristics to HFC-134a or R-404A, and hence should require
only minimal extra training. EPA believes the January 1, 2017, change
of status date for new supermarket systems, will allow technicians that
focus on particular end-uses or end-use categories to obtain the
training they need and likewise for those that cover all end-uses and
end-use categories to build their skills across those end-uses over
time. We disagree that a need to develop complete technical lines and
technical literature are technical challenges that limit the
availability of refrigerants for new supermarket systems beyond January
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See www.hillphoenixlc.com/course-curriculum/refrigeration-systems/.
    \69\ EPA, 2011b. GreenChill Best Practices Guidelines,
Commercial Refrigeration Retrofits. August 2011. This document is
accessible at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (remote
condensing units)?
    The change of status determinations for retail food refrigeration
(remote condensing units) is summarized in the following table:

    Table 5--Change of Status Decisions for Retail Food Refrigeration
                        (Remote Condensing Units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                   Substitutes           Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration       HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-   Unacceptable as
 (remote condensing units)       407B, R-421B, R-422A,   of January 1,
 (new).                          R-422C, R-422D, R-      2018.
                                 428A, R-434A, R-507A.
Retail food refrigeration       R-404A, R-407B, R-      Unacceptable as
 (remote condensing units)       421B, R-422A, R-422C,   of July 20,
 (retrofit).                     R-422D, R-428A, R-      2016.
                                 434A, R-507A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) New Remote Condensing Units
    For new remote condensing units, EPA proposed to list, as of
January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea as unacceptable. The HFC
blends are R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-
434A, and R-507A. In today's final rule, we are finding that same list
of nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea as unacceptable as of January 1, 2018.
The change from the proposal is in response to information provided by
commenters concerning technical challenges with meeting the January 1,
2016, proposed date.

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
    A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for new
remote condensing units: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A,
R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.\70\ R-717 is acceptable
in remote condensing units when used as the primary refrigerant in a
secondary loop system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of these acceptable alternatives are currently in use in
remote condensing unit systems in the United States, such as R-407C and
R-407F. Others, such as R-744 and hydrocarbons, while not indicated as
in use in the United States, are being used in limited demonstration
trials in Europe and elsewhere. In addition, commenters have pointed
out that testing of low-GWP HFC/HFO blends is underway; several of
these HFC/HFO blends have been submitted to EPA for SNAP review in this
end-use category and four are listed as acceptable.
    See section V.C.2.a.1 above for a summary of our comparative
assessment of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable with the other
available refrigerants. The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable
for new remote condensing units are the same as those we are listing
unacceptable for new supermarket systems. Likewise, the other available
refrigerants are the same for new remote condensing units as for new
supermarket systems. For the same reasons as presented in section 2,
EPA concludes that there are other refrigerants for use in new remote
condensing units that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment than the alternatives we are listing as unacceptable.
(2) When will the status change?
    As explained here and in our responses to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for new remote condensing units of
January 1, 2018.
    Blends such as R-407A, R-407C and R-407F are technically viable
options. We did not receive any comments suggesting that these or other
alternatives that will remain acceptable could not be used in these
systems. In fact, information in the docket to this rule supports the
feasibility of these alternatives. For example, information in the
Agency's possession from a manufacturer of remote condensing units
provides an energy efficiency analysis for R-407A as compared with R-
404A in remote condensing units, with results ranging from 10% lower to
1% higher in low-temperature equipment and 0% to 6% higher in medium-
temperature equipment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0184). For unit coolers,
this information showed improved results of 4.3% to 13.3% in medium-
temperature applications. While the low-temperature applications showed
3.6% to 6.7% decreases, it was noted this came ``as the capacity
increased;'' hence, we expect adjustments to the equipment could
improve the efficiency while still meeting the original capacity
requirements. In addition, Honeywell indicated that R-448A and R-449A,
which have been submitted to SNAP for review in this end-use, are
undergoing extensive field trials and that R-448A is ``close to being
qualified with numerous manufacturers,'' indicating that manufacturers
are developing equipment to use this alternative. DuPont indicates that
R-449A (also referred to as DR-33 and XP40), which has been submitted
to SNAP for review in this end-use, works well in their tests of a
display case connected to a remote condensing unit. DuPont found that
the energy consumption for this refrigerant in a remote condensing unit
originally designed for R-404A was 3% to 4% less than R-404A in low-
temperature tests and 8% to 12% less in medium-temperature tests.
    Although there are technically viable alternatives, we recognize
the testing and certification needs for this equipment. Compliance with
DOE energy conservation standards will be required on March 27, 2017
for commercial refrigeration equipment and on June 5, 2017 for walk-in
coolers and freezers (see also section V.C.1.b above and V.C.7 below).
Commenters noted the challenges with timing for designing products with
acceptable alternatives and testing these products to meet the 2017 DOE
energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment
and for walk-in coolers and freezers. EPA agrees with the commenters
that the challenge of meeting both this status change rule and the DOE
standards creates a significant technical hurdle that would be
difficult to overcome by a January 2016 change of status date. A
January 1, 2018, change of status date for remote condensing units
recognizes the time needed for redesign and testing to meet both
regulatory obligations.
(b) Retrofit Remote Condensing Units
    For retrofit remote condensing units, EPA proposed to list, as of
January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends as unacceptable: R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. In today's
final rule, we are establishing a change of status date for these
refrigerants of July 20, 2016.
    Consistent with the proposal, this action does not apply to
servicing equipment designed to use these nine refrigerants or
servicing equipment that was retrofitted to use those refrigerants
before the January 1, 2018 status change date. For example, remote
condensing units designed for use with or retrofitted to R-404A or R-
507A prior to July 20, 2016, are allowed to continue to operate and to
be serviced using those refrigerants.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
    A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for
retrofitting remote condensing units: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A,
IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C,
R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike retrofits of supermarket systems, which are common,
retrofits of remote condensing units are unusual. However, given that
the operating conditions and requirements between supermarket systems
and remote condensing units are generally similar, EPA believes blends
such as R-407A, R-407C and R-407F are available options.
    See section V.C.2.b.1 above for a summary of our comparative
assessment of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable with the other
available refrigerants. The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable
for retrofit remote condensing units are the same as those we are
listing as unacceptable for retrofit supermarket systems. Likewise, the
available alternatives for retrofit

