Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 46125-46166 [2014-18494]

Download as PDF Vol. 79 Wednesday, No. 151 August 6, 2014 Part VII Environmental Protection Agency tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 40 CFR Part 82 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46126 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL–9910–19– OAR] RIN 2060–AS18 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action proposes to change the status of a number of substitutes that were previously listed as acceptable, based on information showing that other substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk overall to human health and/or the environment. Specifically, this action proposes to modify the listings for certain hydrofluorocarbons in various end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. This action also proposes use conditions that would restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons to those uses where there are not substitutes available or potentially available that reduce overall risk to human health and/or the environment. This action also proposes to change the status from acceptable to unacceptable for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased out of production under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2014. EPA is planning to hold a public hearing to take place on August 27, 2014, starting at 9 a.m. in Room 1153, EPA East (entrance from 1201 Constitution Avenue), Washington, DC and further information will be provided on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2014–0198, by one of the following methods: • www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Email: A-And-R-Docket@epa.gov. • Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 0198. • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2014–0198. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 0198. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca von dem Hagen, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343–9445; fax number (202) 343–2338, email address: vondemhagen.rebecca@epa.gov. Notices and rulemakings under EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program are available on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble? II. How does the SNAP program work? A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP program? B. What are EPA’s regulations implementing CAA section 612? C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work? D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program? E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP program? F. How are SNAP determinations updated? G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a determination? H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program? III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on this proposed decision to modify prior SNAP determinations? IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing status for substitutes with a high global warming potential? A. Summary of Petitions B. How Today’s Action Relates to Petitions V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs? A. Aerosols 1. Background 2. Aerosols Today 3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols? a. What other alternatives are available? i. Consumer Aerosols ii. Technical Aerosols iii. Medical Aerosols b. What other approaches is EPA considering? c. When would the modified listings apply? E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment? B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 1. Background 2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC–134a and use of refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles? 3. Would this action affect EPA’s light duty vehicle rule? C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines 1. Background 2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)? a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems b. Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems 3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone equipment? a. New Stand-alone Equipment b. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment 4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines? a. New Vending Machines b. Retrofit Vending Machines 5. When would the listings change? 6. Applicability to Service of Existing Equipment 7. Energy Efficiency Consideration 8. What other options is EPA considering? a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems b. New Stand-alone Equipment and Vending Machines c. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment and Vending Machines d. Status of R–404A and R–507A in Other end-uses D. Foam Blowing Agents 1. Background 2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents? a. What other foam blowing agents are being used? b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute foam blowing agents? i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam iii. Flexible Polyurethane iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foam vii. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet x. Integral Skin Polyurethane xi. Polyolefin Foam xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing foams? d. When would the listings change? e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-related Applications VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 f. Summary VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs? A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the three HCFCs and in which end-uses? B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs? 1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the Three HCFCs With Regulations Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610 2. Anticipated Effects VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports? VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations IX. References I. General Information A. Executive Summary This notice of proposed rulemaking would change the status of certain substitutes 1 previously found acceptable under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives are available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk. Per the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that any specific HFCs be unacceptable across all sectors and enduses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and nonfluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications based 1 The terms ‘‘substitutes’’ and ‘‘alternatives’’ are used interchangeably. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46127 on the substitutes being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes. EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use: (1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 • HFC–125 as unacceptable; • HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in consumer aerosols); and • HFC–227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers. (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly manufactured lightduty vehicles, we are proposing to list • HFC–134a as unacceptable starting with model year (MY) 2021; and • The refrigerant blends SP34E, R– 426A (also known as RS–24), R–416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R–406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG– X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG–HP) as unacceptable starting with MY 2017. (3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including stand-alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket systems, and indirect supermarket systems) and new and retrofit vending machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 • The HFC blends R–507A and R– 404A as unacceptable. (4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems), we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 • HFC–227ea, R–407B, R–421B, R– 422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, and R–434A as unacceptable. (5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 • HFC–134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as unacceptable. (6) For foam blowing agents, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit, • HFC–134a and blends thereof as unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses; • HFC–143a, HFC–245fa and HFC– 365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6 as unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where they are currently listed as E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46128 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules acceptable, except for spray foam applications; and • The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where it is currently listed as acceptable. In general, EPA is proposing modifications to the listings based on the SNAP program’s comparative risk framework. The sections that follow provide the analyses supporting the proposed listing modifications and the dates when the modified listings would apply to users of these substitutes. In addition, EPA has prepared supporting documentation on this rule including market characterizations, analyses of costs associated with sector transitions, estimated benefits associated with the transition to alternatives, and potential small business impacts.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The emissions reductions from this proposed rule are estimated to be 31 to 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020. These documents are available in the docket for commenters to review. EPA is planning to prepare a consolidated analysis document. EPA is also proposing to modify the listings for hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)–141b, HCFC–142b, and HCFC– 22, as well as blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. These modifications reflect the existing regulations promulgated under CAA sections 605(a) and 610(d) codified at 40 CFR part 82 subparts A and C. The modified listings would take effect 60 days following issuance of a final rule promulgating this proposal. B. Does this action apply to me? Potential entities that may be affected by this proposed rule include: TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE Category Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry NAICS Code .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 238220 324191 325199 325412 325510 325520 325612 325620 325998 326140 326150 333415 Industry .......................... Industry .......................... Industry .......................... Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Services ......................... Services ......................... Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. Retail .............................. 336211 3363 339113 423620 423740 44511 445110 445120 44521 44522 44523 445291 445292 445299 4453 446110 44711 452910 452990 72111 72112 72241 722513 722514 722515 Description of regulated entities Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing Paint and Coating Manufacturing Adhesive Manufacturing Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods Toilet Preparation Manufacturing All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores Convenience Stores Meat Markets Fish and Seafood Markets Fruit and Vegetable Markets Baked Goods Stores Confectionary and Nut Stores All Other Specialty Food Stores Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores Pharmacies and Drug Stores Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters All Other General Merchandise Stores Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels Casino Hotels Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) Limited-Service Restaurants Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding entities likely to use the substitute whose use is regulated by this action. If you have any questions about whether this action applies to a particular entity, 2 ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. 3 ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. 4 ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. 5 ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. 6 ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. April, 2014. 7 EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. 8 ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules consult the person listed in the above section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI) Do not submit confidential information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number). • Follow directions–The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline. D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble? Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble of this document: ACGIH—American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene Association VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 CAA—Clean Air Act CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification Number CBI—Confidential Business Information CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon CFR—Code of Federal Regulations CH 4—Methane CO2—Carbon dioxide CO2eq—Carbon dioxide equivalent DOE—United States Department of Energy EIA—Environmental Investigation AgencyUS EO—Executive Order EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency EU—European Union FDA—United States Food and Drug Administration FR—Federal Register GHG—Greenhouse gas Gt—Gigaton GWP—Global warming potential HC—Hydrocarbon HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin ICF—ICF International, Inc. ICR—Information collection request IGSD—Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MDI—metered dose inhaler MVAC—Motor vehicle air conditioning N2—Nitrogen NAICS—North American Industrial Classification System NIOSH—United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OEM—Original equipment manufacturer ODP—Ozone depletion potential ODS—Ozone-depleting substance OMB—United States Office of Management and Budget OSHA—United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL—Permissible exposure limit PFC—Perfluorocarbons ppm—Parts per million PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act REL—Recommended exposure limit RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act SF 6— Sulfur hexafluoride SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy SRES—Special Report on Emissions Scenarios TLV—Threshold limit value TWA—Time-weighted average UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act VOC—Volatile organic compounds WEEL—Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit II. How does the SNAP program work? A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP program? Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46129 ozone-depleting substances. This program is known as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are: 1. Rulemaking Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently or potentially available. 2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of ‘‘acceptable’’ substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ lists and the lists of ‘‘unacceptable,’’ ‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions,’’ and ‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use limits’’ substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. 3. Petition Process Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months. 4. 90-day Notification Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer’s unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes. 5. Outreach Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46130 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications. 6. Clearinghouse Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances. B. What are EPA’s regulations implementing CAA section 612? On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA’s first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82, subpart G). These sectors are the following: Refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work? Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,9 it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end-users 10 when they are 9 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 ‘‘interstate commerce’’ means the distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. 10 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 ‘‘end-use’’ means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after a complete submission has been provided to the Agency. The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable.11 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered ‘‘use restrictions’’ and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions can be used for all applications within the relevant enduses within the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes.12 After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the environment are not significantly greater than other available substitutes. EPA describes such substitutes as ‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions.’’ Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of section 612 of the Clean Air Act and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a 11 The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’ referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision. 12 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ‘‘use’’ means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozonedepleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 narrowed use substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application. EPA describes these substitutes as ‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.’’ A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitutes in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower risk alternative is available or potentially available 13 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed circumstance. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. In contrast, EPA publishes ‘‘notices of acceptability’’ to notify the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list substitutes that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute. Many SNAP listings include ‘‘comments’’ or ‘‘further information’’ to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 13 In addition to acceptable commercially available substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available substitutes. The SNAP program’s definition of ‘‘potentially available’’ is ‘‘any alternative for which adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.’’ (40 CFR 82.172) E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Administration (OSHA)). The ‘‘further information’’ classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the ‘‘further information’’ column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus, many of the statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating practices. D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program? The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule and based on section 612, are discussed below. • Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the ozone depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential as well as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and contributions to climate change and other environmental factors. • Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found acceptable For substitutes to be found acceptable they must pose less risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk free. Where risks of a substitute would otherwise be higher than other substitutes, EPA may find these alternatives acceptable subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits that would manage the risk. • Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market’s choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but a few substitutes for each end-use. Thus, the Agency will not list a potential substitute as unacceptable unless EPA determines that the substitute is significantly more harmful to human health or the environment than other available or potentially available alternatives. • Evaluate risks by use VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 Central to SNAP’s evaluations is the intersection between the characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses. This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk to either the environment or to human health. • Provide the regulated community with information as soon as possible The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable, acceptable to use conditions or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. • Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies The Agency does not issue companyspecific product endorsements. In many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that company’s products. • Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes that address any potential environmental impacts that may result from the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances. For example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased use of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The SNAP program takes existing regulations under other programs into account when reviewing substitutes. E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP program? EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at § 82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46131 environmental impacts, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability, and cost and availability of the substitute. To enable EPA to assess these criteria, we require submitters to include various information including ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential (GWP), toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human exposure. When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria in the following groupings: • Atmospheric effects—The SNAP program evaluates the potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The SNAP program considers the ozone depletion potential and the 100-year integrated GWP of compounds to assess atmospheric effects. • Exposure assessments—The SNAP program uses exposure assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which workers, consumers, the general population, and environmental receptors may be exposed over a determined period of time. These assessments are based on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases including: (1) Releases in the workplace and in homes; (2) Releases to ambient air and surface water; (3) Releases from the management of solid wastes. • Toxicity data—The SNAP program uses toxicity data to assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to substitutes. We use broad health-based criteria such as: (1) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational exposure; (2) Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for noncarcinogenic effects on the general population; (3) Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of the general population. When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, or Threshold Limit Values set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. If limits for occupational exposure or exposure to the general population are not already established, then EPA derives these values following the Agency’s peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46132 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk characterizations. • Flammability—The SNAP program examines flammability as a safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using data on: (1) Flash point and flammability limits (e.g. OSHA flammability/ combustibility classifications); (2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components; (3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by independent laboratories; and (4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques. • Other environmental impacts—The SNAP program also examines other potential environmental impacts such as ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes whenever a potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant (under CAA sections 112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act subtitle C regulations. Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies. F. How are SNAP determinations updated? Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 allows any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a substance from either list. The second means is through the notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-day notifications are required by section 612(e) of the CAA for producers of substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all other cases, by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of the Act to implement section 612(c). Finally, we interpret the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists. In determining whether to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists, we consider whether there are other available substitutes that pose a lower risk to human health and the environment. In determining whether to modify a listing of a substitute we consider new data not considered at the time of our original listing decision, including information on new substitutes and new information on substitutes previously reviewed. G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a determination? As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as unacceptable any substitute substance where it finds that there are other substitutes currently or potentially available that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. In addition to comparing the human health and environmental effects of other available or potentially available substitutes for the same enduses, we also compare substitutes to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) and under the CAA. The original SNAP rule included submission requirements and presented the environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers in its comparative risk framework. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes decisions based on the particular enduse where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in many cases, found certain PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 substitutes acceptable only for limited end-uses or subject to use restrictions. In May 2013 EPA stated: EPA recognizes that during the nearly twodecade long history of the SNAP program, new alternatives and new information about alternatives have emerged. To the extent possible, EPA considers new information and improved understanding of the risk factors for the environment and human health in the context of the available or potentially available alternatives for a given use. (78 FR 29035) It has now been about twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated. In that period, the menu of available alternatives has expanded greatly and now includes many substitutes with diverse characteristics and effects on human health and the environment. When the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes available for consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited. While the SNAP program’s initial comparative assessments of overall risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often there were few substitutes to apply the comparative assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too would be phased out and were only an interim solution. Other Title VI provisions such as the section 610 Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605 Use Restriction meant a listing under the SNAP program did not convey permanence. Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 18 rules and 28 notices expanding the menu of options for all SNAP sectors and end-uses. Comparisons today are to a broader range of options—both chemical and non-chemical—than at the inception of the SNAP program. Industry experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of the program. This varies by sector and by end-use. In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global environmental issues. With regards to that information, many of the substitute-specific actions proposed in this rule have undergone comparative assessments that consider our evolving understanding of climate change. GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our evaluation framework, but along with all of our review criteria the amount and quality of information has expanded. To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing management of the SNAP program considers new information and E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health. EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to unacceptable based on information made available to EPA after a listing was issued. For example, on January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant known by the trade name MT–31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and air conditioning enduses. EPA previously listed this blend as an acceptable substitute in various enduses within the refrigeration and air conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 30275). Based on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals in the blend, EPA subsequently removed MT–31 from the list of acceptable substitutes and listed it as unacceptable in all refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3861). Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in 2007 when EPA listed HCFC–22 and HCFC– 142b as unacceptable for use in the foam sector (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). These HCFCs, which are ozone depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP than the substances they were replacing and there were no other available substitutes that posed lower risk at the time of EPA’s listing decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and enduses at a time when substitutes were far more limited. In light of the expanded availability of alternative substitutes with lower overall risk to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA changed the listing for these HCFCs in these end-uses from acceptable to unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA allowed existing users to continue use for a limited time to ensure that they could adjust their manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes. H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program? For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the Agency’s process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at www.epa.gov/ ozone/snap/chron.html. III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on this proposed decision to modify prior SNAP determinations? GWP, along with other criteria, is a factor in the overall evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two decades, the general science on climate change and the potential contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change have become better understood. On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 14: • Endangerment Finding: the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: the combined emissions of these wellmixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. Like the ODSs they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.15 Though they represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG emissions, their warming impact is very strong because they can remain trapped in the atmosphere for up to 250+ years impacting climate change 20,000 times more powerfully than CO2, and their emissions are projected to accelerate over the next several decades if left unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly than those of any other GHGs, and globally they are increasing 10–15% annually.16 At that rate, emissions are 14 The relevant scientific and technical information summarized to support the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding can be found at: www.epa.gov/ climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/ Endangerment_TSD.pdf 15 IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York). 16 UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46133 projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.17 HFCs are rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC– 134a, the most abundant HFC, has increased by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC–143a and HFC–125 have risen over 13% and 16% per year from 2007–2011, respectively.18 19 Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 Gt CO2eq in 2050 20, which is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is projected to increase radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W m2. This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of CO2 since 2000, according to the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011). To appreciate the significance of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the CO2 emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC’s highest CO2 emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO2 emissions based on the IPCC’s lowest CO2 emissions pathway.21 22 Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 17 Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013. 18 Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/ NIST Conference 2012. 19 NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/ hfcs/. 20 Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. 21 HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp 22 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing status for substitutes with a high global warming potential? A. Summary of Petitions EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain acceptability listings of HFC–134a and HFC–134a blends. The first petition was submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Environmental Investigation Agency-US (EIA). The petition requested that EPA remove HFC–134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for ODS and move it to the list of unacceptable substitutes in multiple uses. The petitioners subsequently clarified that they were requesting this change for the use of HFC–134a in new passenger cars and light-duty trucks, non-medical aerosols, and for certain refrigeration and foam blowing end-uses. In support of their petition, the petitioners identified other substitutes for use in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) and other sectors, and claimed that these other substitutes present much lower risks to human health and environment than HFC–134a. On February 14, 2011, EPA found the petition complete for MVAC in new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it was incomplete for other uses of HFC–134a. EPA noted in its response that, at a future date, the Agency would initiate a notice-andcomment rulemaking in response to the one complete aspect of the petition, noting in particular that EPA would evaluate and take comment on many factors, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for introduction of newer substitutes for MVAC systems into the automotive market and potential lead time for manufacturers of motor vehicles to accommodate substitutes. This proposed rule responds to the aspect of that petition that we found complete. On April 26, 2012, EPA received a petition from EIA. EIA stated that, in light of the comparative nature of the SNAP program’s evaluation of substitutes and given that other acceptable substitutes are on the market or soon to be available, EPA should remove HFC–134a and HFC–134a blends from the list of acceptable substitutes for uses where EPA found CFCs and HCFCs to be nonessential under section 610 of the Act. EIA also requested that the schedule for moving HFC–134a and HFC–134a blends from the list of acceptable to unacceptable VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 substitutes be based on the ‘‘most rapidly feasible transitions to one or more of the’’ acceptable substitutes for each use. The petitioner noted that initial approvals of HFC–134a for a number of end-uses occurred in the 1990s and were based on the assessment made then that (1) HFC–134a does not contribute to ozone depletion; (2) HFC– 134a’s GWP and atmospheric lifetime were close to those of other substitutes that had been determined to be acceptable for the end-uses; and (3) HFC–134a is not flammable, and its toxicity is low.23 The petitioner stated that the analysis used in the listing decisions may have been appropriate in the 1990s but was no longer reflected accurately given the range of other available or potentially available substitutes at present. In addition to petitioning EPA for action under SNAP, the petitioner requested that the section 610 Nonessential Products Ban be extended to HFC–134a and HFC–134a blends for aerosols and pressurized dispensers (including tire inflators); foam blowing agents; novelty products (including propelled plastic party streamers, web string, artificial snow, specialty paints and excrement ‘‘poop’’ freeze); noise horns (including marine safety noise horns, sporting event noise horns, personal safety noise horns, wallmounted industrial noise horns used as alarms in factories and other work areas, and intruder noise horns used as alarms in homes and cars); foam and refrigerants in new domestic refrigerators and freezers and other retail stand-alone coolers and freezers; and cleaning fluids for noncommercial electronic, photographic, and other equipment. On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the petitioner that this petition was incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found in the docket. Although EPA has found the petition incomplete, EPA’s action in this proposal may be considered responsive to certain aspects of the petitions given EPA is proposing to change the listing of certain HFCs used in aerosols and foams from acceptable to unacceptable for most uses, and proposing to place use conditions on the remaining aerosol uses. A third petition was filed on April 27, 2012, by NRDC, EIA and IGSD. They requested that EPA: • Remove HFC–134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for CFC–12 in household refrigerators and freezers and 23 See, PO 00000 e.g., 60 FR at 31097. Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers; • Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed refrigerants to all except certified technicians with access to service tools required under existing EPA regulations; • Adopt a standardized procedure to determine the speed of transition from obsolete high-GWP HFCs to nextgeneration alternatives and substitutes; • Remove, in addition to HFC–134a, all other refrigerants with 100-year GWPs greater than 150 from the acceptable substitutes list for household refrigerators and freezers and standalone retail food refrigerators and freezers. On August 7, 2013, EPA found this petition to be incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found in the docket. Although EPA has found the petition incomplete, EPA’s action in this proposal may be considered responsive to certain aspects of the petition, given EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC–134a from acceptable to unacceptable for new stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers, as well as changing the listing of a number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs for new and retrofit stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers. B. How Today’s Action Relates to Petitions This action primarily recognizes a call in the President’s Climate Action Plan announced June 2013: To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions . . . Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives. The Climate Action Plan also states ‘‘to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions.’’ This proposed rule is part of our domestic commitment to take action now and, by doing so, also supporting efforts to secure a global HFC phasedown. For the past five years, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global benefits of the proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent CO2eq through 2050. The United States, E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules the European Union, Japan and other countries are all taking actions that will promote the uptake of low-GWP alternatives and reduce use and emissions of high-GWP HFCs. This proposal responds to the President’s Climate Action Plan and also addresses certain aspects of the three petitions referred to above. First, this action responds to the one aspect of the three petitions that EPA found complete, namely petitioners’ request that EPA change the listing of HFC–134a from acceptable to unacceptable in new MVACs. (See section V.B. in today’s notice.) While EPA found all remaining issues in the three petitions incomplete with respect to the other end-uses, EPA has independently acquired sufficient information to address certain other requests made by the petitioners regarding listing high GWP HFCs as unacceptable. Specifically, based on our review of the aerosols, foams, and air conditioning and refrigeration sectors, we are proposing to revise the listings for a number of substitutes from acceptable to acceptable subject to use conditions, or unacceptable. (See sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of today’s notice.) These substitutes have high GWPs as compared with other available or potentially available substitutes in those end–uses and pose significantly greater risk overall to human health and the environment. EPA considers the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that any specific HFC be unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFCfree. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs and nonfluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications, and will consider future modifications, based on the substitutes being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes in specific sectors and enduses. EPA recently issued a proposed rule (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811) that would list as acceptable subject to use conditions a group of refrigeration and air-conditioning alternatives that have been submitted and reviewed under the SNAP program. That rule would enhance the SNAP menu of acceptable alternatives for a number of related enduses by proposing to add several alternatives as acceptable subject to use conditions. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 As noted previously, to date, EPA has considered approximately 400 alternatives. This level of development work serves as a clear demonstration of the efforts of industry to commercialize alternatives that continue to reduce overall risk and meet the needs of a wide range of consumers. Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated community on the SNAP related aspects of the President’s Climate Action Plan, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the role that certainty plays in enabling this robust development and uptake of alternatives. Unfortunately, some of the key strengths of the SNAP program, such as its chemical and end-use specific consideration, its multi criteria basis for action, and its petition process tend to militate against some measures that could provide more certainty, such as bright line cut offs. That being said we do believe that the proposals we are making today, and future proposals we may make, may provide some guidelines on how EPA intends to apply specific criteria in individual end-uses. In addition, we remain committed to continuing our outreach efforts and to sharing our thinking at the earliest moment practicable on any future actions we might consider. Finally, and as it relates to potential future actions that that EPA might consider under the SNAP program, the Agency continues to welcome comments and ideas on measures we might consider within the SNAP context to provide greater certainty to both producers and consumers in SNAP regulated industrial sectors. V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs? EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain HFCs and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives are available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk. Per the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that any specific HFCs be unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFCfree. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and nonfluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and CAA Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes being considered, the SNAP PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46135 criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes. EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use: (1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 • HFC–125 as unacceptable; • HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in consumer aerosols); and • HFC–227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers. (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly manufactured lightduty vehicles, we are proposing to list • HFC–134a as unacceptable starting with model year MY 2021; and • The refrigerant blends SP34E, R– 426A (also known as RS–24), R–416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R–406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG– X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG–HP) as unacceptable starting with MY 2017. (3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including stand-alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket systems, and indirect supermarket systems) and new and retrofit vending machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 • The HFC blends R–507A and R– 404A as unacceptable. (4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems), we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 • HFC–227ea, R–407B, R–421B, R– 422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, and R–434A as unacceptable. (5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 • HFC–134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as unacceptable. (6) For foam blowing agents, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit, • HFC–134a and blends thereof as unacceptable in all foam-blowing enduses; • HFC–143a, HFC–245fa and HFC– 365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6 as unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where they are currently listed as acceptable, except for spray foam applications; and E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46136 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules • The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where it is currently listed as acceptable. In general, the dates in this proposal for modifying the SNAP listings are based on information concerning the availability of alternatives with lower overall risk to human health and the environment for the end-uses considered. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed dates. As noted in the Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion in section IX of this preamble, EPA would like information on technical challenges that may exist. EPA is particularly interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet the dates proposed in this action. EPA notes that several of the end-uses could be broken down further. EPA could consider adopting temporary narrowed use limits for a specific application of an end-use if the Agency determined that substitutes would be available for all but that specific application as of a particular date. For other applications in that end-use, the rule would list the substitute as unacceptable as of that date. For the specific application at issue, the rule could contain both a temporary narrowed use limit with an expiration date and a listing as unacceptable upon the expiration of the narrowed use limit. While the temporary narrowed use limit was in place, only persons using a substitute in the end-use for that specific application would be considered to not be in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). In addition, any such end user would need to comply with the requirement to analyze and document that there are no other alternatives that are technically feasible for their specific end-use. To support the adoption of a temporary narrowed use limit for a specific application of an end-use in the final rule, commenters should explain why other alternatives would not be available for the specific application of that end-use and for what period of time. In determining whether to modify the listing decisions for substitutes based on whether other alternatives are available that pose lower risk to human health and the environment, we considered, among other things: scientific findings, information provided by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that supports the Montreal Protocol, journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the regulations and supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings, presentations and reports presented at domestic and international conferences, VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 and materials from trade associations and professional organizations. The materials on which we have relied may be found in the docket for this action. Key references are highlighted in section IX of today’s notice. A. Aerosols 1. Background The SNAP program provides listings for two aerosol end-uses: propellants and solvents. Aerosols typically use a liquefied or compressed gas to propel active ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder form. In the case of duster sprays used to blow dust and contaminants off of surfaces, the propellant is also itself the active ingredient. Some aerosols also contain a solvent, which may be used in manufacturing, maintenance and repair to clean off oil, grease, and other soils. Historically, a variety of propellants and solvents have been available to formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) and compressed gases (e.g., CO2, N2, N2O, compressed air) have long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the aerosol industry predominantly used CFCs. CFCs were excellent propellants because of their ability to produce a fine spray, their nonflammability, their ability to be stored under low pressure, and their low reactivity with other ingredients. In 1978, in response to evidence regarding depletion of the earth’s ozone layer, the United States banned CFC propellants. These regulations did not address HCFCs or solvent uses. For example, CFC–113 and methyl chloroform continued to be used as solvents in aerosols and HCFCs continued to be used. Many consumer products that previously used CFC propellants were reformulated or replaced with a variety of alternatives, including not-in-kind substitutes, such as pump sprays or solid and roll-on deodorants. Aerosol propellant substitutes included HCFCs, HCs, HFCs, compressed gases, and oxygenated organic compounds. HCFCs are controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of production and import under section 605(b)-(c) and use restrictions under section 605(a). In 1993, EPA issued regulations that implemented CAA section 610’s Congressionally mandated ban on the sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of certain non-essential products containing ozone-depleting substances (40 CFR Part 82 Subpart C). All aerosol products and pressurized dispensers containing, or manufactured PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 with, CFCs and HCFCs—except those specifically exempted by the regulations—are banned from sale and distribution in interstate commerce in the United States. As a result of the Nonessential Products Ban, most aerosol products have been using low-GWP alternatives with no ozone depletion potential since the early 1990s. 2. Aerosols today Following the 1994 ban on the sale and distribution of aerosols using HCFCs, HCFC propellants were replaced with a range of alternatives including HFCs (e.g., HFC–134a, HFC–152a), HCs, compressed gases, and not-in-kind alternatives. HCFC solvents were replaced by HFC–43–10mee, HFC– 365mfc, HFC–245fa, HCs, oxygenated organic compounds, hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), and trans-dichloroethylene (typically blended with an HFC or HFE to reduce flammability of the formulation). Other acceptable lowGWP fluorinated compounds include HFOs. HFO–1234ze(E) is in use and under development for use in the aerosol industry as a propellant for manufacturing aerosol products. EPA regulations issued pursuant to CAA section 605 prohibit the use of HCFC– 22 and HCFC–142b for manufacturing aerosol products. 40 CFR 82.15(g). EPA has proposed regulations addressing the use after January 1, 2015 of other HCFCs in aerosol products (e.g., HCFC–225ca/ cb), as well as other provisions related to the phaseout of HCFCs under section 605 of the CAA (December 24, 2013; 78 FR 78072). The United States aerosol industry manufactures aerosol products in the following three categories: (1) Consumer aerosols, (2) technical aerosols, and (3) medical aerosols. Consumer aerosols includes products for personal and household use. Examples include personal care products, such as: Cosmetics, hairspray, body sprays, and deodorants; automotive products such as tire inflators, auto lubricants, and brake cleaners; noise horns and safety horns; animal repellants; spray adhesives with various applications; household cleaning products; hand-held spray paint cans; eyeglass and keyboard dusters; consumer freeze sprays (e.g. chewing gum or excrement removal); air fresheners; food dispensing products; and novelty aerosols (e.g., artificial snow, plastic string, noise makers, and cork poppers). Technical aerosols are aerosol products for sale and use solely in commercial and industrial applications, not for normal day-to-day consumer use or medical use. Technical aerosols includes industrial cleaners (e.g., E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols? • EPA is proposing to change the listing for the aerosol propellant HFC– 125 from acceptable to unacceptable. • We are proposing to list the aerosol propellant HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions allowing its use only in the following: Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold release agents; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron microscopes; document preservation sprays; metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. • EPA is also proposing to list HFC– 227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers. a. What other alternatives are available? EPA is proposing to change the listing decisions for HFC–125, HFC–134a, and HFC–227ea as of January 1, 2016 because safer alternatives (i.e., chemical compounds and technological options) are available or potentially available that reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment. Other substitutes listed as acceptable propellants include HFC–152a, HFO– 1234ze(E), butane, propane, isobutane, CO2 and other compressed gases, and dimethyl ether (DME). In addition, technological options include not-inkind alternatives such as finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes, and wipes. These alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 124 compared with HFC–134a’s GWP of 1,430, HFC–227ea’s GWP of 3,220 and HFC–125’s GWP of 3,500.24 All of these alternatives have an ODP of zero, are relatively low in toxicity, and are capable of remaining below their Today’s action addresses HFCs in propellants in aerosols. EPA is proposing to modify the listings for HFC–125, HFC–134a and HFC–227ea as of January 1, 2016 as follows: 24 GWP values cited in this proposal are from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated otherwise. Where no GWP is listed in AR4, GWP values shall be determined consistent with the calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and referenced materials. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 electronic contact cleaners, brake cleaners, flux removers, degreasers); pesticides (e.g., certain wasp and hornet sprays, aircraft insecticides); a subset of dusters (e.g., for photographic negatives, semiconductor chip manufacture, specimens for observation under electron microscope); and spinnerette lubricant/cleaning sprays. Technical aerosols also includes other miscellaneous products such as industrial spray paints and document preservation sprays. Medical aerosols are for sale and use for medical purposes and include, but are not limited to, products regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical aerosols include metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, calamine spray, anti-fungals, wart treatments, wound care sprays, freeze or coolant spray for pain relief, spray-on ‘‘liquid’’ bandages, and products for removing bandage adhesives. Some aerosols could be considered under more than one of the categories described above. For example, insect sprays include products with both commercial and consumer applications. The commercial application would include insect sprays used by utility power line workers around high tension power lines (i.e., a technical aerosol) and the consumer use would include residential household insect repellant commonly sold to homeowners (i.e., a consumer aerosol). Another example is freeze sprays which may be either consumer aerosols (e.g., food freeze sprays, animal waste sprays) or medical aerosols (e.g., wart removers, pain relievers). Most of the demand for consumer aerosols in the United States is concentrated within household consumer products. This category has the highest production volume, reporting a 2.4% increase from 2010 to 2011 (CSPA 2012). The NAICS code that includes many personal care products (325620) is the highest grossing NAICS category of those that EPA has identified as manufacturing consumer aerosols (ICF 2014a). Some of the dominant consumer aerosols includes air fresheners, deodorants, household cleaners, and hairspray. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46137 respective exposure limits when used as aerosol propellants. In addition to GWP and climate impacts, some of the other environmental and health attributes that the SNAP program considers that differ for these alternatives include impacts on local air quality and flammability. For example, butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are VOCs as well as being flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are defined as VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards; thus, these propellants are subject to federal, state, and local regulation that may prevent their use as a propellant in aerosols in some states and counties that have nonattainment areas for ground-level ozone. HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC– 227ea, HFC–152a, HFO–1234ze(E), and the compressed gases CO2 and N2 are not defined as VOCs under these regulations and their use is expected to have negligible impact on ground-level ozone levels. i. Consumer Aerosols For consumer aerosols, there are three alternatives with lower GWPs that meet other environmental regulatory requirements: HFC–152a, which has a GWP of 124; HFO–1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6; and CO2 with a GWP of 1. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those of the HFCs proposed to be unacceptable or subject to use conditions (range of GWPs from 1430 to 3500 for HFC–134a, HFC–227ea and HFC–125). These three substitutes also provide a range of performance based on vapor pressure, which is important because it affects the ability to propel the necessary ingredients out of the aerosol container. The vapor pressures of HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–152a, and CO2 at 20 °C are 422 kPa, 510 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively. ii. Technical Aerosols Technical aerosols sometimes need to meet more rigorous requirements for selection because of performance demands that do not exist for most consumer aerosols. For example, nonflammable aerosols are needed for use on energized electrical circuits, where sparking can create a fire or explosion hazard. Of the different acceptable alternatives, the nonflammable options at room temperature include HFC–125, HFC– 134a, HFC–227ea, HFO–1234ze(E) and compressed gases including CO2 and N2. At slightly higher temperatures (30 °C or 85 °F), HFO–1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher flammability limits and E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46138 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 could catch fire under specific conditions of concentration and in the presence of a high energy spark or flame. Some aerosol product formulators have expressed concern that the lower vapor pressure of HFO– 1234ze(E) and the significantly higher vapor pressure of CO2 and other compressed gases may not provide adequate performance in propelling contents of a can or in remaining within the can for technical aerosols. For comparison, the vapor pressures of HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–134a, and CO2 at 20 °C are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively. The conditions under which technical aerosols are often used requires nonflammability and/or specific vapor pressure be met. Based on the information available today, EPA believes it is necessary to continue to allow for HFC–134a to be used for certain technical spray applications because of these technical limitations. We are therefore proposing to list HFC– 134a as acceptable subject to use conditions which would limit use to those specific applications. HFC–134a is the propellant with the lowest GWP that can consistently meet the technical aerosol performance requirements, other environmental regulatory requirements, and is nonflammable. EPA considered whether HFC–227ea or HFC–125 should be continue to be listed as acceptable for any specific uses. However, both these HFCs have significantly higher GWPs than HFC–134a (HFC–227ea’s GWP is 3220 and HFC–125’s GWP is 3500). Moreover, EPA is not aware of the use of HFC–227ea in technical aerosols. Similarly, EPA is not aware of any significant use of HFC–125 in technical aerosols. Neither HFC–227ea nor HFC– 125 provides greater reduction in health or environmental risk than HFC–134a. iii. Medical Aerosols EPA is proposing to list HFC–134a and HFC–227ea as acceptable subject to use conditions which specify that these two HFCs are acceptable for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to ensure that there is no confusion about the ability to continue to use these HFCs in these medical aerosols. In addition, we are proposing to list HFC–134a as acceptable subject to use conditions for wound care sprays, for topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation and for products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. For medical aerosols, there are special needs for safety and low toxicity. Furthermore, in order for a substitute to be available for use in medical devices, it must first be reviewed and approved by the FDA. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 FDA has approved medications for use in metered dose inhalers using HFC– 134a and HFC–227ea as propellants, as well as some not-in-kind dry powder medications. FDA has not approved medications for MDIs or other medical aerosols using HFC–125. EPA is aware of some medical aerosols that are currently using hydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, as well as not-in-kind alternatives; these medical aerosols include antifungals, calamine sprays, freeze sprays for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 2014a). EPA has insufficient information that alternatives other than HFC–134a are available as propellants in wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. Therefore, we cannot conclude that these are available alternatives with less overall risk to human health and the environment than HFC–134a. For these reasons, we are proposing to list HFC–227ea as acceptable subject to a use condition limiting its use to MDIs and to list HFC–134a as acceptable subject to use conditions limiting its use to MDIs and the other medical uses listed above. HFC–125 has a GWP of 3,500, which is higher than the GWP of all other alternatives that are available for use as aerosol propellants (HFC–227ea has a GWP of 3220; HFC–134 has a GWP of 1430; HFO–1234ze(E) has a GWP of 6). Like HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, CO2 and HFO–1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, nonflammable and low in toxicity. When EPA listed HFC–227ea as acceptable (May 22, 1998; 63 FR 28251), EPA noted that it was doing so despite the relatively high GWP of this compound, because it fit a specialized application, metered dose inhalers, where other substitutes were not available that would provide acceptable performance. EPA’s proposed approach to restricting the use of HFC–134a and HFC–227ea only to manufacturing certain specific types of aerosol products is modeled upon the Nonessential Product Ban exemptions for ODS in subpart C of 40 CFR part 82. A difference between that ban and the proposed use conditions is that the Nonessential Products Ban addressed the sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of aerosol products in interstate commerce, whereas this proposal addresses the propellants that may be used in manufacturing aerosol products. Today, EPA is proposing to list HFC– 125 as unacceptable, HFC–227ea as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use only for MDIs and PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 HFC–134a as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use only for specific technical and medical aerosols, including MDIs. We request comment on this approach to modifying the listings of these three HFCs. We also request comment on whether any of the proposed technical aerosol uses of HFC– 134a should not be allowed or whether there are additional uses that should be added to the list of allowed uses under the use conditions. Through this action, EPA is not intending to alter the listing as acceptable for HFC–227ea and HFC– 134a for metered dose inhalers. EPA is seeking comment on the additional medical and technical aerosol uses of HFC–134a. b. What other approaches is EPA considering? EPA is considering two approaches to changing the listings for aerosols and seeks comments on both. The first, as discussed above, is to find HFC–125 unacceptable and find HFC–227ea and HFC–134a acceptable subject to use conditions, where the use conditions specify a list of allowed uses or product types that may continue to use these HFCs (e.g., metered dose inhalers for both HFCs, insect sprays used near high tension power lines for HFC–134a). A second approach we are considering is to find HFC–125 unacceptable and to find HFC–134a acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in technical and medical aerosols and HFC–227ea subject to narrowed use limits in metered dose inhalers. Narrowed use limits are considered ‘‘use restrictions’’ and are explained above. In this case, only persons using HFC–227ea in metered dose inhalers or using HFC– 134a in technical or medical aerosols would be considered to not be in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). The terms ‘‘technical aerosol’’ and ‘‘medical aerosol’’ would apply to the types of aerosols described above in section 2. ‘‘Aerosols today.’’ Under the narrowed use limits, a manufacturer or other user intending to use the substitute could only use HFC– 134a in manufacturing a technical or medical aerosol, or HFC–227ea in manufacturing a metered-dose inhaler, after ascertaining that other alternatives are not technically feasible. The user also would be required to document their evaluation. 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Advantages to the proposed approach of specifying the allowed uses are that the list is clear about which products are allowed to use HFC–134a or HFC– 227ea, both for users and for EPA. In addition, because EPA is specifying the uses in advance, end-users would not be E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules required to perform an evaluation and would not be required keep paperwork to document their evaluation, thereby reducing regulatory burden. A potential advantage of setting narrowed use limits is that it may encourage a larger number of manufacturers and users to evaluate alternatives and potentially identify more uses where HFC–134a is not required. Further, establishing narrowed use limits may allow greater flexibility if there are additional types of technical or medical aerosol products with performance or safety constraints requiring HFC–134a that EPA has not identified in this proposal. EPA requests comment on these two approaches to modifying the listings of HFC–134a and HFC–227ea as aerosol propellants. c. When would the modified listings apply? EPA is proposing January 1, 2016 as the date on which the listings for HFC– 125, HFC–134a and HFC–227ea would be modified. Thus products manufactured on or after January 1, 2016 in contravention of the unacceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions listing for these substitutes could not be used. We are proposing this date because we believe it is expeditious but will allow sufficient time after this proposed rule for end users to make the transition to alternatives. Based on the information available to EPA today and on various discussions with industry representatives. EPA believes that formulators and packagers of aerosols can make the necessary changes within this timing (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 2014). In most cases, EPA believes it will take approximately six months for the necessary changes to be made. This timing would provide the affected aerosol manufacturers and packagers sufficient time to change and test formulations and, to the extent necessary, to change the equipment in their factories. To prevent stranded inventory, we are proposing that products manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 using these propellants, could be still be sold, imported, exported, and used by the end user after January 1, 2016. This would avoid the possibility that end users would need to dispose of a usable product, including the potential for improper releases of the content into the environment. d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment? EPA requests comment on the proposal to change the listing for the following aerosol propellants: HFC–125 from acceptable to unacceptable; HFC– 134a from acceptable to acceptable, VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 subject to use conditions allowing its use only in: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold release agents; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron microscopes; document preservation sprays; metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin; and HFC–227ea from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers. EPA also received suggestions from the aerosol industry to consider an exception to allow the use of HFC–134a in additional categories of aerosol products. EPA is not proposing to include these categories, either because we are aware of existing products in these categories using low GWP propellants, or because we have insufficient information indicating that the use of HFC–134a is necessary for these categories of products because other substitutes that pose lower risk are not currently or potentially available. These categories include: component freeze sprays, tissue freezes, refrigeration system flushes, portable safety horns for use in marine and industrial applications, tire inflators, and personal defense sprays. We are aware of low-GWP formulations already on the market today for defensive sprays and tissue freezes. These formulations may use flammable and/or nonflammable propellants. We request information on why available substitutes other than HFC–134a are not and cannot be used in these categories of products, including information on why flammability may be a concern or not in the product category; whether other alternative propellants with lower GWP in place of HFC–134a have been tested in these products; and what results of those tests have shown about the technical feasibility and/or safety of the other alternative propellants. