Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 42869-42959 [2015-17066]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 138
July 20, 2015
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; Final
Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42870
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL–9926–55–
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action changes the status
from acceptable to unacceptable;
acceptable, subject to use conditions; or
acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits for a number of substitutes,
pursuant to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s Significant New
Alternatives Policy program. We make
these changes based on information
showing that other substitutes are
available for the same uses that pose
lower risk overall to human health and
the environment. Specifically, this
action changes the listing status for
certain hydrofluorocarbons in various
end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration
and air conditioning, and foam blowing
sectors. This action also changes 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: This rule is effective on August
19, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed in
the electronic docket and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically or in hard copy at the Air
and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue 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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code
6205J, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number (202) 343–9163; fax number
(202) 343–2338, email address:
sheppard.margaret@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 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 the listing status of an
alternative?
H. Where can I get additional information
about the SNAP program?
III. What actions and information related to
greenhouse gases have bearing on this
final action to modify prior SNAP
determinations?
IV. What petitions has EPA received
requesting a change in listing status for
HFCs?
A. Summary of Petitions
B. How This Action Relates to the Climate
Action Plan and Petitions
V. What is EPA’s final action concerning the
HFCs addressed in this rule?
A. Aerosols
1. Background
2. What is EPA finalizing concerning
aerosols?
(a) What other alternatives are available?
(1) Aerosols With Flammability and Vapor
Pressure Constraints
(2) Aerosols for Specific Medical Uses
(b) When will the listings change?
3. How is EPA responding to comments
about this end-use?
(a) Timeline
(b) Sell-Through period
(c) Use conditions
(d) HFC Consumption and Climate Impact
of Aerosols
(e) Small Business Impacts
(f) Imports
B. MVAC Systems for Newly Manufactured
Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1. Background
2. What is EPA finalizing regarding MVAC
systems for newly manufactured lightduty motor vehicles?
(a) HFC–134a
(b) Refrigerant Blends
3. MVAC Servicing
4. Would this action affect EPA’s LD GHG
Rule?
5. How will the change of status apply to
exports of MVAC systems?
(a) SNAP Interpretation
(b) Narrowed Use Limit for MVAC
6. How is EPA responding to comments
concerning this end-use?
(a) Timeline
(b) Interaction With EPA’s LD GHG Rule
(c) Environmental Impacts
(d) Cost Impacts of Rule
(e) Servicing and Retrofits
(f) Refrigerant Blends for Retrofits of
MVAC Systems
(g) Use Conditions for HFC–134a
(h) Flexibility for Exports
C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending
Machines
1. Background
(a) Overview of SNAP End-Uses, End-Use
Categories, and Commonly-Used
Refrigerants
(b) Terms and Coverage
(c) The Terms ‘‘New’’ and ‘‘Retrofit’’ and
How They Apply to Servicing
2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food
refrigeration (supermarket systems)?
(a) New Supermarket Systems
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(b) Retrofit Supermarket Systems
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on
retail food refrigeration (supermarket
systems)?
3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food
refrigeration (remote condensing units)?
(a) New Remote Condensing Units
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(b) Retrofit Remote Condensing Units
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on
retail food refrigeration (remote
condensing units)?
4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food
refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)?
(a) New Stand-Alone Equipment
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(b) Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on
retail food refrigeration (stand-alone
equipment)?
5. What is EPA finalizing for vending
machines?
(a) New Vending Machines
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(b) Retrofit Vending Machines
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on
vending machines?
6. General Comments on the Retail Food
Refrigeration and Vending Machine EndUses
(a) Specific Numerical Limits for GWP
(b) Comments and Responses Concerning
Small Businesses
(c) Suggestion Regarding Education and
Training
7. Energy Efficiency Considerations
D. Foam Blowing Agents
1. Background
2. What is EPA finalizing for foam blowing
agents?
(a) What other alternatives does EPA find
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment?
(b) When will the status change?
(c) Military and Space- and AeronauticsRelated Applications
(d) How will the requirements apply to
exports and imports?
3. How is EPA responding to comments
concerning foam blowing end-uses?
(a) Timeline
(b) Foam Blowing Agents Changing Status
and Other Alternatives
(c) Environmental and Energy Impacts of
Foam Blowing Agents
(d) Cost Impacts
VI. What is EPA finalizing for the HCFCs
addressed in this rule?
A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs and
what is being finalized in this rule?
B. How is EPA responding to public
comments concerning HCFCs?
VII. How is EPA responding to other public
comments?