remote condensing units are the same as those for retrofit supermarket
systems. For the same reasons as presented in section V.C.2.b.1, EPA
concludes that there are other refrigerants for use in retrofit remote
condensing units that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment than the alternatives we are listing as unacceptable.
    EPA regulations have eliminated or will eliminate by 2020 the
production and import of HCFC-22. These and other regulations also
affect end users who are using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-
containing blends such as R-401A, R-402A and R-408A. Therefore, we
believe that the impact of this action addressing retrofits will
primarily affect those owners who are faced with the choice of
continuing to operate systems with a refrigerant that has been phased
out of production and import or to switch to a refrigerant listed as
acceptable for retrofit at the time the retrofit occurs.
    As noted in section V.2.b.1, millions of pounds of HCFC-22 are
reclaimed every year, and this supply is available to remote condensing
unit owners, operators and technicians, just as it is available for
supermarket owners, operators and technicians. We also noted that many
retail chains have maintained their own stockpile of HCFC-22, for
instance by recovering from stores that are decommissioned or
retrofitted and using such supplies to service stores that continue to
operate with HCFC-22. This same strategy is possible for those who own
or operate multiple facilities using remote condensing units. By
establishing a change of status date of July 20, 2016, we are providing
owners and operators of remote condensing units the opportunity to
begin to address any HCFC-22 supply concerns they may have. Thus,
owners have the option to continue to operate this equipment through
its useful life with the refrigerant they are using, such as HCFC-22.
    Supermarket Company ABC indicated that they have used R-407A to
retrofit HCFC-22 systems and that their experience indicates the
availability and viability of this and other alternatives. The success
of R-407A as a retrofit refrigerant, the other available HFC blends,
the additional HFC/HFO options that EPA recently listed as acceptable,
and the other HFC/HFO blends that are being evaluated by chemical
producers and equipment manufacturers, as well as the option of
continuing to operate with HCFC-22, are sufficient to meet the various
features--such as capacity, efficiency, materials compatibility, cost
and supply--that affect the choice of a retrofit refrigerant.
(2) When will the status change?
    As explained here and in our response to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for retrofit remote condensing
units of July 20, 2016.
    We did not receive any comments suggesting that alternatives that
remain acceptable could not be used in these systems. As noted above,
Supermarket Company ABC indicated that they have had success using R-
407A to retrofit HCFC-22 systems. Results from testing of remote
condensing units with R-407A and R-449A are presented above in section
V.C.3.a.2. Those results showed increased energy efficiency and/or
increased capacity with those refrigerants, indicating that they are
viable for both new and retrofit equipment. As indicated in section
V.C.1.c above, retrofits may require various changes to the existing
equipment, such as different lubricants, new materials such as gaskets
and filter driers, and adjustments to expansion valves. These changes
include readily available materials and common refrigeration practices.
Such retrofits to acceptable alternatives are already occurring, and
the option to continue to operate and service existing systems remains.
However, as discussed in Section V.C.2.b.2 above, comments indicate
that a ``new store layout'' could be planned or otherwise underway, and
that such layout may include the retrofitting of existing remote
condensing units to a refrigerant that will no longer be acceptable.
Therefore, by providing one full year from the final rule's
publication, EPA is providing sufficient time for any such retrofits in
this end-use category to occur as planned.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration
(remote condensing units)?
    Comment: Two environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD, urged EPA
to maintain the proposed status change date of January 1, 2016, for new
remote condensing units. Supermarket Company ABC stated that they did
not oppose the January 1, 2016, change of status date for new remote
condensing units. FMI, an industry organization representing
supermarkets, a market segment that also utilizes remote condensing
units, pointed out that ``a majority of our members have already
voluntarily and proactively discontinued the use of R-404A, R-507, and
R-422D for new systems and as a retrofit refrigerant.''
    Many equipment manufacturers including: Hussmann; Continental
Refrigerator; Nor-Lake; Master-Bilt Products; International Cold
Storage, Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite Walk-Ins; Lennox; and Manitowoc
requested later dates for the status change ranging from 2018 to 2025.
In some cases the date requested applied to new equipment in other end-
use categories as well as new remote condensing units. AHRI suggested a
minimum of six years to transition. The North American Association of
Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) and Howe Corporation submitted
comments that were general rather than specific to any particular
refrigeration end-use. Based on NAFEM's membership and the products
Howe discussed, EPA believes these comments apply to remote condensing
units and stand-alone equipment. Howe proposed that the status of R-
404A and R-507A change ``no sooner than year 2024'' while NAFEM
suggested a ten-year delay for all of the refrigeration end-uses
addressed in the proposed rule and enumerated 14 tasks that they
indicate are ``necessary to safely introduce different/flammable
refrigerants into the manufacturing process.'' A separate comment from
NAFEM listed five phases, totaling 10 to 12 years, to adopt hydrocarbon
refrigerants but also stated that ``in no case should any manufacturer
be expected to transition prior to 2022.'' These manufacturers and
industry associations cited concerns over the availability of
alternatives, the need to design and test products using those
alternatives, as well as other concerns that we summarize and address
in the Response to Comments Document that has been placed in the
docket. Several manufacturers indicated that a January 1, 2016, change
of status date would create significant difficulties in designing
products with refrigerants that remain acceptable while also meeting
the DOE energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment and for walk-in coolers and freezers that are scheduled to
become effective in 2017 (see also section V.C.1.b above and V.C.7
below). In particular, the commenters claimed that additional
development of low-temperature products may be necessary to match
current efficiency levels.
    Hussmann was concerned with the lead time of its customers in
planning store layouts with ``remote systems,'' which could include
remote condensing units as well as supermarket systems, and indicated
that a date of 2018 would allow its customers to better determine what
types of systems and refrigerants

to use. Lennox proposed a ``phased in implementation timing by
refrigerant equipment end-use category,'' suggesting five years from
publication of the final for remote condensing units compared to three
years for supermarkets and seven years for stand-alone units. AHRI
similarly suggested that the change of status date for remote
condensing units occur after that of supermarkets.
    Regarding HFC/HFO blend alternatives, Honeywell, indicates that
supply of R-450A, an alternative listed as acceptable, will be
available soon and that R-448A and R-449A, which are currently under
SNAP review, are undergoing extensive field trials. Honeywell further
stated that R-448A is ``close to being qualified with numerous
manufacturers,'' indicating that manufacturers are developing equipment
to use this refrigerant. DuPont indicated that R-449A works well in
their tests of a display case connected to a remote condensing unit.
    Response: Supermarket Company ABC and FMI as well as environmental
organizations supported or did not oppose the proposed status change
date of January 1, 2016. A number of other commenters supported a later
date ranging from 2017 to as late as 12 years after this action is
finalized. The comments requesting later status change dates either did
not address retrofits or did not provide adequate information
indicating why a date earlier than that for new remote condensing units
would be infeasible for retrofit equipment.
    Although some use of alternatives is already occurring, we agree
with the commenters that certain technical challenges still exist that
support a change of status date later than we proposed for new and
retrofit equipment. However, we do not agree that significant
additional time is needed before alternatives listed as acceptable will
be available for new equipment.
    There are alternatives that are not subject to a status change that
are used already in new and retrofit remote condensing units and others
are being developed and deployed. As supported by the comments from
FMI, many supermarkets have already transitioned away from the
refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable and are using refrigerants
that will remain acceptable after this final action. Supermarket
Company ABC stated that alternatives were available, pointing towards
their experience with R-407A in retrofits and HFC-134a, R-744 and the
R-407 series in new equipment. Information in the Agency's possession
from a manufacturer of such equipment, explained above, is indicative
that R-407A, among other available alternatives, can be readily
implemented now in new remote condensing units at medium-temperature
applications both during and after meeting DOE energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration equipment and for walk-in
coolers and freezers. However, the information showed efficiency losses
for this refrigerant in low-temperature applications. Although DuPont
points to positive results using R-449A in a display case connected to
a remote condensing unit, this refrigerant too showed lower energy
efficiency in low-temperature than medium-temperature conditions. Both
comments indicate that there is a more significant challenge for low-
temperature applications.
    Thus, while there has been significant progress in transitioning to
alternatives that will remain acceptable in medium-temperature
applications, there has been less progress in doing so for low-
temperature applications. However, the information provided by
Honeywell and DuPont indicates that significant additional time will
not be needed before equipment is available. In recognition that new
remote-condensing unit equipment will need to meet DOE and National
Sanitation Foundation (NSF) standards, and some efficiency challenges
exist particularly with low-temperature equipment, we are establishing
a status change date of January 1, 2018, for new remote condensing
units and July 20, 2016 for retrofits.
    Given that the low-temperature results with R-407A showed only 3.6%
to 6.7% efficiency declines along with capacity increases, and those
from DuPont with R-449A showed a slight improvement in efficiency, we
consider a status change date of January 1, 2018, to be adequate to
adopt these or other acceptable alternatives into new equipment and
perform any testing and certification necessary. A January 1, 2018,
change of status date for new remote condensing units will allow time
for manufacturers to redesign any products that require additional
engineering to meet both this rule and the DOE standards. In situations
where these refrigerants do not show energy efficiency improvements,
other design changes as described in the DOE rulemakings and in the
literature can be utilized to achieve required efficiencies. In
addition, as indicated above, current research and testing on some HFC/
HFO blends show similar or better energy efficiency for these products.
    While we agree than a short additional amount of time is needed to
address these technical challenges and the testing and certification
requirements for new equipment, we disagree with commenters who suggest
that a lengthy period is needed prior to the change of status. NAFEM
estimated 10 to 12 years to adopt hydrocarbon refrigerants; however, as
hydrocarbons are not listed as acceptable for remote condensing units,
and no schedule was provided for nonflammable refrigerants, EPA views
this comment as pertaining to stand-alone equipment. (See section V.C.4
below). All of the refrigerant blends that remain acceptable are
nonflammable and some were designed to mimic HFC-134a and R-404A. EPA
believes that these can be adopted into manufacturers' products with
minor changes while still meeting the DOE requirements. The commenters
failed to identify specific technical challenges that would support a
more lengthy delay in the change of status date.
4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (stand-alone
equipment)?
    The change of status determination for retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone equipment) is summarized in the following table:

      Table 6--Change of Status Decisions for Stand-Alone Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                   Substitutes           Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration       FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-    Unacceptable as
 (stand-alone medium-            134a, HFC-227ea,        of January 1,
 temperature units \72\ with a   KDD6, R-125/290/134a/   2019.
 compressor capacity below       600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
 2,200 Btu/hr and not            1.5), R-404A, R-407A,
 containing a flooded            R-407B, R-407C, R-
 evaporator) (new).              407F, R-410A, R-410B,
                                 R-417A, R-421A, R-
                                 421B, R-422A, R-422B,
                                 R-422C, R-422D, R-
                                 424A, R-426A, R-428A,
                                 R-434A, R-437A, R-
                                 438A, R-507A, RS-24
                                 (2002 formulation),
                                 RS-44 (2003
                                 formulation), SP34E,
                                 THR-03.

Retail food refrigeration       FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-    Unacceptable as
 (stand-alone medium-            134a, HFC-227ea,        of January 1,
 temperature units with a        KDD6, R-125/290/134a/   2020.
 compressor capacity equal to    600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
 or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr    1.5), R-404A, R-407A,
 and stand-alone medium-         R-407B, R-407C, R-
 temperature units containing    407F, R-410A, R-410B,
 a flooded evaporator) (new).    R-417A, R-421A, R-
                                 421B, R-422A, R-422B,
                                 R-422C, R-422D, R-
                                 424A, R-426A, R-428A,
                                 R-434A, R-437A, R-
                                 438A, R-507A, RS-24
                                 (2002 formulation),
                                 RS-44 (2003
                                 formulation), SP34E,
                                 THR-03.
Retail food refrigeration       HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ Unacceptable as
 (stand-alone low-temperature    290/134a/600a (55.0/    of January 1,
 units \73\) (new).              1.0/42.5/1.5), R-       2020.
                                 404A, R-407A, R-407B,
                                 R-407C, R-407F, R-
                                 410A, R-410B, R-417A,
                                 R-421A, R-421B, R-
                                 422A, R-422B, R-422C,
                                 R-422D, R-424A, R-
                                 428A, R-434A, R-437A,
                                 R-438A, R-507A, RS-44
                                 (2003 formulation).
Retail food refrigeration       R-404A and R-507A.....  Unacceptable as
 (stand-alone units only)                                of July 20,
 (retrofit).                                             2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) New Stand-Alone Equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ ``Medium-temperature'' refers to equipment that maintains
food or beverages at temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C).
    \73\ ``Low-temperature'' refers to equipment that maintains food
or beverages at temperatures at or below 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new stand-alone equipment, EPA proposed to list HFC-134a and 31
other refrigerants for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration
equipment unacceptable, as of January 1, 2016. In today's final rule,
EPA is subdividing the new retail food refrigeration (stand-alone
equipment) end-use category. For new stand-alone medium-temperature
units with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing
a flooded evaporator, EPA is changing the listing for HFC-134a and 30
other refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1,
2019. These 30 other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS-24
(2002 formulation), SP34E, THR-03 and 24 additional refrigerants,
listed below, for which EPA is changing the status in all types of
stand-alone equipment. For new stand-alone medium-temperature units
with a compressor capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and
all stand-alone medium-temperature units containing a flooded
evaporator, EPA is changing the listing of HFC-134a and the same 30
other refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1,
2020. For new stand-alone low-temperature units, EPA is changing the
status from acceptable to unacceptable of 24 refrigerants as of January
1, 2020. The 24 refrigerants are: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-
410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 formulation).
While EPA proposed to change the status from acceptable to unacceptable
for FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E,
and THR-03 in all new stand-alone equipment, EPA is not changing the
status for these refrigerants in this final rule in stand-alone low-
temperature equipment, or for IKON B for any stand-alone equipment, for
the reasons provided below. EPA clarifies below how the compressor
capacity is to be determined as well as how to distinguish medium-
temperature and low-temperature stand-alone equipment.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
    EPA has listed R-290, R-600a and R-441A acceptable subject to use
conditions in new stand-alone equipment. R-290 is already in use
globally, including in the United States, and R-600a is in use outside
of the United States as well as in test market trials in the United
States. For instance, at a recent exposition, stand-alone equipment
using R-290 was displayed by multiple companies and component suppliers
exhibited compressors, filter driers, controls and expansion valves
that are designed to use R-290 or R-600a.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See ``New regulations inspire hydrocarbon displays at U.S.
NAFEM Show,'' www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/view/6143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    R-450A, R-513A, R-744, IKON A, IKON B and THR-02 are listed as
acceptable substitutes in new stand-alone equipment without use
conditions.\75\ In addition, HFC-134a, FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS-24
(2002 formulation), SP34E and THR-03 remain acceptable without use
conditions and are not subject to a change of status date in new stand-
alone low-temperature equipment. Also, concurrently with this rule, EPA
is listing R-448A and R-449A acceptable without use conditions for new
stand-alone low-temperature equipment. EPA is aware of equipment
deployment using R-744 and HFC-134a. We are not aware of such
deployment with respect to any other of these substitutes, although we
are aware that several are undergoing research and testing. The
producer of R-450A, Honeywell, stated that the supply of R-450A is
``soon to be available.'' Although we did not see evidence that
products were produced with the HFC/HFO blends that are listed as
acceptable, publicly-available literature indicates that R-448A, R-
449A, R-450A, R-513A and others are under investigation. For example,
R-513A (trade name XP10) was tested in commercial bottle cooler/freezer
under test 008 of AHRI's Low-GWP Alternative Refrigerants Evaluation
Program research.\76\ The Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine
quoted Emerson, a major supplier of compressors for this industry, as
saying it is ``prepared to support customers and devote more resources
to qualifying lower-GWP A1 refrigerant alternatives such as R448A,
R449A, R-450A and