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46139 Finally, we request comments on modifying the listings as of January 1, 2016. We request commenters include specific information on whether it would be technically feasible for endusers to transition by January 1, 2016, and, if not, what steps are necessary for manufacturers to switch to other alternatives and how long those steps are expected to take. B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 1. Background MVAC systems cool passenger cars, light duty trucks, buses, and rail vehicles. CFC–12 refrigerant was historically used in MVAC systems. HFC–134a replaced CFC–12 in new equipment in the early 1990s. Today, HFC–134a is the dominant refrigerant used in light-duty vehicles worldwide. When EPA found HFC–134a acceptable in MVAC for light duty vehicles in 1994 (March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044), the Agency stated: HFC–134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC–134a’s GWP and atmospheric lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which have been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However, HFC–134a’s contribution to global warming could be significant in leaky end-uses such as MVACs. EPA has determined that the use of HFC–134a in these applications is acceptable because industry continues to develop technology to limit emissions. In addition, the number of substitutes available for use in MVACs is currently limited. HFC– 134a is not flammable and its toxicity is low. This analysis was consistent with the information available in 1994. Since that time, four additional substitutes have been added to the list of substitutes that are acceptable subject to use conditions for light duty vehicles. As described more fully below, if these other substitutes are used in systems designed consistent with the prescribed use conditions, they pose significantly lower risk to human health and the environment than HFC–134a. EPA is therefore proposing to remove HFC– 134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for new light-duty vehicles’ MVAC systems and add it to the list of unacceptable substitutes. Since 1994, additional alternatives for MVACs have been listed as acceptable subject to use conditions.25 Three of these alternatives—HFO–1234yf, HFC– 152a, and carbon dioxide (R–744)—are non-ozone depleting like HFC–134a and have low GWPs compared to HFC–134a. HFC–152a has a GWP of 124, HFO– 1234yf has a GWP of 4, and R–744 (by 25 Listed E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46140 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC– 134a has a GWP of 1,430. R–744 is nonflammable, HFO–1234yf and HFC– 152a are flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address flammability concerns. All three substitutes are subject to use restrictions that ensure exposure limits that protect against adverse health effects will not be exceeded and all three are VOC exempt. At the time EPA listed HFC–134a as acceptable, the agency was not aware of any vehicle manufacturer, MVAC supplier, or chemical producer considering HFO–1234yf as a refrigerant. Today, HFO–1234yf is in use in MVAC systems in approximately nine 26 models in the United States by several manufacturers of light-duty vehicles. EPA expects additional models will be introduced using HFO–1234yf systems over the next several years. To date, at least one global manufacturer of light-duty vehicles has announced their intention to commercialize vehicles using R–744 in MVAC systems later this decade.27 In the mid-1990s, EPA became aware that R–744 systems might be a feasible alternative in this application, but the state of research and development indicated that it was not yet available because a design had not yet been developed that would allow safe use in MVAC systems in light duty vehicles. Nearly 20 years later, EPA is still not aware of current commercial use of R– 744 in MVAC systems. However, significant research and development is occurring in order to ensure R–744 can be used safely in MVAC systems. In addition to HFO–1234yf, HFC– 152a, and R–744, EPA is aware of ongoing research and development which could ultimately result in future listings of additional alternatives for MVAC systems. One chemical producer indicated their intent to seek SNAP approval for another low-GWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP below 150.28 There are also other blends which EPA has listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions. None of these are currently used by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Several of these previously listed substitutes have GWPs that are significantly higher than the GWPS for HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744 and higher overall risk than these other three substitutes. EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable the following substitutes 26 http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/ OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea. 27 Daimler, 2014 28 Mexichem statement during motor vehicle stakeholder meeting December 6, 2013 VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 in addition to HFC–134a: SP34E (GWP of 1300), R–426A (also known as RS–24) (GWP of 1508), R–416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12) (GWP of 1015) and the HCFC blends, R–406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG–HP), with GWPs ranging from 1480 to 2340 and ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. For simplicity, we refer to these substitutes as ‘‘the refrigerant blends’’ in the following discussion. 2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC–134a and use of refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles? EPA is proposing to list HFC–134a as unacceptable for use in MVAC systems in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning with MY 2021. We are proposing MY 2021 because that is the time by which all light-duty vehicle models can be redesigned to safely use MVAC systems using other available refrigerants. As explained above, three alternatives on the SNAP list of acceptable substitutes subject to use conditions —HFC–152a, R–744, and HFO–1234yf—have significantly lower GWPs than HFC–134a. All three of these lower-GWP alternatives are non-ozone depleting and are subject to use restrictions that ensure exposure limits that protect against adverse health effects will not be exceeded. All three are VOC exempt. HFO–1234yf and HFC–152a are flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address flammability concerns. R–744 is not flammable. Because HFC–134a has a significantly higher GWP than HFC– 152a, R–744, and HFO–1234yf and because the risks posed by these three refrigerants are addressed through use conditions, we are proposing to list HFC–134a as unacceptable. However, because the three refrigerant alternatives pose lower risk than HFC–134a only if used consistent with the established use conditions, in deciding when the unacceptability determination should apply, we considered the date by which automobile manufacturers will be able to redesign all vehicle models (including design of the MVAC systems) consistent with the use conditions. EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant blends SP34E, R–426A, R–416A, R– 406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Lambda (also known as GHG–HP) as unacceptable beginning in MY 2017 for use in MVAC systems in newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles. Since these refrigerant blends are not currently in use in any MVAC systems in light-duty vehicles, we believe it is appropriate for the unacceptability determination to apply to model year vehicles currently being designed. Further, all but the first two of these blends have ODPs, and all have significantly higher GWPs than other alternatives such as HFC–152a, HFO– 1234yf, and CO2. EPA has previously examined when automobile manufacturers may be able to transition their fleets to lower GWP refrigerants in its rules to extend the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model year (MY) 2017– 2025 light-duty vehicles. 77 FR 62624, 62807–810 (October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR 25325, 25431–32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue for MY 2012– 2016 light duty vehicles). EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly issued these rules on August 28, 2012. Over the lifetime of the MY 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles), these rules are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of GHG emissions, with societal net benefits up to $451 billion. 77 FR 62629. The standards build off those set in April 2010 for MY 2012–2016 light-duty vehicles, which are projected to save approximately 1.85 billion barrels of oil and 962 million metric tons of GHG emissions over the lifetime of the affected vehicles, with societal net benefits of up to $192 billion. 75 FR 25347. EPA projects that the entire lightduty vehicle fleet will meet a target of 163 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) per mile in MY 2025 (or 54.5 mpg if the automotive industry meets the target exclusively through fuel efficiency improvements). When refrigerants leak from current motor vehicle air conditioning systems, they contribute to overall GHG emissions. Using lower GWP refrigerants can significantly reduce the climate impact of these emissions. Given the increasing availability of lower-GWP chemicals suitable for this purpose and systems that can use them, as well as increasing requirement for lower-GWP refrigerants in Europe,29 EPA based the light-duty GHG standards 29 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules for MYs 2017–2025 in part on an expected gradual transition to lowerGWP refrigerants. Thus, in setting the level of the standards, EPA projected that the industry will make the full transition to lower-GWP refrigerants over the period of time spanning between MY 2017 and MY 2021, and the level of the standard in each of these model years reflects a projected 20 percent increase in substitution in each model year and complete transition by MY 2021. 77 FR 62720/2–3. In support of the assumption of this multi-year transition, the Light-Duty GHG rule for MYs 2017–2025 includes an extensive discussion of the refrigerant substitute availability and technical feasibility of transitioning the fleet. 77 FR 62720; 62807–810. At the time the Light Duty GHG rule was promulgated, EPA (and other entities) voiced concerns with the potential supply of HFO–1234yf, but today production plans for the refrigerant appear to be in place to make it available in volumes that meet current and projected domestic auto industry demand, consistent with the projections in the Light Duty GHG rulemaking. Multiple production facilities are now producing HFO–1234yf, and recently another global chemical producer announced plans to produce HFO– 1234yf by 2017. Moreover, some automotive manufacturers are developing systems that can safely use other substitutes, including R–744, and continued progress is likely given the EU’s implementation of the MAC Directive. If some global light-duty motor vehicle manufacturers use R–744, additional volumes of HFO–1234yf that would have been used by those manufacturers will then become available. Therefore, there also appears to be sufficient supply to meet demand domestically and abroad, including in the European Union, during this time frame. In addition to considering when the supply of alternative refrigerants would be sufficient to transition the entire light duty vehicle fleet, EPA necessarily also considered when vehicle manufacturers could design systems for safe use of these alternatives consistent with the regulatory use conditions.30 EPA considered the practices used by the auto manufacturing industry in introducing new technologies into their vehicles. For each vehicle model, manufacturers establish a ‘‘redesign’’ (or product development) cycle over which 30 As previously noted, HFO–1234yf, R–744 and HFC–152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and many of the use conditions address the design of systems to account for the flammability or exposure. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 they plan any significant technological changes to that vehicle. Between the major redesign model years, they may make only minor ‘‘refresh’’ changes. Redesign cycles vary by model and by manufacturer and average about 5 model years in duration. (See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for a more detailed discussion of this practice.) At any point in time, a manufacturer may have some vehicles at or approaching a major redesign point and others that are earlier in their product cycle. In the final rule establishing lightduty vehicle GHG standards for MYs 2017–2025, EPA assumed that the transition to alternative refrigerants would generally occur during manufacturer model redesigns and used the overall typical industry redesign cycle of 5 model years to estimate how the expected industry-wide transition to new refrigerants might occur. For analytical purposes, and based on information available at the time, we projected that the transition would occur from MY 2017 until MY 2021. EPA recognizes there have been some early adopters. The transition began in a small number of MY 2013 vehicles and is increasing in MY 2014 but has been relatively limited to date.31 While some may maintain that early adoption equates to a faster overall transition, EPA notes that early adoption remains limited and therefore we continue to view our projection of full transition not occurring until MY 2021 as reasonable. Although there may be some limited ability to switch a vehicle model to an MVAC system using a low GWP refrigerant in between redesign periods, most model types will require significant hardware changes that may only be possible during a redesign. HFO–1234yf, for example, has measurably lower efficiency than that of HFC–134a, usually requiring hardware changes and/or changes to overall air conditioning system design and layout.32 33 This contrasts with the case 31 Nelson, Gabe ‘‘Automakers’ switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate’’ Automobile News, December 30, 2013. http://www.autonews.com/article/ 20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea. 32 Weissler, Paul, ‘‘A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R–1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,’’ Automotive Engineering International, April 2, 2013. 33 One manufacturer informed EPA in a meeting that hardware changes were necessary or likely when shifting from a HFC–134a to a HFO–1234yf system, including the following: compressor oil and/or compressor changes, possible A/C piping modification due to the change in valve shape, and, in the vehicle manufacturing plant, additional refrigerant charging process changes. (EPA Memorandum: ‘‘Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning Alternative Refrigerant Transition’’, Tad PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46141 of the transition in the 1990s from CFC– 12 to HFC–134a, where the systems had similar coefficients of performance and manufacturers were able to switch many vehicles mid-cycle. Vehicles that require relatively more cooling capacity will be more dependent on a redesign cycle for a transition to HFO–1234yf since the specifications for hardware would need to be revisited. Most manufacturers have ‘‘locked-in’’ their planned product designs out to MY 2016, MY 2017, or even MY 2018. If any of these manufacturers have not planned to implement alternative refrigerant systems in these late model year vehicles, the next design cycle opportunity to make a change would be unlikely to occur until MY 2021 (or even MY 2022). In addition, at least one manufacturer has stated that it plans on using R–744 (CO2) systems. R–744 systems require significantly more complex redesign and hardware and would need to occur during product redesign, not product refresh given its pressure is significantly different than HFC–134a. These systems are currently in prototype phase, and there are significant technical hurdles yet to overcome. Given EPA’s understanding, above, of the supply of the alternative refrigerants and the redesign cycle for MVAC systems, EPA is proposing to list HFC–134a as unacceptable for new MVAC systems beginning with MY 2021 because this is the time by which all light-duty vehicle models can be redesigned to safely use MVAC systems with alternative refrigerants. As a cross-check, EPA explored whether vehicles and MVAC systems designed consistent with the use conditions for the three alternative refrigerants might be available earlier than MY 2021, evaluating (but not proposing) MYs 2017 and 2019. MY 2017 is the date included in the petition described above and in the EU MAC Directive. Since most motor vehicle manufacturers will seek a global vehicle design platform, selecting the same date as the date in the EU MAC Directive has some weight. MY 2019 is an intermediate date between MYs 2017 and 2021. The agency believes it is necessary for MVAC system redesigns for many vehicles to occur during a design cycle to safely use the substitute refrigerants, as just explained. Manufacturers are currently designing or have ‘‘locked in’’ designs for vehicles several model years into the future. The information currently before the Agency thus indicates that it would not be Wysor, April 2014.) Other manufacturers made similar statements to EPA. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46142 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules technically feasible for manufacturers to safely transition all vehicles from HFC– 134a MVACs by MY 2017. EPA is not proposing the MY 2019 date for the same reasons. However, we solicit comment on whether all manufacturers would be able to safely transition all vehicles away from HFC–134a MVAC systems by MY 2017 or MY 2019. We also considered whether a MY later than MY 2021 should be the appropriate time for use of HFC–134a in MVAC systems in new vehicles to be listed as unacceptable. In recent meetings with the major trade associations for the auto industry (the Alliance and Global Automakers) as well as with meetings with several individual manufacturers, industry representatives indicated that some of them may have a relatively small number of vehicle models that will not have had the opportunity for an engineering redesign by MY 2021. They also indicated that there may be technical barriers for certain models that would require longer product design cycles if the systems were to use substitute refrigerants. However, we do not have sufficient non-confidential information to conclude that systems capable of using alternative refrigerant safely will not be ‘‘currently or potentially available’’—within the meaning of section 612 (c)(2) of the Act—until after MY 2021. EPA requests comments on changing the status of HFC–134a in a model year later than MY 2021 (such as MY 2025), including specific information supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021 would not be technically feasible because specific model vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by MY2021. For the reasons explained earlier, EPA believes safer alternatives will be available by MY 2021. Based on the information before the Agency, EPA is thus proposing to modify the listing of HFC–134a to unacceptable as of MY 2021 for light duty vehicles, while seeking comment on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs later than 2021.34 EPA is not proposing changes that would alter the ability to service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC–134a. Such a change could strand the installed base of equipment or force retrofits to other refrigerants. In order to safely use most MVAC refrigerants, the 34 Typically, regulations promulgated under CAA Title VI have applied to specified calendar years, However, because the MVAC system used is so closely related to vehicle design, we have used MY for purposes of this proposed rule. Model years cover almost two calendar years, beginning after January 1 of the previous calendar year and ending on January 1 of the following calendar year. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 vehicle design as well as the MVAC design may need to be modified in order to ensure the refrigerant can be used safely. For that reason, the three lowGWP refrigerants that currently are listed as acceptable in new MVACs— HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744–are not listed as acceptable to retrofit a system designed to use a different refrigerant. Once MVAC systems are designed and installed with lower GWP substitutes, they will likely need to be serviced. Some stakeholders have expressed a concern that the price differential between HFO–1234yf and HFC–134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO–1234yf with HFC–134a during servicing. See 77 FR 62807. Two sets of regulations under title VI of the CAA make it clear that doing so is unlawful. First, the SNAP regulations prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to ‘top-off’ a system that uses another refrigerant. Second, the original refrigerant must be recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute (40 CFR 82.34). Thus, the recycling and recovery regulations prohibit adding a new refrigerant to the system without first recovering the refrigerant already in the system. Therefore, it is not permissible to add HFC–134a to an MVAC system that contains HFO–1234yf, as may well occur if a consumer were to service his or her own car’s A/C system without refrigerant recovery equipment. In addition, the SNAP listings for HFO– 1234yf and HFC–134a require the use of unique fittings for each alternative refrigerant. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of these use conditions. EPA seeks comments on changing the listing of SP34E, R–426A, R–416A, R– 406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG–HP) to unacceptable for use as refrigerants in air conditioning systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning with MY 2017 and changing the listing of HFC–134a to unacceptable beginning with MY 2021. 3. Would this action affect EPA’s light duty vehicle rule? Today’s proposal, should EPA adopt it, will have no direct effect on the MY 2017–2025 light duty vehicle GHG standards. Those standards are established by rule and EPA is not reopening that rule in this proceeding. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 We do note, however, that today’s proposal is relevant to one of the compliance flexibilities in the light duty vehicle standards. The light duty vehicle standards do not require any specific means of compliance. Manufacturers thus have the flexibility to either switch refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means. The light duty standards do provide that manufacturers can generate credits from use of alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC–134a through MY 2025, and the ability to generate and use those credits towards compliance with the light duty standards will not change if this action is finalized as proposed. See 77 FR 62804–809. (As noted above, the level of the standard reflects the assumption of 100% substitution by MY 2021). Even though a manufacturer may choose to comply with the light duty standard by a strategy not involving refrigerant substitution, in MY 2021, this proposed rule, if finalized, would still require the manufacturer to use an MVAC designed for a refrigerant other than HFC–134a. C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines 1. Background Retail food refrigeration, an end-use within the SNAP program that is also considered a subset of the broader term ‘‘commercial refrigeration,’’ is characterized by storing and displaying, generally for sale, food and beverages at different temperatures for different products (e.g., chilled and frozen food). The designs and refrigerating capacities of equipment vary widely. Vending machines are another subset of commercial refrigeration considered as a separate end-use within the SNAP program due to differences in where such equipment is placed and the additional mechanical and electronic components required to accept payment, provide the selected product, and prevent theft or damage from vandalism. Retail food refrigeration is composed of three main categories of equipment: Stand-alone equipment; condensing units; and supermarket systems, the latter often in designs referred to as multiplex or centralized refrigeration systems. Stand-alone equipment consists of refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open or with doors) where all refrigeration components are integrated and, for the smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded. These systems are charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically require only an electricity supply to begin operation. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules Condensing units exhibit refrigerating capacities ranging typically from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). They are composed of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and one receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located external to the sales area. This equipment is connected to one or more nearby evaporator(s) used to cool food and beverages stored in display cases and/or walk-in storage rooms. Condensing units are commonly installed in convenience stores and specialty shops such as bakeries and butcher shops. Typical supermarket systems are known as multiplex or centralized systems. They operate with racks of compressors installed in a machinery room; different compressors turn on to match the refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures. Two main design classifications are used: Direct and indirect systems. In the United States, direct systems are the most widespread. At least 70 percent of supermarkets in the United States use centralized direct expansion (DX) systems to cool their display cases.35 The refrigerant circulates from the machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in display-case heat exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the suction headers of the compressor racks. The supermarket walk-in cold rooms are often integrated into the system and cooled similarly, but an alternative option is to provide a dedicated condensing unit for a given storage room. Another type of supermarket design, often referred to as a distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of separate compressor racks located near the display cases rather than having a central compressor rack system. Each of these smaller racks handles a portion of the supermarket load, with 5–10 such systems in a store. Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop systems and cascade refrigeration. Indirect systems use a chiller or other refrigeration system to cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated throughout the store to the cases. Compact chiller versions of an indirect system rely on a lineup of 10– 20 units, each using small charge sizes. As the refrigeration load changes, more or fewer of the chillers are active. Compact chillers are used in a secondary loop system whereby the chillers cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated throughout the store to the display cases. Each compact chiller is an independent unit with its own 35 http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advancedrefrigeration. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 refrigerant charge, reducing the potential for refrigerant to be released from leaks or catastrophic failures. Cascade systems use a compressor to raise the low-temperature coolant from low-temperature conditions up to an intermediate temperature while a separate refrigerant system uses a different refrigerant to condense the coolant. Each system within the cascade design contains its own refrigerant charge allowing the use of different refrigerants in each system. This application has generally used a lowGWP refrigerant, specifically carbon dioxide (R–744), in the low-temperature system, with a variety of refrigerants in the medium-temperature system. Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge, the temperature required, and energy efficiency, among other things. In addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program, other federal or local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance, regulations from the OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R– 717). Building codes from local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the amount of particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a number of factors that retailers must consider when selecting the refrigerant and operating system design. While a number of approaches exist, there is no uniformly accepted holistic analysis of the multiple factors, which include the following: Energy efficiency; system performance; potential impact on community safety; ambient temperatures; potential risk to personal safety; cost; and minimization of direct and indirect environmental impacts. EPA recognizes that these and other factors mean there will be a range of options, and the ultimate selection remains with the owner and operator of the system. Acceptable non-HFC substitutes in use today for new multiplex systems include R–717 and R–744. These can be used alone or in combination with other refrigerants in other parts of the equipment, depending on the equipment and its design (e.g., a secondary-loop contains one refrigerant while the primary loop contains a different refrigerant). For stand-alone refrigeration equipment, propane (R– 290) is listed as acceptable subject to use conditions, and EPA has also proposed that the hydrocarbon blend R– 441A and isobutane (R–600a) be listed as acceptable subject to use conditions (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). The Agency also has proposed elsewhere that these three hydrocarbon refrigerants be listed as acceptable subject to use PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46143 conditions for vending machines (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Other substitutes, such as blends of saturated HFCs already listed as acceptable under SNAP, are currently in use in the United States, while HFOs and blends containing HFOs are being developed and tested but have not yet been submitted to the SNAP program for review. The most commonly-used HFCs and HFC blends in retail food refrigeration include HFC–134a, R–404A, R–407A, R–422D, and R–507A. HFC–134a is a non-ozone depleting chemical with the chemical formula C2H2F4. It is used in a variety of air-conditioning and refrigeration end-uses, including motor vehicle air conditioners, home appliances (such as refrigeratorfreezers), vending machines and building air-conditioning chillers. It is also used in other sectors such as foam blowing and aerosol propellants. HFC– 134a has a GWP of 1,430. R–404A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC–125, HFC– 143a, and HFC–134a with GWPs of 3,500, 4,470, and 1,430 respectively. R– 404A’s GWP is about 3,920 based on the 44/52/4 mass percentages of the three HFCs contained in the blend. R–404A is currently acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases; vending machines; cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process refrigeration. R–407A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC–32, HFC–125 and HFC–134a with GWPs of 675, 3,500, and 1,430 respectively. R–407A’s GWP is about 2,100 based on the 20/40/40 mass percentages of the three HFCs contained in the blend. R–407A is acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases; cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process refrigeration. R–407A is not currently on the SNAP lists of acceptable or unacceptable refrigerants for vending machines. R–422D is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC–125, HFC– 134a, and R–600a with GWPs of 3,500, 1,430, and 8 (GE, 2008) respectively. R– 422D’s GWP is about 2,700 based on the approximate 65.1/31.5/3.4 mass percentages of the two HFCs and one hydrocarbon contained in the blend. R– 422D is acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 refrigeration applications including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases; cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process refrigeration. R–422D is most commonly used to retrofit existing systems such as those operating on HCFC–22 and is less likely to be used in manufacturing new equipment. R–507A (also designated as R–507) is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC–125 and HFC–143a which have GWPs of 3,500 and 4,470, respectively. R–507A’s GWP is about 3,990 based on the 50/50 mass percentages of the two HFCs contained in the blend. R–507A is acceptable for a variety of medium- and lowtemperature refrigeration applications including in retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases; cold storage warehouses; refrigerated transport; and industrial process refrigeration. 2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)? EPA is proposing to change the listing for nine HFC blends for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These nine blends are R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– 422D, R–428A, R–434A and R–507A. EPA is not aware of any significant use in the United States of the blends R– 407B, R–421B, R–428A or R–434A in retail food refrigeration equipment. In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC–227ea in new retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to unacceptable.36 These ten refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. They are nonflammable. They contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of ‘‘VOC,’’ with the exception of small amounts of R–290 and R–600a in five of the blends, and thus are not expected to contribute significantly to smog. These refrigerants are relatively low in toxicity, and practices common in the refrigeration industry ensure that their workplace exposure limits are not exceeded. These practices include adhering to those specified in the material safety data sheets and others common in the commercial refrigeration industry. Applicable workplace exposure limits for the compounds comprising these refrigerants—HFC–32, HFC–125, HFC– 134a, HFC–143a, HFC–227ea, R–290 and R–600a—include Workplace 36 EPA has not previously found HFC–227ea acceptable as a retrofit refrigerant in this end-use. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) of 1000 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) from the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA); a manufacturer’s recommended occupational exposure limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA); a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 800 ppm (10-hr TWA) from the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). EPA believes there are several HFC and non-HFC substitutes that provide lower overall risk than the refrigerants EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable and that are currently used in commercial refrigeration. For both new and retrofit equipment, acceptable refrigerants that pose less risk to human health and the environment include HFC–134a, R–407A, R–407C, R–407F, R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R–424A, R– 426A, and R–438A. Additionally, in new retail food refrigeration, three other substitute refrigerants are listed as acceptable: R–717 vapor compression with secondary loop, R–410A, and R– 744. a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in new retail food refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket systems) as of January 1, 2016: HFC– 227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R– 422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– 434A, and R–507A. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 2,730 to 3,985. Two of these refrigerants, R–404A and R–507A, are currently in extensive use in the retail food refrigeration market. EPA is also aware of some use of R–422A and R–422D in retrofit situations only, not in new equipment. We are not aware of the use of any of the other six refrigerants in retail food refrigeration, although we seek comment on such use. Other acceptable alternatives that pose lower risk are also in use in the various types of retail food refrigeration equipment. For condensing unit systems, R–407C and R–407F are in use in the United States, and R–744 and HCs are being used in limited demonstration trials in Europe and elsewhere. The GWP for R–407C (a blend of HFC–32, HFC–125, and HFC– 134a) is about 1,770, and R–407F (another blend of HFC–32, HFC–125, and HFC–134a) has a GWP of about 1,820. As a comparison, R–404A has a PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 GWP of 3,920, R–507A has a GWP of 3,990, and the other refrigerants proposed unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. For multiplex rack systems, substitutes R–407A, R–407F, and R–744 are all currently in use in the United States and can be used more safely than the substances that EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,110. In addition, testing is underway with HCs and HFC/HFO blends, though these refrigerants have not been submitted to SNAP for review in this application. Each of these four substitutes as well as other substitutes in development with lower GWPs have zero ODP and are safe for the ozone layer. R–407A, R–407F, and R–744 all have toxicity lower than or comparable to the refrigerants proposed unacceptable. None of the three examples that would remain on the acceptable list is flammable, and none is considered a VOC. b. Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket systems) as of January 1, 2016: R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– 422D, R–428A, R–434A, and R–507A. We are aware of four of these nine refrigerants being used to retrofit retail food equipment: R–404A, R–507A, R– 422A, and R–422D. We are not aware of any use of the other five refrigerants to retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment but seek comment on any such use. This action would not apply to servicing existing equipment designed for these nine refrigerants or to equipment that had been retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016. For instance, systems retrofitted to R–404A or R–507A prior to January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate and to be serviced using those refrigerants. For condensing units and supermarket systems, where retrofits are common, blends such as R–407A and R–407F have become the norm for retrofits, rather than the four identified in the previous paragraph. The blends R–407A and R–407F have zero ODP and GWPs of 2,107 and 1,825, respectively. Other zero-ODP refrigerants that are currently listed as acceptable for use as retrofits in retail food refrigeration include HFC–134a, R–407C, R–417A, R– 421A, R–422B, R–426A and R–427A and they have GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the other nine blends we are proposing as E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules unacceptable, which have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985. An unacceptability listing for these nine blends in retrofitted equipment could primarily affect the many stores that operate using HCFC–22, but also those using CFC–12, R–502, and several HCFC-containing blends such as R– 401A, R–402A and R–408A. This is because as EPA reduces or eliminates the production and import of ODSs, stores will have less material to meet service demands. While the ODS phaseout does not require owners to retrofit their equipment, a decrease in the availability of virgin material may in turn lead operators of those stores to consider retrofits, although under our proposal certain refrigerants would not be acceptable. For instance, some stores currently using HCFC–22 may choose to retrofit as the production and import of HCFC–22 is phased down and eventually phased out by 2020 per 40 CFR 82.16. EPA recently proposed HCFC–22 allowance allocations for the 2014–2019 time period (December 24, 2013; 78 FR 78071). Some have questioned whether finding certain refrigerants unacceptable for retrofit might provide an incentive to stores to continue to operate with the ODS they are currently using for longer than they might otherwise plan, and we seek comment on this question. In response to this question, we note that many retail chains have been able to minimize the impact of the HCFC–22 phasedown by maintaining their own stockpile of HCFC–22, for instance by recovering from stores that are decommissioned or retrofitted and using such supplies in stores that continue to operate with HCFC–22. We also note that some service is being performed with reclaimed material, with over four million pounds of HCFC–22 being reclaimed every year since at least 2000, and over seven million pounds every year since 2006.37 While we don’t know how this reclaim market will change in the future, recent history shows that the market is using reclaimed material in addition to limited newly-produced supplies that are being reduced by the phaseout. Regardless of the continued supply of HCFC–22, we believe that the majority of retrofits are planned for reasons other than the supply of the refrigerant currently in-use, for instance during planned maintenance overhauls or when upgrading to more energy efficient equipment. We also see that many retrofits are already directed towards lower-GWP blends such as R–407A and R–407F instead of R–404A and R–507A, as mentioned above. Further, we believe that other options, given the multi-year history of their successful use, are sufficient to meet the various features— such as capacity, efficiency, materials compatibility, cost and supply—that affect the choice of a retrofit refrigerant.38 3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone equipment? a. New Stand-Alone Equipment EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC–134a and other refrigerants for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–227ea, IKON B, 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. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 600 up to approximately 3,990. Acceptable substitutes in new standalone equipment include R–744 and R– 290. EPA recently proposed to find R– 600a and R–441A acceptable subject to use conditions in new stand-alone equipment (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). These existing and potential substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC–134a with a GWP of 1,430, R–404A with a GWP of approximately 3,920, and R–507A with a GWP of approximately 3,990. None of the substitutes currently listed or proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While R–290, R–600a, and R– 441A are VOCs, EPA’s analysis indicates that their use as refrigerants in this end-use would not significantly affect meeting national ambient air quality standards. At the time we listed R–290 as acceptable subject to use conditions, we analyzed the potential air quality impacts of emissions of these VOCs and did not find this potential risk to the environment to be significant (ICF, 2014e).39 We have likewise proposed to exempt R–600a and R– 441A used in stand-alone equipment from the venting prohibition (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). These three substitutes are also flammable; however, 38 For example, see CCAC 2012. has proposed to exempt R–290 in standalone retail food refrigeration equipment from the venting prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871). 39 EPA 37 The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can be found on EPA’s Web site at: www.epa.gov/ spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46145 the use conditions specified (or proposed for R–600a and R–441A) would ensure that they do not pose greater risk than any of the substitutes currently listed as acceptable in new stand-alone equipment.40 None of the refrigerants currently listed as acceptable or that we have proposed to add to the list of acceptable substitutes presents significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. Apart from R–290 and R–744, those refrigerants listed acceptable for new stand-alone equipment either contain an HCFC (and are addressed in Section VI below) and/or do not appear to be in production. We understand that R–290 is already in use globally, including in the United States, and that R–600a is in use outside of the United States as well as in test market trials in the United States. We believe that these two refrigerants can satisfy the vast majority of the current market for use in stand-alone equipment. We note that there may be a need to modify the equipment design in order to meet the use conditions for R–290 and the proposed use conditions for R–600a and R–441A (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Because there are other substitutes that pose lower risk, we are proposing to change the listing to unacceptable for new stand-alone equipment of the following refrigerants: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC– 227ea, IKON B, 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. b. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment EPA is proposing to change the listing for R–404A and R–507A from acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for stand-alone equipment as of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to servicing existing equipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016. For instance, equipment retrofitted to R–404A or R–507A prior to January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those refrigerants. 40 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 (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832) and docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286) and information is found in a SNAP proposed rule signed June XX, 2014 and docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2013–0748). E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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. For equipment still operating using ozone-depleting refrigerants, we believe there are options available other than R–404A and R– 507A that present lower overall risk to human health and the environment that are available. Our analysis indicates that other options such as HFC–134a can be used to retrofit stand-alone units. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines? a. New Vending Machines EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC–134a and other refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON B, 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. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 600 up to approximately 3,990. Acceptable existing substitutes with lower GWPs that pose less risk to human health and the environment in this end-use include R–744, which is currently being used in this end-use. In addition, EPA recently proposed to find R–600a, R–290 and R–441A acceptable subject to use conditions in new vending machines (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). We note that some redesign would be required to meet the use conditions set for all three of these substitutes—R–600a, R–290 and R– 441A— in the recent proposal (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). These four substitutes (R–744 and the three proposed hydrocarbons) have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC–134a with a GWP of 1,430, R– 404A with a GWP of approximately 3,920, and R–507A with a GWP of approximately 3,990. None of these substitutes currently listed or proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While the HCs (R–441A, R–600a and R– 290) are VOCs, EPA’s analysis indicates that their use as refrigerants in this enduse would not significantly affect meeting national ambient air quality standards. (ICF 2014e).41 These three substitutes are also flammable; however, the proposed use conditions for these three substitutes would ensure they do 41 EPA has proposed to exempt R–290 (propane) R–600a (isobutane) and R–441A in vending machines from the venting prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 not pose greater risk than substitutes that are already listed as acceptable (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). None of the substitutes currently listed or proposed to be listed as acceptable present significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. Hence, we find that R–290, R–600a and R–441A are potentially available and present a lower overall risk to human health and the environment than HFC– 134a and the other refrigerants proposed to be listed as unacceptable in new vending machines. For new vending machines, EPA has found R–744 acceptable without use conditions. While the vast majority of vending machines using non-ODS refrigerant currently use HFC–134a, units are now being manufactured to use R–744. At least one major global buyer of vending machines is committed to transitioning all of their new U.S.-placed equipment to R–744.42 Given the large market share that this company holds, it is likely that R–744 components and units are already or will shortly become a viable option for all vending machine OEMs and purchasers. Given the zero ODP and low GWP of R–744 and the other hydrocarbons that EPA has proposed to find acceptable subject to use conditions in vending machines, the use conditions that we have proposed to establish for the hydrocarbon refrigerants, and the fact that the risks based on other factors such as toxicity are not greater than for HFC–134a, we propose to change the listing of HFC–134a and the alternatives listed in the first paragraph of this section to unacceptable in new vending machines. Under our proposal, the following refrigerants would remain 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, RS–24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR–02. These refrigerants have GWPs from approximately 50 to approximately 3,100, while the two refrigerants proposed unacceptable, R–404A and R– 507A, have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985, respectively. In this respect, these two refrigerants present a higher risk to human health and the environment. Looking at the other SNAP criteria, we find that those refrigerants remaining acceptable present similar risk to human health and the environment: they are nonflammable, they are not VOCs, and they do not exhibit significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. Hence, we believe these options present lower overall risk to human health and the environment than R–404A and R–507A. EPA is proposing to change the listing for R–404A and R–507A from acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for vending machines operating on CFC–12, HCFC–22, and blends containing HCFCs, as of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to servicing existing equipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment that had been retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016, including those systems previously using ozone-depleting refrigerants such as HCFC–22. For instance, systems retrofitted to R–404A or R–507A prior to January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those refrigerants. 5. When would the listings change? Through this action, we are proposing that all listing changes that apply within commercial refrigeration would occur on the same date—January 1, 2016. Looking at the intersection between the end-use and the alternatives EPA believes that changing the listings as of January 1, 2016, allows sufficient opportunity for any planned new installations or manufacturing equipment lines in these end-uses to be redesigned to use a substitute to the refrigerants we are proposing to find unacceptable. We also believe that this date would allow any plans for future retrofits to these blends to be reconsidered, given the multiple other substitutes that would remain acceptable. For many years other refrigerants such as R–407A and R–407F that would remain on the acceptable lists pursuant to our proposal have been gaining market share in supermarket applications, in both new equipment and as retrofit fluids.43 As part of this market expansion, manufacturers have developed equipment to use them, and that equipment is available to buyers now. In addition, many companies have implemented these other refrigerants, in both new construction and as retrofits, and have built up the skills, knowledge and experience to more fully utilize these refrigerants in a timeframe that would accommodate January 1, 2016 as 42 The Coca-Cola Company has identified carbon dioxide as its HFC-free refrigerant of choice for new equipment (Coca Cola, 2012). 43 ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. b. Retrofit Vending Machines PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules the date of unacceptability. For standalone equipment and vending machines, new equipment is being installed using refrigerants that are acceptable or are proposed acceptable with use conditions, including R–744, R–290 and R–600a.44 EPA requests comment on this proposed date. EPA is also interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition within the proposed timeframe. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 6. Applicability To Service of Existing Equipment As noted above, EPA is not proposing to alter the ability to service existing retail food refrigeration equipment or vending machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 2016. We recognize the value of the currently installed appliances and are not seeking to shorten their useful lifetime. EPA also recognizes that servicing for existing equipment is often accomplished with recovered and recycled refrigerants. EPA seeks comments on allowing for the continued servicing of the existing retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 2016. 7. Energy Efficiency Consideration Energy efficiency has not historically been a criterion by which a refrigerant is analyzed under the SNAP program, and it is not used as one of the criteria in this proposal. However, EPA recognizes that the energy efficiency of particular models of equipment is a significant factor when choosing commercial refrigeration equipment. We also recognize that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular thermodynamic and thermophysical properties that refrigerant possesses. Throughout the phaseout of ozonedepleting substances, EPA has seen the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment increase, despite changing refrigerant options. In some cases, this was because new chemicals were developed that possessed unique properties that allowed high energy efficiency levels to be obtained. In addition, technological improvement in equipment designs and controls has increased energy efficiency. Although today’s proposal would eliminate some refrigerant choices, we do not believe it would have a detrimental effect on this trend in increased energy efficiency. In fact, there are multiple case studies available that highlight the energy efficiency 44 Ibid. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 gains achieved by some of the low-GWP refrigerants, such as R–744, R–290 and R–600a, that are available or potentially available for the end-uses addressed in this proposal. We welcome additional information and comment on improved energy efficiency associated with switching refrigerants. For instance, in supermarket refrigeration, a theoretical analysis (Emerson 2014) examined the energy use of R–407A and R–410A, both of which would remain acceptable under this proposal, against that of R–404A, which would be listed as unacceptable. Although this analysis found that both blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop in efficiency in the low-temperature part of the store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream), they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% increase in the medium-temperature part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy products, chilled prepared food). Given that supermarkets have significantly larger use of medium-temperature equipment, the net effect would be for the alternatives to use less energy than R–404A. This manufacturer’s analyses showed similar increases in energy efficiency compared to R–404A in supermarkets and stand-alone equipment for a variety of low-GWP refrigerants that are not yet listed under SNAP but are in development. While that manufacturer’s analysis showed slightly higher energy consumption than R–134a in theoretical calculations for stand-alone equipment, other results with actual equipment have shown otherwise. For instance, in stand-alone equipment, one user reported that ‘‘HC freezers are significantly more energy-efficient and use a natural hydrocarbon refrigerant with lower global warming potential than the HFC refrigerants commonly used in US freezers’’ (Ben and Jerry’s, 2014). Likewise, for vending machines, one purchaser has indicated that while introducing over one million units using R–744, they have increased the energy efficiency of their cooling equipment over 40% since 2000, many years after they adopted HFC–134a (Coca-Cola, 2014). Finally, we note that energy efficiency is influenced, but not determined, by the refrigerant. As new products are designed for the use of particular refrigerants, manufacturers have the opportunity to change designs to take advantage of a given refrigerant’s characteristics. The redesign and development phase is also an opportunity to improve other components that will affect the overall efficiency of the equipment, such as the use of more efficient motors and compressors, improved heat exchangers, PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46147 better controls, improved insulation (e.g., on display cases) and sealing (for products with doors), more efficient lighting, etc. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has promulgated, under separate rulemaking and separate authority, energy efficiency requirements for several types of commercial refrigeration equipment, including products that would be affected by this proposal. While EPA’s proposal would limit the choice of refrigerant a manufacturer could use in new equipment, EPA notes that such equipment would still be subject to the DOE requirements and would normally need to meet the standards set.45 As discussed above, EPA does not believe this proposal would prevent compliance with the DOE rules, and we note that many compliant models are already commercially available that do not use the refrigerants EPA has proposed as unacceptable. EPA requests comment on the effects this proposal would have on the energy efficiency of the commercial refrigeration end-uses addressed and in particular the effect, if any, this proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE standards. 8. What other options is EPA considering? EPA is considering but is not proposing to change the listing for several other substitutes in retail food refrigeration. We are seeking comment on these substitutes. a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems When analyzing supermarket retail food refrigeration systems, as an alternative to changing the listing to unacceptable for HFC–227ea, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R– 428A, and R–434A, we are considering setting a use restriction to limit the charge size of these chemicals allowed to be used in condensing units and supermarket systems. Supermarkets could use systems employing one of the 45 Refrigeration equipment in the applicable covered equipment class would still be subject to DOE’s standards, regardless of the refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue hardship by a regulatory standard prescribed by DOE (in contrast to one that is statutorily prescribed by Congress), the manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant regulatory relief from a standard promulgated by DOE on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 many advanced refrigeration designs currently deployed in the United States, such as distributed refrigeration, secondary-loop, and cascade designs. To set the charge size limit, EPA is considering the charge size limit that is necessary, but not fully sufficient, to achieve a Gold-Level Store Certification under EPA’s GreenChill Store Certification Program.46 That specification requires that the store must achieve an average HFC refrigerant charge equal to or less than 1.25 pounds of refrigerant per MBTU/hr total evaporator heat load.47 For new equipment, one reason we are considering a use restriction requiring a small charge is to limit the amount of high-GWP refrigerant that would be emitted in a catastrophic event. However, given the high GWP of these refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are available in these end-uses, we do not believe that use with a small charge size adequately addresses the greater risk they pose. Further, we recognize that using a lower-GWP refrigerant, such as R–407A or R–407F, is also possible in smallcharge systems, and several stores are operating with such systems today. For retrofits, two primary factors lead us to consider a use restriction for a small charge size in place of listing the substitutes as unacceptable. First, there are many different supermarket systems in operation with ozone-depleting refrigerants today, and there may be some concern that not all could be retrofitted with the lower-GWP blends, i.e., whether there truly are alternatives ‘‘available’’ for the purpose. As to this concern, we reflect on three points. First, based on the regulations phasing out CFCs in 1996, equipment using CFCs today would be at least 18 years old, beyond the typical average lifetime.48 Because it is typical to retire older equipment before newer equipment, it is likely that many stores using those refrigerants would be decommissioned, or the refrigeration systems would be replaced rather than retrofitted. Second, we do not see an impediment in the continued operation of stores currently using refrigerants proposed unacceptable for new and/or retrofit equipment (see section 6 above). We know that some stores have systems 46 Additional information on GreenChill is available at http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/. 47 In addition to reaching this HFC charge size limit, stores must use only non-ozone-depleting refrigerants and must meet a store-wide annual refrigerant emissions rate of no more than 15% in order to be certified at the Gold level. 48 For example, IPCC 2006 indicates that the average lifetime of medium and large commercial refrigeration equipment is between seven and 15 years. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 that continue to use CFC–12 and/or R– 502, the production and import of which was phased out in 1996, and believe the same long equipment lifetimes can be achieved, if desired, with equipment installed prior to January 1, 2016, using the refrigerants we propose as unacceptable. Finally, where retrofits to refrigerants that are not proposed as unacceptable have occurred, the industry has been able to achieve acceptable capacity and efficiency levels. All these factors point to the ability of industry to make business decisions on which stores to decommission or retrofit and when to do so while maintaining their operations without the need to rely on the refrigerants we are proposing as unacceptable. Second, some have questioned whether removing options from the list of acceptable retrofit substitutes might present a perverse incentive for stores with older systems (more likely to leak) to continue use of ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily HCFC–22 but also CFC–12, R–502, and multiple blends containing HCFCs, rather than retrofit or replace those systems with a new refrigerant. While production and import of HCFC–22 and all other HCFCs used in the acceptable retrofit blends are capped, the stores using them would continue to leak ozone-depleting refrigerants into the atmosphere. The additional refrigerant that they would need to service that leaky equipment might not have been produced in the first place if the demand was not there. Nonetheless, given the tight controls on production and import of ozonedepleting refrigerants, we believe the market will determine where those limited supplies are directed and where a store may retrofit to a refrigerant other than those proposed to be listed as unacceptable. EPA requests comments on both concerns addressed above, particularly the availability of substitutes able to work with the design of existing systems that might be retrofitted, and the possible perverse incentives an unacceptable listing might bring to continue to operate older, less efficient, and/or leakier ODS systems. EPA also requests comments on the specified charge size limit and how it would be met in both new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems) if EPA were to propose a use restriction rather than take final action by listing some or all of these refrigerants as unacceptable for condensing units and supermarket systems. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 b. New Stand-Alone Equipment and Vending Machines For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines, we are considering maintaining the acceptability status of HFC–134a and blends with a lower GWP—FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, SP34E, THR–02, and THR– 03—subject to a use restriction. One reason to maintain the acceptability of these refrigerants, in particular HFC– 134a, would be to allow niche applications to continue to use the primary refrigerant employed in these end-uses while new low-GWP substitutes are developed. For new vending machines, we are considering whether substitutes other than HFC–134a are available for lowtemperature refrigeration applications, for instance, for ice-cream novelty or microwavable frozen-food vending machines and, if not, whether to establish a use restriction that HFC– 134a could only be used in vending machines designed for, and maintaining, an internal temperature of 32 °F (0 °C) or below. However, we believe that the availability of R–744, which is listed as acceptable, and the availability of HCs, which we have proposed to list as acceptable, do not support such an action. We are requesting comment on the viability of these substitutes in low-temperature applications. Further, we are asking for comment on the supply of components designed for R–744, hydrocarbons, or other potential substitutes for use in low-temperature vending machines and how that supply might affect the ability of manufacturers to continue to provide such equipment to meet these applications and customers’ requirements including energy efficiency goals. For new stand-alone equipment, we note that HCs pose additional challenges related to their flammability. Some stand-alone retail food refrigeration appliances utilizing HCs have required design changes, and our use conditions require meeting specific charge size limits, raising questions of the viability of HCs in all larger applications within this end-use. EPA is considering adding a use restriction limiting the use of HFC–134a and the blends mentioned to only larger-sized units, while finding it unacceptable in smaller-sized units. To determine the dividing line between ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘large’’ units, we are considering options such as the number of doors within a single unit, the refrigeration capacity of the unit, and the interior volume. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Although we are considering this option, we are not proposing it because we feel other options exist to design units using other less harmful alternatives, even in large stand-alone units. The SNAP acceptability listing for R–744 in stand-alone equipment does not include a restriction on charge size or any other use condition. We also recognize the ability to apply separate refrigeration circuits within a given cabinet; for instance one circuit with up to 150 grams of R–290 to cool a portion of the unit and a second circuit with up to 150 grams of R–290 to cool the rest of the unit. Such dual-circuit designs might be particularly effective if different parts of the unit are used for different products that require different temperature conditions or have different refrigeration loads. EPA seeks comments on this option and particularly on how one would determine what size of a unit could not use substitutes that would remain on the acceptable list under this proposal or that we have recently proposed be added to the acceptable list; where the dividing line would be drawn; and how such a use restriction could avoid unintended consequences such as the over-sizing of units to allow the use of HFC–134a. EPA believes that R–744, an acceptable option for both new standalone retail food refrigeration equipment and new vending machines, and R–290, an acceptable substitute for new standalone retail food refrigeration equipment and proposed as acceptable for new vending machines, could satisfy the vast majority of new equipment in these enduses. However, we seek additional information and studies that would help us understand whether certain designs (e.g., 3-door and other large retail food refrigeration stand-alone equipment) could meet the charge size limit in the case of R–290. We also seek information regarding whether certain applications (e.g., low-temperature vending machines) could be effective while maintaining current energy efficiency levels in the case of R–744. c. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment and Vending Machines EPA has proposed to find R–404A and R–507A unacceptable for retrofits in both stand-alone equipment and vending machines. EPA is considering also changing the acceptability status of several other refrigerants to unacceptable. Under this option, we would change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment): KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 42.5/1.5), R–404A, 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–507A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), and RS–44 (2003 formulation). Likewise, this option would change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit vending machines: KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407C, R– 417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–422B, R– 422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–437A, R– 438A, R–507A, and RS–24 (2002 formulation). The refrigerants in these two lists have GWPs that range from 1,505 to 3,985. These refrigerants have higher GWPs than HFC–134a, which would remain acceptable for retrofits, and in this respect pose a higher risk to human health and the environment. Similar to HFC–134a, these other refrigerants do not pose increased risk due to toxicity, flammability, ODP and ecological effects. EPA believes that HFC–134a would be the most likely refrigerant to be used to retrofit stand-alone equipment and vending machines still operating on ozone-depleting refrigerant. EPA questions whether the other refrigerants listed above would serve any retrofit need, and whether finding them unacceptable would reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA believes some existing vending machines and standalone equipment still use class I ozonedepleting refrigerants such as CFC–12 and R–502 and that even more equipment continues to use class II ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily HCFC–22. Other than HFC–134a, we do not believe there are substitutes that would likely be used for most of this equipment for purposes of retrofitting. We seek comment on the option of finding other substitutes, in addition to R–404A and R–507A, unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants in vending machines and stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment. In particular, we are interested in an assessment of the existing stock of equipment operating with ozone-depleting refrigerants, the likelihood that they will require a retrofit before being replaced with a new unit, and the substitute(s) that could be and are likely to be used. d. Status of R–404A and R–507A in Other End-Uses Considering the high GWP of R–404A, R–507A, and some of the other blends proposed as unacceptable, EPA is considering finding them unacceptable in several other end-uses, besides retail PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46149 food refrigeration and vending machines, such as cold storage rooms and warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport, and industrial process refrigeration. We believe that the substitutes that are being used in retail food refrigeration, such as R–407A and R–407F, would be theoretically viable in these other end-uses too, given that the operational characteristics of such equipment, such as temperature to be maintained, are similar. Those two substitutes, and others, have been found acceptable in the four end-uses mentioned. In addition, low-GWP substitutes have been found acceptable under SNAP for some of these end-uses, and research is underway in the others. For example, for the industrial process refrigeration end-use, R–744, R–717, and several HCs have been found acceptable. For cold storage warehouses, R–744 is acceptable for new equipment, and R–717 is in widespread use. R–744 for refrigerated transport and HCs for ice machines have been tested and, although not yet listed under SNAP, are being used outside the United States. In these two end-uses, the list of acceptable refrigerants is similar to that for supermarket applications, spanning a wide range of GWPs. Several HFC blends with GWPs considerably lower than those of R–404A and R–507A are being used in retail food refrigeration, especially in supermarkets and, as stated above, are acceptable in the four end-uses mentioned; however, we have limited knowledge of their use in these other end-uses. For that reason, we have not proposed finding R–404A and R– 507A unacceptable in these other enduses. EPA requests comment on the use and viability of both low-GWP refrigerants (e.g., R–744, R–717, and HCs) and other HFC-blends (e.g., R–407A and R–407F) and the possibility of listing R–404A, R– 507A, and other high-GWP blends unacceptable in any or all of these four end-uses—cold storage warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport, and industrial process refrigeration. EPA also solicits comments on the feasibility of the proposed deadlines and whether earlier or later dates would be more appropriate. D. Foam Blowing Agents EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable beginning January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit, for HFC–134a and blends thereof in all foam blowing end-uses, and for HFC– 365mfc, HFC–245fa and blends thereof for all foam blowing end-uses except spray foam applications. Specific enduses and applications include: (1) Rigid E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 polyurethane appliance foam; (2) flexible polyurethane; (3) rigid polyurethane: commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; (4) rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other); (5) rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; (6) integral skin polyurethane; (7) polystyrene (extruded sheet); (8) polystyrene: extruded boardstock and billet; (9) polyolefin; and (10) phenolic insulation board and bunstock. In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for the following foam blowing agents in the following enduses as of January 1, 2017: (1) Formacel B in polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral skin polyurethane, polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin; (3) Formacel Z–6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4) HFC–143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock. 1. Background Foams are plastics (such as polyurethane or polystyrene) that are manufactured using blowing agents to create bubbles or cells in the material’s structure. The foam plastics manufacturing industries, the markets they serve and the blowing agents used are extremely varied. The range of uses includes building materials, appliance insulation, cushioning, furniture, packaging materials, containers, flotation devices, filler, sound proofing and shoe soles. Some foams are rigid with cells that still contain the foam blowing agent, which can contribute to the foam’s ability to insulate. Other foams are open-celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at the time the foam is blown, as for flexible foams. Historically, a variety of foam blowing agents have been used for these applications. CFCs and HCFCs were typically used given their favorable chemical properties. CFCs and HCFCs are controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of production and import under section 604 for CFCs and section 605(b)–(c) for HCFCs and use restrictions on HCFCs under section 605(a). The regulations implementing section 610 of the CAA include a ban on VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 sale or distribution of foam products blown with class I and class II ODS: however, for foam products containing a class II ODS, the ban is subject to an exception for foam insulation products as defined at 40 CFR 82.62. The SNAP program has found acceptable a variety of non-ODS blowing agents, including HFCs (e.g., HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc), hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, and methyl formate. In addition, lowGWP fluorinated compounds in use include HFO–1234ze(E) and trans-1chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice 1233zd(E)). Blowing agents are approved on an end-use basis. The SNAP program considers the following end-uses: a. Rigid polyurethane (appliance foam) includes insulation foam in domestic refrigerators and freezers. b. Rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels) includes buoyancy foams, insulation for roofing, wall, pipes, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, and refrigerated transport vehicles. c. Rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other) includes insulation for panels and pipes. d. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock includes insulation for roofing and walls. e. Flexible polyurethane includes foam in furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles. f. Integral skin polyurethane includes car steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles. g. Polystyrene (extruded sheet) includes foam for packaging and buoyancy or flotation. h. Polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet) includes insulation for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes. i. Polyolefin includes foam sheets and tubes. j. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation for roofing and walls. 2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents? EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 365mfc, and any blends containing these blowing agents for all foam enduses and applications except for spray foam as of January 1, 2017. In addition, we propose to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for the following foam blowing agents in the following end-uses: (1) Formacel B in polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral skin polyurethane, polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin; (3) Formacel Z–6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4) HFC–143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock, all as of January 1, 2017— that is, it would be prohibited to blow foam using these blowing agents for these uses beginning January 1, 2017. In addition, we propose that it would be prohibited to import closed cell foam products or products containing closed cell foam that contain any of the blowing agents listed as unacceptable. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in particular what would be the legal basis for doing so. Finally, we are providing a limited exception to the date when the unacceptability determinations apply for certain military and space applications where there is documentation that additional time is required to complete qualification testing. a. What other foam blowing agents are being used? Various foam blowing agents have been historically used. The opportunity to use hydrocarbons (HCs), CO2, and water in the 1990s for a range of foam blowing applications in the United States has allowed many foam blowing end-uses and applications to transition from ODS, thus reducing the end-uses that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have been a low-GWP and cost-effective alternative available for large parts of the foam sector, particularly in flexible polyurethane foam, polystyrene sheet foam, polyurethane slabstock foam, polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, phenolic, and polyolefin foams. HCs also are used in most of the other end-uses, but less extensively than in these six end-uses. However, flammability of foam blowing agents, including HCs, can be a concern, particularly for spray foam applications. Over the past ten years both fluorinated and non-fluorinated alternatives have expanded both the list of options for specific foam uses and the foam uses in which these alternatives are now used has also grown. A number of new foam blowing agents with low GWPs have been introduced during the E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules past several years. Many end users have indicated interest in these newer alternatives, often to improve energy efficiency of the foam products manufactured with the foam blowing agent. Production volumes for some of these newer substitutes are expanding rapidly to keep pace with growing demand. For example, HFO–1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene have recently been listed as acceptable. HFO–1336mzz(Z) is currently under review by EPA as a substitute foam blowing agent. These newer substitutes, which do not raise the flammability concerns of HCs, may prove appropriate for end-uses where flammable agents raise safety concerns. The process and timing for retooling facilities that use the blowing agents or that incorporate the foam product into another product will vary depending on the substitute selected. In some cases, manufacturing facilities such as household refrigerator manufacturers have already begun the testing of and transitioning to lower-GWP substitutes for foam blowing. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute foam blowing agents? i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents The HFCs that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 794 for HFC–365mfc to 4470 for HFC–143a, which is significantly higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes. The HFC blends that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs that vary depending on the specific composition; the range of GWPs for blends are 140 to 1500 for Formacel B, 1330 to close to 1500 for Formacel TI, 370 to 1290 for Formacel Z–6, 740 to 1030 for blends of HFC–365mfc with at least 4% HFC–245fa, and 900 to 1100 for commercial blends of HFC–365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC–365mfc. All of the HFCs and HFC blends that we are proposing to find unacceptable consist of compounds that are non-ozonedepleting and are VOC-exempt. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. For example, HFC– 134a, HFC–143a, and HFC–245fa can be used consistent with their respective AIHA WEELs of 1000 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 200 ppm (8-hr TWA) in the foam end-uses where they are acceptable. Of the foam blowing agents that we propose to be unacceptable, some are nonflammable (HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Formacel TI, blends of HFC–365mfc VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 with at least 4% HFC–245fa, and commercial blends of HFC–365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC–365mfc), while others are flammable (HFC–365mfc and HFC– 143a). The HFC blends Formacel B and Formacel Z–6 may be flammable depending on the exact composition, with the less flammable or nonflammable formulations having higher GWPs, in some cases as high as 1300 to 1500. In addition to the GWP of foam blowing agents, another potential climate impact from foam blowing agents is the insulation value of the blown foam. This may matter for rigid insulation foams, where the foam blowing agent may add more or less insulation value to rigid polyurethane appliance foam; rigid polyurethane spray, commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam; polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet; rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; and phenolic insulation board and bunstock. A foam with better overall insulation value can reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions from power plants if the foam insulation results in greater energy efficiency and less need for heating or cooling. Some studies have indicated that hydrocarbons and CO2 may provide less insulation value to an insulation foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent information on some of the newer fluorinated foam blowing agents with low GWPs, such as HFO–1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene, indicates these foam blowing agents provide comparable or greater insulation value than their HCFC and HFC predecessors and therefore may be of interest to companies considering transition to more energy-efficient options. In addition, even a foam blowing agent that provides less insulation value may still not impact the foam’s overall energy efficiency where thicker foam is used. Because of the variety of foam blowing agents available in each end-use, we believe that there are sufficient options that will not have an adverse impact on indirect greenhouse emissions. ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam For rigid polyurethane appliance foam, saturated light HCs (C3–C6 49), CO2, vacuum panels, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO–1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable 49 These are hydrocarbons with three to six carbons, including propane, butane, isobutane, pentane, isopentane, cyclopentane, and hexane. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46151 alternatives (in-kind and not-in-kind) with GWPs that range from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing appliance foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene contains chlorine and has measurable ODP. Its ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 50 51 is roughly one order of magnitude higher than the ODP of HFC–134a which is considered to have zero ODP.52 Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1-ene’s impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant.53 Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC– 134a, Formacel TI, HFC–245fa, HFC– 365mfc, and Formacel Z–6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. iii. Flexible Polyurethane For flexible polyurethane used for foam furniture, bedding, chair cushions, shoe soles and other applications, acceptable substitutes include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3–C6), Exxsol blowing agents, CO2, ecomateTM (i.e., methyl formate), HFC–152a, and water with GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Of the substitutes listed for flexible polyurethane, all have an ODP of zero. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these substitutes because they may be used for blowing flexible polyurethane foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt 50 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.’’ Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. 51 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. 52 Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit. 53 Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46152 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules from the definition of VOC. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC–152a, and hydrocarbons are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, and HFC–365mfc have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam For rigid polyurethane spray foam, which includes insulation for roofing, wall, pipes, and buoyancy, acceptable substitutes include HFC–245fa, commercial blends of HFC–365mfc and HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC– 365mfc, blends of HFC–365mfc and at least 5% HFC–245fa, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO– 1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs ranging from zero to 1100. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for spray foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP, and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Flammability is of particular concern in spray foam applications, in part because they are applied onsite in pressurized equipment with spray guns, sometimes in proximity to hot, flammable substances such as tar. The alternative manufacturers have developed training to assist end-users in addressing the flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this enduse (Exxsol blowing agents and ecomateTM); however, these alternatives have limited, if any, use in spray foams in the United States.54 55 Flammability 54 UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. 55 UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at http:// ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/ FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 risks are more difficult to mitigate than in most other foam applications because, unlike in a factory setting, it is unlikely that ventilation can be provided that removes flammable vapors and maintains them below the lower flammability limit, and it is not practical to make all electrical fixtures explosion proof when applying spray foam in place in a residential building. Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC– 134a and blends thereof and Formacel TI unacceptable in this application. We are proposing that HFC–245fa; commercial blends of HFC–365mfc and HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC– 365mfc; and blends of HFC–365mfc and at least 5% HFC–245fa remain acceptable in spray foam because these three nonflammable foam blowing agents reduce overall risk compared to the available flammable alternatives. The three HFC blends that remain acceptable reduce overall risks to human health and the environment compared to HFC–134a and Formacel TI in this application because they have lower GWPs. v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels For rigid polyurethane used in commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, which includes insulation for roofing, wall, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, buoyancy, and refrigerated transport vehicles, acceptable alternatives include saturated light HCs (C3–C6), ecomateTM, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO–1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene with GWPs ranging from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing foam for commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of hydrocarbon, and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected to be statistically insignificant. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, formic acid, hydrocarbons, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In these applications, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, Formacel Z–6 and Formacel B have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foam For rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam, saturated light HCs (C3–C6), CO2, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO–1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs that range from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing slabstock foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP, and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC–134a, Formacel TI, HFC– 245fa, HFC–365mfc, and Formacel Z–6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. vii. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock For rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, saturated light HCs (C3–C6), CO2, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC–152a, HFO– 1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing laminated boardstock consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, trans-1chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene’s impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, and HFC–365mfc have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet For polystyrene extruded sheet, acceptable substitutes include saturated light hydrocarbons (C3–C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM (methyl formate), and HFC–152a. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded polystyrene foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC–152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 365mfc, Formacel TI and Formacel Z–6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet For polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet, acceptable substitutes include saturated light hydrocarbons (C3–C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM (methyl formate), HFC–152a, and HFO–1234ze(E). These VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded polystyrene foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC–152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 365mfc, Formacel B and Formacel Z–6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. x. Integral Skin Polyurethane In integral skin polyurethane, which includes foam in car steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles, substitutes include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3–C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, ecomateTM, HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–152a, and trans-1chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing integral skin polyurethane foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, acetone, methyl formate, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC–152a, and hydrocarbons are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 365mfc, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z– 6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46153 thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. xi. Polyolefin Foam For polyolefin foam, saturated light HCs (C3–C6), CO2, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC–152a, blends of HFC–152a and saturated light HCs, HFO–1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing polyolefin foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs, HC blends, and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC–134a, Formacel TI, HFC– 245fa, HFC–365mfc, and Formacel Z–6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock In phenolic insulation board and bunstock, which includes insulation for roofing and walls, acceptable substitutes include saturated light HCs (C3–C6),), CO2, 2-chloropropane, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO– 1234ze(E), and HFC–152a. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing phenolic foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of 2chloropropane, hydrocarbons, and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, 2-chloropropane, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC–152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46154 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC–143a, HFC–134a, HFC– 245fa, and HFC–365mfc have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. For the foam end-uses listed above, both fluorinated and non-fluorinated substitutes are being used today in the U.S.; EPA recognizes that the formulator and systems house will consider other criteria including toxicity, flammability, and local air quality. However, given the range of substitutes available, we believe that there are other alternatives available for formulators or systems houses that pose less risk for human health and the environment than the HFCs and HFC blends proposed to be listed as unacceptable. c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing foams? EPA is proposing to regulate foam blowing agents contained in the cells of closed cell foams and proposes to consider these foams and products containing them to be subject to the proposed unacceptability determinations, as well as the use of the foam blowing agent in manufacturing those products. Section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act refers to ‘‘replacing’’ ODS with substitutes. In the case of the foam blowing agent sector, we have previously interpreted unacceptability determinations as referring solely to replacing the foam blowing agent and have not interpreted the SNAP lists to apply to products made with foam. Thus, an unacceptable foam blowing agent may not be used in or imported into the United States. However, products made with unacceptable foams blown overseas may be imported. For example, refrigerators containing appliance foam blown with the unacceptable blowing agent HCFC–141b may still be imported into the United States, even though the SNAP program has listed HCFC–141b as an unacceptable foam blowing agent (September 30, 2004 at 69 FR 58269). Under this interpretation of our SNAP regulations if this proposal becomes final the foam blowing agents we are proposing to find unacceptable would be prohibited from being used or imported into the United States, but foam products or products containing foam, such as appliances or furniture made with these unacceptable foam blowing agents, could be imported. In this rule, EPA is proposing to adopt a different interpretation for closed cell foams that would result in prohibiting VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:56 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 both import and manufacture of products made with the blowing agents proposed to be unacceptable. This approach would have an effect similar to the earlier nonessential product ban for products containing unacceptable foam blowing agents, prohibiting import and distribution of such products. For closed cell foams, the blowing agents are retained in cells after the foam is blown and provide insulation value. Foam blowing end-uses that contain closed-cell foams include rigid polyurethane appliance foam; rigid polyurethane: Spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other); rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; polystyrene (extruded sheet); polystyrene: extruded boardstock and billet; polyolefin; and phenolic insulation board and bunstock. Foam blowing end-uses containing open cell foams include flexible polyurethane and integral skin polyurethane. In comparison, in open cell foams, the blowing agent is not retained and would have escaped prior to import. Thus, an open cell product blown with an unacceptable foam blowing agent (or products containing such an open cell foam) would not contain any of that agent when imported in the United States whereas a closed cell product would still retain some of the foam blowing agent. EPA is proposing and is seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to products with closed cell foam since the product still contains at least some of the foam blowing agent and thus is replacing other foam blowing agents. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in particular on what would be the legal basis for doing so. d. When would the listings change? Through this action, EPA is proposing to change the listings for foam blowing agents as of January 1, 2017. Based on information concerning the timeframes from past transitions, EPA believes this date allows sufficient opportunity to redesign for a different foam blowing agent. However, EPA is seeking comment on changing the listings as of January 1, 2016. The foam industry was able to convert from HCFC–142b and HCFC–22 to other acceptable substitutes between EPA’s proposed unacceptability determination in November 2005 and its final determination in March 2007, which specified that existing users of the unacceptable HCFCs must transition by PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 March 1, 2008, for most uses. EPA also provided an additional 18 months for this transition for marine flotation foam, to September 1, 2009, and allowed until January 1, 2010, for a transition away from HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in extruded polystyrene foam boardstock (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). EPA is requesting comment on using January 1, 2017 as the date on which foam must not be blown using HFC–134a, HFC– 365mfc, HFC–245fa, HFC–143a and blends thereof, or Formacel B, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. We are also seeking comment on whether a transition could be completed by January 1, 2016. In particular, we request comment on whether these dates would be sufficient time for the transition where the foam product is incorporated into a larger product (e.g., commercial refrigeration foam used in transport refrigeration), and whether there are any specific foam end-uses or applications that may require additional time and, if so, how long and why. Based on this information, EPA could consider grandfathering options for foam blowing agents in specific enduses or could provide a different date for use to be unacceptable. e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-Related Applications EPA is proposing an exception to the proposed unacceptability determination for HFC and HFC blend foam blowing agents for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications. EPA is also proposing that the narrowed use limit would expire on January 1, 2022. Under a narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space- and aeronautics application would need to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible and document the results of their analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). For the military, there are several unique performance requirements related to weapon systems that require extensive testing prior to qualifying alternatives for HFCcontaining foams. While the vast majority of applications for foams are anticipated to be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by the proposed January 1, 2017 date, in a very small number of cases, the timeframes associated with testing and qualifications for weapon systems could take longer. In addition, some of the lower-GWP alternatives may not be available at this time in certain specialty applications with unique military requirements such as undersea; aerospace; and chemical, biological, and radiological warfare systems. In the case of space- and aeronautics-related E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 applications, HFCs are used in numerous applications, including certain mission-critical applications such as foam blowing for which appropriate substitutes have not yet been identified. Past experience indicates that transitions away from CFC- and HCFC-blown foams in similar applications took several years due to the challenging operational environment and the lengthy requalification process associated with human-rated space flight systems. Under the acceptable for narrowed use limits category, users of a restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible. Users are expected to undertake a thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the otherwise restricted substitute. Although users are not required to report the results of their investigations to EPA, users must document these results, and retain them in their files for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Under a narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space- and aeronautics- related application would need to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible and document the results of their analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Documentation should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. EPA is seeking comment on this proposed narrowed use limitation for military or space- and aeronauticsrelated applications In addition, EPA is also seeking comment on the timeframe for this narrowed use limitation, recognizing that if all alternatives are not qualified in advance of 2022, the Agency may need to revisit and adjust the end date. closed cell foams should be subject to the unacceptability determinations, which under our current interpretation would otherwise only apply to the use of the foam blowing agent. We also seek comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in particular what would be the legal basis for doing so. EPA also requests comment on whether the proposed date provides an appropriate length of time for transition and whether there should be different dates for certain foam enduses due to technical challenges that may exist for some foam end-uses but not all. EPA is also interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition in the timeframe proposed in this action. EPA also takes comment on the proposed exception for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications as described above. f. Summary EPA seeks comments on changing the listings for the proposed foam end-uses. In particular, EPA is interested in whether there are specific uses other than spray foam that require the use of HFC–134a, HFC–365mfc, HFC–245fa, and blends thereof, or the blends Formacel B, Formacel TI, or Formacel Z–6 for reasons of fire safety or technical feasibility. We request comment on whether closed cell foam products and products containing A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the three HCFCs and in which end-uses? EPA is proposing to modify the listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b, and HCFC–22, as well as blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable in all sectors 56 except refrigeration and air VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs? EPA is proposing to modify the listings for three HCFCs in certain enduses because the three HCFCs are subject to the use restrictions in CAA section 605(a) and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. Additionally, the nonessential products ban under CAA section 610 also restricts sale and distribution of certain products containing or manufactured with these three HCFCs. We believe it is important that the SNAP listings not indicate that these HCFCs may be used when another program under title VI of the CAA would prevent such use. Thus, we are proposing to align the requirements. The HCFCs addressed in this rule are listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions in the aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks sectors. This in addition to the proposed unacceptability of HCFC-containing refrigerants in MVAC systems (see section V.B. of this preamble). 56 These three HCFCs have previously been listed as unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46155 conditioning. EPA is not addressing HCFC use for refrigeration and air conditioning because CAA section 605(a) and our implementing regulations allows for continuing use of HCFCs to service equipment. We are proposing that the listings would be modified 60 days following issuance of a final rule promulgating this proposal. B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs? EPA is proposing to modify the listings for these three HCFCs and blends containing these HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with other Title VI regulations, specifically section 605 and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 610 and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C. 1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the Three HCFCs With Regulations Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610 CAA Section 605(a) explicitly prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce or the use of any class II substance as of January 1, 2015, unless such substance: (1) Has been used, recovered, and recycled; (2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in the production of other chemicals; (3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to January 1, 2020; or (4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression agent for nonresidential applications in accordance with section 612(c). Through rulemaking, EPA accelerated to January 1, 2010, the prohibitions on use and introduction into interstate commerce for HCFC–141b, HCFC–22, and HCFC–142b that has not been used, recovered, and recycled. See 40 CFR 82.15(g). With respect to refrigeration and air conditioning uses, EPA’s implementing regulations prohibit the use and introduction into interstate commerce of these HCFCs, unless used, recovered, and recycled, in equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. EPA’s proposal to modify the listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–22, and HCFC–142b, including blends that contain these HCFCs, in various applications is consistent with the accelerated dates contained in our implementing regulations and covers end-uses where these HCFCs have previously been listed as acceptable as aerosols, refrigerants, foam blowing agents, fire suppressants, cleaning solvents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46156 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Section 605(a) complements section 610, which prohibited the sale and distribution, as well as offer for sale and distribution, in interstate commerce of aerosol products and pressurized dispensers containing a class II substance (i.e., HCFCs), and plastic foam products containing or manufactured with a class II substance, with limited exceptions.57 This statutory prohibition took effect on January 1, 1994. Consequently, most foams and aerosols have not used HCFCs since 1994. Recognizing that other HCFCs are not yet subject to the use and interstate commerce prohibitions in section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), EPA is not proposing to change the SNAP listings for HCFCs other than HCFC–141b, –142b, and –22 and blends containing those substances at this time. EPA may revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs in a later rulemaking as appropriate. 2. Anticipated Effects EPA does not anticipate that these changes will have a significant effect on the use of HCFC–141b, –142b, and –22 since existing regulations limit the use of these three HCFCs (unless used, recovered, and recycled) in almost all end-uses in the United States (see 40 CFR 82.15(g)). For the sectors addressed in this rulemaking, EPA is not aware of anyone using recovered, recycled or reclaimed HCFC–22, HCFC–141b and HCFC–142b. In addition, as a result of the use restrictions in CAA section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), as well as the sale and distribution restrictions on certain products containing or manufactured with these substances in CAA section 610 and 40 CFR part 82 subpart C, most sectors have taken significant steps to transition to non-ODS substitutes. For example, HCFCs in aerosol applications have been replaced by HCs, HFO– 1234ze, roll-ons, pump sprays, and HFC–152a, excluding some niche technical applications that still rely on HCFCs not addressed in this action. HCFCs in foam blowing agents have largely been replaced by, among other things, methyl formate, HCs, Solstice– 1233zd(E), and carbon dioxide; any remaining HCFC use in this sector is limited to HCFCs not addressed in this action. For these reasons, we believe it is technically feasible for sources to comply with the proposed changes to the listings for these three HCFCs within 60 days of a final rule issued consistent with this proposal. 57 Section 610(d) contains certain exceptions and also authorizes EPA to grant exceptions in specific circumstances. For the complete list of exceptions, see EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart C. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 EPA seeks comment on its proposal to modify the listings for HCFC–141b, –142b, –22, and blends containing these substances. EPA is particularly interested in comments on both the scope of the proposed modifications and the timing. VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports? The requirements of the SNAP program apply to both exports and imports. EPA understands that some manufacturers may be interested in whether the listing decisions, if finalized as proposed, would apply to their products. EPA has previously responded to comments about the applicability of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most recently, in a final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a comment concerning whether appliances manufactured for export should be allowed to have larger charge sizes than those being sold in the United States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being established in that rule). EPA stated that: Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: The distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. This definition applies to any appliances produced in the United States, including appliances that will be exported. (76 FR 78846) Therefore, EPA concluded that the same use conditions apply to appliances being exported. The range of sectors and end-uses covered by the SNAP program varies. Some end-uses, such as the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, includes appliances charged by OEMs and appliances typically field-charged. Some appliances charged by OEMs are hermetically sealed and other appliances are not. Furthermore, these appliances differ from products such as PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 aerosols or foams because of the potential for servicing the appliances throughout their use. Some manufacturers of motor vehicle air conditioners identified a potential concern that there may be a lack of servicing infrastructure for low-GWP alternatives in markets outside the U.S. EPA recognizes that the transition to alternatives may occur at a different pace in different global markets. For example, the European Union is planning to transition to low-GWP alternatives for MVACs in 2017 which is several years earlier than what EPA is proposing. However, other countries have not indicated any specific plan to transition to low-GWP alternatives for MVACs. If finalized as proposed, HFC– 134a would be listed as unacceptable in model year 2021 and the unacceptability listing would include MVACs that will be exported. EPA applies the SNAP requirements equally to imports and exports. However, EPA understands the concerns for proper infrastructure for servicing appliances in markets outside the U.S. EPA believes there is ample time between now and model year 2021 for such infrastructure to be established. EPA welcomes comments and specific information on this topic. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a ‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ It raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. EPA conducted an analysis 58 that considered the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, as further discussed in the section C below. The analysis also considered that, specific to refrigerants used in air conditioning systems for newly manufactured light-duty vehicles, there are considerable environmental benefits of a transition to alternative refrigerants and there are costs associated with those substitutions. Based on recent information in manufacturers’ product 58 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives, 2014. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules plans, a limited number of manufacturers may have been planning to meet the GHG standards but still continue to use HFC–134a beyond MY 2021 for a limited number of their models. However, we believe there is time for any such manufacturers to make appropriate adjustments. These manufacturers could incur costs attributable to this proposal (representing the proposed requirement to cease use of HFC–134a by MY 2021), but there would be environmental benefits in the form of increased reductions of GHG emissions from MVAC systems which would not otherwise occur, assuming these manufacturers also continue with their plans to achieve the reductions by means other than substitution of MVAC refrigerant. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This proposed rule is an Agency determination. It contains no new requirements for reporting. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060–0226. This Information Collection Request (ICR) included five types of respondent reporting and recordkeeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: Submission of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test marketing activity, recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small volume uses. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.C. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After conducting an analysis 59 that considered the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The requirements of this proposed rule with respect to HFCs, if finalized as proposed, would impact manufacturers of some consumer and technical aerosol products, retail food refrigeration equipment, vending machines, motor vehicles, and products containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, polyurethane, and polystyrene foams. The requirements of this proposed rule with respect to HCFCs, if finalized as proposed, would affect manufacturers of aerosols, foams, solvent cleaning, fire suppression, and adhesives, coatings, and inks. This rule’s provisions do not create enforceable requirements for refrigeration and air conditioning technicians, but they would indirectly affect technicians servicing motor vehicle air conditioning systems, retail food refrigeration equipment, and vending machines where the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC equipment owner, purchases servicing equipment for different refrigerants. EPA expects these indirect impacts on technicians are minimal, because the transitions to different refrigerants required by this rule are already occurring due to other regulations (e.g., light duty vehicle GHG rule) and corporate social responsibility initiatives (e.g., Consumer Goods Forum pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and because many of the still-acceptable alternatives are already used for these refrigeration or air conditioning equipment types. Further, most acceptable HFC refrigerant blends can be recovered and serviced using equipment that service technicians already own. In some uses, there is no significant impact of the proposed rule because the substitutes proposed to be prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use of HFC–134a as a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC– 134a as a foam blowing agent in various polyurethane foams). A significant portion of the businesses regulated under this rule are not small businesses 59 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives, 2014. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46157 (e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers). About 500,000 small businesses could be subject to the rulemaking, although more than 99% of small businesses subject to this proposed rulemaking would be expected to experience zero compliance costs. EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts, in particular technical challenges, including time to transition, that may exist for some small entities but not all. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of this proposed rule related to prohibiting certain substitutes, including HFC–134a, R– 404A and R–507A, would require new equipment to be manufactured using other available options but would not require changes to existing equipment that is already manufactured or purchased. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This regulation applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from State and local officials. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46158 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule restricts the use of certain substitutes that have greater overall risks for human health and the environment, primarily due to their high global warming potential. The reduction in GHG emissions would provide climate benefits for all people, including benefits for children and future generations. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peerreviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to the alternatives addressed in this action. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol uses are not related to the supply, distribution, or use of energy. For the end-uses that are related to energy effects such as refrigeration and air conditioning, a number of alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants that are proposed as unacceptable in this action; many of the alternatives are as energy efficient or more energy efficient than the substitutes being proposed as unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Docket Management System, Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 104–113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013. Ben and Jerry’s, 2014. Cleaner, Greener Freezers. This document is accessible at http://www.benjerry.com/values/howwe-do-business/cleaner-greener-freezers. CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on ClimateFriendly Alternatives in Commercial Refrigeration. Meeting Summary. 8 December 2012. This document is accessible at http://www.unep.org/ccac/ Portals/50162/docs/TechForum/ FINAL%20REPORT%20Commercial%20 Technology%20Forum%20final.pdf. Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible at: http://assets. coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b 6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-grireport.pdf. Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 Millionth HFC-Free Cooler Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, January 22, 2014. This document is accessible at http://www.coca-cola company.com/press-center/pressreleases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionthhfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2. Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol Pressurized Products Survey—61st Annual Products Survey. April 15, 2012. Daimler, ‘‘Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler’s Safety Concerns About New Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,’’ Stephen Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily Environment Report, March 11, 2014. This document is accessible at http:// news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_ display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname= dennotallissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split= 0. Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is accessible at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040: EN:HTM. Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 13, 2014. EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009. This document is accessible at: www.epa.gov/ climatechange/Downloads/ endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf. EPA, 2012. Factsheet: Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation 2000–2012. This data is accessible at: www.epa.gov/ spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/ recsum.pdf. EPA, 2013. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013. EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. EPA, Greenchill. ‘‘Advanced Refrigeration’’. This document is accessible at: http:// www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ documents/gc_storecertprogram 08232011.pdf. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This proposed rule, if finalized, would prohibit a number of substances with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and GWP emissions would assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and provide climate benefits. IX. References This preamble references the following documents, which are also in the Air Docket at the address listed in Section I.B.1. Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the Federal PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 EPA Memorandum: ‘‘Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning Alternative Refrigerant Transition’’, Tad Wysor, April 2014. GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 2008. Honeywell, 2014. Aerosols Overview— Honeywell Solstice® Propellant. EPA meeting. February 27, 2014. ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. April, 2014. ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary CostAnalysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June, 2014. IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/ 2006gl/index.html. IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_ data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York). Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. Nelson, Gabe ‘‘Automakers’ switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate’’ Automobile News, December 30, 2013. This document is accessible at http://www. autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/ 312309996/warmingto-the-idea. NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp. cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/. Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trichloropropylene and trans-1,2dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867– 10874, 2010. UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/ Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/ FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report. pdf. UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document is accessible at http://www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/ pdf/HFC_report.pdf. UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. This document is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/ Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/ TEAP_Reports/TEAP_ TaskForce%20XXIV-7-May2013.pdf. Velders, G. J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S.O. Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46159 emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.’’ Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. Weissler, Paul, ‘‘A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R–1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,’’ Automotive Engineering International, April 2, 2013. This document is accessible at http://articles.sae.org/ 11870/. WMO, 2010. World Meteorological Organization. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project— Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer. Dated: July 9, 2014. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 82 as follows: PART 82—PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 7671q. Subpart G—Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 2. Amend Subpart G by adding Appendix U to read as follows: ■ Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82— Unacceptable Substitutes and Substitutes Subject To Use Restrictions Listed in the [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Final Rule, Effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46160 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—AEROSOLS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES End-use Substitute Decision Further information Propellants ........................... HFC–125 ........................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 Propellants ........................... HCFC–22 and HCFC– 142b. Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] Solvents ............................... HCFC–141b ....................... Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] HFC–125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 354–33–6 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane. HFC–125 has a high GWP of 3,500. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b for aerosols is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. These propellants have ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively. Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC–141b for aerosols is prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. HCFC–141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11. TABLE 2—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS Substitute Propellants ..... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 End-use HFC–134a .... VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Decision Acceptable subject to use conditions. Jkt 232001 Use conditions Further information As of January 1, 2016, acceptable only for use in: • Metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs • cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics • lubricants for electrical equipment or electronics • sprays for aircraft maintenance • pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellantsmold release agents • lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics • duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron microscopes • document preservation sprays • wound care sprays topical coolant sprays for pain alleviationproducts for removing bandage adhesives from skin. HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811– 97–2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Use is allowed for the specified uses because of the greater technical and safety demands in these applications compared to other aerosol applications. It is prohibited to use aerosol products other than those specified here using HFC–134a that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2016. Aerosol products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46161 TABLE 2—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued End-use Substitute Decision Propellants ..... HFC–227ea .. Acceptable subject to use conditions. Use conditions Further information As of January 1, 2016, acceptable only for use in metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. HFC–227ea has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 431–89–0 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane. HFC– 227ea has a relatively high GWP of 3,220. Use is allowed for metered dose inhalers because of the greater technical and safety demands in this application compared to other aerosol applications. It is prohibited to use aerosol products other than metered dose inhalers using HFC– 227ea that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2016. Aerosol products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. TABLE 3—REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES End-use Substitute Decision Further information Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit). R–404A .............................. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit). R–507A .............................. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. Retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)(new). HFC–227ea, R–407B, R– 421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– 434A. R–407B, R–421B, R– 422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. HFC–134a ......................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC– 227ea, 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–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, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–03. R–404A .............................. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. Retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)(retrofit). Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone units only) (new only). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Retail food refrigeration(stand-alone units only) (new only). Vending machines (new and retrofit). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 R–404A is a blend, by weight, of 44% HFC–125, 4% HFC–134a, and 52% HFC–143a. It has a high GWP of approximately 3,920. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. R–507A is a blend, by weight, of 50% HFC–125 and 50% HFC–143a. It has a high GWP of approximately 3,990. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,607. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,607. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 550 to 3,607. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. R–404A is a blend, by weight, of 44% HFC–125, 4% HFC–134a, and 52% HFC–143a. It has a GWP of approximately 3,920. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46162 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued End-use Substitute Vending machines (new and retrofit). R–507A .............................. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. Vending machines (new only). HFC–134a ......................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. Vending machines (new only). FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/290/ 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ 42.5/1.5), R–407C, R– 410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R– 422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–437A, R–438A, RS– 24 (2002 formulation), SP34E. HFC–134a ......................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and lightduty trucks only). Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and lightduty trucks only). Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and lightduty trucks only). Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and lightduty trucks only). Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and lightduty trucks only). Decision Further information Unacceptable as of Model Year (MY) 2021. R–406A, R–414A (HCFC Blend Xi, GHG–X4), R– 414B (HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG–X5, HCFC Blend Lambda (GHG–HP). R–416A (FRIGC FR–12, HCFC Blend Beta). Unacceptable as of MY 2017. SP34E ............................... Unacceptable as of MY 2017. R–426A (RS–24, new formulation). Unacceptable as of MY 2017. Unacceptable as of MY 2017. R–507A is a blend, by weight, of 50% HFC–125 and 50% HFC–143a. It has a GWP of approximately 3,990. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 550 to 3,085. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. These refrigerants all contain HCFCs. They have GWPs ranging from 1,480 to 2,340 and ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately 1,080 and an ODP of approximately 0.008. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately 1,410. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately 1,510. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 End-use HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46163 TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. HFC–134a and Formacel TI. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Flexible Polyurethane. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and Other. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Rigid Polyurethane: Spray. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46164 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof, Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Integral Skin Polyurethane. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Polyolefin ........... HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 End-use HFC–143a, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. Acceptable until January 1, 2022 only in military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: • Process or product in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. TABLE 5—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES End-use Substitute Decision Further Information All ......................................... Blends of HCFC–141b ...... Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]. HCFC–141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11 under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously found HCFC–141b unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses (appendix M to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). HCFC–141b has an ODP of 0.11. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46165 TABLE 5—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued End-use Substitute Decision Further Information Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b for foam blowing is prohibited after January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A unless used, recovered, and recycled. These compounds have ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065 respectively under the Montreal Protocol. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Polyolefin ............................. HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends thereof. Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]. Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. HFC–134a and Formacel TI. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof, Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Polyolefin ............................. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock. HFC–143a, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 365mfc, and blends thereof. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Rigid Polyurethane: Spray ... Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels. Flexible Polyurethane .......... Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and Other. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock. Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet. Integral Skin Polyurethane .. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including GWP. TABLE 6—FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES Substitute Decision Further information Total Flooding ...................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 End-use HCFC–22 ........................... Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]. Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC–22 for total flooding fire suppression and explosion protection is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.055. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 46166 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7—STERILANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES End-use Substitute Decision Further information Sterilants .............................. Blends containing HCFC– 22. Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]. Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC–22 for sterilants is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. HCFC–22 has an ozone depletion potential of 0.055. TABLE 8—ADHESIVES, COATINGS AND INKS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES End-use Adhesives, coatings and inks. Substitute Decision HCFC–141b and blends thereof. Further information Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]. Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC–141b for adhesives, coatings and inks is prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11. [FR Doc. 2014–18494 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46125-46166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18494]