A. Authority
1. General Authority
2. Second Generation Substitutes
3. GWP Considerations
4. Takings
5. Montreal Protocol/International
6. Absence of Petitions
7. Application of Criteria for Review of
Alternatives
B. Cost and Economic Impacts of Proposed
Status Changes
1. Costs of Proposed Rule
2. EPA’s Cost Analysis and Small Business
Impacts Screening Analysis
C. Environmental Effects of Proposed
Status Changes
1. General Comments
2. EPA’s Benefits Analysis
3. Energy Efficiency
4. The Climate Action Plan
D. Potential Exemptions
E. Interactions With Other Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
F. Other Comments
VIII. Additional Analyses
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory 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
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
X. References
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
Under section 612 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), EPA reviews substitutes
within a comparative risk framework.
More specifically, section 612 provides
that EPA must prohibit the use of a
substitute where EPA has determined
that there are other available substitutes
that pose less overall risk to human
health and the environment. Thus,
EPA’s Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program, which
implements section 612, does not
provide a static list of alternatives but
instead evolves the list as the EPA
makes decisions informed by our overall
understanding of the environmental and
human health impacts as well as our
current knowledge about available
substitutes. In the more than twenty
years since the initial SNAP rule was
promulgated, EPA has modified the
SNAP lists many times, most often by
expanding the list of acceptable
substitutes, but in some cases by
prohibiting the use of substitutes
previously listed as acceptable. Where
EPA is determining whether to add a
new substitute to the list, EPA compares
the risk posed by that new substitute to
the risks posed by other alternatives on
the list and determines whether that
specific new substitute poses more risk
than already-listed alternatives for the
same use. As the lists have expanded,
EPA has not reviewed the lists in a
broader manner to determine whether
substitutes added to the lists early in the
program pose more risk than substitutes
that have more recently been added.
EPA is now beginning this process.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42871
Global warming potential (GWP) is
one of several criteria EPA considers in
the overall evaluation of the alternatives
under the SNAP program. The
President’s June 2013 Climate Action
Plan (CAP) states that, ‘‘to reduce
emissions of HFCs, the United States
can and will lead both through
international diplomacy as well as
domestic actions.’’ Furthermore, the
CAP states that EPA 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.’’ In our first effort to take
a broader look at the SNAP lists, we
have focused on those listed substitutes
that have a high GWP relative to other
alternatives in specific end-uses. In
determining whether to change the
status of these substitutes for particular
end-uses, we performed a full
comparative risk analysis, based on our
criteria for review, with other available
alternatives also listed as acceptable for
these end-uses.
In an August 6, 2014, Federal Register
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR
46126), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (hereafter referred to
as EPA or the Agency) proposed to
change the status of certain substitutes 1
that at that time were listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program.
After reviewing public comments and
available information, in today’s action,
EPA is modifying the listings from
acceptable to unacceptable; acceptable,
subject to use conditions; or acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits for
certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
HFC blends in various end-uses in the
aerosols, foam blowing, and
refrigeration and air conditioning
sectors where other alternatives are
available or potentially available that
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment. Per the guiding
principles of the SNAP program, this
action does not specify that any HFCs
are unacceptable across all sectors and
end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA
considered the intersection between the
specific HFC or HFC blend and the
particular end-use and the availability
of substitutes for those particular enduses. EPA is also not specifying that, for
any sector, the only acceptable
substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes
that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs,
hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and nonfluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs)
1 The terms ‘‘substitutes’’ and ‘‘alternatives’’ are
used interchangeably.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42872
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
and carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes
may pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment, depending
on the particular use. Instead, consistent
with CAA section 612 as we have
historically interpreted it under the
SNAP program, EPA is making these
modifications based on our evaluation
of the substitutes addressed in this
action using the SNAP criteria for
evaluation and considering the current
suite of other available and potentially
available substitutes.
On that basis, EPA is modifying the
following listings by sector and end-use
as of the dates indicated. EPA will
continue to monitor the development
and deployment of other alternatives as
well as their uptake by industries
affected by today’s action. If EPA
receives new information indicating that
other alternatives will not be available
by the change of status dates specified,
EPA may propose further action to
adjust the relevant dates.
(1) Aerosols
• EPA is listing HFC–125 as
unacceptable for use as an aerosol
propellant as of January 1, 2016.