R513A.'' \77\ EPA addressed the supply of these HFC/HFO blends, and
specifically the production of HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E), which are
components of these blends, above in section V.C.2.a.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Shecco, 2015. ``New Regulations Inspire Hydrocarbon
Displays at U.S. NAFEM Show, February 24, 2015. This document is
accessible at http://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/6143.''
    \76\ Shapiro, Doron. ``System Drop-In Tests of R-134a, R-1234yf,
OpteonTM XP10, R-1234ze(E), and N13a in a Commercial
Bottle Cooler/Freezer'', January 25, 2013. This document is
accessible at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI%20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt-008.pdf.
    \77\ Gaved, 2015. ``Emerson Climate Technologies offers to help
supply chain move to lower-GWP refrigerants,'' www.racplus.com/news/-emerson-climate-technologies-offers-to-help-supply-chain-move-to-lower-gwp-refrigerants/8677708.article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk
to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable compared with other alternatives,
including several refrigerants listed as acceptable (October 21, 2014,
79 FR 62863) or acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015;
80 FR 19453) after the NPRM was issued. A technical support document
that provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data
on the environmental and health properties (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC,
toxicity, flammability) for the acceptable alternatives as well as
those we are finding unacceptable may be found in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA, 2015d).
    In summary, for stand-alone medium-temperature refrigeration
equipment, the substitutes listed above that remain acceptable have
zero ODP and GWPs ranging from 1 to about 630. In contrast, the
alternatives that we are listing as unacceptable for stand-alone
medium-temperature equipment also have zero ODP and they have GWPs
ranging from approximately 900 to 3,985. Three of the substitutes that
remain acceptable, R-290, R-600a, and R-441A, are or are composed
primarily of VOC. EPA's analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use are not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). These three
substitutes are also flammable; however, the use conditions specified
ensure that they do not pose greater overall risk than any of the
substitutes currently listed as acceptable in new stand-alone medium-
temperature equipment.\78\ None of the refrigerants currently listed as
acceptable present significant human health toxicity concerns or other
ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the refrigerants we are finding
unacceptable are similar in ODP (zero ODP), flammability (low risks of
flammability), toxicity (low toxicity), and VOC (non-VOC or not
expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone formation).
Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for
the other available alternatives than for those we are listing as
unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses significantly
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable
for new stand-alone medium-temperature refrigeration equipment: FOR12A,
FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A,
R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in
this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rules finding them acceptable
subject to use conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832 and April
10, 2015; 80 FR 19453). Refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For stand-alone low-temperature refrigeration equipment, the
substitutes that remain acceptable have zero-ODP and GWPs ranging from
1 to about 1,500. The alternatives we are listing as unacceptable have
GWPs ranging from approximately 1,800 to 3,985. For the other risk
criteria we review, the analysis provided above for stand-alone medium-
temperature refrigeration equipment applies also to for the
alternatives that remain acceptable and those we are listing as
unacceptable. Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly
different for the other available alternatives than for those we
proposed to list as unacceptable and because the GWP for the
refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable is significantly
higher and thus poses significantly greater risk, we are listing the
following refrigerants as unacceptable for new stand-alone low-
temperature refrigeration equipment: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/
600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-
410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003
formulation).
(2) When will the status change?
    We are establishing a status change date of January 1, 2019, for
new stand-alone medium-temperature equipment with a compressor capacity
below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded evaporator, and a
status change date of January 1, 2020, for all other types of new
stand-alone equipment. For this equipment, there are several
alternatives that can meet the technological needs of the market. EIA
states that ``R-744, R-290, R-441A, and isobutene (`R-600a') can
satisfy the vast majority of the current market for refrigerants in
stand-alone equipment.'' We are aware of products using R-290, R-600a
and R-744 that are already on the market. According to Shecco, based on
its October 2014 survey, the manufacturers of stand-alone equipment
they surveyed ``are already today able to produce sufficient amount of
such [R-290, R-600a and R-744] equipment to cover the needs of the
entire market. All of the interviewed manufacturers confirmed that they
plan to covert [sic] their whole manufacturing facilities to
hydrocarbons and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.'' While the alternatives
that remain acceptable will be able to meet the technical constraints
for this equipment, time will be needed for the transition to occur. On
the aspect of timing, Shecco, Supermarket Company ABC, Hatco, and H&K
International suggested a 2018 change of status date, while DuPont and
Honeywell suggested 2017. NRDC and IGSD believed EPA should maintain
the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date. In contrast,
numerous other manufacturers of stand-alone equipment indicated
concerns with hydrocarbons and R-744, and some referenced HFC/HFO
blends as a potential solution. They recommended change of status dates
ranging from 2020 to 20 years after the rule becomes final. While we
agree that manufacturers will be able to produce equipment using lower-
GWP refrigerants addressing a large portion of the market in the period
of 2016-2018, we also agree that there are some technical challenges
that support a change of status date of 2019 or 2020 for this end-use
category.
    Manufacturers indicated several necessary steps that will need to
occur, including development and testing of components, such as
compressors and condensing units, for the full range of stand-alone
products. In addition, engineering, development, and testing to meet
standards, such as those from UL, DOE and NSF, of the products would
start as components became available. Modifications to the factory
could be required, ranging from a simpler change of the refrigerant
storage area to reconfiguration of the factory to address concerns such
as ventilation or other safety measures. Information submitted by the
commenters supported that these actions could take a few months or up
to a couple of years. However, it is likely that these actions could
occur simultaneously with other steps such as equipment design and
testing.
    Manufacturers identified three distinct refrigerant types. For
hydrocarbons, including R-290, we do

not see any question regarding chemical supply. NAMA and True
Manufacturing indicated that components have already been designed
globally, including in the United States, using both R-290 and R-600a.
Danfoss, Manitowoc and Unified Brands indicated that 1-2 years are
needed to develop air-cooled condensing units for R-290. Components
using other hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as R-441A have not been
developed, but these refrigerants are offered for sale in the U.S. and
are in ample supply.
    EPA believes that much of the component and equipment development
can occur at the same time; in other words, as certain components
become available, appropriate units could be redesigned using those
components, prototypes could be built and tested, and final designs
could be produced, while additional components are released. Indeed, it
appears that many manufacturers have already identified a portion of
their products that they could redesign using R-290, as discussed
below. Once product models are designed, testing and certification
could take place.
    In summary, to use hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as R-290, the
comments support that approximately three and a half years is needed
for equipment to become fully available. This includes one to two years
to develop additional components beyond those that are currently
available and to test the current and newly developed components in
models. Equipment development and testing would occur in series, with
the final units being developed and ready for testing approximately one
year after the components for that unit were available. Testing and
certification would likewise occur as products were developed and would
span two to three years, much of which while other actions are
occurring. We estimate the final units might take an additional six
months to a year to test and certify once developed. As discussed
above, any required modifications to the factory line and facilities
would occur concurrently if a manufacturer chose to use R-290 or
another acceptable hydrocarbon refrigerant. Hence, EPA believes that
new stand-alone equipment for medium-temperature applications with a
compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded
evaporator could be available and in compliance with a status change
date of January 1, 2019.
    The steps in developing products for R-744 would be similar and on
a similar time frame as those for hydrocarbons. However, although R-744
is in wide supply, as supported by commenters such as Hillphoenix,
Coca-Cola, Parker-Hannifin, and HC Duke & Son/Electro-Freeze, there has
been limited development of components and development of necessary
components in a variety of sizes could take two to three years.
    Designing stand-alone equipment with R-744 presents challenges such
as the need for a complete system redesign due to higher pressures and
the different thermodynamic and transport properties. Additionally, as
supported by commenters such as HC Duke & Son/Electro-Freeze, while
CO2 system efficiency is good at lower ambient temperatures,
CO2 system efficiency suffers at higher temperatures. Thus,
it may take additional time to develop components and equipment for
both medium and low-temperature applications.
    Although it may not be feasible to develop R-744 equipment for the
full spectrum of stand-alone equipment by a status change date of
January 1, 2019, other alternatives, such as the hydrocarbons and HFC/
HFO blends would be available for those uses by the January 1, 2019,
status change date.
    The third group of alternatives is the HFC/HFO blends. Refrigerant
producers DuPont and Honeywell provided detailed comments on the
development of specific HFC/HFO blends and EPA listed one of these, R-
450A, as acceptable in October 2014. Concurrently with this rule, EPA
is also listing R-513A as acceptable in all stand-alone equipment and
two additional HFC/HFO blends, R-448A and R-449A, acceptable in stand-
alone low-temperature equipment.
    Some samples of these refrigerants are available today and are
being tested, as supported by comments from AHRI. However, supplies of
some of these blends are limited at this time because of limits on some
of the HFO components, HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E). However, as
discussed above in section V.C.2.a.1, production facilities for these
refrigerants have commenced operation and thus, as supported by
Honeywell and DuPont, we expect adequate supplies to be available by
January 2017 if not before. Unified Brands and Structural Concepts
indicated that components for HFC/HFO equipment are being tested and
developed today and Unified Brands further projected that it would be
three years for a full line of production-ready components.
    HFC/HFO blends found acceptable to date or submitted to the SNAP
program are nonflammable, acceptable without use conditions, and
designed to mimic the performance of either HFC-134a or R-404A,
refrigerants in predominant use currently. Thus, as compared with
hydrocarbons and R-744, there should be fewer technical challenges in
developing equipment using these alternatives. Several commenters,
including Master-Bilt, Structural Concepts, and Hoshizaki America,
supported that transition to these alternatives would be simpler and
quicker once components have been developed and there are adequate
supplies.
    In summary, should manufacturers choose to pursue HFC/HFO blends,
EPA expects such equipment would be widely available in about four
years and that R-450A could be available earlier as it was the first
such blend found acceptable under SNAP. This includes one to two years
for supplies to become widely available, approximately one year for
development and testing of components, and approximately one year for
equipment development. The short time for development of components and
equipment is due to the fact that the properties of the blends are
similar to the refrigerants most manufacturers are currently using.
Similarly, we expect that there would be limited factory modifications,
if any, and that these could occur concurrently with the design work.
As with other refrigerants, EPA would expect equipment testing and
certification to be rolled out as equipment models are redesigned, with
the last units being available approximately six to twelve months after
designs are developed.
    We are finalizing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for
stand-alone low-temperature retail food refrigeration units; stand-
alone medium-temperature retail food refrigeration units with a
compressor capacity equal to or exceeding 2,200 Btu/hr; and stand-alone
retail food refrigeration units employing a flooded evaporator.
    For these three types of stand-alone equipment, we find that an
additional year beyond January 1, 2019, is needed for the change of
status. For equipment using a flooded evaporator, Emerson indicated the
lower-GWP refrigerants are all ``high glide'' often in the range of 7
[deg]F to 10 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C to 5.6 [deg]C), and that such a
characteristic presents unique redesign and performance challenges.
Because of this unique design challenge that will require additional
time to address, we are establishing a January 1, 2020, change of
status date for new stand-alone equipment that utilizes a flooded
evaporator.
    The second segment of the stand-alone equipment end-use category
that we found faced particular technical