[[Page 46125]]

Vol. 79

Wednesday,

No. 151

August 6, 2014

Part VII





 Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 82





Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain 
Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 46126]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198; FRL-9910-19-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS18


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for 
Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action proposes to 
change the status of a number of substitutes that were previously 
listed as acceptable, based on information showing that other 
substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk 
overall to human health and/or the environment. Specifically, this 
action proposes to modify the listings for certain hydrofluorocarbons 
in various end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air 
conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. This action also proposes use 
conditions that would restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons to those 
uses where there are not substitutes available or potentially available 
that reduce overall risk to human health and/or the environment. This 
action also proposes to change the status from acceptable to 
unacceptable for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased out of 
production under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 
Ozone Layer and Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2014. EPA is 
planning to hold a public hearing to take place on August 27, 2014, 
starting at 9 a.m. in Room 1153, EPA East (entrance from 1201 
Constitution Avenue), Washington, DC and further information will be 
provided on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0198, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: A-And-R-Docket@epa.gov.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0198. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.B. of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and 
Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca von dem Hagen, Stratospheric 
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9445; fax number (202) 
343-2338, email address: vondemhagen.rebecca@epa.gov. Notices and 
rulemakings under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 
program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at 
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. How does the SNAP program work?
    A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the 
SNAP program?
    B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
    C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
    D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
    E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the 
SNAP program?
    F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
    G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a 
determination?
    H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP 
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have 
bearing on this proposed decision to modify prior SNAP 
determinations?
IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing 
status for substitutes with a high global warming potential?
    A. Summary of Petitions
    B. How Today's Action Relates to Petitions
V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?
    A. Aerosols
    1. Background
    2. Aerosols Today
    3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?
    a. What other alternatives are available?
    i. Consumer Aerosols
    ii. Technical Aerosols
    iii. Medical Aerosols
    b. What other approaches is EPA considering?
    c. When would the modified listings apply?

[[Page 46127]]

    d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?
    B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for Newly Manufactured Light-
Duty Motor Vehicles
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC-134a and use of 
refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty 
motor vehicles?
    3. Would this action affect EPA's light duty vehicle rule?
    C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food 
refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)?
    a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    b. Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone 
equipment?
    a. New Stand-alone Equipment
    b. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment
    4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines?
    a. New Vending Machines
    b. Retrofit Vending Machines
    5. When would the listings change?
    6. Applicability to Service of Existing Equipment
    7. Energy Efficiency Consideration
    8. What other options is EPA considering?
    a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    b. New Stand-alone Equipment and Vending Machines
    c. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment and Vending Machines
    d. Status of R-404A and R-507A in Other end-uses
    D. Foam Blowing Agents
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?
    a. What other foam blowing agents are being used?
    b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the 
substitute foam blowing agents?
    i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents
    ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam
    iii. Flexible Polyurethane
    iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam
    v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial Refrigeration and 
Sandwich Panels
    vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foam
    vii. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated 
Boardstock
    viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet
    ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet
    x. Integral Skin Polyurethane
    xi. Polyolefin Foam
    xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock
    c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products 
containing foams?
    d. When would the listings change?
    e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-
related Applications
    f. Summary
VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs?
    A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the 
three HCFCs and in which end-uses?
    B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?
    1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the Three HCFCs With 
Regulations Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610
    2. Anticipated Effects
VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
IX. References

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

    This notice of proposed rulemaking would change the status of 
certain substitutes \1\ previously found acceptable under the 
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. EPA is proposing to 
modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and 
air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives are 
available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk. Per 
the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection 
between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use. This 
action does not propose that any specific HFCs be unacceptable across 
all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any 
specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free. EPA 
recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, hydrofluoroolefins 
(HFOs)) and non-fluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon dioxide 
(CO2)) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead, 
consistent with SNAP's history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA 
is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes being 
considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of 
other available and potentially available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The terms ``substitutes'' and ``alternatives'' are used 
interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use:
    (1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of 
January 1, 2016
     HFC-125 as unacceptable;
     HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 
allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical 
aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in 
consumer aerosols); and
     HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 
allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers.
    (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly 
manufactured light-duty vehicles, we are proposing to list
     HFC-134a as unacceptable starting with model year (MY) 
2021; and
     The refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A (also known as RS-
24), R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-
414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as 
HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 
12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as 
unacceptable starting with MY 2017.
    (3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including 
stand-alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket systems, 
and indirect supermarket systems) and new and retrofit vending 
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     The HFC blends R-507A and R-404A as unacceptable.
    (4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including 
direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems), we are 
proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, 
and R-434A as unacceptable.
    (5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending 
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     HFC-134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as 
unacceptable.
    (6) For foam blowing agents, we are proposing to list, as of 
January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit,
     HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable in all foam 
blowing end-uses;
     HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and 
the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam 
blowing end-uses where they are currently listed as

[[Page 46128]]

acceptable, except for spray foam applications; and
     The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam 
blowing end-uses where it is currently listed as acceptable.
    In general, EPA is proposing modifications to the listings based on 
the SNAP program's comparative risk framework. The sections that follow 
provide the analyses supporting the proposed listing modifications and 
the dates when the modified listings would apply to users of these 
substitutes. In addition, EPA has prepared supporting documentation on 
this rule including market characterizations, analyses of costs 
associated with sector transitions, estimated benefits associated with 
the transition to alternatives, and potential small business 
impacts.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The emissions reductions from this 
proposed rule are estimated to be 31 to 42 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020. These documents are 
available in the docket for commenters to review. EPA is planning to 
prepare a consolidated analysis document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols 
Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
May, 2014.
    \3\ ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams 
Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
May, 2014.
    \4\ ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial 
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
    \5\ ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air 
Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
    \6\ ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 
Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP 
Alternatives. April, 2014.
    \7\ EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status 
Change Rule, June 2014.
    \8\ ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory 
Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June 
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also proposing to modify the listings for 
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well as 
blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable 
in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion 
protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. These 
modifications reflect the existing regulations promulgated under CAA 
sections 605(a) and 610(d) codified at 40 CFR part 82 subparts A and C. 
The modified listings would take effect 60 days following issuance of a 
final rule promulgating this proposal.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Potential entities that may be affected by this proposed rule 
include:

     Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                    NAICS Code              Description of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................          238220  Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors
Industry.................................          324191  Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
Industry.................................          325199  All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry.................................          325412  Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
Industry.................................          325510  Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Industry.................................          325520  Adhesive Manufacturing
Industry.................................          325612  Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods
Industry.................................          325620  Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Industry.................................          325998  All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and
                                                            Preparation Manufacturing
Industry.................................          326140  Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
Industry.................................          326150  Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene)
                                                            Manufacturing
Industry.................................          333415  Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
                                                            Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
                                                            Manufacturing
Industry.................................          336211  Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing
Industry.................................            3363  Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Industry.................................          339113  Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Retail...................................          423620  Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and
                                                            Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers
Retail...................................          423740  Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant
                                                            Wholesalers
Retail...................................           44511  Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience)
                                                            Stores
Retail...................................          445110  Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience)
                                                            Stores
Retail...................................          445120  Convenience Stores
Retail...................................           44521  Meat Markets
Retail...................................           44522  Fish and Seafood Markets
Retail...................................           44523  Fruit and Vegetable Markets
Retail...................................          445291  Baked Goods Stores
Retail...................................          445292  Confectionary and Nut Stores
Retail...................................          445299  All Other Specialty Food Stores
Retail...................................            4453  Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores
Retail...................................          446110  Pharmacies and Drug Stores
Retail...................................           44711  Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores
Retail...................................          452910  Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
Retail...................................          452990  All Other General Merchandise Stores
Services.................................           72111  Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels
Services.................................           72112  Casino Hotels
Retail...................................           72241  Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
Retail...................................          722513  Limited-Service Restaurants
Retail...................................          722514  Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets
Retail...................................          722515  Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide 
regarding entities likely to use the substitute whose use is regulated 
by this action. If you have any questions about whether this action 
applies to a particular entity,

[[Page 46129]]

consult the person listed in the above section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)
    Do not submit confidential information to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance 
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and 
page number).
     Follow directions-The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or 
section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline.

D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?

    Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble 
of this document:

ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AIHA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification 
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH 4--Methane
CO2--Carbon dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon dioxide equivalent
DOE--United States Department of Energy
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency-US
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FDA--United States Food and Drug Administration
FR--Federal Register
GHG--Greenhouse gas
Gt--Gigaton
GWP--Global warming potential
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
ICR--Information collection request
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MDI--metered dose inhaler
MVAC--Motor vehicle air conditioning
N2--Nitrogen
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NIOSH--United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OEM--Original equipment manufacturer
ODP--Ozone depletion potential
ODS--Ozone-depleting substance
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL--Permissible exposure limit
PFC--Perfluorocarbons
ppm--Parts per million
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
REL--Recommended exposure limit
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SF 6-- Sulfur hexafluoride
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
TLV--Threshold limit value
TWA--Time-weighted average
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC--Volatile organic compounds
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit

II. How does the SNAP program work?

A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP 
program?

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the 
Agency) to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-
depleting substances. This program is known as the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 
are:
1. Rulemaking
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful 
to replace any class I (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and 
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) 
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may 
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the 
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the 
overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently 
or potentially available.
2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes 
that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a 
corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The 
list of ``acceptable'' substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists and the lists of ``unacceptable,'' ``acceptable subject to use 
conditions,'' and ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits'' 
substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.
3. Petition Process
    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to 
add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in 
accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny 
a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the 
revised lists within an additional six months.
4. 90-day Notification
    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a 
chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not 
less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into 
interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class 
I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the 
producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
5. Outreach
    Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to 
maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist 
users of class I and II substances in identifying and

[[Page 46130]]

developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial 
applications.
6. Clearinghouse
    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public 
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and 
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and 
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR 
13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program 
and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable 
substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82, subpart 
G). These sectors are the following: Refrigeration and air 
conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and 
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and 
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal 
industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of 
ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to 
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use 
sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and 
safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before 
introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an 
alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement typically applies 
to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be planning to 
introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,\9\ it may also apply 
to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end-users \10\ 
when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. 
The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission 
and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data. 
40 CFR 82.180(a). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), 
prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after a complete 
submission has been provided to the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 ``interstate commerce'' means 
the distribution or transportation of any product between one state, 
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another 
state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the 
sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, 
territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for 
which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the 
release of a product from the facility in which the product was 
manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic 
manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at 
the site of United States Customs clearance.
    \10\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 ``end-use'' means processes or 
classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors 
where a substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for 
substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use 
conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and 
unacceptable.\11\ 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use 
limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained 
below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions 
can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within 
the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. 
Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used 
only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found 
to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the 
rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable 
substitutes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to 
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under 
this provision.
    \12\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``use'' means any use of a 
substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound, 
including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or 
product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses, 
such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This 
definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both 
for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the 
United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP 
requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in 
the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a 
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the 
substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the 
environment are not significantly greater than other available 
substitutes. EPA describes such substitutes as ``acceptable subject to 
use conditions.'' Entities that use these substitutes without meeting 
the associated use conditions are in violation of section 612 of the 
Clean Air Act and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use 
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use 
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an 
industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use 
substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are 
available for their specific application. EPA describes these 
substitutes as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.'' A person 
using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in 
applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use 
limit is using these substitutes in violation of section 612 of the CAA 
and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
    The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute 
that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower 
risk alternative is available or potentially available \13\ provides 
EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular 
substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed 
circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In addition to acceptable commercially available 
substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available 
substitutes. The SNAP program's definition of ``potentially 
available'' is ``any alternative for which adequate health, safety, 
and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification 
process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which 
the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if 
not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not 
yet produced or sold.'' (40 CFR 82.172)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal 
Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any 
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute 
as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or 
to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable 
substitutes.
    In contrast, EPA publishes ``notices of acceptability'' to notify 
the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no 
restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially 
implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does 
not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list 
substitutes that are acceptable without restrictions because such 
listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a 
substitute.
    Many SNAP listings include ``comments'' or ``further information'' 
to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional 
information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements 
are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. 
However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other 
regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by 
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health

[[Page 46131]]

Administration (OSHA)). The ``further information'' classification does 
not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the 
use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding 
under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply 
all statements in the ``further information'' column in their use of 
these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to 
sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing 
industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus, many of the 
statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make 
significant changes in existing operating practices.

D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?

    The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the 
preamble to the initial SNAP rule and based on section 612, are 
discussed below.
     Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework
    The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds 
compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the ozone 
depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk 
factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential as well 
as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and 
contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.
     Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found 
acceptable
    For substitutes to be found acceptable they must pose less risk 
than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk free. Where 
risks of a substitute would otherwise be higher than other substitutes, 
EPA may find these alternatives acceptable subject to use conditions or 
narrowed use limits that would manage the risk.
     Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse
    EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only 
marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely 
difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's 
choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but a few 
substitutes for each end-use. Thus, the Agency will not list a 
potential substitute as unacceptable unless EPA determines that the 
substitute is significantly more harmful to human health or the 
environment than other available or potentially available alternatives.
     Evaluate risks by use
    Central to SNAP's evaluations is the intersection between the 
characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use 
application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use. 
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly 
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk 
characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the 
environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses. 
This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect 
to different types of risk to either the environment or to human 
health.
     Provide the regulated community with information as soon 
as possible
    The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community 
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as 
possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of 
acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable, 
acceptable to use conditions or acceptable subject to narrowed use 
limits in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain lists of 
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
     Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies
    The Agency does not issue company-specific product endorsements. In 
many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on 
individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable 
list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that 
company's products.
     Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted
    In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed 
extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes 
that address any potential environmental impacts that may result from 
the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances. For 
example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased use 
of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The SNAP 
program takes existing regulations under other programs into account 
when reviewing substitutes.

E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP 
program?

    EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute 
is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at 
Sec.  82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and 
environmental impacts, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability, 
and cost and availability of the substitute. To enable EPA to assess 
these criteria, we require submitters to include various information 
including ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential 
(GWP), toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human exposure.
    When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria 
in the following groupings:
     Atmospheric effects--The SNAP program evaluates the 
potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The 
SNAP program considers the ozone depletion potential and the 100-year 
integrated GWP of compounds to assess atmospheric effects.
     Exposure assessments--The SNAP program uses exposure 
assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which 
workers, consumers, the general population, and environmental receptors 
may be exposed over a determined period of time. These assessments are 
based on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. 
Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases 
including:
    (1) Releases in the workplace and in homes;
    (2) Releases to ambient air and surface water;
    (3) Releases from the management of solid wastes.
     Toxicity data--The SNAP program uses toxicity data to 
assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to 
substitutes. We use broad health-based criteria such as:
    (1) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational exposure;
    (2) Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-carcinogenic 
effects on the general population;
    (3) Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of the 
general population.
    When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a 
PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits from 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Workplace 
Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the American Industrial 
Hygiene Association, or Threshold Limit Values set by the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. If limits for 
occupational exposure or exposure to the general population are not 
already established, then EPA derives these values following the 
Agency's peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure

[[Page 46132]]

information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis 
for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to 
develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk 
characterizations.
     Flammability--The SNAP program examines flammability as a 
safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability 
risk using data on:
    (1) Flash point and flammability limits (e.g. OSHA flammability/
combustibility classifications);
    (2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components;
    (3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by 
independent laboratories; and
    (4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.
     Other environmental impacts--The SNAP program also 
examines other potential environmental impacts such as ecotoxicity and 
local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged 
to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes 
are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes whenever a 
potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant 
(under CAA sections 112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act subtitle C regulations.
    Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much 
broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many 
substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure 
that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater 
risk to human health and the environment than other available 
substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current 
overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our 
experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially 
available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by 
SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have 
evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human 
health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies.

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

    Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP 
determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and 
either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the 
SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision 
allows any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to 
the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a 
substance from either list. The second means is through the 
notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before 
introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant 
new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-
day notifications are required by section 612(e) of the CAA for 
producers of substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all 
other cases, by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of 
the Act to implement section 612(c).
    Finally, we interpret the section 612 mandate to find substitutes 
acceptable or unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own 
to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists. In determining 
whether to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists, we consider 
whether there are other available substitutes that pose a lower risk to 
human health and the environment. In determining whether to modify a 
listing of a substitute we consider new data not considered at the time 
of our original listing decision, including information on new 
substitutes and new information on substitutes previously reviewed.

G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a 
determination?

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the 
original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 
1994 (59 FR 13044), section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as 
unacceptable any substitute substance where it finds that there are 
other substitutes currently or potentially available that reduce 
overall risk to human health and the environment. In addition to 
comparing the human health and environmental effects of other available 
or potentially available substitutes for the same end-uses, we also 
compare substitutes to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out 
under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 
(Montreal Protocol) and under the CAA.
    The original SNAP rule included submission requirements and 
presented the environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP 
program considers in its comparative risk framework. Environmental and 
human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the 
particular application of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes decisions 
based on the particular end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA 
has, in many cases, found certain substitutes acceptable only for 
limited end-uses or subject to use restrictions.
    In May 2013 EPA stated:

    EPA recognizes that during the nearly two- decade long history 
of the SNAP program, new alternatives and new information about 
alternatives have emerged. To the extent possible, EPA considers new 
information and improved understanding of the risk factors for the 
environment and human health in the context of the available or 
potentially available alternatives for a given use. (78 FR 29035)

    It has now been about twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was 
promulgated. In that period, the menu of available alternatives has 
expanded greatly and now includes many substitutes with diverse 
characteristics and effects on human health and the environment. When 
the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes available for 
consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited. While the SNAP 
program's initial comparative assessments of overall risk to human 
health and the environment were rigorous, often there were few 
substitutes to apply the comparative assessment. The immediacy of the 
class I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed class II ODS (i.e., 
HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too would be phased out and 
were only an interim solution. Other Title VI provisions such as the 
section 610 Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605 Use 
Restriction meant a listing under the SNAP program did not convey 
permanence.
    Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has 
issued 18 rules and 28 notices expanding the menu of options for all 
SNAP sectors and end-uses. Comparisons today are to a broader range of 
options--both chemical and non-chemical--than at the inception of the 
SNAP program. Industry experience with these substitutes has also grown 
during the history of the program. This varies by sector and by end-
use.
    In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over 
the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global 
environmental issues. With regards to that information, many of the 
substitute-specific actions proposed in this rule have undergone 
comparative assessments that consider our evolving understanding of 
climate change. GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our 
evaluation framework, but along with all of our review criteria the 
amount and quality of information has expanded.
    To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP 
program considers new information and

[[Page 46133]]

improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health. 
EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing 
determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to 
unacceptable based on information made available to EPA after a listing 
was issued. For example, on January 26, 1999, EPA listed the 
refrigerant known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all 
refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses. EPA previously listed this 
blend as an acceptable substitute in various end-uses within the 
refrigeration and air conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 30275). 
Based on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals in 
the blend, EPA subsequently removed MT-31 from the list of acceptable 
substitutes and listed it as unacceptable in all refrigeration and air 
conditioning end-uses (January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3861).
    Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in 
2007 when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in 
the foam sector (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). These HCFCs, which are 
ozone depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were 
initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP 
than the substances they were replacing and there were no other 
available substitutes that posed lower risk at the time of EPA's 
listing decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and 
end-uses at a time when substitutes were far more limited. In light of 
the expanded availability of alternative substitutes with lower overall 
risk to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and 
taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA changed 
the listing for these HCFCs in these end-uses from acceptable to 
unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs 
would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay 
the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human 
health and the environment. EPA allowed existing users to continue use 
for a limited time to ensure that they could adjust their manufacturing 
processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes.