• EPA is listing HFC–134a, HFC–
227ea, and blends of HFC–134a and
HFC–227ea as unacceptable for use as
aerosol propellants as of July 20, 2016,
except for those uses specifically listed
as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
• EPA is listing HFC–227ea and
blends of HFC–134a and HFC–227ea as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as
of July 20, 2016, for use in metered dose
inhalers (MDIs) approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• EPA is listing HFC–134a as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as
of July 20, 2016, until January 1, 2018,
for the following specific uses:
Æ products for which new
formulations require federal
governmental review, including: EPA
pesticide registration, military or space
agency specifications, or FDA approval
(aside from MDIs); and
Æ products for smoke detector
functionality testing.
• EPA is listing HFC–134a as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as
of July 20, 2016, for the following
specific uses:
Æ cleaning products for removal of
grease, flux and other soils from
electrical equipment or electronics;
Æ refrigerant flushes;
Æ products for sensitivity testing of
smoke detectors;
Æ sprays containing corrosion
preventive compounds used in the
maintenance of aircraft, electrical
equipment or electronics, or military
equipment;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Æ duster sprays specifically for
removal of dust from photographic
negatives, semiconductor chips, and
specimens under electron microscopes
or for use on energized electrical
equipment;
Æ adhesives and sealants in large
canisters;
Æ lubricants and freeze sprays for
electrical equipment or electronics;
Æ sprays for aircraft maintenance;
Æ 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 propellants;
Æ mold release agents and mold
cleaners;
Æ lubricants and cleaners for
spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics;
Æ document preservation sprays;
Æ MDIs approved by the FDA for
medical purposes;
Æ wound care sprays;
Æ topical coolant sprays for pain
relief; and
Æ products for removing bandage
adhesives from skin.
(2) Refrigeration and air conditioning
sector; Motor vehicle air conditioning
(MVAC) systems for newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles
EPA is listing HFC–134a as
unacceptable for newly manufactured
light-duty motor vehicles beginning in
Model Year (MY) 2021 except as
allowed under a narrowed use limit for
use in newly manufactured light-duty
vehicles destined for use in countries
that do not have infrastructure in place
for servicing with other acceptable
refrigerants. This narrowed use limit
will be in place through MY 2025.
Beginning in MY 2026, HFC–134a will
be unacceptable for use in all newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles. EPA
is also listing the use of certain
refrigerant blends as unacceptable in
newly manufactured light-duty motor
vehicles starting with MY 2017.
(3) Refrigeration and air conditioning
sector; Retail food refrigeration and
vending machines
EPA is listing a number of refrigerants
as unacceptable in a number of retail
food refrigeration categories and in the
vending machines end-use, as follows:
• Retrofitted supermarket systems: R–
404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–
422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, and
R–507A as of July 20, 2016
• New supermarket systems: HFC–
227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–
422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–
434A, and R–507A as of January 1, 2017
• Retrofitted remote condensing
units: R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–
422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–
434A, and R–507A as of July 20, 2016
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• New remote condensing units:
HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B,
R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–
434A, and R–507A as of January 1, 2018
• Retrofitted vending machines: R–
404A and R–507A as of July 20, 2016
• New vending machines: FOR12A,
FOR12B, HFC–134a, 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 as of
January 1, 2019
• Retrofitted stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment: R–404A and R–
507A as of July 20, 2016
• New stand-alone mediumtemperature units with a compressor
capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not
containing a flooded evaporator:
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–
227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A,
R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–
410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–
422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–
424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–434A, R–
437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002
formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation),
SP34E, and THR–03 as of January 1,
2019
• New stand-alone mediumtemperature units with a compressor
capacity equal to or greater than 2,200
Btu/hr and stand-alone mediumtemperature units containing a flooded
evaporator: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–
134a, HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A,
R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–
410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–
421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–
422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–
434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24
(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, and THR–03 as of
January 1, 2020
• New stand-alone low-temperature
units: HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A,
R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–
410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–
421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–
422D, R–424A, R–428A, R–434A, R–
437A, R–438A, R–507A, and RS–44
(2003 formulation) as of January 1, 2020
We are also providing clarification on
several questions identified during the
comment period. Specifically, we are
providing clarification of the terms we
are using for the various end-use
categories covered by this rule,
including ‘‘supermarket systems,’’
‘‘remote condensing units,’’ and ‘‘standalone equipment.’’ We are also
providing clarification on certain types
of equipment that do not fall within the
categories and end-uses covered by this
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
42873
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
rule, including blast chillers, certain ice
makers, very-low temperature
refrigeration equipment, and equipment
that dispenses chilled beverage or food
(e.g., soft-serve ice cream) via a nozzle.