challenges was equipment designed to hold products at low temperatures.
The choice of refrigerant is in part determined by the desired
temperature that food or beverage will be stored. As with ``large''
equipment, discussed below, commenters, including Hussmann and
Hillphoenix, indicated that the charge size limits that apply to the
hydrocarbon refrigerants could limit their use in low-temperature
equipment, although for some equipment, it may be possible to redesign
equipment to use multiple circuits. In addition, these commenters
further note that HFC-134a was not a workable refrigerant for low-
temperature applications, and thus some of the HFC/HFO alternatives,
specifically R-450A and R-513A, which were designed to perform
similarly to HFC-134a, would likewise not be workable in these
applications. However, other HFC/HFO alternatives, such as R-448A and
R-449A, designed to perform similarly to R-404A could be available for
low-temperature uses.
    We believe that these technical challenges for stand-alone low-
temperature equipment will mean the date upon which technically
feasible solutions are available will be later than small, medium-
temperature equipment. For this reason, we are finalizing a change of
status date of January 1, 2020, for stand-alone low-temperature
equipment.
    EPA points to the 2014 ASHRAE Handbook on Refrigeration, Chapter
15, which reads ``medium-temperature refrigeration equipment maintains
an evaporator temperature between 0 and 40 [deg]F [-18 and 4.4 [deg]C]
and product temperatures above freezing; low-temperature refrigeration
equipment maintains an evaporator temperature between -40 and 0 [deg]F
[-40 and -18 [deg]C] and product temperatures below freezing.'' We
believe the product temperature is a more widely understood criteria,
especially amongst equipment owners and users and for purposes of
compliance, and therefore clarify here that for purposes of this rule
``stand-alone medium-temperature equipment'' is defined as that which
is designed to maintain product temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C)
and ``stand-alone low-temperature equipment'' is defined as that which
is designed to maintain product temperatures at or below 32 [deg]F (0
[deg]C).
    For large stand-alone equipment with additional cooling capacity
requirements, there are challenges with using a number of the lower-GWP
refrigerants because the refrigerants are subject to use conditions,
including a restriction limiting the charge size to 150 grams per
circuit. The charge size use condition applies to the alternative
refrigerants that are the farthest along in design and testing for this
end-use category, specifically, R-290 and R-600a. Because larger
equipment often needs refrigerant charges that are larger than those
provided in the use conditions, we sought comment on possible technical
challenges in transitioning to another alternative and asked how charge
size limits for these flammable refrigerants might affect our
determination of whether and when alternatives that pose lower risk are
available for larger equipment. In the NPRM, we sought comment on the
possibility of establishing a use restriction that would allow
continued use of some refrigerants for which we would otherwise change
the status in ``large'' stand-alone equipment. We sought comment on how
we could define ``large'' and ``small'' stand-alone units in particular
considering charge size.
    Several commenters addressed these issues during the comment
period. Lennox said that over 98% of its ``basic, self-contained
refrigeration models exceed 500 grams of refrigerant charge,''
precluding the use of flammable refrigerants in just one circuit.
Manitowoc and Nor-Lake indicated that if they were to use R-290,
multiple refrigeration circuits would be required considering the 150
gram use condition that applies to that refrigerant. Some manufacturers
discussed the technical difficulties with using multiple circuits.
Hillphoenix noted that the use of multiple compressors, each tied to an
individual condensing unit, would require ``more complex control
synchronization that customers must be willing to master'' and raised a
concern about whether customers would do so. For some equipment, space
constraints would limit the practicality of using multiple, separate
refrigeration circuits. Minus Forty indicated that ``A significant
number of our models cannot be or would be very impractical to
transition to R-290 due to their size, shape, and custom uniqueness.''
Nor-Lake stated that multiple circuit equipment would use more energy
and believed that the ``energy efficiency of a dual system may also
create issues with meeting DOE energy requirements.''
    EPA agrees that there are additional technical challenges faced in
converting this equipment that use large charge sizes. In some
instances, the challenge may be in developing multi-circuit systems
that use refrigerants subject to the charge-size use limits. In other
cases, where multiple circuits are not an option, these manufacturers
will need additional time to evaluate refrigerants R-744 or the newly
listed HFC/HFO blends R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A. Therefore, we
have established a later status change date of January 1, 2020, for
``large'' stand-alone equipment.
    A few commenters addressed how EPA could distinguish ``small'' from
``large'' stand-alone equipment. Nor-Lake suggested a dividing line and
recommended that it could be set based on compressor capacity, pointing
to 2,400 Btu/hr and 2,200 Btu/hr for medium and low-temperature freezer
systems, respectively. Hillphoenix also recommended looking at
refrigerant capacity and performed an analysis that, under specific
design prescriptions, indicated the maximum capacity achievable using
150 grams of R-290 would be 4,800 Btu/hr and 1,600 Btu/hr for medium-
and low-temperature applications, respectively. Supermarket Company ABC
suggested making a distinction based on interior volume and
refrigeration requirements, but did not offer specifics. Southern Case
Art indicated difficulty with using R-290 in its products that are
open-display units reaching capacities up to 25,000 Btu/hr. Unified
Brands indicated R-290 compressors are available to provide cooling
capacity up to 5,000 Btu/hr for medium-temperature and 2,000 Btu/hr in
low-temperature applications. Traulsen requested a narrowed use
exemption for ``large stand-alone units requiring 2 or more systems to
operate within the 150 gram limit.''
    We believe that the compressor capacity limits are a reasonable,
easily-understood and easily-enforceable method to distinguish between
products that may be unable to rely on flammable refrigerants or that
will face greater challenges in doing so, and those that are more
easily able to use flammable refrigerants consistent with the 150-gram
charge size limits established in the use conditions. We considered
separate capacity limits for medium and low-temperature systems as
suggested by Nor-Lake and analyzed by Hillphoenix, but determined that
establishing just one value would provide more clarity and ease of
implementation. We chose the lower of Nor-Lake's capacity of 2,200 Btu/
hr as a dividing line and explain how this applies further below. In
setting one value, however, we considered the similarity of the
capacities suggested by Nor-Lake, and the fact that these came within
the range of sizes analyzed by Hillphoenix.
    Although the 2,200 Btu/hr compressor capacity delineation was based
on the particular comment from Nor-Lake, neither that commenter nor
others