H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program?

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or 
additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the Agency's process for 
administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of 
substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published March 18, 
1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete 
chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at 
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.

III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have 
bearing on this proposed decision to modify prior SNAP determinations?

    GWP, along with other criteria, is a factor in the overall 
evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two 
decades, the general science on climate change and the potential 
contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change 
have become better understood.
    On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued two 
distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air 
Act \14\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The relevant scientific and technical information 
summarized to support the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or 
Contribute Finding can be found at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Endangerment Finding: the current and projected 
concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere -- CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 
(N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 
hexafluoride (SF6) -- threaten the public health and welfare 
of current and future generations.
     Cause or Contribute Finding: the combined emissions of 
these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor 
vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which 
threatens public health and welfare.
    Like the ODSs they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\15\ Though they 
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG 
emissions, their warming impact is very strong because they can remain 
trapped in the atmosphere for up to 250+ years impacting climate change 
20,000 times more powerfully than CO2, and their emissions 
are projected to accelerate over the next several decades if left 
unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are increasing 
more quickly than those of any other GHGs, and globally they are 
increasing 10-15% annually.\16\ At that rate, emissions are projected 
to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.\17\ HFCs are rapidly accumulating 
in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a, the most 
abundant HFC, has increased by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012, 
and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen over 13% and 
16% per year from 2007-2011, respectively.18 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone 
Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to 
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New 
York).
    \16\ UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and 
the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme.
    \17\ Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: 
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
    \18\ Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, 
Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
    \19\ NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6.4 
to 9.9 Gt CO2eq in 2050 \20\, which is comparable to the 
drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 
1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the 
atmosphere is projected to increase radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W 
m\2\. This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-quarter of the 
expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of 
CO2 since 2000, according to the IPCC's Special Report on 
Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011). To appreciate the significance 
of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all 
GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the CO2 
emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC's highest CO2 emissions 
scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO2 emissions based 
on the IPCC's lowest CO2 emissions pathway.21 22 
Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific 
literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, 
S. O. Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC 
emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
    \21\ HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone 
Layer. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp
    \22\ IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables 
[Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, 
H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical 
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. 
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 
NY, USA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46134]]

IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing 
status for substitutes with a high global warming potential?

A. Summary of Petitions

    EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain 
acceptability listings of HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends. The first 
petition was submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute for Governance and 
Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Environmental Investigation 
Agency-US (EIA). The petition requested that EPA remove HFC-134a from 
the list of acceptable substitutes for ODS and move it to the list of 
unacceptable substitutes in multiple uses. The petitioners subsequently 
clarified that they were requesting this change for the use of HFC-134a 
in new passenger cars and light-duty trucks, non-medical aerosols, and 
for certain refrigeration and foam blowing end-uses. In support of 
their petition, the petitioners identified other substitutes for use in 
motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) and other sectors, and claimed 
that these other substitutes present much lower risks to human health 
and environment than HFC-134a.
    On February 14, 2011, EPA found the petition complete for MVAC in 
new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it was 
incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. EPA noted in its response that, 
at a future date, the Agency would initiate a notice-and-comment 
rulemaking in response to the one complete aspect of the petition, 
noting in particular that EPA would evaluate and take comment on many 
factors, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for introduction 
of newer substitutes for MVAC systems into the automotive market and 
potential lead time for manufacturers of motor vehicles to accommodate 
substitutes. This proposed rule responds to the aspect of that petition 
that we found complete.
    On April 26, 2012, EPA received a petition from EIA. EIA stated 
that, in light of the comparative nature of the SNAP program's 
evaluation of substitutes and given that other acceptable substitutes 
are on the market or soon to be available, EPA should remove HFC-134a 
and HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable substitutes for uses 
where EPA found CFCs and HCFCs to be nonessential under section 610 of 
the Act. EIA also requested that the schedule for moving HFC-134a and 
HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable to unacceptable substitutes 
be based on the ``most rapidly feasible transitions to one or more of 
the'' acceptable substitutes for each use. The petitioner noted that 
initial approvals of HFC-134a for a number of end-uses occurred in the 
1990s and were based on the assessment made then that (1) HFC-134a does 
not contribute to ozone depletion; (2) HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric 
lifetime were close to those of other substitutes that had been 
determined to be acceptable for the end-uses; and (3) HFC-134a is not 
flammable, and its toxicity is low.\23\ The petitioner stated that the 
analysis used in the listing decisions may have been appropriate in the 
1990s but was no longer reflected accurately given the range of other 
available or potentially available substitutes at present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., 60 FR at 31097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to petitioning EPA for action under SNAP, the 
petitioner requested that the section 610 Nonessential Products Ban be 
extended to HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends for aerosols and pressurized 
dispensers (including tire inflators); foam blowing agents; novelty 
products (including propelled plastic party streamers, web string, 
artificial snow, specialty paints and excrement ``poop'' freeze); noise 
horns (including marine safety noise horns, sporting event noise horns, 
personal safety noise horns, wall-mounted industrial noise horns used 
as alarms in factories and other work areas, and intruder noise horns 
used as alarms in homes and cars); foam and refrigerants in new 
domestic refrigerators and freezers and other retail stand-alone 
coolers and freezers; and cleaning fluids for noncommercial electronic, 
photographic, and other equipment.
    On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the petitioner that this petition 
was incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further 
correspondence that can be found in the docket. Although EPA has found 
the petition incomplete, EPA's action in this proposal may be 
considered responsive to certain aspects of the petitions given EPA is 
proposing to change the listing of certain HFCs used in aerosols and 
foams from acceptable to unacceptable for most uses, and proposing to 
place use conditions on the remaining aerosol uses.
    A third petition was filed on April 27, 2012, by NRDC, EIA and 
IGSD. They requested that EPA:
     Remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes 
for CFC-12 in household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone 
retail food refrigerators and freezers;
     Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed refrigerants to all 
except certified technicians with access to service tools required 
under existing EPA regulations;
     Adopt a standardized procedure to determine the speed of 
transition from obsolete high-GWP HFCs to next-generation alternatives 
and substitutes;
     Remove, in addition to HFC-134a, all other refrigerants 
with 100-year GWPs greater than 150 from the acceptable substitutes 
list for household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone retail 
food refrigerators and freezers.

On August 7, 2013, EPA found this petition to be incomplete. EPA and 
the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found 
in the docket. Although EPA has found the petition incomplete, EPA's 
action in this proposal may be considered responsive to certain aspects 
of the petition, given EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC-
134a from acceptable to unacceptable for new stand-alone retail food 
refrigerators and freezers, as well as changing the listing of a number 
of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs for new and retrofit stand-alone 
retail food refrigerators and freezers.

B. How Today's Action Relates to Petitions

    This action primarily recognizes a call in the President's Climate 
Action Plan announced June 2013:

    To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead 
both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions . . 
. Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its 
authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to 
encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by 
identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while 
prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.

The Climate Action Plan also states ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the 
United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as 
well as domestic actions.'' This proposed rule is part of our domestic 
commitment to take action now and, by doing so, also supporting efforts 
to secure a global HFC phasedown. For the past five years, the United 
States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal 
Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global 
benefits of the proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90 
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent CO2eq through 2050. The United 
States,

[[Page 46135]]

the European Union, Japan and other countries are all taking actions 
that will promote the uptake of low-GWP alternatives and reduce use and 
emissions of high-GWP HFCs.
    This proposal responds to the President's Climate Action Plan and 
also addresses certain aspects of the three petitions referred to 
above. First, this action responds to the one aspect of the three 
petitions that EPA found complete, namely petitioners' request that EPA 
change the listing of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable in new 
MVACs. (See section V.B. in today's notice.) While EPA found all 
remaining issues in the three petitions incomplete with respect to the 
other end-uses, EPA has independently acquired sufficient information 
to address certain other requests made by the petitioners regarding 
listing high GWP HFCs as unacceptable. Specifically, based on our 
review of the aerosols, foams, and air conditioning and refrigeration 
sectors, we are proposing to revise the listings for a number of 
substitutes from acceptable to acceptable subject to use conditions, or 
unacceptable. (See sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of today's notice.) 
These substitutes have high GWPs as compared with other available or 
potentially available substitutes in those end-uses and pose 
significantly greater risk overall to human health and the environment. 
EPA considers the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend 
and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that any 
specific HFC be unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is 
also not proposing that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable 
substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., 
HFCs, HFOs and non-fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes 
are potentially acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP's history and 
Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications, 
and will consider future modifications, based on the substitutes being 
considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of 
other available and potentially available substitutes in specific 
sectors and end-uses.
    EPA recently issued a proposed rule (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811) 
that would list as acceptable subject to use conditions a group of 
refrigeration and air-conditioning alternatives that have been 
submitted and reviewed under the SNAP program. That rule would enhance 
the SNAP menu of acceptable alternatives for a number of related end-
uses by proposing to add several alternatives as acceptable subject to 
use conditions.
    As noted previously, to date, EPA has considered approximately 400 
alternatives. This level of development work serves as a clear 
demonstration of the efforts of industry to commercialize alternatives 
that continue to reduce overall risk and meet the needs of a wide range 
of consumers.
    Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated 
community on the SNAP related aspects of the President's Climate Action 
Plan, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the role 
that certainty plays in enabling this robust development and uptake of 
alternatives. Unfortunately, some of the key strengths of the SNAP 
program, such as its chemical and end-use specific consideration, its 
multi criteria basis for action, and its petition process tend to 
militate against some measures that could provide more certainty, such 
as bright line cut offs. That being said we do believe that the 
proposals we are making today, and future proposals we may make, may 
provide some guidelines on how EPA intends to apply specific criteria 
in individual end-uses. In addition, we remain committed to continuing 
our outreach efforts and to sharing our thinking at the earliest moment 
practicable on any future actions we might consider. Finally, and as it 
relates to potential future actions that that EPA might consider under 
the SNAP program, the Agency continues to welcome comments and ideas on 
measures we might consider within the SNAP context to provide greater 
certainty to both producers and consumers in SNAP regulated industrial 
sectors.

V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?

    EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to 
unacceptable for certain HFCs and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, 
and air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives 
are available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk. 
Per the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the 
intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular 
end-use. This action does not propose that any specific HFCs be 
unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing 
that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-
free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and non-
fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes are potentially 
acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP's history and CAA Section 
612, EPA is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes 
being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current 
suite of other available and potentially available substitutes.
    EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use:
    (1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of 
January 1, 2016
     HFC-125 as unacceptable;
     HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 
allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical 
aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in 
consumer aerosols); and
     HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 
allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers.
    (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly 
manufactured light-duty vehicles, we are proposing to list
     HFC-134a as unacceptable starting with model year MY 2021; 
and
     The refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A (also known as RS-
24), R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-
414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as 
HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 
12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as 
unacceptable starting with MY 2017.
    (3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including 
stand-alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket systems, 
and indirect supermarket systems) and new and retrofit vending 
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     The HFC blends R-507A and R-404A as unacceptable.
    (4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including 
direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems), we are 
proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, 
and R-434A as unacceptable.
    (5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending 
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     HFC-134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as 
unacceptable.
    (6) For foam blowing agents, we are proposing to list, as of 
January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit,
     HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable in all foam-
blowing end-uses;
     HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and 
the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam 
blowing end-uses where they are currently listed as acceptable, except 
for spray foam applications; and

[[Page 46136]]

     The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam 
blowing end-uses where it is currently listed as acceptable.
    In general, the dates in this proposal for modifying the SNAP 
listings are based on information concerning the availability of 
alternatives with lower overall risk to human health and the 
environment for the end-uses considered. EPA is requesting comment on 
the proposed dates. As noted in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
discussion in section IX of this preamble, EPA would like information 
on technical challenges that may exist. EPA is particularly interested 
in information concerning the supply of substitutes in sufficient 
quantities to meet the dates proposed in this action. EPA notes that 
several of the end-uses could be broken down further. EPA could 
consider adopting temporary narrowed use limits for a specific 
application of an end-use if the Agency determined that substitutes 
would be available for all but that specific application as of a 
particular date. For other applications in that end-use, the rule would 
list the substitute as unacceptable as of that date. For the specific 
application at issue, the rule could contain both a temporary narrowed 
use limit with an expiration date and a listing as unacceptable upon 
the expiration of the narrowed use limit. While the temporary narrowed 
use limit was in place, only persons using a substitute in the end-use 
for that specific application would be considered to not be in 
violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 
82.174(c)). In addition, any such end user would need to comply with 
the requirement to analyze and document that there are no other 
alternatives that are technically feasible for their specific end-use. 
To support the adoption of a temporary narrowed use limit for a 
specific application of an end-use in the final rule, commenters should 
explain why other alternatives would not be available for the specific 
application of that end-use and for what period of time.
    In determining whether to modify the listing decisions for 
substitutes based on whether other alternatives are available that pose 
lower risk to human health and the environment, we considered, among 
other things: scientific findings, information provided by the 
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that supports the Montreal 
Protocol, journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the 
regulations and supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings, 
presentations and reports presented at domestic and international 
conferences, and materials from trade associations and professional 
organizations. The materials on which we have relied may be found in 
the docket for this action. Key references are highlighted in section 
IX of today's notice.

A. Aerosols

1. Background
    The SNAP program provides listings for two aerosol end-uses: 
propellants and solvents. Aerosols typically use a liquefied or 
compressed gas to propel active ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder 
form. In the case of duster sprays used to blow dust and contaminants 
off of surfaces, the propellant is also itself the active ingredient. 
Some aerosols also contain a solvent, which may be used in 
manufacturing, maintenance and repair to clean off oil, grease, and 
other soils.
    Historically, a variety of propellants and solvents have been 
available to formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) and compressed 
gases (e.g., CO2, N2, N2O, compressed 
air) have long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the aerosol 
industry predominantly used CFCs. CFCs were excellent propellants 
because of their ability to produce a fine spray, their non-
flammability, their ability to be stored under low pressure, and their 
low reactivity with other ingredients. In 1978, in response to evidence 
regarding depletion of the earth's ozone layer, the United States 
banned CFC propellants. These regulations did not address HCFCs or 
solvent uses. For example, CFC-113 and methyl chloroform continued to 
be used as solvents in aerosols and HCFCs continued to be used.
    Many consumer products that previously used CFC propellants were 
reformulated or replaced with a variety of alternatives, including not-
in-kind substitutes, such as pump sprays or solid and roll-on 
deodorants. Aerosol propellant substitutes included HCFCs, HCs, HFCs, 
compressed gases, and oxygenated organic compounds. HCFCs are 
controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to 
regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of production and import 
under section 605(b)-(c) and use restrictions under section 605(a).
    In 1993, EPA issued regulations that implemented CAA section 610's 
Congressionally mandated ban on the sale and distribution or offer for 
sale and distribution of certain non-essential products containing 
ozone-depleting substances (40 CFR Part 82 Subpart C). All aerosol 
products and pressurized dispensers containing, or manufactured with, 
CFCs and HCFCs--except those specifically exempted by the regulations--
are banned from sale and distribution in interstate commerce in the 
United States. As a result of the Nonessential Products Ban, most 
aerosol products have been using low-GWP alternatives with no ozone 
depletion potential since the early 1990s.
2. Aerosols today
    Following the 1994 ban on the sale and distribution of aerosols 
using HCFCs, HCFC propellants were replaced with a range of 
alternatives including HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-152a), HCs, compressed 
gases, and not-in-kind alternatives. HCFC solvents were replaced by 
HFC-43-10mee, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, HCs, oxygenated organic compounds, 
hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), and trans-dichloroethylene (typically blended 
with an HFC or HFE to reduce flammability of the formulation). Other 
acceptable low-GWP fluorinated compounds include HFOs. HFO-1234ze(E) is 
in use and under development for use in the aerosol industry as a 
propellant for manufacturing aerosol products. EPA regulations issued 
pursuant to CAA section 605 prohibit the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b 
for manufacturing aerosol products. 40 CFR 82.15(g). EPA has proposed 
regulations addressing the use after January 1, 2015 of other HCFCs in 
aerosol products (e.g., HCFC-225ca/cb), as well as other provisions 
related to the phaseout of HCFCs under section 605 of the CAA (December 
24, 2013; 78 FR 78072).
    The United States aerosol industry manufactures aerosol products in 
the following three categories: (1) Consumer aerosols, (2) technical 
aerosols, and (3) medical aerosols. Consumer aerosols includes products 
for personal and household use. Examples include personal care 
products, such as: Cosmetics, hairspray, body sprays, and deodorants; 
automotive products such as tire inflators, auto lubricants, and brake 
cleaners; noise horns and safety horns; animal repellants; spray 
adhesives with various applications; household cleaning products; hand-
held spray paint cans; eyeglass and keyboard dusters; consumer freeze 
sprays (e.g. chewing gum or excrement removal); air fresheners; food 
dispensing products; and novelty aerosols (e.g., artificial snow, 
plastic string, noise makers, and cork poppers).
    Technical aerosols are aerosol products for sale and use solely in 
commercial and industrial applications, not for normal day-to-day 
consumer use or medical use. Technical aerosols includes industrial 
cleaners (e.g.,

[[Page 46137]]

electronic contact cleaners, brake cleaners, flux removers, 
degreasers); pesticides (e.g., certain wasp and hornet sprays, aircraft 
insecticides); a subset of dusters (e.g., for photographic negatives, 
semiconductor chip manufacture, specimens for observation under 
electron microscope); and spinnerette lubricant/cleaning sprays. 
Technical aerosols also includes other miscellaneous products such as 
industrial spray paints and document preservation sprays.
    Medical aerosols are for sale and use for medical purposes and 
include, but are not limited to, products regulated by the U.S. Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical aerosols include metered dose 
inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary 
disease, calamine spray, anti-fungals, wart treatments, wound care 
sprays, freeze or coolant spray for pain relief, spray-on ``liquid'' 
bandages, and products for removing bandage adhesives.
    Some aerosols could be considered under more than one of the 
categories described above. For example, insect sprays include products 
with both commercial and consumer applications. The commercial 
application would include insect sprays used by utility power line 
workers around high tension power lines (i.e., a technical aerosol) and 
the consumer use would include residential household insect repellant 
commonly sold to homeowners (i.e., a consumer aerosol). Another example 
is freeze sprays which may be either consumer aerosols (e.g., food 
freeze sprays, animal waste sprays) or medical aerosols (e.g., wart 
removers, pain relievers).
    Most of the demand for consumer aerosols in the United States is 
concentrated within household consumer products. This category has the 
highest production volume, reporting a 2.4% increase from 2010 to 2011 
(CSPA 2012). The NAICS code that includes many personal care products 
(325620) is the highest grossing NAICS category of those that EPA has 
identified as manufacturing consumer aerosols (ICF 2014a). Some of the 
dominant consumer aerosols includes air fresheners, deodorants, 
household cleaners, and hairspray.
3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?
    Today's action addresses HFCs in propellants in aerosols. EPA is 
proposing to modify the listings for HFC-125, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as 
of January 1, 2016 as follows:
     EPA is proposing to change the listing for the aerosol 
propellant HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable.
     We are proposing to list the aerosol propellant HFC-134a 
as acceptable, subject to use conditions allowing its use only in the 
following: Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other 
soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for 
electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; 
pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release 
insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which 
EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold 
release agents; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic 
fabrics; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from 
photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under 
electron microscopes; document preservation sprays; metered dose 
inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary 
disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be 
used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; wound 
care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products 
for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
     EPA is also proposing to list HFC-227ea as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in metered dose 
inhalers.
    a. What other alternatives are available?
    EPA is proposing to change the listing decisions for HFC-125, HFC-
134a, and HFC-227ea as of January 1, 2016 because safer alternatives 
(i.e., chemical compounds and technological options) are available or 
potentially available that reduces the overall risk to human health and 
the environment. Other substitutes listed as acceptable propellants 
include HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), butane, propane, isobutane, 
CO2 and other compressed gases, and dimethyl ether (DME). In 
addition, technological options include not-in-kind alternatives such 
as finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes, 
and wipes. These alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 124 
compared with HFC-134a's GWP of 1,430, HFC-227ea's GWP of 3,220 and 
HFC-125's GWP of 3,500.\24\ All of these alternatives have an ODP of 
zero, are relatively low in toxicity, and are capable of remaining 
below their respective exposure limits when used as aerosol 
propellants. In addition to GWP and climate impacts, some of the other 
environmental and health attributes that the SNAP program considers 
that differ for these alternatives include impacts on local air quality 
and flammability. For example, butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are 
VOCs as well as being flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, and DME 
are defined as VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 
addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to 
attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards; thus, 
these propellants are subject to federal, state, and local regulation 
that may prevent their use as a propellant in aerosols in some states 
and counties that have nonattainment areas for ground-level ozone. HFC-
125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and the compressed 
gases CO2 and N2 are not defined as VOCs under 
these regulations and their use is expected to have negligible impact 
on ground-level ozone levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ GWP values cited in this proposal are from the IPCC Fourth 
Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated otherwise. Where no GWP is 
listed in AR4, GWP values shall be determined consistent with the 
calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and referenced materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Consumer Aerosols
    For consumer aerosols, there are three alternatives with lower GWPs 
that meet other environmental regulatory requirements: HFC-152a, which 
has a GWP of 124; HFO-1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6; and CO2 
with a GWP of 1. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those of 
the HFCs proposed to be unacceptable or subject to use conditions 
(range of GWPs from 1430 to 3500 for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and HFC-125). 
These three substitutes also provide a range of performance based on 
vapor pressure, which is important because it affects the ability to 
propel the necessary ingredients out of the aerosol container. The 
vapor pressures of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-152a, and CO2 at 20 
[deg]C are 422 kPa, 510 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively.
ii. Technical Aerosols
    Technical aerosols sometimes need to meet more rigorous 
requirements for selection because of performance demands that do not 
exist for most consumer aerosols. For example, nonflammable aerosols 
are needed for use on energized electrical circuits, where sparking can 
create a fire or explosion hazard. Of the different acceptable 
alternatives, the nonflammable options at room temperature include HFC-
125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFO-1234ze(E) and compressed gases including 
CO2 and N2. At slightly higher temperatures (30 
[deg]C or 85 [deg]F), HFO-1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher 
flammability limits and

[[Page 46138]]

could catch fire under specific conditions of concentration and in the 
presence of a high energy spark or flame. Some aerosol product 
formulators have expressed concern that the lower vapor pressure of 
HFO-1234ze(E) and the significantly higher vapor pressure of 
CO2 and other compressed gases may not provide adequate 
performance in propelling contents of a can or in remaining within the 
can for technical aerosols. For comparison, the vapor pressures of HFO-
1234ze(E), HFC-134a, and CO2 at 20 [deg]C are 422 kPa, 655 
kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively.
    The conditions under which technical aerosols are often used 
requires non-flammability and/or specific vapor pressure be met. Based 
on the information available today, EPA believes it is necessary to 
continue to allow for HFC-134a to be used for certain technical spray 
applications because of these technical limitations. We are therefore 
proposing to list HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions 
which would limit use to those specific applications.
    HFC-134a is the propellant with the lowest GWP that can 
consistently meet the technical aerosol performance requirements, other 
environmental regulatory requirements, and is nonflammable. EPA 
considered whether HFC-227ea or HFC-125 should be continue to be listed 
as acceptable for any specific uses. However, both these HFCs have 
significantly higher GWPs than HFC-134a (HFC-227ea's GWP is 3220 and 
HFC-125's GWP is 3500). Moreover, EPA is not aware of the use of HFC-
227ea in technical aerosols. Similarly, EPA is not aware of any 
significant use of HFC-125 in technical aerosols. Neither HFC-227ea nor 
HFC-125 provides greater reduction in health or environmental risk than 
HFC-134a.
iii. Medical Aerosols
    EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as acceptable 
subject to use conditions which specify that these two HFCs are 
acceptable for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to ensure that there is no 
confusion about the ability to continue to use these HFCs in these 
medical aerosols. In addition, we are proposing to list HFC-134a as 
acceptable subject to use conditions for wound care sprays, for topical 
coolant sprays for pain alleviation and for products for removing 
bandage adhesives from skin. For medical aerosols, there are special 
needs for safety and low toxicity. Furthermore, in order for a 
substitute to be available for use in medical devices, it must first be 
reviewed and approved by the FDA. FDA has approved medications for use 
in metered dose inhalers using HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as propellants, 
as well as some not-in-kind dry powder medications.
    FDA has not approved medications for MDIs or other medical aerosols 
using HFC-125. EPA is aware of some medical aerosols that are currently 
using hydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, as well as not-in-kind 
alternatives; these medical aerosols include antifungals, calamine 
sprays, freeze sprays for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 
2014a). EPA has insufficient information that alternatives other than 
HFC-134a are available as propellants in wound care sprays; topical 
coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage 
adhesives from skin. Therefore, we cannot conclude that these are 
available alternatives with less overall risk to human health and the 
environment than HFC-134a. For these reasons, we are proposing to list 
HFC-227ea as acceptable subject to a use condition limiting its use to 
MDIs and to list HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions 
limiting its use to MDIs and the other medical uses listed above.
    HFC-125 has a GWP of 3,500, which is higher than the GWP of all 
other alternatives that are available for use as aerosol propellants 
(HFC-227ea has a GWP of 3220; HFC-134 has a GWP of 1430; HFO-1234ze(E) 
has a GWP of 6). Like HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, CO2 and HFO-
1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, nonflammable and low in toxicity. When EPA 
listed HFC-227ea as acceptable (May 22, 1998; 63 FR 28251), EPA noted 
that it was doing so despite the relatively high GWP of this compound, 
because it fit a specialized application, metered dose inhalers, where 
other substitutes were not available that would provide acceptable 
performance.
    EPA's proposed approach to restricting the use of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea only to manufacturing certain specific types of aerosol products 
is modeled upon the Nonessential Product Ban exemptions for ODS in 
subpart C of 40 CFR part 82. A difference between that ban and the 
proposed use conditions is that the Nonessential Products Ban addressed 
the sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of aerosol 
products in interstate commerce, whereas this proposal addresses the 
propellants that may be used in manufacturing aerosol products.
    Today, EPA is proposing to list HFC-125 as unacceptable, HFC-227ea 
as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use only for MDIs 
and HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use 
only for specific technical and medical aerosols, including MDIs. We 
request comment on this approach to modifying the listings of these 
three HFCs. We also request comment on whether any of the proposed 
technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a should not be allowed or whether 
there are additional uses that should be added to the list of allowed 
uses under the use conditions. Through this action, EPA is not 
intending to alter the listing as acceptable for HFC-227ea and HFC-134a 
for metered dose inhalers. EPA is seeking comment on the additional 
medical and technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a.
b. What other approaches is EPA considering?
    EPA is considering two approaches to changing the listings for 
aerosols and seeks comments on both. The first, as discussed above, is 
to find HFC-125 unacceptable and find HFC-227ea and HFC-134a acceptable 
subject to use conditions, where the use conditions specify a list of 
allowed uses or product types that may continue to use these HFCs 
(e.g., metered dose inhalers for both HFCs, insect sprays used near 
high tension power lines for HFC-134a). A second approach we are 
considering is to find HFC-125 unacceptable and to find HFC-134a 
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in technical and medical 
aerosols and HFC-227ea subject to narrowed use limits in metered dose 
inhalers. Narrowed use limits are considered ``use restrictions'' and 
are explained above. In this case, only persons using HFC-227ea in 
metered dose inhalers or using HFC-134a in technical or medical 
aerosols would be considered to not be in violation of section 612 of 
the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). The terms 
``technical aerosol'' and ``medical aerosol'' would apply to the types 
of aerosols described above in section 2. ``Aerosols today.'' Under the 
narrowed use limits, a manufacturer or other user intending to use the 
substitute could only use HFC-134a in manufacturing a technical or 
medical aerosol, or HFC-227ea in manufacturing a metered-dose inhaler, 
after ascertaining that other alternatives are not technically 
feasible. The user also would be required to document their evaluation. 
40 CFR 82.180(b)(3).
    Advantages to the proposed approach of specifying the allowed uses 
are that the list is clear about which products are allowed to use HFC-
134a or HFC-227ea, both for users and for EPA. In addition, because EPA 
is specifying the uses in advance, end-users would not be

[[Page 46139]]

required to perform an evaluation and would not be required keep 
paperwork to document their evaluation, thereby reducing regulatory 
burden. A potential advantage of setting narrowed use limits is that it 
may encourage a larger number of manufacturers and users to evaluate 
alternatives and potentially identify more uses where HFC-134a is not 
required. Further, establishing narrowed use limits may allow greater 
flexibility if there are additional types of technical or medical 
aerosol products with performance or safety constraints requiring HFC-
134a that EPA has not identified in this proposal. EPA requests comment 
on these two approaches to modifying the listings of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea as aerosol propellants.
    c. When would the modified listings apply?
    EPA is proposing January 1, 2016 as the date on which the listings 
for HFC-125, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea would be modified. Thus products 
manufactured on or after January 1, 2016 in contravention of the 
unacceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions listing for these 
substitutes could not be used.
    We are proposing this date because we believe it is expeditious but 
will allow sufficient time after this proposed rule for end users to 
make the transition to alternatives. Based on the information available 
to EPA today and on various discussions with industry representatives. 
EPA believes that formulators and packagers of aerosols can make the 
necessary changes within this timing (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 2014). In 
most cases, EPA believes it will take approximately six months for the 
necessary changes to be made. This timing would provide the affected 
aerosol manufacturers and packagers sufficient time to change and test 
formulations and, to the extent necessary, to change the equipment in 
their factories.
    To prevent stranded inventory, we are proposing that products 
manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 using these propellants, could be 
still be sold, imported, exported, and used by the end user after 
January 1, 2016. This would avoid the possibility that end users would 
need to dispose of a usable product, including the potential for 
improper releases of the content into the environment.
d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on the proposal to change the listing for the 
following aerosol propellants: HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable; 
HFC-134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions 
allowing its use only in: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux 
and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants 
for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft 
maintenance; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in 
total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use 
pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-
GWP propellants; mold release agents; lubricants and cleaners for 
spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for 
removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and 
specimens under electron microscopes; document preservation sprays; 
metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols 
can be used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; 
wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and 
products for removing bandage adhesives from skin; and HFC-227ea from 
acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use 
only in metered dose inhalers.
    EPA also received suggestions from the aerosol industry to consider 
an exception to allow the use of HFC-134a in additional categories of 
aerosol products. EPA is not proposing to include these categories, 
either because we are aware of existing products in these categories 
using low GWP propellants, or because we have insufficient information 
indicating that the use of HFC-134a is necessary for these categories 
of products because other substitutes that pose lower risk are not 
currently or potentially available. These categories include: component 
freeze sprays, tissue freezes, refrigeration system flushes, portable 
safety horns for use in marine and industrial applications, tire 
inflators, and personal defense sprays. We are aware of low-GWP 
formulations already on the market today for defensive sprays and 
tissue freezes. These formulations may use flammable and/or non-
flammable propellants. We request information on why available 
substitutes other than HFC-134a are not and cannot be used in these 
categories of products, including information on why flammability may 
be a concern or not in the product category; whether other alternative 
propellants with lower GWP in place of HFC-134a have been tested in 
these products; and what results of those tests have shown about the 
technical feasibility and/or safety of the other alternative 
propellants.
    Finally, we request comments on modifying the listings as of 
January 1, 2016. We request commenters include specific information on 
whether it would be technically feasible for end-users to transition by 
January 1, 2016, and, if not, what steps are necessary for 
manufacturers to switch to other alternatives and how long those steps 
are expected to take.

B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty 
Motor Vehicles

1. Background
    MVAC systems cool passenger cars, light duty trucks, buses, and 
rail vehicles. CFC-12 refrigerant was historically used in MVAC 
systems. HFC-134a replaced CFC-12 in new equipment in the early 1990s. 
Today, HFC-134a is the dominant refrigerant used in light-duty vehicles 
worldwide. When EPA found HFC-134a acceptable in MVAC for light duty 
vehicles in 1994 (March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044), the Agency stated:

HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and 
atmospheric lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which 
have been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However, 
HFC-134a's contribution to global warming could be significant in 
leaky end-uses such as MVACs. EPA has determined that the use of 
HFC-134a in these applications is acceptable because industry 
continues to develop technology to limit emissions. In addition, the 
number of substitutes available for use in MVACs is currently 
limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its toxicity is low.