indicated how that capacity would be determined. EPA believes consensus
standards from AHRI, an association representing manufacturers of such
equipment, may be used for this purpose. In today's final rule, we are
indicating that the capacity for a stand-alone unit is to be calculated
based on the compressor ratings as determined under AHRI 540-2004,
Performance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and
Compressor Units. Although ``capacity'' is not a rating specifically to
be listed under that standard, we note that ``Compressor or Compressor
Unit Efficiency'' and the ``Power Input,'' which are defined in that
standard under clauses 3.1 and 3.4, respectively, are required data for
the compressor to be listed, per clause 6.2. The compressor capacity is
the product of those two items, with adjustment to ensure the result is
in the correct units (i.e., Btu/hr). Although a range of capacities may
be calculated, EPA is clarifying that to determine whether the
compressor capacity is equal to or above 2,200 Btu/hr, we expect the
manufacturer to use Table 1 of the standard and choose the ``Standard
Rating Condition'' (defined in clause 3.6.1) most appropriate for the
design and intended use of the product. EPA notes that five standard
rating conditions are listed in the standard, for instance at Suction
Dew Point Temperatures--which is related to the designed food or
beverage temperature within the equipment--of 45 [deg]F (7.2 [deg]C),
20 [deg]F (-6.7 [deg]C), -10 [deg]F (-23 [deg]C), -25 [deg]F (-32
[deg]C), and -40 [deg]F (-40 [deg]C). By referring to this table EPA
believes the dividing line between ``small'' and ``large'' condensing
units also considers the product application (e.g., ``low'' or
``medium'' temperature), as suggested by Nor-Lake and analyzed by
Hillphoenix, and as discussed above.
(b) Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
    For retrofit stand-alone equipment, EPA proposed to change the
listing for R-404A and R-507A from acceptable to unacceptable as of
January 1, 2016. In today's final rule, we are establishing the change
of status date of July 20, 2016.
    This action does not apply to servicing existing equipment designed
for those two refrigerants or servicing equipment that was retrofitted
to use those refrigerants before the January 1, 2016, status change
date. For instance, equipment designed for use with or retrofitted to
R-404A prior to July 20, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate
using and could be serviced with R-404A.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
    While we do not believe retrofits are common in stand-alone retail
food refrigeration equipment, a number of refrigerants are listed as
acceptable for this purpose: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407B, R-407C,
R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, R-513A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and
THR-03.\79\ R-448A and R-449A are also listed acceptable for
retrofitting stand-alone low-temperature units. We also note that many
of the refrigerants remaining acceptable are blends with small amounts
of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content allows the possibility of
retrofitting equipment from an ODS (which would have used alkylbenzene
or a mineral oil) without changing the lubricant, whereas usually a
polyolester is required when retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend. Thus
we believe these refrigerants are designed for and would prove
successful in retrofits of stand-alone equipment, should such a
retrofit be desired by the owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk
to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable compared with other available
alternatives. A technical support document that provides the additional
Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g.,
ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives may be
found in the docket to this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, the
other available alternatives have zero ODP as do those that we are
finding unacceptable. However, the refrigerants remaining acceptable
have GWPs ranging from below 100 to 3,607, lower than the GWPs of the
two blends we are finding unacceptable, which have GWPs of 3,922 and
3,985. All of the refrigerants remaining acceptable have toxicity lower
than or comparable to the refrigerants whose listing status is changing
from acceptable to unacceptable. The other available refrigerants, as
well as those we are finding unacceptable, are not flammable. None of
the alternatives is considered a VOC; however, some of the other
available refrigerant blends include small amounts (up to 3.4% by mass)
of VOC such as R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane). However, these
amounts are small, and EPA's analysis of hydrocarbon refrigerants shows
that even when used neat, they are not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). Because the
risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other
available alternatives than those we are listing as unacceptable and
because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable is
significantly higher and thus poses significantly greater risk, we are
listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable for retrofit stand-
alone refrigeration equipment: R-404A and R-507A.
(2) When will the status change?
    Commenters did not indicate any technical challenges in
retrofitting stand-alone equipment with the refrigerants that remain
acceptable. In fact, EIA felt ``The poor energy efficiency performance
of R-404A is another compelling reason to delist this refrigerant and
replace it with R-134a for retrofits, which by comparison, has shown a
10 percent efficiency gain.'' EPA does not believe retrofits are nearly
as common for stand-alone equipment as for other retail food
refrigeration uses considered in this final rule, particularly
supermarket systems. However, similar to the other types of retail food
refrigeration addressed today, EPA is providing one year to ensure that
any retrofits that are already underway will have sufficient time to be
completed. Therefore, we are establishing a change of status date of
July 20, 2016.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone equipment)?
    Comment: One commenter, Honeywell, addressed the status change date
for retrofits and supported the proposed date of January 2016.
    Commenters suggested a wide-range of dates for the status change
for new equipment. NRDC and IGSD urged EPA to maintain the proposed
status change date of January 1, 2016 for new stand-alone units. These
commenters pointed out that coolers using transcritical R-744 have
already been developed. Unified Brands stated ``it will be impossible
to convert all our equipment from R134a and R404A to R290 by 2016.''
    A number of commenters supported a change of status a year or two
later than that proposed. Two refrigerant

producers, Honeywell and DuPont suggested a change of status date of
2017 for new equipment to allow fuller development of HFC/HFO blends
that require minimal design changes and offer similar or better
performance than current refrigerants. Shecco indicated that a date of
January 1, 2018, was needed for ``smaller'' manufacturers to meet the
requirements. Supermarket Company ABC also supported a 2018 change of
status date for new stand-alone equipment. H&K International indicated
R-290 is very energy efficient and that 2018 would provide enough time
to transition. Another manufacturer, Hatco, also believed a ``January
1, 2018 implementation date would provide the needed time to do the
necessary testing and certification for a safe and effective
conversion.''
    Other commenters supported a much later change of status date for
new equipment. Approximately 30 manufacturers, two industry
associations representing equipment manufacturers (AHRI and NAFEM), an
association representing supermarkets (FMI), and a beverage supplier
(Coca-Cola) suggested dates ranging from 2020 to 2025. True
Manufacturing, indicated they have been shipping products using
hydrocarbons and R-744 for several years. Hillphoenix provided a
refrigerant change schedule that discussed the development of R-744,
hydrocarbons and HFO blends; this schedule suggested various dates for
different tasks for these three refrigerant types. Based on the
timeframes associated with these tasks, they suggested a change of
status date of January 1, 2022, for stand-alone equipment. Lennox
believed the NPRM ``generally contemplates a wholesale switch to
hydrocarbon refrigerants'' in stand-alone equipment. NAFEM indicated it
would ``take ten to twelve years for manufacturers to convert their
product lines to use isobutene or propane.''
    Response: As provided above in our discussion of the status change
dates we are finalizing, we agree with the commenters who suggest a few
additional years are needed for the status change. However, we do not
agree that commenters advocating a lengthy delay in the change of
status provided support for such a delay. As an initial matter, to the
extent that these commenters identified concerns with alternatives,
their concerns were focused on one refrigerant or class of refrigerants
and the commenters did not consider the full range of available or
potentially available refrigerants. Specifically, those comments
appeared to have focused on alternatives for which the most significant
amount of design changes would be necessary and did not appear to
consider the range of available refrigerants, many of which could be
used with less significant changes to designs. Manufacturers will
likely select different refrigerants for different products. Those
manufacturers that are not interested in designing equipment that uses
hydrocarbon refrigerants, given some of their stated concerns with
overcoming challenges with safety and VOC issues, could select a
nonflammable fluorinated refrigerant such as an HFC/HFO blend designed
to mimic many of the characteristics of the refrigerants they are using
today. EPA believes such HFC/HFO blends will become available by the
status change dates established in this rule and note that R-448A, R-
449A, R-450A and R-513A are listed as acceptable in this end-use
category, with the latter two being acceptable in stand-alone medium-
temperature equipment and all four being acceptable in stand-alone low-
temperature equipment. Furthermore, EPA points to the fact that new
HFC/HFO blends have been listed as acceptable and that such blends
perform similarly to traditional refrigerants and have proved to be as
efficient or even offer an efficiency advantage. As discussed above,
the supply of these refrigerants is increasing and the components to
use them are in development. EPA believes that by finalizing a status
change date for new stand-alone equipment several years later than
proposed, manufacturers will have the ability to choose such HFC/HFO
blends for their equipment, as well as the other alternatives,
including R-290, R-441A, R-600a and R-744, which have already been
listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions. There is
ample supply of R-290 and R-744; however, the technical difficulties
discussed with R-290 (particularly in ``large'' units) and R-744
suggest that not all manufacturers will be able to convert their
products and undergo the testing and certification necessary before
that equipment can be sold. Because the HFC/HFO blends are designed to
mimic the performance of the refrigerants they replace, the adoption of
those is expected to take less time; however, there is only limited
supply of those refrigerants now. Given the limited current supply, the
initiation of the product conversion, testing and certification would
not start until approximately 2016-2017, and hence manufacturers would
not be able to provide products using these alternatives until
approximately 2019-2020.
    As pointed out by Honeywell and DuPont, some of the HFC/HFO blend
alternatives, such as R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A, can be used
with little adjustment to existing designs, show energy efficiencies
equal to or better than current refrigerants. While there is not
currently sufficient supply of these refrigerants, Honeywell and DuPont
have indicated that production facilities for the components are on-
line (see V.C.2.a.1 above) and that the blends will be made available
after listed acceptable with SNAP. As noted previously, Honeywell has
stated that R-450A supplies will be ``available soon'' and multiple
component manufacturers are developing equipment that uses these
alternatives. Hillphoenix's refrigerant change schedule indicates that
``Lab/User Testing'' and ``Test & Verification'' is already underway
with such blends. These blends offer equipment manufacturers additional
energy efficient options to rapidly transition out of refrigerants
listed as unacceptable while also avoiding some of the concerns (e.g.,
flammability, charge size limits, operation in hot temperatures)
manufacturers indicated exist with other alternatives such as R-290 and
R-744.
    Several commenters pointed out that at least some part of their
product line can be converted to R-290 and some manufacturers are
already offering products to the market using these options. For
instance, Hillphoenix's refrigerant change schedule indicates that the
step of ``Convert Products'' for ``Hydrocarbons (on applicable
systems)'' can begin in 2015 and continue after that until 2020. They
did not provide a full explanation of why the process would continue
until 2020; however, EPA sees from commenters that there will be time
necessary to develop products and have them undergo the testing and
certification necessary to sell such products. EPA believes that by our
status change dates of 2019 and 2020, and not before, manufacturers
will be able to complete the development of products using R-290 or
other hydrocarbons. EPA also believes that testing and certification
resources are available to meet this deadline, and that more can be
created if there is a demand for them.
    As many commenters pointed out, compliance with new DOE energy
conservation standards for certain commercial refrigeration equipment
is required on March 27, 2017 and for stand-alone walk-in coolers and
freezers is required on June 5, 2017 (see also sections V.C.1.b and
V.C.7). EPA is establishing change of status dates of

January 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, for stand-alone units. This allows
additional time after compliance is required with the DOE standards for
manufacturers to potentially redesign any products that require
additional engineering to meet both this rule and the DOE standards.
With 2019 and 2020 change of status dates, manufacturers have the
opportunity to integrate low-GWP refrigerants in their models now as
they prepare for the DOE requirements for some or all of their
products. Other products already meeting those DOE standards but
utilizing refrigerants that we are listing as unacceptable may be
redesigned after the DOE deadline to ensure compliance with both EPA
and DOE requirements. Given that some HFC/HFO blends, such as R-450A
and R-513A, were designed to mimic HFC-134a in medium-temperature
refrigeration, and others, such as R-448A and R-449A, were designed to
mimic R-404A in low-temperature refrigeration, EPA believes that these
can be adopted into manufacturers' products with minor changes while
still meeting the DOE requirements, once supplies of those refrigerants
are made available to the manufacturers.
5. What is EPA finalizing for vending machines?
    The change of status determination for vending machines is
summarized in the following table:

        Table 7--Change of Status Decisions for Vending Machines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                   Substitutes           Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vending machines (new only)...  FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-    Unacceptable as
                                 134a, KDD6, R-125/290/  of January 1,
                                 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/    2019.
                                 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-
                                 407C, R-410A, R-410B,
                                 R-417A, R-421A, R-
                                 422B, R-422C, R-422D,
                                 R-426A, R-437A, R-
                                 438A, R-507A, RS-24
                                 (2002 formulation),
                                 SP34E.
Vending machines (retrofit      R-404A, R-507A........  Unacceptable as
 only).                                                  of July 20,
                                                         2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) New Vending Machines
    EPA proposed to change the listing for HFC-134a and 20 other
refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable
as of January 1, 2016. In today's final rule, EPA is changing the
listing for HFC-134a and 19 other refrigerants for new vending machines
from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2019. While EPA
proposed to change the status from acceptable to unacceptable for IKON
B, EPA is not changing the status for this refrigerant in this final
rule for the reasons provided below.
    The 19 other refrigerants in addition to HFC-134a are: FOR12A,
FOR12B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
    A number of other refrigerants are acceptable or acceptable subject
to use conditions for new vending machines: IKON A, IKON B, R-290, R-
441A, R-450A, R-513A, R-600a, R-744, and THR-02.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ HCFC-22 and some blends containing HCFCs are also listed as
acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in
HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk to human health
and the environment presented by the alternatives that are being found
unacceptable and those that remain acceptable. Subsequent to the
issuance of the proposal, EPA listed R-290, R-441A and R-600a, as
acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015, 80 FR 19453). In
addition, concurrently with this rule, EPA is listing R-450A and R-513A
acceptable in new vending machines. A technical support document that
provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on
the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
these alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA,
2015d). In summary, the other available refrigerants for new vending
machines have zero ODP and GWPs ranging from 1 to about 630. In
contrast, those we are finding unacceptable have GWPs ranging from
approximately 1,100 to 3,985. IKON B, which we proposed but are not
finalizing to be unacceptable, has a GWP around 600. R-290, R-600a, and
R-441A are or are composed primarily of VOCs. We have exempted R-290,
R-600a and R-441A used in vending machines from the venting prohibition
(80 FR 19453). EPA's analysis indicates that their use as refrigerants
in this end-use are not expected to contribute significantly to ground
level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). These three substitutes are also
flammable; however, the use conditions specified ensure that they do
not pose greater overall risk than any of the substitutes currently
listed as acceptable in new vending machines.\81\ None of the
refrigerants currently listed as acceptable present significant human
health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the
refrigerants we are finding unacceptable are similar in ODP (zero ODP),
toxicity (low toxicity), and VOC (non-VOC or not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation). When the three
hydrocarbon substitutes are used in accordance with the use conditions,
their flammability risks are not significantly greater than those of
the unacceptable alternatives. Because the risks other than GWP are not
significantly different for the other available alternatives than those
we are listing as unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants
we are listing as unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses
significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants
as unacceptable for new vending machines: HFC-134a, FOR12A, FOR12B,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A,
R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A,
R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in
this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rule finding them acceptable,
subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453). Refer to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) When will the status change?
    EPA is establishing a change of status date for the specified HFC
refrigerants in new vending machines of January 1, 2019.
    For new vending machines, there are several alternatives that can
meet the technological needs of the market. EIA states that ``R-744, R-
290, R-441A, and isobutene (`R-600a') can satisfy the vast majority of
the current market for refrigerants in . . . vending machines.'' We are
aware of products using R-290 and R-744 that are already in use.
According to Shecco, based on its October 2014 survey, the
manufacturers