This analysis was consistent with the information available in 1994. 
Since that time, four additional substitutes have been added to the 
list of substitutes that are acceptable subject to use conditions for 
light duty vehicles. As described more fully below, if these other 
substitutes are used in systems designed consistent with the prescribed 
use conditions, they pose significantly lower risk to human health and 
the environment than HFC-134a. EPA is therefore proposing to remove 
HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for new light-duty 
vehicles' MVAC systems and add it to the list of unacceptable 
substitutes.
    Since 1994, additional alternatives for MVACs have been listed as 
acceptable subject to use conditions.\25\ Three of these alternatives--
HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and carbon dioxide (R-744)--are non-ozone 
depleting like HFC-134a and have low GWPs compared to HFC-134a. HFC-
152a has a GWP of 124, HFO-1234yf has a GWP of 4, and R-744 (by

[[Page 46140]]

definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430. R-744 is 
nonflammable, HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are flammable, but are subject to 
use conditions that address flammability concerns. All three 
substitutes are subject to use restrictions that ensure exposure limits 
that protect against adverse health effects will not be exceeded and 
all three are VOC exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time EPA listed HFC-134a as acceptable, the agency was not 
aware of any vehicle manufacturer, MVAC supplier, or chemical producer 
considering HFO-1234yf as a refrigerant. Today, HFO-1234yf is in use in 
MVAC systems in approximately nine \26\ models in the United States by 
several manufacturers of light-duty vehicles. EPA expects additional 
models will be introduced using HFO-1234yf systems over the next 
several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, at least one global manufacturer of light-duty vehicles 
has announced their intention to commercialize vehicles using R-744 in 
MVAC systems later this decade.\27\ In the mid-1990s, EPA became aware 
that R-744 systems might be a feasible alternative in this application, 
but the state of research and development indicated that it was not yet 
available because a design had not yet been developed that would allow 
safe use in MVAC systems in light duty vehicles. Nearly 20 years later, 
EPA is still not aware of current commercial use of R-744 in MVAC 
systems. However, significant research and development is occurring in 
order to ensure R-744 can be used safely in MVAC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Daimler, 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744, EPA is aware of 
ongoing research and development which could ultimately result in 
future listings of additional alternatives for MVAC systems. One 
chemical producer indicated their intent to seek SNAP approval for 
another low-GWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP below 150.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Mexichem statement during motor vehicle stakeholder meeting 
December 6, 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are also other blends which EPA has listed as acceptable or 
acceptable subject to use conditions. None of these are currently used 
by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Several of these 
previously listed substitutes have GWPs that are significantly higher 
than the GWPS for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744 and higher overall 
risk than these other three substitutes. EPA is proposing to list as 
unacceptable the following substitutes in addition to HFC-134a: SP34E 
(GWP of 1300), R-426A (also known as RS-24) (GWP of 1508), R-416A (also 
known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12) (GWP of 1015) and the HCFC 
blends, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B 
(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as 
Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as 
GHG-HP), with GWPs ranging from 1480 to 2340 and ODPs ranging from 
0.012 to 0.056. For simplicity, we refer to these substitutes as ``the 
refrigerant blends'' in the following discussion.
2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC-134a and use of 
refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty 
motor vehicles?
    EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a as unacceptable for use in MVAC 
systems in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning with MY 
2021. We are proposing MY 2021 because that is the time by which all 
light-duty vehicle models can be redesigned to safely use MVAC systems 
using other available refrigerants. As explained above, three 
alternatives on the SNAP list of acceptable substitutes subject to use 
conditions --HFC-152a, R-744, and HFO-1234yf--have significantly lower 
GWPs than HFC-134a. All three of these lower-GWP alternatives are non-
ozone depleting and are subject to use restrictions that ensure 
exposure limits that protect against adverse health effects will not be 
exceeded. All three are VOC exempt. HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are 
flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address flammability 
concerns. R-744 is not flammable. Because HFC-134a has a significantly 
higher GWP than HFC-152a, R-744, and HFO-1234yf and because the risks 
posed by these three refrigerants are addressed through use conditions, 
we are proposing to list HFC-134a as unacceptable. However, because the 
three refrigerant alternatives pose lower risk than HFC-134a only if 
used consistent with the established use conditions, in deciding when 
the unacceptability determination should apply, we considered the date 
by which automobile manufacturers will be able to redesign all vehicle 
models (including design of the MVAC systems) consistent with the use 
conditions.
    EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A, R-
416A, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B 
(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as 
Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as 
GHG-HP) as unacceptable beginning in MY 2017 for use in MVAC systems in 
newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles. Since these refrigerant 
blends are not currently in use in any MVAC systems in light-duty 
vehicles, we believe it is appropriate for the unacceptability 
determination to apply to model year vehicles currently being designed. 
Further, all but the first two of these blends have ODPs, and all have 
significantly higher GWPs than other alternatives such as HFC-152a, 
HFO-1234yf, and CO2.
    EPA has previously examined when automobile manufacturers may be 
able to transition their fleets to lower GWP refrigerants in its rules 
to extend the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model year 
(MY) 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. 77 FR 62624, 62807-810 (October 15, 
2012); see also 75 FR 25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the 
same issue for MY 2012-2016 light duty vehicles). EPA and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly issued these rules on 
August 28, 2012. Over the lifetime of the MY 2017-2025 light-duty 
vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger 
vehicles), these rules are projected to save approximately 4 billion 
barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of GHG emissions, with 
societal net benefits up to $451 billion. 77 FR 62629. The standards 
build off those set in April 2010 for MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles, 
which are projected to save approximately 1.85 billion barrels of oil 
and 962 million metric tons of GHG emissions over the lifetime of the 
affected vehicles, with societal net benefits of up to $192 billion. 75 
FR 25347. EPA projects that the entire light-duty vehicle fleet will 
meet a target of 163 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent 
(CO2eq) per mile in MY 2025 (or 54.5 mpg if the automotive 
industry meets the target exclusively through fuel efficiency 
improvements).
    When refrigerants leak from current motor vehicle air conditioning 
systems, they contribute to overall GHG emissions. Using lower GWP 
refrigerants can significantly reduce the climate impact of these 
emissions. Given the increasing availability of lower-GWP chemicals 
suitable for this purpose and systems that can use them, as well as 
increasing requirement for lower-GWP refrigerants in Europe,\29\ EPA 
based the light-duty GHG standards

[[Page 46141]]

for MYs 2017-2025 in part on an expected gradual transition to lower-
GWP refrigerants. Thus, in setting the level of the standards, EPA 
projected that the industry will make the full transition to lower-GWP 
refrigerants over the period of time spanning between MY 2017 and MY 
2021, and the level of the standard in each of these model years 
reflects a projected 20 percent increase in substitution in each model 
year and complete transition by MY 2021. 77 FR 62720/2-3. In support of 
the assumption of this multi-year transition, the Light-Duty GHG rule 
for MYs 2017-2025 includes an extensive discussion of the refrigerant 
substitute availability and technical feasibility of transitioning the 
fleet. 77 FR 62720; 62807-810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time the Light Duty GHG rule was promulgated, EPA (and other 
entities) voiced concerns with the potential supply of HFO-1234yf, but 
today production plans for the refrigerant appear to be in place to 
make it available in volumes that meet current and projected domestic 
auto industry demand, consistent with the projections in the Light Duty 
GHG rulemaking. Multiple production facilities are now producing HFO-
1234yf, and recently another global chemical producer announced plans 
to produce HFO-1234yf by 2017. Moreover, some automotive manufacturers 
are developing systems that can safely use other substitutes, including 
R-744, and continued progress is likely given the EU's implementation 
of the MAC Directive. If some global light-duty motor vehicle 
manufacturers use R-744, additional volumes of HFO-1234yf that would 
have been used by those manufacturers will then become available. 
Therefore, there also appears to be sufficient supply to meet demand 
domestically and abroad, including in the European Union, during this 
time frame.
    In addition to considering when the supply of alternative 
refrigerants would be sufficient to transition the entire light duty 
vehicle fleet, EPA necessarily also considered when vehicle 
manufacturers could design systems for safe use of these alternatives 
consistent with the regulatory use conditions.\30\ EPA considered the 
practices used by the auto manufacturing industry in introducing new 
technologies into their vehicles. For each vehicle model, manufacturers 
establish a ``redesign'' (or product development) cycle over which they 
plan any significant technological changes to that vehicle. Between the 
major redesign model years, they may make only minor ``refresh'' 
changes. Redesign cycles vary by model and by manufacturer and average 
about 5 model years in duration. (See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407, 
25451 for a more detailed discussion of this practice.) At any point in 
time, a manufacturer may have some vehicles at or approaching a major 
redesign point and others that are earlier in their product cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ As previously noted, HFO-1234yf, R-744 and HFC-152a are all 
listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and many of the use 
conditions address the design of systems to account for the 
flammability or exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule establishing light-duty vehicle GHG standards for 
MYs 2017-2025, EPA assumed that the transition to alternative 
refrigerants would generally occur during manufacturer model redesigns 
and used the overall typical industry redesign cycle of 5 model years 
to estimate how the expected industry-wide transition to new 
refrigerants might occur. For analytical purposes, and based on 
information available at the time, we projected that the transition 
would occur from MY 2017 until MY 2021. EPA recognizes there have been 
some early adopters. The transition began in a small number of MY 2013 
vehicles and is increasing in MY 2014 but has been relatively limited 
to date.\31\ While some may maintain that early adoption equates to a 
faster overall transition, EPA notes that early adoption remains 
limited and therefore we continue to view our projection of full 
transition not occurring until MY 2021 as reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Nelson, Gabe ``Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will 
accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate'' Automobile News, 
December 30, 2013. http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there may be some limited ability to switch a vehicle 
model to an MVAC system using a low GWP refrigerant in between redesign 
periods, most model types will require significant hardware changes 
that may only be possible during a redesign. HFO-1234yf, for example, 
has measurably lower efficiency than that of HFC-134a, usually 
requiring hardware changes and/or changes to overall air conditioning 
system design and layout.32 33 This contrasts with the case 
of the transition in the 1990s from CFC-12 to HFC-134a, where the 
systems had similar coefficients of performance and manufacturers were 
able to switch many vehicles mid-cycle. Vehicles that require 
relatively more cooling capacity will be more dependent on a redesign 
cycle for a transition to HFO-1234yf since the specifications for 
hardware would need to be revisited. Most manufacturers have ``locked-
in'' their planned product designs out to MY 2016, MY 2017, or even MY 
2018. If any of these manufacturers have not planned to implement 
alternative refrigerant systems in these late model year vehicles, the 
next design cycle opportunity to make a change would be unlikely to 
occur until MY 2021 (or even MY 2022). In addition, at least one 
manufacturer has stated that it plans on using R-744 (CO2) 
systems. R-744 systems require significantly more complex redesign and 
hardware and would need to occur during product redesign, not product 
refresh given its pressure is significantly different than HFC-134a. 
These systems are currently in prototype phase, and there are 
significant technical hurdles yet to overcome. Given EPA's 
understanding, above, of the supply of the alternative refrigerants and 
the redesign cycle for MVAC systems, EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a 
as unacceptable for new MVAC systems beginning with MY 2021 because 
this is the time by which all light-duty vehicle models can be 
redesigned to safely use MVAC systems with alternative refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Weissler, Paul, ``A/C Industry Faces Challenges From 
Daimler R-1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,'' Automotive 
Engineering International, April 2, 2013.
    \33\ One manufacturer informed EPA in a meeting that hardware 
changes were necessary or likely when shifting from a HFC-134a to a 
HFO-1234yf system, including the following: compressor oil and/or 
compressor changes, possible A/C piping modification due to the 
change in valve shape, and, in the vehicle manufacturing plant, 
additional refrigerant charging process changes. (EPA Memorandum: 
``Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning Alternative Refrigerant 
Transition'', Tad Wysor, April 2014.) Other manufacturers made 
similar statements to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a cross-check, EPA explored whether vehicles and MVAC systems 
designed consistent with the use conditions for the three alternative 
refrigerants might be available earlier than MY 2021, evaluating (but 
not proposing) MYs 2017 and 2019. MY 2017 is the date included in the 
petition described above and in the EU MAC Directive. Since most motor 
vehicle manufacturers will seek a global vehicle design platform, 
selecting the same date as the date in the EU MAC Directive has some 
weight. MY 2019 is an intermediate date between MYs 2017 and 2021.
    The agency believes it is necessary for MVAC system redesigns for 
many vehicles to occur during a design cycle to safely use the 
substitute refrigerants, as just explained. Manufacturers are currently 
designing or have ``locked in'' designs for vehicles several model 
years into the future. The information currently before the Agency thus 
indicates that it would not be

[[Page 46142]]

technically feasible for manufacturers to safely transition all 
vehicles from HFC-134a MVACs by MY 2017. EPA is not proposing the MY 
2019 date for the same reasons. However, we solicit comment on whether 
all manufacturers would be able to safely transition all vehicles away 
from HFC-134a MVAC systems by MY 2017 or MY 2019.
    We also considered whether a MY later than MY 2021 should be the 
appropriate time for use of HFC-134a in MVAC systems in new vehicles to 
be listed as unacceptable. In recent meetings with the major trade 
associations for the auto industry (the Alliance and Global Automakers) 
as well as with meetings with several individual manufacturers, 
industry representatives indicated that some of them may have a 
relatively small number of vehicle models that will not have had the 
opportunity for an engineering redesign by MY 2021. They also indicated 
that there may be technical barriers for certain models that would 
require longer product design cycles if the systems were to use 
substitute refrigerants. However, we do not have sufficient non-
confidential information to conclude that systems capable of using 
alternative refrigerant safely will not be ``currently or potentially 
available''--within the meaning of section 612 (c)(2) of the Act--until 
after MY 2021. EPA requests comments on changing the status of HFC-134a 
in a model year later than MY 2021 (such as MY 2025), including 
specific information supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021 
would not be technically feasible because specific model vehicles 
cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by MY2021. 
For the reasons explained earlier, EPA believes safer alternatives will 
be available by MY 2021.
    Based on the information before the Agency, EPA is thus proposing 
to modify the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable as of MY 2021 for 
light duty vehicles, while seeking comment on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs 
later than 2021.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Typically, regulations promulgated under CAA Title VI have 
applied to specified calendar years, However, because the MVAC 
system used is so closely related to vehicle design, we have used MY 
for purposes of this proposed rule. Model years cover almost two 
calendar years, beginning after January 1 of the previous calendar 
year and ending on January 1 of the following calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is not proposing changes that would alter the ability to 
service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC-134a. Such a change 
could strand the installed base of equipment or force retrofits to 
other refrigerants. In order to safely use most MVAC refrigerants, the 
vehicle design as well as the MVAC design may need to be modified in 
order to ensure the refrigerant can be used safely. For that reason, 
the three low-GWP refrigerants that currently are listed as acceptable 
in new MVACs--HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744-are not listed as 
acceptable to retrofit a system designed to use a different 
refrigerant.
    Once MVAC systems are designed and installed with lower GWP 
substitutes, they will likely need to be serviced. Some stakeholders 
have expressed a concern that the price differential between HFO-1234yf 
and HFC-134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO-1234yf with 
HFC-134a during servicing. See 77 FR 62807. Two sets of regulations 
under title VI of the CAA make it clear that doing so is unlawful. 
First, the SNAP regulations prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to 
`top-off' a system that uses another refrigerant. Second, the original 
refrigerant must be recovered in accordance with regulations issued 
under section 609 of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute (40 
CFR 82.34). Thus, the recycling and recovery regulations prohibit 
adding a new refrigerant to the system without first recovering the 
refrigerant already in the system. Therefore, it is not permissible to 
add HFC-134a to an MVAC system that contains HFO-1234yf, as may well 
occur if a consumer were to service his or her own car's A/C system 
without refrigerant recovery equipment. In addition, the SNAP listings 
for HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a require the use of unique fittings for each 
alternative refrigerant. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a 
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of these use 
conditions.
    EPA seeks comments on changing the listing of SP34E, R-426A, R-
416A, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B 
(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as 
Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as 
GHG-HP) to unacceptable for use as refrigerants in air conditioning 
systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning with 
MY 2017 and changing the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable beginning 
with MY 2021.
3. Would this action affect EPA's light duty vehicle rule?
    Today's proposal, should EPA adopt it, will have no direct effect 
on the MY 2017-2025 light duty vehicle GHG standards. Those standards 
are established by rule and EPA is not reopening that rule in this 
proceeding. We do note, however, that today's proposal is relevant to 
one of the compliance flexibilities in the light duty vehicle 
standards. The light duty vehicle standards do not require any specific 
means of compliance. Manufacturers thus have the flexibility to either 
switch refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means. The 
light duty standards do provide that manufacturers can generate credits 
from use of alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC-
134a through MY 2025, and the ability to generate and use those credits 
towards compliance with the light duty standards will not change if 
this action is finalized as proposed. See 77 FR 62804-809. (As noted 
above, the level of the standard reflects the assumption of 100% 
substitution by MY 2021). Even though a manufacturer may choose to 
comply with the light duty standard by a strategy not involving 
refrigerant substitution, in MY 2021, this proposed rule, if finalized, 
would still require the manufacturer to use an MVAC designed for a 
refrigerant other than HFC-134a.

C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines

1. Background
    Retail food refrigeration, an end-use within the SNAP program that 
is also considered a subset of the broader term ``commercial 
refrigeration,'' is characterized by storing and displaying, generally 
for sale, food and beverages at different temperatures for different 
products (e.g., chilled and frozen food). The designs and refrigerating 
capacities of equipment vary widely. Vending machines are another 
subset of commercial refrigeration considered as a separate end-use 
within the SNAP program due to differences in where such equipment is 
placed and the additional mechanical and electronic components required 
to accept payment, provide the selected product, and prevent theft or 
damage from vandalism.
    Retail food refrigeration is composed of three main categories of 
equipment: Stand-alone equipment; condensing units; and supermarket 
systems, the latter often in designs referred to as multiplex or 
centralized refrigeration systems. Stand-alone equipment consists of 
refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open or with 
doors) where all refrigeration components are integrated and, for the 
smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded. 
These systems are charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically 
require only an electricity supply to begin operation.

[[Page 46143]]

    Condensing units exhibit refrigerating capacities ranging typically 
from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). They are composed 
of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and one 
receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located 
external to the sales area. This equipment is connected to one or more 
nearby evaporator(s) used to cool food and beverages stored in display 
cases and/or walk-in storage rooms. Condensing units are commonly 
installed in convenience stores and specialty shops such as bakeries 
and butcher shops.
    Typical supermarket systems are known as multiplex or centralized 
systems. They operate with racks of compressors installed in a 
machinery room; different compressors turn on to match the 
refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures. Two main design 
classifications are used: Direct and indirect systems. In the United 
States, direct systems are the most widespread. At least 70 percent of 
supermarkets in the United States use centralized direct expansion (DX) 
systems to cool their display cases.\35\ The refrigerant circulates 
from the machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in 
display-case heat exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the 
suction headers of the compressor racks. The supermarket walk-in cold 
rooms are often integrated into the system and cooled similarly, but an 
alternative option is to provide a dedicated condensing unit for a 
given storage room. Another type of supermarket design, often referred 
to as a distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of separate 
compressor racks located near the display cases rather than having a 
central compressor rack system. Each of these smaller racks handles a 
portion of the supermarket load, with 5-10 such systems in a store.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigeration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop systems and 
cascade refrigeration. Indirect systems use a chiller or other 
refrigeration system to cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated 
throughout the store to the cases. Compact chiller versions of an 
indirect system rely on a lineup of 10-20 units, each using small 
charge sizes. As the refrigeration load changes, more or fewer of the 
chillers are active. Compact chillers are used in a secondary loop 
system whereby the chillers cool a secondary fluid that is then 
circulated throughout the store to the display cases. Each compact 
chiller is an independent unit with its own refrigerant charge, 
reducing the potential for refrigerant to be released from leaks or 
catastrophic failures. Cascade systems use a compressor to raise the 
low-temperature coolant from low-temperature conditions up to an 
intermediate temperature while a separate refrigerant system uses a 
different refrigerant to condense the coolant. Each system within the 
cascade design contains its own refrigerant charge allowing the use of 
different refrigerants in each system. This application has generally 
used a low-GWP refrigerant, specifically carbon dioxide (R-744), in the 
low-temperature system, with a variety of refrigerants in the medium-
temperature system.
    Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge, the 
temperature required, and energy efficiency, among other things. In 
addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program, other federal or 
local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance, 
regulations from the OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use 
of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R-717). Building codes from 
local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the amount of 
particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a 
number of factors that retailers must consider when selecting the 
refrigerant and operating system design. While a number of approaches 
exist, there is no uniformly accepted holistic analysis of the multiple 
factors, which include the following: Energy efficiency; system 
performance; potential impact on community safety; ambient 
temperatures; potential risk to personal safety; cost; and minimization 
of direct and indirect environmental impacts. EPA recognizes that these 
and other factors mean there will be a range of options, and the 
ultimate selection remains with the owner and operator of the system.
    Acceptable non-HFC substitutes in use today for new multiplex 
systems include R-717 and R-744. These can be used alone or in 
combination with other refrigerants in other parts of the equipment, 
depending on the equipment and its design (e.g., a secondary-loop 
contains one refrigerant while the primary loop contains a different 
refrigerant). For stand-alone refrigeration equipment, propane (R-290) 
is listed as acceptable subject to use conditions, and EPA has also 
proposed that the hydrocarbon blend R-441A and isobutane (R-600a) be 
listed as acceptable subject to use conditions (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR 
38811). The Agency also has proposed elsewhere that these three 
hydrocarbon refrigerants be listed as acceptable subject to use 
conditions for vending machines (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Other 
substitutes, such as blends of saturated HFCs already listed as 
acceptable under SNAP, are currently in use in the United States, while 
HFOs and blends containing HFOs are being developed and tested but have 
not yet been submitted to the SNAP program for review.
    The most commonly-used HFCs and HFC blends in retail food 
refrigeration include HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-422D, and R-507A. 
HFC-134a is a non-ozone depleting chemical with the chemical formula 
C2H2F4. It is used in a variety of 
air-conditioning and refrigeration end-uses, including motor vehicle 
air conditioners, home appliances (such as refrigerator-freezers), 
vending machines and building air-conditioning chillers. It is also 
used in other sectors such as foam blowing and aerosol propellants. 
HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430.
    R-404A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-125, HFC-
143a, and HFC-134a with GWPs of 3,500, 4,470, and 1,430 respectively. 
R-404A's GWP is about 3,920 based on the 44/52/4 mass percentages of 
the three HFCs contained in the blend. R-404A is currently acceptable 
for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications 
including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and 
storage cases; vending machines; cold storage warehouses; commercial 
ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process 
refrigeration.
    R-407A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-32, HFC-
125 and HFC-134a with GWPs of 675, 3,500, and 1,430 respectively. R-
407A's GWP is about 2,100 based on the 20/40/40 mass percentages of the 
three HFCs contained in the blend. R-407A is acceptable for a variety 
of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications including 
retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage 
cases; cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated 
transport; and industrial process refrigeration. R-407A is not 
currently on the SNAP lists of acceptable or unacceptable refrigerants 
for vending machines.
    R-422D is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-125, HFC-
134a, and R-600a with GWPs of 3,500, 1,430, and 8 (GE, 2008) 
respectively. R-422D's GWP is about 2,700 based on the approximate 
65.1/31.5/3.4 mass percentages of the two HFCs and one hydrocarbon 
contained in the blend. R-422D is acceptable for a variety of medium- 
and low-temperature

[[Page 46144]]

refrigeration applications including retail food refrigeration 
equipment such as food display and storage cases; cold storage 
warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and 
industrial process refrigeration. R-422D is most commonly used to 
retrofit existing systems such as those operating on HCFC-22 and is 
less likely to be used in manufacturing new equipment.
    R-507A (also designated as R-507) is a non-ozone depleting blend of 
refrigerants HFC-125 and HFC-143a which have GWPs of 3,500 and 4,470, 
respectively. R-507A's GWP is about 3,990 based on the 50/50 mass 
percentages of the two HFCs contained in the blend. R-507A is 
acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration 
applications including in retail food refrigeration equipment such as 
food display and storage cases; cold storage warehouses; refrigerated 
transport; and industrial process refrigeration.
2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration 
(condensing units and supermarket systems)?
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for nine HFC blends for new 
and retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to 
unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These nine blends are R-404A, R-
407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A and R-507A. EPA is 
not aware of any significant use in the United States of the blends R-
407B, R-421B, R-428A or R-434A in retail food refrigeration equipment. 
In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC-227ea in new 
retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to 
unacceptable.\36\ These ten refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,730 
to 3,985. They are nonflammable. They contain compounds that are exempt 
from the definition of ``VOC,'' with the exception of small amounts of 
R-290 and R-600a in five of the blends, and thus are not expected to 
contribute significantly to smog. These refrigerants are relatively low 
in toxicity, and practices common in the refrigeration industry ensure 
that their workplace exposure limits are not exceeded. These practices 
include adhering to those specified in the material safety data sheets 
and others common in the commercial refrigeration industry. Applicable 
workplace exposure limits for the compounds comprising these 
refrigerants--HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-143a, HFC-227ea, R-290 and 
R-600a--include Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) of 1000 
ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) from the American 
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA); a manufacturer's recommended 
occupational exposure limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA); a permissible 
exposure limit (PEL) of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) from the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a recommended exposure 
limit (REL) of 800 ppm (10-hr TWA) from the National Institutes for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EPA has not previously found HFC-227ea acceptable as a 
retrofit refrigerant in this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes there are several HFC and non-HFC substitutes that 
provide lower overall risk than the refrigerants EPA is proposing to 
list as unacceptable and that are currently used in commercial 
refrigeration. For both new and retrofit equipment, acceptable 
refrigerants that pose less risk to human health and the environment 
include HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-
424A, R-426A, and R-438A. Additionally, in new retail food 
refrigeration, three other substitute refrigerants are listed as 
acceptable: R-717 vapor compression with secondary loop, R-410A, and R-
744.
a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following 
refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in new retail food 
refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket systems) as 
of January 1, 2016: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, 
R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. These refrigerants have GWPs 
ranging from approximately 2,730 to 3,985. Two of these refrigerants, 
R-404A and R-507A, are currently in extensive use in the retail food 
refrigeration market. EPA is also aware of some use of R-422A and R-
422D in retrofit situations only, not in new equipment. We are not 
aware of the use of any of the other six refrigerants in retail food 
refrigeration, although we seek comment on such use.
    Other acceptable alternatives that pose lower risk are also in use 
in the various types of retail food refrigeration equipment. For 
condensing unit systems, R-407C and R-407F are in use in the United 
States, and R-744 and HCs are being used in limited demonstration 
trials in Europe and elsewhere. The GWP for R-407C (a blend of HFC-32, 
HFC-125, and HFC-134a) is about 1,770, and R-407F (another blend of 
HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a) has a GWP of about 1,820. As a 
comparison, R-404A has a GWP of 3,920, R-507A has a GWP of 3,990, and 
the other refrigerants proposed unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 
2,730 to 3,985.
    For multiplex rack systems, substitutes R-407A, R-407F, and R-744 
are all currently in use in the United States and can be used more 
safely than the substances that EPA is proposing to list as 
unacceptable. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,110. In 
addition, testing is underway with HCs and HFC/HFO blends, though these 
refrigerants have not been submitted to SNAP for review in this 
application. Each of these four substitutes as well as other 
substitutes in development with lower GWPs have zero ODP and are safe 
for the ozone layer. R-407A, R-407F, and R-744 all have toxicity lower 
than or comparable to the refrigerants proposed unacceptable. None of 
the three examples that would remain on the acceptable list is 
flammable, and none is considered a VOC.
    b. Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following 
refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit retail food 
refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket systems) as 
of January 1, 2016: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-
428A, R-434A, and R-507A. We are aware of four of these nine 
refrigerants being used to retrofit retail food equipment: R-404A, R-
507A, R-422A, and R-422D. We are not aware of any use of the other five 
refrigerants to retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment but seek 
comment on any such use. This action would not apply to servicing 
existing equipment designed for these nine refrigerants or to equipment 
that had been retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 
2016. For instance, systems retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to 
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate and to be 
serviced using those refrigerants.
    For condensing units and supermarket systems, where retrofits are 
common, blends such as R-407A and R-407F have become the norm for 
retrofits, rather than the four identified in the previous paragraph. 
The blends R-407A and R-407F have zero ODP and GWPs of 2,107 and 1,825, 
respectively. Other zero-ODP refrigerants that are currently listed as 
acceptable for use as retrofits in retail food refrigeration include 
HFC-134a, R-407C, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-426A and R-427A and they 
have GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the other 
nine blends we are proposing as

[[Page 46145]]

unacceptable, which have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985.
    An unacceptability listing for these nine blends in retrofitted 
equipment could primarily affect the many stores that operate using 
HCFC-22, but also those using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-
containing blends such as R-401A, R-402A and R-408A. This is because as 
EPA reduces or eliminates the production and import of ODSs, stores 
will have less material to meet service demands. While the ODS phaseout 
does not require owners to retrofit their equipment, a decrease in the 
availability of virgin material may in turn lead operators of those 
stores to consider retrofits, although under our proposal certain 
refrigerants would not be acceptable. For instance, some stores 
currently using HCFC-22 may choose to retrofit as the production and 
import of HCFC-22 is phased down and eventually phased out by 2020 per 
40 CFR 82.16. EPA recently proposed HCFC-22 allowance allocations for 
the 2014-2019 time period (December 24, 2013; 78 FR 78071). Some have 
questioned whether finding certain refrigerants unacceptable for 
retrofit might provide an incentive to stores to continue to operate 
with the ODS they are currently using for longer than they might 
otherwise plan, and we seek comment on this question. In response to 
this question, we note that many retail chains have been able to 
minimize the impact of the HCFC-22 phasedown by maintaining their own 
stockpile of HCFC-22, for instance by recovering from stores that are 
decommissioned or retrofitted and using such supplies in stores that 
continue to operate with HCFC-22. We also note that some service is 
being performed with reclaimed material, with over four million pounds 
of HCFC-22 being reclaimed every year since at least 2000, and over 
seven million pounds every year since 2006.\37\ While we don't know how 
this reclaim market will change in the future, recent history shows 
that the market is using reclaimed material in addition to limited 
newly-produced supplies that are being reduced by the phaseout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can be found on 
EPA's Web site at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of the continued supply of HCFC-22, we believe that the 
majority of retrofits are planned for reasons other than the supply of 
the refrigerant currently in-use, for instance during planned 
maintenance overhauls or when upgrading to more energy efficient 
equipment. We also see that many retrofits are already directed towards 
lower-GWP blends such as R-407A and R-407F instead of R-404A and R-
507A, as mentioned above. Further, we believe that other options, given 
the multi-year history of their successful use, are sufficient to meet 
the various features--such as capacity, efficiency, materials 
compatibility, cost and supply--that affect the choice of a retrofit 
refrigerant.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For example, see CCAC 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone equipment?
a. New Stand-Alone Equipment
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC-134a and other 
refrigerants for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment 
from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These other 
refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-227ea, IKON B, 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. These 
refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 600 up to 
approximately 3,990.
    Acceptable substitutes in new stand-alone equipment include R-744 
and R-290. EPA recently proposed to find R-600a and R-441A acceptable 
subject to use conditions in new stand-alone equipment (July 9, 2014; 
79 FR 38811). These existing and potential substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430, R-404A 
with a GWP of approximately 3,920, and R-507A with a GWP of 
approximately 3,990. None of the substitutes currently listed or 
proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While R-290, R-600a, and 
R-441A are VOCs, EPA's analysis indicates that their use as 
refrigerants in this end-use would not significantly affect meeting 
national ambient air quality standards. At the time we listed R-290 as 
acceptable subject to use conditions, we analyzed the potential air 
quality impacts of emissions of these VOCs and did not find this 
potential risk to the environment to be significant (ICF, 2014e).\39\ 
We have likewise proposed to exempt R-600a and R-441A used in stand-
alone equipment from the venting prohibition (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 
38811). These three substitutes are also flammable; however, the use 
conditions specified (or proposed for R-600a and R-441A) would ensure 
that they do not pose greater risk than any of the substitutes 
currently listed as acceptable in new stand-alone equipment.\40\ None 
of the refrigerants currently listed as acceptable or that we have 
proposed to add to the list of acceptable substitutes presents 
significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. 
Apart from R-290 and R-744, those refrigerants listed acceptable for 
new stand-alone equipment either contain an HCFC (and are addressed in 
Section VI below) and/or do not appear to be in production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ EPA has proposed to exempt R-290 in stand-alone retail food 
refrigeration equipment from the venting prohibition found at 40 CFR 
82.154 (78 FR 21871).
    \40\ 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 (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832) and 
docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286) and information is found 
in a SNAP proposed rule signed June XX, 2014 and docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0748).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We understand that R-290 is already in use globally, including in 
the United States, and that R-600a is in use outside of the United 
States as well as in test market trials in the United States. We 
believe that these two refrigerants can satisfy the vast majority of 
the current market for use in stand-alone equipment. We note that there 
may be a need to modify the equipment design in order to meet the use 
conditions for R-290 and the proposed use conditions for R-600a and R-
441A (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Because there are other substitutes 
that pose lower risk, we are proposing to change the listing to 
unacceptable for new stand-alone equipment of the following 
refrigerants: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, IKON B, 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.
b. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from 
acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for stand-alone 
equipment as of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to 
servicing existing equipment designed for those refrigerants or to 
equipment retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016. 
For instance, equipment retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to 
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those 
refrigerants.

[[Page 46146]]

    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. For equipment still operating using ozone-
depleting refrigerants, we believe there are options available other 
than R-404A and R-507A that present lower overall risk to human health 
and the environment that are available. Our analysis indicates that 
other options such as HFC-134a can be used to retrofit stand-alone 
units.
4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines?
a. New Vending Machines
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC-134a and other 
refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable 
as of January 1, 2016. These other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, 
IKON B, 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. These refrigerants 
have GWPs ranging from approximately 600 up to approximately 3,990.
    Acceptable existing substitutes with lower GWPs that pose less risk 
to human health and the environment in this end-use include R-744, 
which is currently being used in this end-use. In addition, EPA 
recently proposed to find R-600a, R-290 and R-441A acceptable subject 
to use conditions in new vending machines (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). 
We note that some redesign would be required to meet the use conditions 
set for all three of these substitutes--R-600a, R-290 and R-441A-- in 
the recent proposal (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811).
    These four substitutes (R-744 and the three proposed hydrocarbons) 
have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430, 
R-404A with a GWP of approximately 3,920, and R-507A with a GWP of 
approximately 3,990. None of these substitutes currently listed or 
proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While the HCs (R-441A, 
R-600a and R-290) are VOCs, EPA's analysis indicates that their use as 
refrigerants in this end-use would not significantly affect meeting 
national ambient air quality standards. (ICF 2014e).\41\ These three 
substitutes are also flammable; however, the proposed use conditions 
for these three substitutes would ensure they do not pose greater risk 
than substitutes that are already listed as acceptable (July 9, 2014; 
79 FR 38811). None of the substitutes currently listed or proposed to 
be listed as acceptable present significant human health toxicity 
concerns or other ecosystem impacts. Hence, we find that R-290, R-600a 
and R-441A are potentially available and present a lower overall risk 
to human health and the environment than HFC-134a and the other 
refrigerants proposed to be listed as unacceptable in new vending 
machines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ EPA has proposed to exempt R-290 (propane) R-600a 
(isobutane) and R-441A in vending machines from the venting 
prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new vending machines, EPA has found R-744 acceptable without 
use conditions. While the vast majority of vending machines using non-
ODS refrigerant currently use HFC-134a, units are now being 
manufactured to use R-744. At least one major global buyer of vending 
machines is committed to transitioning all of their new U.S.-placed 
equipment to R-744.\42\ Given the large market share that this company 
holds, it is likely that R-744 components and units are already or will 
shortly become a viable option for all vending machine OEMs and 
purchasers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Coca-Cola Company has identified carbon dioxide as its 
HFC-free refrigerant of choice for new equipment (Coca Cola, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the zero ODP and low GWP of R-744 and the other hydrocarbons 
that EPA has proposed to find acceptable subject to use conditions in 
vending machines, the use conditions that we have proposed to establish 
for the hydrocarbon refrigerants, and the fact that the risks based on 
other factors such as toxicity are not greater than for HFC-134a, we 
propose to change the listing of HFC-134a and the alternatives listed 
in the first paragraph of this section to unacceptable in new vending 
machines.
b. Retrofit Vending Machines
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from 
acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for vending 
machines operating on CFC-12, HCFC-22, and blends containing HCFCs, as 
of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to servicing existing 
equipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment that had been 
retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016, including 
those systems previously using ozone-depleting refrigerants such as 
HCFC-22. For instance, systems retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to 
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those 
refrigerants.
    Under our proposal, the following refrigerants would remain 
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, 
RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-02. These refrigerants have 
GWPs from approximately 50 to approximately 3,100, while the two 
refrigerants proposed unacceptable, R-404A and R-507A, have GWPs of 
3,922 and 3,985, respectively. In this respect, these two refrigerants 
present a higher risk to human health and the environment. Looking at 
the other SNAP criteria, we find that those refrigerants remaining 
acceptable present similar risk to human health and the environment: 
they are nonflammable, they are not VOCs, and they do not exhibit 
significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. 
Hence, we believe these options present lower overall risk to human 
health and the environment than R-404A and R-507A.
5. When would the listings change?
    Through this action, we are proposing that all listing changes that 
apply within commercial refrigeration would occur on the same date--
January 1, 2016. Looking at the intersection between the end-use and 
the alternatives EPA believes that changing the listings as of January 
1, 2016, allows sufficient opportunity for any planned new 
installations or manufacturing equipment lines in these end-uses to be 
redesigned to use a substitute to the refrigerants we are proposing to 
find unacceptable. We also believe that this date would allow any plans 
for future retrofits to these blends to be reconsidered, given the 
multiple other substitutes that would remain acceptable. For many years 
other refrigerants such as R-407A and R-407F that would remain on the 
acceptable lists pursuant to our proposal have been gaining market 
share in supermarket applications, in both new equipment and as 
retrofit fluids.\43\ As part of this market expansion, manufacturers 
have developed equipment to use them, and that equipment is available 
to buyers now. In addition, many companies have implemented these other 
refrigerants, in both new construction and as retrofits, and have built 
up the skills, knowledge and experience to more fully utilize these 
refrigerants in a timeframe that would accommodate January 1, 2016 as

[[Page 46147]]

the date of unacceptability. For stand-alone equipment and vending 
machines, new equipment is being installed using refrigerants that are 
acceptable or are proposed acceptable with use conditions, including R-
744, R-290 and R-600a.\44\ EPA requests comment on this proposed date. 
EPA is also interested in information concerning the supply of 
substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition 
within the proposed timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial 
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
    \44\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Applicability To Service of Existing Equipment
    As noted above, EPA is not proposing to alter the ability to 
service existing retail food refrigeration equipment or vending 
machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 2016. We 
recognize the value of the currently installed appliances and are not 
seeking to shorten their useful lifetime. EPA also recognizes that 
servicing for existing equipment is often accomplished with recovered 
and recycled refrigerants.
    EPA seeks comments on allowing for the continued servicing of the 
existing retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines with 
the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 2016.
7. Energy Efficiency Consideration
    Energy efficiency has not historically been a criterion by which a 
refrigerant is analyzed under the SNAP program, and it is not used as 
one of the criteria in this proposal. However, EPA recognizes that the 
energy efficiency of particular models of equipment is a significant 
factor when choosing commercial refrigeration equipment. We also 
recognize that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is 
in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular 
thermodynamic and thermophysical properties that refrigerant possesses.
    Throughout the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, EPA has seen 
the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment 
increase, despite changing refrigerant options. In some cases, this was 
because new chemicals were developed that possessed unique properties 
that allowed high energy efficiency levels to be obtained. In addition, 
technological improvement in equipment designs and controls has 
increased energy efficiency. Although today's proposal would eliminate 
some refrigerant choices, we do not believe it would have a detrimental 
effect on this trend in increased energy efficiency. In fact, there are 
multiple case studies available that highlight the energy efficiency 
gains achieved by some of the low-GWP refrigerants, such as R-744, R-
290 and R-600a, that are available or potentially available for the 
end-uses addressed in this proposal. We welcome additional information 
and comment on improved energy efficiency associated with switching 
refrigerants.
    For instance, in supermarket refrigeration, a theoretical analysis 
(Emerson 2014) examined the energy use of R-407A and R-410A, both of 
which would remain acceptable under this proposal, against that of R-
404A, which would be listed as unacceptable. Although this analysis 
found that both blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop in efficiency in 
the low-temperature part of the store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream), 
they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% increase in the medium-temperature 
part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy products, chilled prepared food). 
Given that supermarkets have significantly larger use of medium-
temperature equipment, the net effect would be for the alternatives to 
use less energy than R-404A. This manufacturer's analyses showed 
similar increases in energy efficiency compared to R-404A in 
supermarkets and stand-alone equipment for a variety of low-GWP 
refrigerants that are not yet listed under SNAP but are in development.
    While that manufacturer's analysis showed slightly higher energy 
consumption than R-134a in theoretical calculations for stand-alone 
equipment, other results with actual equipment have shown otherwise. 
For instance, in stand-alone equipment, one user reported that ``HC 
freezers are significantly more energy-efficient and use a natural 
hydrocarbon refrigerant with lower global warming potential than the 
HFC refrigerants commonly used in US freezers'' (Ben and Jerry's, 
2014). Likewise, for vending machines, one purchaser has indicated that 
while introducing over one million units using R-744, they have 
increased the energy efficiency of their cooling equipment over 40% 
since 2000, many years after they adopted HFC-134a (Coca-Cola, 2014).
    Finally, we note that energy efficiency is influenced, but not 
determined, by the refrigerant. As new products are designed for the 
use of particular refrigerants, manufacturers have the opportunity to 
change designs to take advantage of a given refrigerant's 
characteristics. The redesign and development phase is also an 
opportunity to improve other components that will affect the overall 
efficiency of the equipment, such as the use of more efficient motors 
and compressors, improved heat exchangers, better controls, improved 
insulation (e.g., on display cases) and sealing (for products with 
doors), more efficient lighting, etc.
    The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has promulgated, under 
separate rulemaking and separate authority, energy efficiency 
requirements for several types of commercial refrigeration equipment, 
including products that would be affected by this proposal. While EPA's 
proposal would limit the choice of refrigerant a manufacturer could use 
in new equipment, EPA notes that such equipment would still be subject 
to the DOE requirements and would normally need to meet the standards 
set.\45\ As discussed above, EPA does not believe this proposal would 
prevent compliance with the DOE rules, and we note that many compliant 
models are already commercially available that do not use the 
refrigerants EPA has proposed as unacceptable. EPA requests comment on 
the effects this proposal would have on the energy efficiency of the 
commercial refrigeration end-uses addressed and in particular the 
effect, if any, this proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Refrigeration equipment in the applicable covered equipment 
class would still be subject to DOE's standards, regardless of the 
refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that 
its design is subjected to undue hardship by a regulatory standard 
prescribed by DOE (in contrast to one that is statutorily prescribed 
by Congress), the manufacturer may petition DOE's Office of Hearing 
and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the 
standard pursuant to OHA's authority under section 504 of the DOE 
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 
CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant regulatory relief from 
a standard promulgated by DOE on a case-by-case basis if it 
determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the 
standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of 
burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. What other options is EPA considering?
    EPA is considering but is not proposing to change the listing for 
several other substitutes in retail food refrigeration. We are seeking 
comment on these substitutes.
a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    When analyzing supermarket retail food refrigeration systems, as an 
alternative to changing the listing to unacceptable for HFC-227ea, R-
407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, and R-434A, we are 
considering setting a use restriction to limit the charge size of these 
chemicals allowed to be used in condensing units and supermarket 
systems. Supermarkets could use systems employing one of the

[[Page 46148]]

many advanced refrigeration designs currently deployed in the United 
States, such as distributed refrigeration, secondary-loop, and cascade 
designs. To set the charge size limit, EPA is considering the charge 
size limit that is necessary, but not fully sufficient, to achieve a 
Gold-Level Store Certification under EPA's GreenChill Store 
Certification Program.\46\ That specification requires that the store 
must achieve an average HFC refrigerant charge equal to or less than 
1.25 pounds of refrigerant per MBTU/hr total evaporator heat load.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Additional information on GreenChill is available at http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/.
    \47\ In addition to reaching this HFC charge size limit, stores 
must use only non-ozone-depleting refrigerants and must meet a 
store-wide annual refrigerant emissions rate of no more than 15% in 
order to be certified at the Gold level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new equipment, one reason we are considering a use restriction 
requiring a small charge is to limit the amount of high-GWP refrigerant 
that would be emitted in a catastrophic event. However, given the high 
GWP of these refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are 
available in these end-uses, we do not believe that use with a small 
charge size adequately addresses the greater risk they pose. Further, 
we recognize that using a lower-GWP refrigerant, such as R-407A or R-
407F, is also possible in small-charge systems, and several stores are 
operating with such systems today.
    For retrofits, two primary factors lead us to consider a use 
restriction for a small charge size in place of listing the substitutes 
as unacceptable. First, there are many different supermarket systems in 
operation with ozone-depleting refrigerants today, and there may be 
some concern that not all could be retrofitted with the lower-GWP 
blends, i.e., whether there truly are alternatives ``available'' for 
the purpose. As to this concern, we reflect on three points. First, 
based on the regulations phasing out CFCs in 1996, equipment using CFCs 
today would be at least 18 years old, beyond the typical average 
lifetime.\48\ Because it is typical to retire older equipment before 
newer equipment, it is likely that many stores using those refrigerants 
would be decommissioned, or the refrigeration systems would be replaced 
rather than retrofitted. Second, we do not see an impediment in the 
continued operation of stores currently using refrigerants proposed 
unacceptable for new and/or retrofit equipment (see section 6 above). 
We know that some stores have systems that continue to use CFC-12 and/
or R-502, the production and import of which was phased out in 1996, 
and believe the same long equipment lifetimes can be achieved, if 
desired, with equipment installed prior to January 1, 2016, using the 
refrigerants we propose as unacceptable. Finally, where retrofits to 
refrigerants that are not proposed as unacceptable have occurred, the 
industry has been able to achieve acceptable capacity and efficiency 
levels. All these factors point to the ability of industry to make 
business decisions on which stores to decommission or retrofit and when 
to do so while maintaining their operations without the need to rely on 
the refrigerants we are proposing as unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ For example, IPCC 2006 indicates that the average lifetime 
of medium and large commercial refrigeration equipment is between 
seven and 15 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, some have questioned whether removing options from the list 
of acceptable retrofit substitutes might present a perverse incentive 
for stores with older systems (more likely to leak) to continue use of 
ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily HCFC-22 but also CFC-12, R-502, 
and multiple blends containing HCFCs, rather than retrofit or replace 
those systems with a new refrigerant. While production and import of 
HCFC-22 and all other HCFCs used in the acceptable retrofit blends are 
capped, the stores using them would continue to leak ozone-depleting 
refrigerants into the atmosphere. The additional refrigerant that they 
would need to service that leaky equipment might not have been produced 
in the first place if the demand was not there. Nonetheless, given the 
tight controls on production and import of ozone-depleting 
refrigerants, we believe the market will determine where those limited 
supplies are directed and where a store may retrofit to a refrigerant 
other than those proposed to be listed as unacceptable.
    EPA requests comments on both concerns addressed above, 
particularly the availability of substitutes able to work with the 
design of existing systems that might be retrofitted, and the possible 
perverse incentives an unacceptable listing might bring to continue to 
operate older, less efficient, and/or leakier ODS systems. EPA also 
requests comments on the specified charge size limit and how it would 
be met in both new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (condensing 
units and supermarket systems) if EPA were to propose a use restriction 
rather than take final action by listing some or all of these 
refrigerants as unacceptable for condensing units and supermarket 
systems.
b. New Stand-Alone Equipment and Vending Machines
    For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and vending 
machines, we are considering maintaining the acceptability status of 
HFC-134a and blends with a lower GWP--FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, 
SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03--subject to a use restriction. One reason to 
maintain the acceptability of these refrigerants, in particular HFC-
134a, would be to allow niche applications to continue to use the 
primary refrigerant employed in these end-uses while new low-GWP 
substitutes are developed.
    For new vending machines, we are considering whether substitutes 
other than HFC-134a are available for low-temperature refrigeration 
applications, for instance, for ice-cream novelty or microwavable 
frozen-food vending machines and, if not, whether to establish a use 
restriction that HFC-134a could only be used in vending machines 
designed for, and maintaining, an internal temperature of 32 [deg]F (0 
[deg]C) or below. However, we believe that the availability of R-744, 
which is listed as acceptable, and the availability of HCs, which we 
have proposed to list as acceptable, do not support such an action. We 
are requesting comment on the viability of these substitutes in low-
temperature applications. Further, we are asking for comment on the 
supply of components designed for R-744, hydrocarbons, or other 
potential substitutes for use in low-temperature vending machines and 
how that supply might affect the ability of manufacturers to continue 
to provide such equipment to meet these applications and customers' 
requirements including energy efficiency goals.
    For new stand-alone equipment, we note that HCs pose additional 
challenges related to their flammability. Some stand-alone retail food 
refrigeration appliances utilizing HCs have required design changes, 
and our use conditions require meeting specific charge size limits, 
raising questions of the viability of HCs in all larger applications 
within this end-use. EPA is considering adding a use restriction 
limiting the use of HFC-134a and the blends mentioned to only larger-
sized units, while finding it unacceptable in smaller-sized units. To 
determine the dividing line between ``small'' and ``large'' units, we 
are considering options such as the number of doors within a single 
unit, the refrigeration capacity of the unit, and the interior volume.

[[Page 46149]]

    Although we are considering this option, we are not proposing it 
because we feel other options exist to design units using other less 
harmful alternatives, even in large stand-alone units. The SNAP 
acceptability listing for R-744 in stand-alone equipment does not 
include a restriction on charge size or any other use condition. We 
also recognize the ability to apply separate refrigeration circuits 
within a given cabinet; for instance one circuit with up to 150 grams 
of R-290 to cool a portion of the unit and a second circuit with up to 
150 grams of R-290 to cool the rest of the unit. Such dual-circuit 
designs might be particularly effective if different parts of the unit 
are used for different products that require different temperature 
conditions or have different refrigeration loads.
    EPA seeks comments on this option and particularly on how one would 
determine what size of a unit could not use substitutes that would 
remain on the acceptable list under this proposal or that we have 
recently proposed be added to the acceptable list; where the dividing 
line would be drawn; and how such a use restriction could avoid 
unintended consequences such as the over-sizing of units to allow the 
use of HFC-134a.
    EPA believes that R-744, an acceptable option for both new stand-
alone retail food refrigeration equipment and new vending machines, and 
R-290, an acceptable substitute for new stand-alone retail food 
refrigeration equipment and proposed as acceptable for new vending 
machines, could satisfy the vast majority of new equipment in these 
end-uses. However, we seek additional information and studies that 
would help us understand whether certain designs (e.g., 3-door and 
other large retail food refrigeration stand-alone equipment) could meet 
the charge size limit in the case of R-290. We also seek information 
regarding whether certain applications (e.g., low-temperature vending 
machines) could be effective while maintaining current energy 
efficiency levels in the case of R-744.
c. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment and Vending Machines
    EPA has proposed to find R-404A and R-507A unacceptable for 
retrofits in both stand-alone equipment and vending machines. EPA is 
considering also changing the acceptability status of several other 
refrigerants to unacceptable. Under this option, we would change the 
status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in 
retrofit retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment): 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-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-507A, RS-24 
(2002 formulation), and RS-44 (2003 formulation). Likewise, this option 
would change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable 
to unacceptable in retrofit vending machines: KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a 
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-24 (2002 
formulation). The refrigerants in these two lists have GWPs that range 
from 1,505 to 3,985.
    These refrigerants have higher GWPs than HFC-134a, which would 
remain acceptable for retrofits, and in this respect pose a higher risk 
to human health and the environment. Similar to HFC-134a, these other 
refrigerants do not pose increased risk due to toxicity, flammability, 
ODP and ecological effects. EPA believes that HFC-134a would be the 
most likely refrigerant to be used to retrofit stand-alone equipment 
and vending machines still operating on ozone-depleting refrigerant. 
EPA questions whether the other refrigerants listed above would serve 
any retrofit need, and whether finding them unacceptable would reduce 
overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA believes some 
existing vending machines and stand-alone equipment still use class I 
ozone-depleting refrigerants such as CFC-12 and R-502 and that even 
more equipment continues to use class II ozone-depleting refrigerants, 
primarily HCFC-22. Other than HFC-134a, we do not believe there are 
substitutes that would likely be used for most of this equipment for 
purposes of retrofitting.
    We seek comment on the option of finding other substitutes, in 
addition to R-404A and R-507A, unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants in 
vending machines and stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment. 
In particular, we are interested in an assessment of the existing stock 
of equipment operating with ozone-depleting refrigerants, the 
likelihood that they will require a retrofit before being replaced with 
a new unit, and the substitute(s) that could be and are likely to be 
used.
d. Status of R-404A and R-507A in Other End-Uses
    Considering the high GWP of R-404A, R-507A, and some of the other 
blends proposed as unacceptable, EPA is considering finding them 
unacceptable in several other end-uses, besides retail food 
refrigeration and vending machines, such as cold storage rooms and 
warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport, and industrial 
process refrigeration. We believe that the substitutes that are being 
used in retail food refrigeration, such as R-407A and R-407F, would be 
theoretically viable in these other end-uses too, given that the 
operational characteristics of such equipment, such as temperature to 
be maintained, are similar. Those two substitutes, and others, have 
been found acceptable in the four end-uses mentioned. In addition, low-
GWP substitutes have been found acceptable under SNAP for some of these 
end-uses, and research is underway in the others. For example, for the 
industrial process refrigeration end-use, R-744, R-717, and several HCs 
have been found acceptable. For cold storage warehouses, R-744 is 
acceptable for new equipment, and R-717 is in widespread use. R-744 for 
refrigerated transport and HCs for ice machines have been tested and, 
although not yet listed under SNAP, are being used outside the United 
States. In these two end-uses, the list of acceptable refrigerants is 
similar to that for supermarket applications, spanning a wide range of 
GWPs. Several HFC blends with GWPs considerably lower than those of R-
404A and R-507A are being used in retail food refrigeration, especially 
in supermarkets and, as stated above, are acceptable in the four end-
uses mentioned; however, we have limited knowledge of their use in 
these other end-uses. For that reason, we have not proposed finding R-
404A and R-507A unacceptable in these other end-uses.
    EPA requests comment on the use and viability of both low-GWP 
refrigerants (e.g., R-744, R-717, and HCs) and other HFC-blends (e.g., 
R-407A and R-407F) and the possibility of listing R-404A, R-507A, and 
other high-GWP blends unacceptable in any or all of these four end-
uses--cold storage warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport, 
and industrial process refrigeration. EPA also solicits comments on the 
feasibility of the proposed deadlines and whether earlier or later 
dates would be more appropriate.

D. Foam Blowing Agents

    EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to 
unacceptable beginning January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a 
narrowed use limit, for HFC-134a and blends thereof in all foam blowing 
end-uses, and for HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa and blends thereof for all foam 
blowing end-uses except spray foam applications. Specific end-uses and 
applications include: (1) Rigid

[[Page 46150]]

polyurethane appliance foam; (2) flexible polyurethane; (3) rigid 
polyurethane: commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; (4) rigid 
polyurethane (slabstock and other); (5) rigid polyurethane and 
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; (6) integral skin polyurethane; 
(7) polystyrene (extruded sheet); (8) polystyrene: extruded boardstock 
and billet; (9) polyolefin; and (10) phenolic insulation board and 
bunstock. In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listings from 
acceptable to unacceptable for the following foam blowing agents in the 
following end-uses as of January 1, 2017: (1) Formacel B in polystyrene 
(extruded boardstock and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid polyurethane 
appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, 
and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral skin 
polyurethane, polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin; (3) Formacel 
Z-6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane 
(commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane 
slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin 
polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4) HFC-143a in 
phenolic insulation board and bunstock.
1. Background
    Foams are plastics (such as polyurethane or polystyrene) that are 
manufactured using blowing agents to create bubbles or cells in the 
material's structure. The foam plastics manufacturing industries, the 
markets they serve and the blowing agents used are extremely varied. 
The range of uses includes building materials, appliance insulation, 
cushioning, furniture, packaging materials, containers, flotation 
devices, filler, sound proofing and shoe soles. Some foams are rigid 
with cells that still contain the foam blowing agent, which can 
contribute to the foam's ability to insulate. Other foams are open-
celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at the time the foam is 
blown, as for flexible foams.
    Historically, a variety of foam blowing agents have been used for 
these applications. CFCs and HCFCs were typically used given their 
favorable chemical properties. CFCs and HCFCs are controlled substances 
under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA 
including a phaseout of production and import under section 604 for 
CFCs and section 605(b)-(c) for HCFCs and use restrictions on HCFCs 
under section 605(a). The regulations implementing section 610 of the 
CAA include a ban on sale or distribution of foam products blown with 
class I and class II ODS: however, for foam products containing a class 
II ODS, the ban is subject to an exception for foam insulation products 
as defined at 40 CFR 82.62.
    The SNAP program has found acceptable a variety of non-ODS blowing 
agents, including HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc), 
hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, and methyl formate. In addition, 
low-GWP fluorinated compounds in use include HFO-1234ze(E) and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice 1233zd(E)).
    Blowing agents are approved on an end-use basis. The SNAP program 
considers the following end-uses:
    a. Rigid polyurethane (appliance foam) includes insulation foam in 
domestic refrigerators and freezers.
    b. Rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and 
sandwich panels) includes buoyancy foams, insulation for roofing, wall, 
pipes, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, and refrigerated 
transport vehicles.
    c. Rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other) includes insulation for 
panels and pipes.
    d. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 
includes insulation for roofing and walls.
    e. Flexible polyurethane includes foam in furniture, bedding, chair 
cushions, and shoe soles.
    f. Integral skin polyurethane includes car steering wheels, 
dashboards, and shoe soles.
    g. Polystyrene (extruded sheet) includes foam for packaging and 
buoyancy or flotation.
    h. Polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet) includes insulation 
for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes.
    i. Polyolefin includes foam sheets and tubes.
    j. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation for 
roofing and walls.
2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?
    EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to 
unacceptable for HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and any blends 
containing these blowing agents for all foam end-uses and applications 
except for spray foam as of January 1, 2017. In addition, we propose to 
change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for the following 
foam blowing agents in the following end-uses: (1) Formacel B in 
polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid 
polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial 
refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, 
integral skin polyurethane, polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin; 
(3) Formacel Z-6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid 
polyurethane (commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid 
polyurethane slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet), 
integral skin polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4) 
HFC-143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock, all as of January 
1, 2017--that is, it would be prohibited to blow foam using these 
blowing agents for these uses beginning January 1, 2017. In addition, 
we propose that it would be prohibited to import closed cell foam 
products or products containing closed cell foam that contain any of 
the blowing agents listed as unacceptable. EPA is also seeking comment 
on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to 
apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in 
particular what would be the legal basis for doing so. Finally, we are 
providing a limited exception to the date when the unacceptability 
determinations apply for certain military and space applications where 
there is documentation that additional time is required to complete 
qualification testing.
a. What other foam blowing agents are being used?
    Various foam blowing agents have been historically used. The 
opportunity to use hydrocarbons (HCs), CO2, and water in the 
1990s for a range of foam blowing applications in the United States has 
allowed many foam blowing end-uses and applications to transition from 
ODS, thus reducing the end-uses that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have 
been a low-GWP and cost-effective alternative available for large parts 
of the foam sector, particularly in flexible polyurethane foam, 
polystyrene sheet foam, polyurethane slabstock foam, polyurethane and 
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, phenolic, and polyolefin foams. 
HCs also are used in most of the other end-uses, but less extensively 
than in these six end-uses. However, flammability of foam blowing 
agents, including HCs, can be a concern, particularly for spray foam 
applications.
    Over the past ten years both fluorinated and non-fluorinated 
alternatives have expanded both the list of options for specific foam 
uses and the foam uses in which these alternatives are now used has 
also grown. A number of new foam blowing agents with low GWPs have been 
introduced during the

[[Page 46151]]

past several years. Many end users have indicated interest in these 
newer alternatives, often to improve energy efficiency of the foam 
products manufactured with the foam blowing agent. Production volumes 
for some of these newer substitutes are expanding rapidly to keep pace 
with growing demand. For example, HFO-1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene have recently been listed as acceptable. HFO-
1336mzz(Z) is currently under review by EPA as a substitute foam 
blowing agent. These newer substitutes, which do not raise the 
flammability concerns of HCs, may prove appropriate for end-uses where 
flammable agents raise safety concerns. The process and timing for 
retooling facilities that use the blowing agents or that incorporate 
the foam product into another product will vary depending on the 
substitute selected. In some cases, manufacturing facilities such as 
household refrigerator manufacturers have already begun the testing of 
and transitioning to lower-GWP substitutes for foam blowing.
b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute foam 
blowing agents?
i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents
    The HFCs that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs 
ranging from 794 for HFC-365mfc to 4470 for HFC-143a, which is 
significantly higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes. The 
HFC blends that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs that 
vary depending on the specific composition; the range of GWPs for 
blends are 140 to 1500 for Formacel B, 1330 to close to 1500 for 
Formacel TI, 370 to 1290 for Formacel Z-6, 740 to 1030 for blends of 
HFC-365mfc with at least 4% HFC-245fa, and 900 to 1100 for commercial 
blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc. All of the HFCs and HFC blends that we are proposing to find 
unacceptable consist of compounds that are non-ozone-depleting and are 
VOC-exempt. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these 
alternatives because they may be used for blowing foam consistent with 
required or recommended workplace exposure limits. For example, HFC-
134a, HFC-143a, and HFC-245fa can be used consistent with their 
respective AIHA WEELs of 1000 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 200 ppm (8-hr TWA) in 
the foam end-uses where they are acceptable. Of the foam blowing agents 
that we propose to be unacceptable, some are nonflammable (HFC-134a, 
HFC-245fa, Formacel TI, blends of HFC-365mfc with at least 4% HFC-
245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC-227ea and 
the remainder HFC-365mfc), while others are flammable (HFC-365mfc and 
HFC-143a). The HFC blends Formacel B and Formacel Z-6 may be flammable 
depending on the exact composition, with the less flammable or 
nonflammable formulations having higher GWPs, in some cases as high as 
1300 to 1500.
    In addition to the GWP of foam blowing agents, another potential 
climate impact from foam blowing agents is the insulation value of the 
blown foam. This may matter for rigid insulation foams, where the foam 
blowing agent may add more or less insulation value to rigid 
polyurethane appliance foam; rigid polyurethane spray, commercial 
refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane slabstock and 
other foam; polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet; rigid 
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; and phenolic 
insulation board and bunstock. A foam with better overall insulation 
value can reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions from power plants if 
the foam insulation results in greater energy efficiency and less need 
for heating or cooling. Some studies have indicated that hydrocarbons 
and CO2 may provide less insulation value to an insulation 
foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent information on some of the 
newer fluorinated foam blowing agents with low GWPs, such as HFO-
1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, indicates these 
foam blowing agents provide comparable or greater insulation value than 
their HCFC and HFC predecessors and therefore may be of interest to 
companies considering transition to more energy-efficient options. In 
addition, even a foam blowing agent that provides less insulation value 
may still not impact the foam's overall energy efficiency where thicker 
foam is used. Because of the variety of foam blowing agents available 
in each end-use, we believe that there are sufficient options that will 
not have an adverse impact on indirect greenhouse emissions.
ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam
    For rigid polyurethane appliance foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C6 
\49\), CO2, vacuum panels, water, ecomateTM, 
Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives (in-kind 
and not-in-kind) with GWPs that range from zero to seven. Toxicity is 
not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be 
used for blowing appliance foam consistent with required or recommended 
workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing 
agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the 
definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene contains chlorine and has measurable 
ODP. Its ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 50 51  is roughly one 
order of magnitude higher than the ODP of HFC-134a which is considered 
to have zero ODP.\52\ Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene's impact 
on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically 
insignificant.\53\ Of the various options listed in this paragraph, 
ecomate\TM,\ Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are 
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The hazards of the 
flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the 
process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, 
HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 have 
significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes 
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to 
human health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ These are hydrocarbons with three to six carbons, including 
propane, butane, isobutane, pentane, isopentane, cyclopentane, and 
hexane.
    \50\ Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report: 
Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.'' 
Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, 
IL. September 26, 2011.
    \51\ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and 
Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-
dimensional model.'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
    \52\ Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit.
    \53\ Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Flexible Polyurethane
    For flexible polyurethane used for foam furniture, bedding, chair 
cushions, shoe soles and other applications, acceptable substitutes 
include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), Exxsol blowing agents, 
CO2, ecomateTM (i.e., methyl formate), HFC-152a, 
and water with GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Of the substitutes listed 
for flexible polyurethane, all have an ODP of zero. Toxicity is not a 
significant concern for these substitutes because they may be used for 
blowing flexible polyurethane foam consistent with required or 
recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and 
Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are 
exempt

[[Page 46152]]

from the definition of VOC. Of the various options listed in this 
paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, and 
hydrocarbons are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The 
flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be 
adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and 
fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have 
significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes 
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to 
human health and the environment.
iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam
    For rigid polyurethane spray foam, which includes insulation for 
roofing, wall, pipes, and buoyancy, acceptable substitutes include HFC-
245fa, commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea, containing 7% to 
13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, blends of HFC-365mfc and at 
least 5% HFC-245fa, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, 
ecomate\TM\, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-
ene, with GWPs ranging from zero to 1100. Toxicity is not a significant 
concern for these alternatives because they may be used for spray foam 
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With 
the exception of Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain 
compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the 
substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 
has an ODP, and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance 
foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be 
statistically insignificant.
    Flammability is of particular concern in spray foam applications, 
in part because they are applied onsite in pressurized equipment with 
spray guns, sometimes in proximity to hot, flammable substances such as 
tar. The alternative manufacturers have developed training to assist 
end-users in addressing the flammability hazards of the flammable 
compounds in this end-use (Exxsol blowing agents and ecomate\TM\); 
however, these alternatives have limited, if any, use in spray foams in 
the United States.54 55 Flammability risks are more 
difficult to mitigate than in most other foam applications because, 
unlike in a factory setting, it is unlikely that ventilation can be 
provided that removes flammable vapors and maintains them below the 
lower flammability limit, and it is not practical to make all 
electrical fixtures explosion proof when applying spray foam in place 
in a residential building. Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC-134a and 
blends thereof and Formacel TI unacceptable in this application. We are 
proposing that HFC-245fa; commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-
227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and 
blends of HFC-365mfc and at least 5% HFC-245fa remain acceptable in 
spray foam because these three nonflammable foam blowing agents reduce 
overall risk compared to the available flammable alternatives. The 
three HFC blends that remain acceptable reduce overall risks to human 
health and the environment compared to HFC-134a and Formacel TI in this 
application because they have lower GWPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic 
Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, 
Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013.
    \55\ UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams 
Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is 
accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich 
Panels
    For rigid polyurethane used in commercial refrigeration and 
sandwich panels, which includes insulation for roofing, wall, metal 
doors, vending machines, coolers, buoyancy, and refrigerated transport 
vehicles, acceptable alternatives include saturated light HCs (C3-C6), 
ecomateTM, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, 
methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1-ene with GWPs ranging from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a 
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for 
blowing foam for commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, 
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With 
the exception of hydrocarbon, and Exxsol blowing agents, these 
substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of 
VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid 
polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone 
abundance is expected to be statistically insignificant. Of the various 
substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol 
blowing agents, formic acid, hydrocarbons, and methyl formate are 
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of 
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in 
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In these 
applications, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel Z-6 and 
Formacel B have significantly higher GWPs than the other available 
substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing 
overall risks to human health and the environment.
vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foam
    For rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam, saturated light 
HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, 
methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs that range from zero to 
seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives 
because they may be used for blowing slabstock foam consistent with 
required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception 
of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds 
that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed 
above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP, and as 
discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on 
global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically 
insignificant. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, 
ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are 
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of 
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in 
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-
use, HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 
have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes 
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to 
human health and the environment.
vii. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock
    For rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, 
saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol 
blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs 
that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for 
these alternatives because they may be used for blowing laminated 
boardstock consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure 
limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these

[[Page 46153]]

alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of 
VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid 
polyurethane appliance foam, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene's 
impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be 
statistically insignificant. Of the various options listed in this 
paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate 
are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability 
hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately 
addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In 
this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have significantly 
higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in 
this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and 
the environment.
viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet
    For polystyrene extruded sheet, acceptable substitutes include 
saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol 
blowing agents, ecomate\TM\ (methyl formate), and HFC-152a. These 
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a 
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for 
blowing extruded polystyrene foam consistent with required or 
recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and 
Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are 
exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in 
this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes 
listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, 
and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The 
flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be 
adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and 
fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel 
TI and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other 
available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby 
increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.
ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet
    For polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet, acceptable 
substitutes include saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6), 
CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate\TM\ (methyl 
formate), HFC-152a, and HFO-1234ze(E). These substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these 
alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded polystyrene 
foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. 
With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes 
contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the 
substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of 
the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol 
blowing agents, HFC-152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are 
nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in 
this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA 
regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc, Formacel B and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than 
the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, 
thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.
x. Integral Skin Polyurethane
    In integral skin polyurethane, which includes foam in car steering 
wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles, substitutes include acetone, 
saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing 
agents, methyl formate, ecomate\TM\, HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-152a, and 
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. These substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for 
these alternatives because they may be used for blowing integral skin 
polyurethane foam consistent with required or recommended workplace 
exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, 
these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition 
of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid 
polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone 
abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various 
substitutes listed in this paragraph, acetone, methyl formate, 
ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, and hydrocarbons are 
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of 
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in 
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-
use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 
have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes 
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to 
human health and the environment.
xi. Polyolefin Foam
    For polyolefin foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, 
water, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC-152a, 
blends of HFC-152a and saturated light HCs, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs 
that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for 
these alternatives because they may be used for blowing polyolefin foam 
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With 
the exception of HCs, HC blends, and Exxsol blowing agents, these 
alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of 
VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP 
of zero. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\, 
Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the 
others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable 
compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of 
meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, 
Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 have significantly 
higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in 
this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and 
the environment.
xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock
    In phenolic insulation board and bunstock, which includes 
insulation for roofing and walls, acceptable substitutes include 
saturated light HCs (C3-C6),), CO2, 2-chloropropane, water, 
Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate\TM\, HFO-1234ze(E), and HFC-152a. These 
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a 
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for 
blowing phenolic foam consistent with required or recommended workplace 
exposure limits. With the exception of 2-chloropropane, hydrocarbons, 
and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are 
exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in 
this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes 
listed in this paragraph, 2-chloropropane, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing 
agents, HFC-152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are 
nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in 
this end-use can be adequately

[[Page 46154]]

addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In 
this end-use, HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have 
significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes 
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to 
human health and the environment.
    For the foam end-uses listed above, both fluorinated and non-
fluorinated substitutes are being used today in the U.S.; EPA 
recognizes that the formulator and systems house will consider other 
criteria including toxicity, flammability, and local air quality. 
However, given the range of substitutes available, we believe that 
there are other alternatives available for formulators or systems 
houses that pose less risk for human health and the environment than 
the HFCs and HFC blends proposed to be listed as unacceptable.
c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing 
foams?
    EPA is proposing to regulate foam blowing agents contained in the 
cells of closed cell foams and proposes to consider these foams and 
products containing them to be subject to the proposed unacceptability 
determinations, as well as the use of the foam blowing agent in 
manufacturing those products. Section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act 
refers to ``replacing'' ODS with substitutes. In the case of the foam 
blowing agent sector, we have previously interpreted unacceptability 
determinations as referring solely to replacing the foam blowing agent 
and have not interpreted the SNAP lists to apply to products made with 
foam. Thus, an unacceptable foam blowing agent may not be used in or 
imported into the United States. However, products made with 
unacceptable foams blown overseas may be imported. For example, 
refrigerators containing appliance foam blown with the unacceptable 
blowing agent HCFC-141b may still be imported into the United States, 
even though the SNAP program has listed HCFC-141b as an unacceptable 
foam blowing agent (September 30, 2004 at 69 FR 58269). Under this 
interpretation of our SNAP regulations if this proposal becomes final 
the foam blowing agents we are proposing to find unacceptable would be 
prohibited from being used or imported into the United States, but foam 
products or products containing foam, such as appliances or furniture 
made with these unacceptable foam blowing agents, could be imported.
    In this rule, EPA is proposing to adopt a different interpretation 
for closed cell foams that would result in prohibiting both import and 
manufacture of products made with the blowing agents proposed to be 
unacceptable. This approach would have an effect similar to the earlier 
nonessential product ban for products containing unacceptable foam 
blowing agents, prohibiting import and distribution of such products. 
For closed cell foams, the blowing agents are retained in cells after 
the foam is blown and provide insulation value. Foam blowing end-uses 
that contain closed-cell foams include rigid polyurethane appliance 
foam; rigid polyurethane: Spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich 
panels; rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other); rigid polyurethane 
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; polystyrene (extruded 
sheet); polystyrene: extruded boardstock and billet; polyolefin; and 
phenolic insulation board and bunstock. Foam blowing end-uses 
containing open cell foams include flexible polyurethane and integral 
skin polyurethane. In comparison, in open cell foams, the blowing agent 
is not retained and would have escaped prior to import. Thus, an open 
cell product blown with an unacceptable foam blowing agent (or products 
containing such an open cell foam) would not contain any of that agent 
when imported in the United States whereas a closed cell product would 
still retain some of the foam blowing agent. EPA is proposing and is 
seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam 
blowing agent to apply to products with closed cell foam since the 
product still contains at least some of the foam blowing agent and thus 
is replacing other foam blowing agents. EPA is also seeking comment on 
whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to 
apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in 
particular on what would be the legal basis for doing so.
d. When would the listings change?
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to change the listings for 
foam blowing agents as of January 1, 2017. Based on information 
concerning the timeframes from past transitions, EPA believes this date 
allows sufficient opportunity to redesign for a different foam blowing 
agent. However, EPA is seeking comment on changing the listings as of 
January 1, 2016. The foam industry was able to convert from HCFC-142b 
and HCFC-22 to other acceptable substitutes between EPA's proposed 
unacceptability determination in November 2005 and its final 
determination in March 2007, which specified that existing users of the 
unacceptable HCFCs must transition by March 1, 2008, for most uses. EPA 
also provided an additional 18 months for this transition for marine 
flotation foam, to September 1, 2009, and allowed until January 1, 
2010, for a transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in extruded 
polystyrene foam boardstock (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). EPA is 
requesting comment on using January 1, 2017 as the date on which foam 
must not be blown using HFC-134a, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, HFC-143a and 
blends thereof, or Formacel B, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6. We are 
also seeking comment on whether a transition could be completed by 
January 1, 2016. In particular, we request comment on whether these 
dates would be sufficient time for the transition where the foam 
product is incorporated into a larger product (e.g., commercial 
refrigeration foam used in transport refrigeration), and whether there 
are any specific foam end-uses or applications that may require 
additional time and, if so, how long and why. Based on this 
information, EPA could consider grandfathering options for foam blowing 
agents in specific end-uses or could provide a different date for use 
to be unacceptable.
e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-Related 
Applications
    EPA is proposing an exception to the proposed unacceptability 
determination for HFC and HFC blend foam blowing agents for military or 
space- and aeronautics-related applications. EPA is also proposing that 
the narrowed use limit would expire on January 1, 2022. Under a 
narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space- and 
aeronautics application would need to ascertain that other alternatives 
are not technically feasible and document the results of their 
analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). For the military, there are several 
unique performance requirements related to weapon systems that require 
extensive testing prior to qualifying alternatives for HFC-containing 
foams. While the vast majority of applications for foams are 
anticipated to be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by the 
proposed January 1, 2017 date, in a very small number of cases, the 
timeframes associated with testing and qualifications for weapon 
systems could take longer. In addition, some of the lower-GWP 
alternatives may not be available at this time in certain specialty 
applications with unique military requirements such as undersea; 
aerospace; and chemical, biological, and radiological warfare systems. 
In the case of space- and aeronautics-related

[[Page 46155]]

applications, HFCs are used in numerous applications, including certain 
mission-critical applications such as foam blowing for which 
appropriate substitutes have not yet been identified. Past experience 
indicates that transitions away from CFC- and HCFC-blown foams in 
similar applications took several years due to the challenging 
operational environment and the lengthy requalification process 
associated with human-rated space flight systems.
    Under the acceptable for narrowed use limits category, users of a 
restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category must make a 
reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or alternatives 
are not technically feasible. Users are expected to undertake a 
thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the otherwise 
restricted substitute. Although users are not required to report the 
results of their investigations to EPA, users must document these 
results, and retain them in their files for the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance.
    Under a narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space- 
and aeronautics- related application would need to ascertain that other 
alternatives are not technically feasible and document the results of 
their analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Documentation should include 
descriptions of:
     Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
     Substitutes examined and rejected;
     Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., 
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
     Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and 
projected time for switching.
    EPA is seeking comment on this proposed narrowed use limitation for 
military or space- and aeronautics-related applications In addition, 
EPA is also seeking comment on the timeframe for this narrowed use 
limitation, recognizing that if all alternatives are not qualified in 
advance of 2022, the Agency may need to revisit and adjust the end 
date.
f. Summary
    EPA seeks comments on changing the listings for the proposed foam 
end-uses. In particular, EPA is interested in whether there are 
specific uses other than spray foam that require the use of HFC-134a, 
HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof, or the blends Formacel B, 
Formacel TI, or Formacel Z-6 for reasons of fire safety or technical 
feasibility. We request comment on whether closed cell foam products 
and products containing closed cell foams should be subject to the 
unacceptability determinations, which under our current interpretation 
would otherwise only apply to the use of the foam blowing agent. We 
also seek comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam 
blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open 
cell foam, and in particular what would be the legal basis for doing 
so. EPA also requests comment on whether the proposed date provides an 
appropriate length of time for transition and whether there should be 
different dates for certain foam end-uses due to technical challenges 
that may exist for some foam end-uses but not all. EPA is also 
interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in 
sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition in the timeframe 
proposed in this action. EPA also takes comment on the proposed 
exception for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 
as described above.

VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs?

    EPA is proposing to modify the listings for three HCFCs in certain 
end-uses because the three HCFCs are subject to the use restrictions in 
CAA section 605(a) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 
subpart A. Additionally, the nonessential products ban under CAA 
section 610 also restricts sale and distribution of certain products 
containing or manufactured with these three HCFCs. We believe it is 
important that the SNAP listings not indicate that these HCFCs may be 
used when another program under title VI of the CAA would prevent such 
use. Thus, we are proposing to align the requirements. The HCFCs 
addressed in this rule are listed as acceptable or acceptable subject 
to use conditions in the aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire 
suppression and explosion protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, 
coatings and inks sectors. This in addition to the proposed 
unacceptability of HCFC-containing refrigerants in MVAC systems (see 
section V.B. of this preamble).

A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the three 
HCFCs and in which end-uses?

    EPA is proposing to modify the listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, 
and HCFC-22, as well as blends that contain these substances, from 
acceptable to unacceptable in all sectors \56\ except refrigeration and 
air conditioning. EPA is not addressing HCFC use for refrigeration and 
air conditioning because CAA section 605(a) and our implementing 
regulations allows for continuing use of HCFCs to service equipment. We 
are proposing that the listings would be modified 60 days following 
issuance of a final rule promulgating this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ These three HCFCs have previously been listed as 
unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?

    EPA is proposing to modify the listings for these three HCFCs and 
blends containing these HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with other 
Title VI regulations, specifically section 605 and its implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 610 and its 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C.
1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the Three HCFCs With Regulations 
Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610
    CAA Section 605(a) explicitly prohibits the introduction into 
interstate commerce or the use of any class II substance as of January 
1, 2015, unless such substance:
    (1) Has been used, recovered, and recycled;
    (2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in 
the production of other chemicals;
    (3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to 
January 1, 2020; or
    (4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression agent for 
nonresidential applications in accordance with section 612(c).

Through rulemaking, EPA accelerated to January 1, 2010, the 
prohibitions on use and introduction into interstate commerce for HCFC-
141b, HCFC-22, and HCFC-142b that has not been used, recovered, and 
recycled. See 40 CFR 82.15(g). With respect to refrigeration and air 
conditioning uses, EPA's implementing regulations prohibit the use and 
introduction into interstate commerce of these HCFCs, unless used, 
recovered, and recycled, in equipment manufactured on or after January 
1, 2010. EPA's proposal to modify the listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, 
and HCFC-142b, including blends that contain these HCFCs, in various 
applications is consistent with the accelerated dates contained in our 
implementing regulations and covers end-uses where these HCFCs have 
previously been listed as acceptable as aerosols, refrigerants, foam 
blowing agents, fire suppressants, cleaning solvents, sterilants, and 
adhesives, coatings and inks.

[[Page 46156]]

    Section 605(a) complements section 610, which prohibited the sale 
and distribution, as well as offer for sale and distribution, in 
interstate commerce of aerosol products and pressurized dispensers 
containing a class II substance (i.e., HCFCs), and plastic foam 
products containing or manufactured with a class II substance, with 
limited exceptions.\57\ This statutory prohibition took effect on 
January 1, 1994. Consequently, most foams and aerosols have not used 
HCFCs since 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Section 610(d) contains certain exceptions and also 
authorizes EPA to grant exceptions in specific circumstances. For 
the complete list of exceptions, see EPA's implementing regulations 
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that other HCFCs are not yet subject to the use and 
interstate commerce prohibitions in section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), 
EPA is not proposing to change the SNAP listings for HCFCs other than 
HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 and blends containing those substances at 
this time. EPA may revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs in a later 
rulemaking as appropriate.
2. Anticipated Effects
    EPA does not anticipate that these changes will have a significant 
effect on the use of HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 since existing 
regulations limit the use of these three HCFCs (unless used, recovered, 
and recycled) in almost all end-uses in the United States (see 40 CFR 
82.15(g)). For the sectors addressed in this rulemaking, EPA is not 
aware of anyone using recovered, recycled or reclaimed HCFC-22, HCFC-
141b and HCFC-142b. In addition, as a result of the use restrictions in 
CAA section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), as well as the sale and 
distribution restrictions on certain products containing or 
manufactured with these substances in CAA section 610 and 40 CFR part 
82 subpart C, most sectors have taken significant steps to transition 
to non-ODS substitutes. For example, HCFCs in aerosol applications have 
been replaced by HCs, HFO-1234ze, roll-ons, pump sprays, and HFC-152a, 
excluding some niche technical applications that still rely on HCFCs 
not addressed in this action. HCFCs in foam blowing agents have largely 
been replaced by, among other things, methyl formate, HCs, Solstice-
1233zd(E), and carbon dioxide; any remaining HCFC use in this sector is 
limited to HCFCs not addressed in this action. For these reasons, we 
believe it is technically feasible for sources to comply with the 
proposed changes to the listings for these three HCFCs within 60 days 
of a final rule issued consistent with this proposal.
    EPA seeks comment on its proposal to modify the listings for HCFC-
141b, -142b, -22, and blends containing these substances. EPA is 
particularly interested in comments on both the scope of the proposed 
modifications and the timing.

VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?

    The requirements of the SNAP program apply to both exports and 
imports. EPA understands that some manufacturers may be interested in 
whether the listing decisions, if finalized as proposed, would apply to 
their products. EPA has previously responded to comments about the 
applicability of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most 
recently, in a final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a 
comment concerning whether appliances manufactured for export should be 
allowed to have larger charge sizes than those being sold in the United 
States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being 
established in that rule). EPA stated that:
    Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is 
applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate 
commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: The 
distribution or transportation of any product between one state, 
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, 
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or 
manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, 
possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the 
product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a 
product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the 
entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases 
the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States 
Customs clearance. This definition applies to any appliances produced 
in the United States, including appliances that will be exported. (76 
FR 78846)
    Therefore, EPA concluded that the same use conditions apply to 
appliances being exported.
    The range of sectors and end-uses covered by the SNAP program 
varies. Some end-uses, such as the refrigeration and air conditioning 
sector, includes appliances charged by OEMs and appliances typically 
field-charged. Some appliances charged by OEMs are hermetically sealed 
and other appliances are not. Furthermore, these appliances differ from 
products such as aerosols or foams because of the potential for 
servicing the appliances throughout their use. Some manufacturers of 
motor vehicle air conditioners identified a potential concern that 
there may be a lack of servicing infrastructure for low-GWP 
alternatives in markets outside the U.S. EPA recognizes that the 
transition to alternatives may occur at a different pace in different 
global markets. For example, the European Union is planning to 
transition to low-GWP alternatives for MVACs in 2017 which is several 
years earlier than what EPA is proposing. However, other countries have 
not indicated any specific plan to transition to low-GWP alternatives 
for MVACs. If finalized as proposed, HFC-134a would be listed as 
unacceptable in model year 2021 and the unacceptability listing would 
include MVACs that will be exported.
    EPA applies the SNAP requirements equally to imports and exports. 
However, EPA understands the concerns for proper infrastructure for 
servicing appliances in markets outside the U.S. EPA believes there is 
ample time between now and model year 2021 for such infrastructure to 
be established. EPA welcomes comments and specific information on this 
topic.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' It raises novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and any changes made in 
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 
this action.
    EPA conducted an analysis \58\ that considered the economic impacts 
of this proposed rule on small entities, as further discussed in the 
section C below. The analysis also considered that, specific to 
refrigerants used in air conditioning systems for newly manufactured 
light-duty vehicles, there are considerable environmental benefits of a 
transition to alternative refrigerants and there are costs associated 
with those substitutions. Based on recent information in manufacturers' 
product

[[Page 46157]]

plans, a limited number of manufacturers may have been planning to meet 
the GHG standards but still continue to use HFC-134a beyond MY 2021 for 
a limited number of their models. However, we believe there is time for 
any such manufacturers to make appropriate adjustments. These 
manufacturers could incur costs attributable to this proposal 
(representing the proposed requirement to cease use of HFC-134a by MY 
2021), but there would be environmental benefits in the form of 
increased reductions of GHG emissions from MVAC systems which would not 
otherwise occur, assuming these manufacturers also continue with their 
plans to achieve the reductions by means other than substitution of 
MVAC refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 
Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP 
Alternatives, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
This proposed rule is an Agency determination. It contains no new 
requirements for reporting. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. This Information 
Collection Request (ICR) included five types of respondent reporting 
and recordkeeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: Submission 
of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test 
marketing activity, recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to 
use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small volume uses. The OMB 
control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 
48 CFR Chapter 15.C.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes 
of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity 
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After conducting an analysis \59\ that considered the economic 
impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The requirements of this proposed rule with 
respect to HFCs, if finalized as proposed, would impact manufacturers 
of some consumer and technical aerosol products, retail food 
refrigeration equipment, vending machines, motor vehicles, and products 
containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, polyurethane, and 
polystyrene foams. The requirements of this proposed rule with respect 
to HCFCs, if finalized as proposed, would affect manufacturers of 
aerosols, foams, solvent cleaning, fire suppression, and adhesives, 
coatings, and inks. This rule's provisions do not create enforceable 
requirements for refrigeration and air conditioning technicians, but 
they would indirectly affect technicians servicing motor vehicle air 
conditioning systems, retail food refrigeration equipment, and vending 
machines where the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC 
equipment owner, purchases servicing equipment for different 
refrigerants. EPA expects these indirect impacts on technicians are 
minimal, because the transitions to different refrigerants required by 
this rule are already occurring due to other regulations (e.g., light 
duty vehicle GHG rule) and corporate social responsibility initiatives 
(e.g., Consumer Goods Forum pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and 
because many of the still-acceptable alternatives are already used for 
these refrigeration or air conditioning equipment types. Further, most 
acceptable HFC refrigerant blends can be recovered and serviced using 
equipment that service technicians already own. In some uses, there is 
no significant impact of the proposed rule because the substitutes 
proposed to be prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use of HFC-134a as 
a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC-134a as a foam 
blowing agent in various polyurethane foams). A significant portion of 
the businesses regulated under this rule are not small businesses 
(e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers). About 500,000 small 
businesses could be subject to the rulemaking, although more than 99% 
of small businesses subject to this proposed rulemaking would be 
expected to experience zero compliance costs. EPA continues to be 
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts, in 
particular technical challenges, including time to transition, that may 
exist for some small entities but not all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 
Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP 
Alternatives, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or 
tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of this proposed rule 
related to prohibiting certain substitutes, including HFC-134a, R-404A 
and R-507A, would require new equipment to be manufactured using other 
available options but would not require changes to existing equipment 
that is already manufactured or purchased. Thus, this rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This 
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA 
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. This regulation applies directly 
to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental 
entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directly to 
facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the 
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to 
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from State and 
local officials.

[[Page 46158]]

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action 
from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule restricts the use 
of certain substitutes that have greater overall risks for human health 
and the environment, primarily due to their high global warming 
potential. The reduction in GHG emissions would provide climate 
benefits for all people, including benefits for children and future 
generations. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-
reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to 
the alternatives addressed in this action.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol uses are not related to the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy. For the end-uses that are 
related to energy effects such as refrigeration and air conditioning, a 
number of alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants that 
are proposed as unacceptable in this action; many of the alternatives 
are as energy efficient or more energy efficient than the substitutes 
being proposed as unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded that this rule 
is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed 
rule does not involve technical standards.

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

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main 
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has 
determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental 
protection for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. This proposed rule, if finalized, would prohibit a number 
of substances with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and GWP 
emissions would assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and 
provide climate benefits.

IX. References

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

Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries 
of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
Ben and Jerry's, 2014. Cleaner, Greener Freezers. This document is 
accessible at http://www.benjerry.com/values/how-we-do-business/cleaner-greener-freezers.
CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on Climate-Friendly Alternatives in 
Commercial Refrigeration. Meeting Summary. 8 December 2012. This 
document is accessible at http://www.unep.org/ccac/Portals/50162/docs/TechForum/FINAL%20REPORT%20Commercial%20Technology%20Forum%20final.pdf.
Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible 
at: http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-gri-report.pdf.
Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 Millionth HFC-Free Cooler 
Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, January 22, 2014. 
This document is accessible at http://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing-525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2.
Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol 
Pressurized Products Survey--61st Annual Products Survey. April 15, 
2012.
Daimler, ``Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler's Safety 
Concerns About New Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,'' Stephen 
Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily Environment Report, March 11, 2014. This 
document is accessible at http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=0.
Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is accessible at 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTM.
Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 13, 2014.
EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 
Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009. This document is 
accessible at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
EPA, 2012. Factsheet: Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation 2000-2012. 
This data is accessible at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf.
EPA, 2013. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, 
June, 2013.
EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, 
June 2014.
EPA, Greenchill. ``Advanced Refrigeration''. This document is 
accessible at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gc_storecertprogram08232011.pdf.

[[Page 46159]]

EPA Memorandum: ``Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning 
Alternative Refrigerant Transition'', Tad Wysor, April 2014.
GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New Alternatives Policy 
Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, October 2008.
Honeywell, 2014. Aerosols Overview--Honeywell Solstice[supreg] 
Propellant. EPA meeting. February 27, 2014.
ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. 
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. 
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial 
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air 
Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon 
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.
ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory 
Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. April, 
2014.
ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost-Analysis for Regulatory Options 
to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June, 2014.
IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe 
K. (eds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies 
(IGES), Japan. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, 
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. 
Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 
and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., 
G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and 
P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, 
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and 
the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and 
Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and 
Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
Nelson, Gabe ``Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate 
with EPA credits, European mandate'' Automobile News, December 30, 
2013. This document is accessible at http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea.
NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone 
Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and 
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.'' Atmos. 
Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options 
Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the 
Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document 
is accessible at http://www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, 
Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information 
on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. This document is accessible 
at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/TEAP_TaskForce%20XXIV-7-May2013.pdf.
Velders, G. J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S.O. 
Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to 
future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954. Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. 
``Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on 
Atmospheric Ozone.'' Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University 
of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011.
Weissler, Paul, ``A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R-
1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,'' Automotive Engineering 
International, April 2, 2013. This document is accessible at http://articles.sae.org/11870/.
WMO, 2010. World Meteorological Organization. Scientific Assessment 
of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring 
Project--Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: July 9, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR part 82 as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

0
2. Amend Subpart G by adding Appendix U to read as follows:

Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82-- Unacceptable Substitutes and 
Substitutes Subject To Use Restrictions Listed in the [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Final Rule, 
Effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER].

[[Page 46160]]



                                   Table 1--Aerosols--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                      Substitute               Decision             Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propellants........................  HFC-125...............  Unacceptable as of      HFC-125 has a Chemical
                                                              January 1, 2016         Abstracts Service Registry
                                                                                      Number (CAS Reg. No.) of
                                                                                      354-33-6 and it is also
                                                                                      known by the name
                                                                                      1,1,1,2,2-
                                                                                      pentafluoropropane. HFC-
                                                                                      125 has a high GWP of
                                                                                      3,500. Other substitutes
                                                                                      are available for this end-
                                                                                      use with lower overall
                                                                                      risk to human health and
                                                                                      the environment.
                                                                                     Products using this
                                                                                      propellant that are
                                                                                      manufactured prior to
                                                                                      January 1, 2016 may be
                                                                                      sold, imported, exported,
                                                                                      distributed and used after
                                                                                      that date.
Propellants........................  HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b.  Unacceptable effective  Use or introduction into
                                                              [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER     interstate commerce of
                                                              PUBLICATION OF FINAL    virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-
                                                              RULE]                   142b for aerosols is
                                                                                      prohibited as of January
                                                                                      1, 2010 under EPA's
                                                                                      regulations at 40 CFR part
                                                                                      82 subpart A. These
                                                                                      propellants have ozone
                                                                                      depletion potentials of
                                                                                      0.055 and 0.065,
                                                                                      respectively.
Solvents...........................  HCFC-141b.............  Unacceptable effective  Use or introduction into
                                                              [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER     interstate commerce of
                                                              PUBLICATION OF FINAL    virgin HCFC-141b for
                                                              RULE]                   aerosols is prohibited as
                                                                                      of January 1, 2015 under
                                                                                      EPA's regulations at 40
                                                                                      CFR part 82 subpart A.
                                                                                      HCFC-141b has an ozone
                                                                                      depletion potential of
                                                                                      0.11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Table 2--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Further
            End-use                  Substitute           Decision          Use conditions        information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propellants....................  HFC-134a..........  Acceptable subject  As of January 1,     HFC-134a has a
                                                      to use conditions.  2016, acceptable     Chemical
                                                                          only for use in:     Abstracts Service
                                                                          Metered      Registry Number
                                                                          dose inhalers for    (CAS Reg. No.) of
                                                                          the treatment of     811-97-2 and it
                                                                          asthma and chronic   is also known by
                                                                          obstructive          the name 1,1,1,2-
                                                                          pulmonary disease,   tetrafluoropropan
                                                                          allergic rhinitis,   e. HFC-134a has a
                                                                          and other diseases   relatively high
                                                                          where aerosols can   GWP of 1,430. Use
                                                                          be used for          is allowed for
                                                                          systemic delivery    the specified
                                                                          through lung,        uses because of
                                                                          nose, or other       the greater
                                                                          organs.              technical and
                                                                          cleaning     safety demands in
                                                                          products for         these
                                                                          removal of grease,   applications
                                                                          flux and other       compared to other
                                                                          soils from           aerosol
                                                                          electrical           applications.
                                                                          equipment or        It is prohibited
                                                                          electronics.         to use aerosol
                                                                          lubricants   products other
                                                                          for electrical       than those
                                                                          equipment or         specified here
                                                                          electronics.         using HFC-134a
                                                                          sprays for   that are
                                                                          aircraft             manufactured on
                                                                          maintenance.         or after January
                                                                          pesticides   1, 2016. Aerosol
                                                                          for use near         products using
                                                                          electrical wires     this propellant
                                                                          or in aircraft, in   that are
                                                                          total release        manufactured
                                                                          insecticide          prior to January
                                                                          foggers, or in       1, 2016 may be
                                                                          certified organic    sold, imported,
                                                                          use pesticides for   exported,
                                                                          which EPA has        distributed and
                                                                          specifically         used after that
                                                                          disallowed all       date.
                                                                          other lower-GWP
                                                                          propellantsmold
                                                                          release agents.
                                                                          lubricants
                                                                          and cleaners for
                                                                          spinnerettes for
                                                                          synthetic fabrics
                                                                          duster
                                                                          sprays
                                                                          specifically for
                                                                          removal of dust
                                                                          from photographic
                                                                          negatives,
                                                                          semiconductor
                                                                          chips, and
                                                                          specimens under
                                                                          electron
                                                                          microscopes
                                                                          document
                                                                          preservation
                                                                          sprays
                                                                          wound care
                                                                          sprays topical
                                                                          coolant sprays for
                                                                          pain
                                                                          alleviationproduct
                                                                          s for removing
                                                                          bandage adhesives
                                                                          from skin.

[[Page 46161]]

 
Propellants....................  HFC-227ea.........  Acceptable subject  As of January 1,     HFC-227ea has a
                                                      to use conditions.  2016, acceptable     Chemical
                                                                          only for use in      Abstracts Service
                                                                          metered dose         Registry Number
                                                                          inhalers for the     (CAS Reg. No.) of
                                                                          treatment of         431-89-0 and it
                                                                          asthma and chronic   is also known by
                                                                          obstructive          the name
                                                                          pulmonary disease.   1,1,1,2,3,3,3-
                                                                                               heptafluoropropan
                                                                                               e. HFC-227ea has
                                                                                               a relatively high
                                                                                               GWP of 3,220. Use
                                                                                               is allowed for
                                                                                               metered dose
                                                                                               inhalers because
                                                                                               of the greater
                                                                                               technical and
                                                                                               safety demands in
                                                                                               this application
                                                                                               compared to other
                                                                                               aerosol
                                                                                               applications.
                                                                                              It is prohibited
                                                                                               to use aerosol
                                                                                               products other
                                                                                               than metered dose
                                                                                               inhalers using
                                                                                               HFC-227ea that
                                                                                               are manufactured
                                                                                               on or after
                                                                                               January 1, 2016.
                                                                                               Aerosol products
                                                                                               using this
                                                                                               propellant that
                                                                                               are manufactured
                                                                                               prior to January
                                                                                               1, 2016 may be
                                                                                               sold, imported,
                                                                                               exported,
                                                                                               distributed and
                                                                                               used after that
                                                                                               date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Table 3--Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                      Substitute               Decision             Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration (new and   R-404A................  Unacceptable as of      R-404A is a blend, by
 retrofit).                                                   January 1, 2016.        weight, of 44% HFC-125, 4%
                                                                                      HFC-134a, and 52% HFC-
                                                                                      143a. It has a high GWP of
                                                                                      approximately 3,920. Other
                                                                                      substitutes are available
                                                                                      for this end-use with
                                                                                      lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment.
Retail food refrigeration (new and   R-507A................  Unacceptable as of      R-507A is a blend, by
 retrofit).                                                   January 1, 2016.        weight, of 50% HFC-125 and
                                                                                      50% HFC-143a. It has a
                                                                                      high GWP of approximately
                                                                                      3,990. Other substitutes
                                                                                      are available for this end-
                                                                                      use with lower overall
                                                                                      risk to human health and
                                                                                      the environment.
Retail food refrigeration            HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-   Unacceptable as of      These refrigerants have
 (condensing units and supermarket    421B, R-422A, R-422C,   January 1, 2016.        GWPs ranging from 2,729 to
 systems)(new).                       R-422D, R-428A, R-                              3,607. Other substitutes
                                      434A.                                           are available for this end-
                                                                                      use with lower overall
                                                                                      risk to human health and
                                                                                      the environment.
Retail food refrigeration            R-407B, R-421B, R-      Unacceptable as of      These refrigerants have
 (condensing units and supermarket    422A, R-422C, R-422D,   January 1, 2016.        GWPs ranging from 2,729 to
 systems)(retrofit).                  R-428A, R-434A.                                 3,607. Other substitutes
                                                                                      are available for this end-
                                                                                      use with lower overall
                                                                                      risk to human health and
                                                                                      the environment.
Retail food refrigeration (stand-    HFC-134a..............  Unacceptable as of      HFC-134a has a Chemical
 alone units only) (new only).                                January 1, 2016.        Abstracts Service Registry
                                                                                      Number (CAS Reg. No.) of
                                                                                      811-97-2 and it is also
                                                                                      known by the name 1,1,1,2-
                                                                                      tetrafluoropropane. HFC-
                                                                                      134a has a relatively high
                                                                                      GWP of 1,430. Other
                                                                                      substitutes are available
                                                                                      for this end-use with
                                                                                      lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment.
Retail food refrigeration- (stand-   FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-    Unacceptable as of      These refrigerants have
 alone units only) (new only).        227ea, IKON B, KDD6,    January 1, 2016.        GWPs ranging from
                                      R-125/290/134a/600a                             approximately 550 to
                                      (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),                            3,607. Other substitutes
                                      R-407A, R-407B, R-                              are available for this end-
                                      407C, R-407F, R-410A,                           use with lower overall
                                      R-410B, R-417A, R-                              risk to human health and
                                      421A, R-421B, R-422A,                           the environment.
                                      R-422B, R-422C, R-
                                      422D, R-424A, R-426A,
                                      R-428A, R-434A, R-
                                      437A, R-438A, RS-24
                                      (2002 formulation),
                                      RS-44 (2003
                                      formulation), SP34E,
                                      THR-03.
Vending machines (new and retrofit)  R-404A................  Unacceptable as of      R-404A is a blend, by
                                                              January 1, 2016.        weight, of 44% HFC-125, 4%
                                                                                      HFC-134a, and 52% HFC-
                                                                                      143a. It has a GWP of
                                                                                      approximately 3,920. Other
                                                                                      substitutes are available
                                                                                      for this end-use with
                                                                                      lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment.

[[Page 46162]]

 
Vending machines (new and retrofit)  R-507A................  Unacceptable as of      R-507A is a blend, by
                                                              January 1, 2016.        weight, of 50% HFC-125 and
                                                                                      50% HFC-143a. It has a GWP
                                                                                      of approximately 3,990.
                                                                                      Other substitutes are
                                                                                      available for this end-use
                                                                                      with lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment.
Vending machines (new only)........  HFC-134a..............  Unacceptable as of      HFC-134a has a Chemical
                                                              January 1, 2016.        Abstracts Service Registry
                                                                                      Number (CAS Reg. No.) of
                                                                                      811-97-2 and it is also
                                                                                      known by the name 1,1,1,2-
                                                                                      tetrafluoropropane. HFC-
                                                                                      134a has a relatively high
                                                                                      GWP of 1,430. Other
                                                                                      substitutes are available
                                                                                      for this end-use with
                                                                                      lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment.
Vending machines (new only)........  FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON    Unacceptable as of      These refrigerants have
                                      B, KDD6, R-125/290/     January 1, 2016.        GWPs ranging from
                                      134a/600a (55.0/1.0/                            approximately 550 to
                                      42.5/1.5), R-407C, R-                           3,085. Other substitutes
                                      410A, R-410B, R-417A,                           are available for this end-
                                      R-421A, R-422B, R-                              use with lower overall
                                      422C, R-422D, R-426A,                           risk to human health and
                                      R-437A, R-438A, RS-24                           the environment.
                                      (2002 formulation),
                                      SP34E.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new  HFC-134a..............  Unacceptable as of      HFC-134a has a Chemical
 equipment in passenger cars and                              Model Year (MY) 2021.   Abstracts Service Registry
 light-duty trucks only).                                                             Number (CAS Reg. No.) of
                                                                                      811-97-2 and it is also
                                                                                      known by the name 1,1,1,2-
                                                                                      tetrafluoropropane. HFC-
                                                                                      134a has a relatively high
                                                                                      GWP of 1,430. Other
                                                                                      substitutes are available
                                                                                      for this end-use with
                                                                                      lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new  R-406A, R-414A (HCFC    Unacceptable as of MY   These refrigerants all
 equipment in passenger cars and      Blend Xi, GHG-X4), R-   2017.                   contain HCFCs. They have
 light-duty trucks only).             414B (HCFC Blend                                GWPs ranging from 1,480 to
                                      Omicron), HCFC Blend                            2,340 and ODPs ranging
                                      Delta (Free Zone),                              from 0.012 to 0.056. Other
                                      Freeze 12, GHG-X5,                              substitutes are available
                                      HCFC Blend Lambda                               for this end-use with
                                      (GHG-HP).                                       lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new  R-416A (FRIGC FR-12,    Unacceptable as of MY   This blend has a relatively
 equipment in passenger cars and      HCFC Blend Beta).       2017.                   high GWP of approximately
 light-duty trucks only).                                                             1,080 and an ODP of
                                                                                      approximately 0.008. Other
                                                                                      substitutes are available
                                                                                      for this end-use with
                                                                                      lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new  SP34E.................  Unacceptable as of MY   This blend has a relatively
 equipment in passenger cars and                              2017.                   high GWP of approximately
 light-duty trucks only).                                                             1,410. Other substitutes
                                                                                      are available for this end-
                                                                                      use with lower overall
                                                                                      risk to human health and
                                                                                      the environment.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new  R-426A (RS-24, new      Unacceptable as of MY   This blend has a relatively
 equipment in passenger cars and      formulation).           2017.                   high GWP of approximately
 light-duty trucks only).                                                             1,510. Other substitutes
                                                                                      are available for this end-
                                                                                      use with lower overall
                                                                                      risk to human health and
                                                                                      the environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table 4--Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Narrowed use           Further
             End-use                  Substitute           Decision             limits            information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance...  HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
                                   245fa, HFC-365mfc   to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                   and blends          Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   thereof; Formacel                       or space- and       results of their
                                   TI, and Formacel                        aeronautics-        technical
                                   Z-6.                                    related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.

[[Page 46163]]

 
Rigid Polyurethane: Spray.......  HFC-134a and        Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
                                   Formacel TI.        to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                                       Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                                                           or space- and       results of their
                                                                           aeronautics-        technical
                                                                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial    HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
 Refrigeration and Sandwich        245fa, HFC-         to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
 Panels.                           365mfc, and         Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   blends thereof;                         or space- and       results of their
                                   Formacel TI, and                        aeronautics-        technical
                                   Formacel Z-6.                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
Flexible Polyurethane...........  HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
                                   245fa, HFC-         to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                   365mfc, and         Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   blends thereof.                         or space- and       results of their
                                                                           aeronautics-        technical
                                                                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock     HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
 and Other.                        245fa, HFC-365mfc   to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                   and blends          Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   thereof; Formacel                       or space- and       results of their
                                   TI, and Formacel                        aeronautics-        technical
                                   Z-6.                                    related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
Rigid Polyurethane and            HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
 Polyisocyanurate Laminated        245fa, HFC-365mfc   to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
 Boardstock.                       and blends          Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   thereof.                                or space- and       results of their
                                                                           aeronautics-        technical
                                                                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.

[[Page 46164]]

 
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet.....  HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
                                   245fa, HFC-         to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                   365mfc, and         Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   blends thereof,                         or space- and       results of their
                                   Formacel TI, and                        aeronautics-        technical
                                   Formacel Z-6.                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock  HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
 and Billet.                       245fa, HFC-         to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                   365mfc, and         Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   blends thereof,                         or space- and       results of their
                                   Formacel B, and                         aeronautics-        technical
                                   Formacel Z-6.                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
Integral Skin Polyurethane......  HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
                                   245fa, HFC-         to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                   365mfc, and         Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   blends thereof;                         or space- and       results of their
                                   Formacel TI, and                        aeronautics-        technical
                                   Formacel Z-6.                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
Polyolefin......................  HFC-134a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
                                   245fa, HFC-         to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                   365mfc, and         Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   blends thereof;                         or space- and       results of their
                                   Formacel TI, and                        aeronautics-        technical
                                   Formacel Z-6.                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
Phenolic Insulation Board and     HFC-143a, HFC-      Acceptable Subject  Acceptable until    Users are required
 Bunstock.                         134a, HFC-245fa,    to Narrowed Use     January 1, 2022     to document and
                                   HFC-365mfc, and     Limits.             only in military    retain the
                                   blends thereof.                         or space- and       results of their
                                                                           aeronautics-        technical
                                                                           related             investigation of
                                                                           applications        alternatives for
                                                                           where reasonable    the purpose of
                                                                           efforts have been   demonstrating
                                                                           made to ascertain   compliance.
                                                                           that other          Information
                                                                           alternatives are    should include
                                                                           not technically     descriptions of:
                                                                           feasible due to     Process
                                                                           performance or      or product in
                                                                           safety              which the
                                                                           requirements.       substitute is
                                                                                               needed;
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Substitutes
                                                                                               examined and
                                                                                               rejected;
                                                                                               Reason
                                                                                               for rejection of
                                                                                               other
                                                                                               alternatives,
                                                                                               e.g.,
                                                                                               performance,
                                                                                               technical or
                                                                                               safety standards;
                                                                                               and/or
                                                                                              
                                                                                               Anticipated date
                                                                                               other substitutes
                                                                                               will be available
                                                                                               and projected
                                                                                               time for
                                                                                               switching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Table 5--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                      Substitute               Decision             Further Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All................................  Blends of HCFC-141b...  Unacceptable effective  HCFC-141b has an ozone
                                                              [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER     depletion potential of
                                                              PUBLICATION OF FINAL    0.11 under the Montreal
                                                              RULE].                  Protocol. EPA previously
                                                                                      found HCFC-141b
                                                                                      unacceptable in all foam
                                                                                      blowing end-uses (appendix
                                                                                      M to subpart G of 40 CFR
                                                                                      part 82). HCFC-141b has an
                                                                                      ODP of 0.11.

[[Page 46165]]

 
Polyolefin.........................  HCFC-22, HCFC-142b,     Unacceptable effective  Use or introduction into
                                      and blends thereof.     [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER     interstate commerce of
                                                              PUBLICATION OF FINAL    virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-
                                                              RULE].                  142b for foam blowing is
                                                                                      prohibited after January
                                                                                      1, 2010 under EPA's
                                                                                      regulations at 40 CFR part
                                                                                      82 subpart A unless used,
                                                                                      recovered, and recycled.
                                                                                      These compounds have ozone
                                                                                      depletion potentials of
                                                                                      0.055 and 0.065
                                                                                      respectively under the
                                                                                      Montreal Protocol.
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance......  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
                                      HFC-365mfc and blends   January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      thereof; Formacel TI,   except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                      and Formacel Z-6.       under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                                              limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Rigid Polyurethane: Spray..........  HFC-134a and Formacel   Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
                                      TI.                     January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                                              except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                                              under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                                              limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial       HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
 Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels.   HFC-365mfc, and         January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      blends thereof;         except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                      Formacel TI, and        under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                      Formacel Z-6.           limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Flexible Polyurethane..............  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
                                      HFC-365mfc, and         January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      blends thereof.         except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                                              under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                                              limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and    HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
 Other.                               HFC-365mfc and blends   January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      thereof; Formacel TI,   except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                      and Formacel Z-6.       under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                                              limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Rigid Polyurethane and               HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
 Polyisocyanurate Laminated           HFC-365mfc and blends   January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
 Boardstock.                          thereof.                except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                                              under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                                              limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet........  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
                                      HFC-365mfc, and         January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      blends thereof,         except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                      Formacel TI, and        under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                      Formacel Z-6.           limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
 and Billet.                          HFC-365mfc, and         January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      blends thereof,         except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                      Formacel B, and         under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                      Formacel Z-6.           limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Integral Skin Polyurethane.........  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
                                      HFC-365mfc, and         January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      blends thereof;         except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                      Formacel TI, and        under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                      Formacel Z-6.           limit.                  environment Other
                                                                                      substitutes are available
                                                                                      for this end-use with
                                                                                      lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Polyolefin.........................  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,    Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
                                      HFC-365mfc, and         January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      blends thereof;         except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                      Formacel TI, and        under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                      Formacel Z-6.           limit.                  environment Other
                                                                                      substitutes are available
                                                                                      for this end-use with
                                                                                      lower overall risk to
                                                                                      human health and the
                                                                                      environment, including
                                                                                      lower GWP.
Phenolic Insulation Board and        HFC-143a, HFC-134a,     Unacceptable as of      Other substitutes are
 Bunstock.                            HFC-245fa, HFC-         January 1, 2017         available for this end-use
                                      365mfc, and blends      except where allowed    with lower overall risk to
                                      thereof.                under a narrowed use    human health and the
                                                              limit.                  environment, including
                                                                                      GWP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table 6--Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Agents--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                      Substitute               Decision             Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Flooding.....................  HCFC-22...............  Unacceptable effective  Use or introduction into
                                                              [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER     interstate commerce of
                                                              PUBLICATION OF FINAL    virgin HCFC-22 for total
                                                              RULE].                  flooding fire suppression
                                                                                      and explosion protection
                                                                                      is prohibited as of
                                                                                      January 1, 2010 under
                                                                                      EPA's regulations at 40
                                                                                      CFR part 82 subpart A.
                                                                                      This chemical has an ozone
                                                                                      depletion potential of
                                                                                      0.055.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46166]]


                                  Table 7--Sterilants--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                      Substitute               Decision             Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sterilants.........................  Blends containing HCFC- Unacceptable effective  Use or introduction into
                                      22.                     [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER     interstate commerce of
                                                              PUBLICATION OF FINAL    virgin HCFC-22 for
                                                              RULE].                  sterilants is prohibited
                                                                                      as of January 1, 2010
                                                                                      under EPA's regulations at
                                                                                      40 CFR part 82 subpart A.
                                                                                      HCFC-22 has an ozone
                                                                                      depletion potential of
                                                                                      0.055.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table 8--Adhesives, Coatings and Inks--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                      Substitute               Decision             Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesives, coatings and inks.......  HCFC-141b and blends    Unacceptable effective  Use or introduction into
                                      thereof.                [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER     interstate commerce of
                                                              PUBLICATION OF FINAL    virgin HCFC-141b for
                                                              RULE].                  adhesives, coatings and
                                                                                      inks is prohibited as of
                                                                                      January 1, 2015 under
                                                                                      EPA's regulations at 40
                                                                                      CFR part 82 subpart A.
                                                                                      This chemical has an ozone
                                                                                      depletion potential of
                                                                                      0.11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-18494 Filed 8-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P