of vending machines they surveyed ``are already today able to produce
sufficient amount of such equipment [R-290 and R-744] to cover the
needs of the entire market. All of the interviewed manufacturers
confirmed that they plan to covert [sic] their whole manufacturing
facilities to hydrocarbons and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.''
While the alternatives that remain acceptable will be able to meet the
technical constraints for this equipment, time will be needed for the
transition to occur. On the aspect of timing, Shecco supported a status
change date of January 1, 2018, although their survey suggested some
manufacturers might not convert until 2019. Shecco indicated that the
supply of HFC-free vending machines has been increasing over the last
two years. Other commenters suggested that four to five years would be
required, mentioning in particular the supply of components as a major
obstacle in achieving the proposed January 1, 2016, status change date.
While we agree that manufacturers will be able to produce equipment
using lower-GWP refrigerants addressing a large portion of the market
in the period of 2016-2017, we also agree that there are some technical
challenges that support a change of status date of 2019 for this end-
use.
    Commenters indicated several necessary steps that will need to
occur, including development and testing of components, such as
compressors, for the full range of vending machines. In addition,
engineering, development, and testing to meet standards, such as those
from DOE, of the products would start as components became available.
Modifications to the factory could be required, ranging from a simpler
change of the refrigerant storage area to reconfiguration of the
factory to address concerns such as ventilation or other safety
measures. Information submitted by the commenters supported that for
the portion of the vending machines that have not already transitioned
to a lower-GWP refrigerant, these actions could take a few months or up
to a couple of years. However, it is likely that these actions could
occur simultaneous with other steps such as equipment design and
testing.
    One manufacturer identified two refrigerant types: R-744 and
hydrocarbons. Refrigerant producers also pointed towards HFC/HFO blends
as a third group. For R-744, we do not see any question regarding
refrigerant supply. Information submitted by the commenters support
that some components are already available. Coca-Cola indicated time
was needed for testing and certifying new models of vending machines;
however, additional information indicated that various types of R-744
vending machines are already available or are expected to be available
by January 1, 2016. Pepsi has test-marketed R-744 vending machines in
the United States as early as 2009.\82\ The Automated Merchandising
Systems (AMS) however stated that R-744 was unlikely as a viable
substitute for its equipment, especially for the perishable food
vending machines it offers. Although EPA did not see the technical
detail to allow us to conclude that R-744 would not be a viable choice
for such equipment, we agree that additional time beyond our proposed
status change date is needed to explore that and other acceptable
substitutes for this equipment. The comments support that equipment can
be designed, tested and certified using R-744 by January 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ PepsiCo, 2009. ``PepsiCo Brings First Climate-Friendly
Vending Machines to the U.S.,'' March 30, 2009, this document is
accessible at www.pepsico.com/live/pressrelease/pepsico-brings-first-climate-friendly-vending-machines-to-the-us03302009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments also supported that some components and equipment using
hydrocarbons are available. AMS stated that one hurdle for using R-290
is finding 120-volt, 60-hertz components for the U.S. and Canadian
markets. AMS also echoed the concern of Coca-Cola that more time is
needed for testing and certifying new models of vending machines. EPA
agrees time beyond the originally proposed January 1, 2016, status
change date is necessary for further development of R-290 components
and for necessary testing and certification of R-290 vending machines.
Information in the comments indicate that some R-290 components are
available from multiple suppliers and we believe that these components
could be employed in vending machines.
    In summary, to use hydrocarbons refrigerants, comments support that
approximately three and a half years are needed for equipment to become
fully available. This includes six months to test and design products
using the available R-290 components and an additional year to two
years for development of other components and equipment designs.
Equipment development and testing would occur in series, with the final
units being developed and ready for testing approximately six months
after the components for that unit were available. Testing and
certification would likewise occur as products were developed and would
span up to three years, much of which while other actions are
occurring. We estimate the final units might take an additional six
months to test and certify once developed. As discussed above, any
required modifications to the factory line and facilities would occur
concurrently if a manufacturer chose to use R-290 or another acceptable
hydrocarbon refrigerant. Hence, EPA believes that new vending machines
could be available and in compliance with a status change date of
January 1, 2019.
    Comments also support that other options besides R-744 and
hydrocarbons may be explored for those products that have not yet
transitioned. Concurrently with this rule, EPA is listing two HFC/HFO
blends, R-450A and R-513A, as acceptable for new vending machines.
Although commenters did not indicate a current supply of components for
these refrigerants, information indicates that component suppliers are
committing additional resources to develop them. EPA believes their
adoption can happen quickly as they are both nonflammable blends and
are designed to mimic the performance of HFC-134a, the only refrigerant
indicated by a manufacturer as used in its vending machines. As noted
earlier, Honeywell, the producer of R-450A, indicated that it will be
supplying that refrigerant soon. We expect that the refrigerant
producers will be able to fully supply these blends in a year or two.
EPA expects that components designed for the vending machine market
using one or both of these blends could be developed within the next
year to eighteen months as more refrigerant supplies become available.
As components become available, additional design and testing in
vending machines could begin. Because the comments indicated only one
refrigerant to be replaced, and because the HFC/HFO blends are designed
to mimic that refrigerant, equipment development time for vending
machines is expected to be shorter than other end-uses, perhaps adding
only six months. Limited factory modifications, if any, could happen
concurrently with the design work. As with other refrigerants, EPA
would expect equipment testing and certification to be rolled out as
equipment models are redesigned, with the last units being available
approximately six months after designs are developed.
    In summary, we find that HFC/HFO blends could be implemented to
meet the January 1, 2019, status change date for new vending machines.
(b) Retrofit Vending Machines
    For retrofit vending machines, EPA proposed to change the listing
for R-

404A and R-507A from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.
In today's final rule, we are finalizing a change of status of July 20,
2016 similar to the retail food end-uses considered in this final
action. EPA does not believe retrofits are nearly as common in vending
machines as for some of the retail food refrigeration uses,
particularly supermarket systems. However, similar to the retail food
refrigeration addressed today, EPA is providing one year to ensure that
any retrofits that are already underway, will have sufficient time to
be completed.
    This action does not apply to servicing existing equipment designed
for those two refrigerants or servicing equipment that was retrofitted
to use those refrigerants before the January 1, 2016, status change
date. For instance, vending machines designed for use with or
retrofitted to use R-404A or R507A prior to July 20, 2016, would be
allowed to continue to operate using and could be serviced with that
refrigerant.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
    A number of refrigerants are acceptable for retrofitting vending
machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407C, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B,
R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-02.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as available but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe retrofits are common in vending machines. Many of
the refrigerants remaining acceptable are blends with small amounts of
hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content allows the possibility of
retrofitting equipment from an ODS (which would have used alkylbenzene
or a mineral oil) without changing the lubricant, whereas usually a
polyolester is required when retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend. Thus
we believe these refrigerants would prove successful in retrofits of
vending machines, should such a retrofit be desired by the owner.
    In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk
to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable and those that remain acceptable. A
technical support document that provides the additional Federal
Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP,
GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives may be found
in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, other
alternatives have zero ODP and have GWPs ranging from below 100 to
3,085, lower than the GWPs of the two blends we are finding
unacceptable, which have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985. All of the
refrigerants remaining acceptable have toxicity lower than or
comparable to the refrigerants whose listing status is changing from
acceptable to unacceptable. None of the refrigerants that remain
acceptable or those that are being listed as unacceptable is flammable.
None of the alternatives is considered a VOC; however, some of the
refrigerant blends that remain acceptable include small amounts (up to
3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane).
However, these amounts are small, and EPA's analysis of hydrocarbon
refrigerants show even when used neat they are not expected to
contribute significantly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e).
Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for
the other available alternatives than those we are listing as
unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses significantly
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable
for retrofit vending machines: R-404A and R-507A.
(2) When will the status change?
    Commenters did not indicate any technical challenges in
retrofitting vending machines with the refrigerants that remain
acceptable. In fact, EIA felt ``The poor energy efficiency performance
of R-404A is another compelling reason to delist this refrigerant and
replace it with R-134a for retrofits, which by comparison, has shown a
10 percent efficiency gain.'' As discussed above, however, commenters
indicated that plans may be underway and that adequate time should be
given to allow for those plans to be implemented or changed. Therefore,
we are establishing a change of status date of July 20, 2016.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on vending machines?
    Comment: Honeywell supported the proposed date for retrofit vending
machines. Regarding new vending machines, NRDC and IGSD believed the
proposed status change date of January 1, 2016, was feasible and stated
that the Consumer Goods Forum has pledged to transition completely out
of HFC equipment by the end of 2015. Honeywell and DuPont, suggested a
change of status date of 2017 for new vending machines to allow fuller
development of additional alternatives that would require minimal
design changes and offer similar or better performance than current
refrigerants. Shecco felt that while the large manufacturers could meet
the proposed date, a date of January 1, 2018, would allow for smaller