Finally, we are also providing
clarification regarding our use of the
terms ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘retrofit’’ and how
those terms relate to service of existing
equipment.
(4) Foams
EPA is listing a number of foam
blowing agents unacceptable in each
foams end-use excluding rigid PU spray
foam, except as allowed under a
narrowed use limit for military or spaceand aeronautics-related applications.
For military or space- and aeronauticsrelated applications, we are changing
the listing status to acceptable, subject
to a narrowed use limit, as of the status
change date for the remainder of each
end-use (January 1 of 2017, 2019, 2020
or 2021) and then to unacceptable as of
January 1, 2022. We are not taking final
action on rigid PU spray foam at this
time. The unacceptable listing for all
other end-uses is as follows:
• Rigid polyurethane (PU) appliance
foam: HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–
365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI,
and Formacel Z–6, as of January 1, 2020
• Rigid PU commercial refrigeration
and sandwich panels: HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6, as of
January 1, 2020
• Rigid PU slabstock and other: HFC–
134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and
blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z–6, as of January 1, 2019
• Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock: HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof;
as of January 1, 2017
• Flexible PU: HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof;
as of January 1, 2017
• Integral skin PU: HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6, as of
January 1, 2017
• Polystyrene extruded sheet: HFC–
134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and
blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z–6, as of January 1, 2017
• Polystyrene extruded boardstock
and billet (XPS): HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel
Z–6, as of January 1, 2021
• Polyolefin: HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6, as of
January 1, 2020
• Phenolic insulation board and
bunstock: HFC–143a, HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof;
as of January 1, 2017
• Rigid PU marine flotation foam:
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc
and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z–6, as of January 1, 2020
While EPA proposed and requested
comments on interpreting the SNAP
unacceptability determinations to apply
to the import of foam products that
retain the blowing agents (i.e., closed
cell foams), EPA is not finalizing that
change in this rulemaking.
(5) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs)
As proposed, EPA is also modifying
the listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–
142b, and HCFC–22, as well as blends
that contain these substances in
aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire
suppression and explosion protection
agents, sterilants, and adhesives,
coatings and inks. These modifications
align the SNAP listings with other parts
of the stratospheric protection program,
specifically section 605 and the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
82 subpart A and section 610 and the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
82 subpart C. The modified listings will
apply 60 days following publication of
this final rule.
(6) Overview of public comments
EPA received over 7,500 comments on
the proposed rule. EPA requested and
received comments on the proposed
listing decisions as well as the proposed
change of status dates. As noted in
response to comments throughout this
document, the decision on modifying
each listing is based on the SNAP
program’s comparative risk framework.
This includes information concerning
whether there are alternatives available
with lower overall risk to human health
and the environment for the end-uses
considered. As part of our consideration
of the availability of those alternatives,
we considered all available information,
including information provided during
the public comment period, and
information claimed as confidential and
provided during meetings, regarding
technical challenges that may affect the
time at which the alternatives can be
used safely and used consistent with
other requirements such as testing and
code compliance obligations. We
grouped comments together and
responded to the issues raised by the
comments in the sections that follow, or
in a separate response to comments
document which is included in the
docket for this rule (EPA, 2015a). This
final rule reflects some changes to our
proposal, based on information and data
received during the public comment
period.
The sections that follow describe
EPA’s final action for each of the three
sectors covered in this rulemaking—
aerosols; foam blowing; and
refrigeration and air-conditioning,
including commercial refrigeration and
motor vehicle air conditioning. For the
end-uses addressed within each sector
we explain the change of status
determination and the dates when the
change of status will apply. EPA has
updated documentation for this rule
including market characterizations,
analyses of costs associated with sector
transitions, estimated benefits
associated with the transition to other
alternatives, and potential small
business impacts.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 These
documents are available in the docket.
EPA provided separate market
characterizations by sector for the
proposed rule but is providing a single
document consolidating this
information, and updated to reflect
information received during the public
comment period, for this final action.
The emissions avoided from this final
rule are estimated to be 26 to 31 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2eq) in 2020. The avoided
emissions are estimated to be 54 to 64
MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 78 to 101
MMTCO2eq in 2030 (EPA, 2015b).
2 ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S.
Aerosols Industry. May 2014.
3 ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S.
Foams Industry. May 2014.
4 ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S.
Commercial Refrigeration Industry. May 2014.
5 ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. May
2014.
6 ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis
for Regulatory Options To Change Listing Status of
High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014.
7 EPA, 2014a. 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.
9 ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, U.S.
Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry, and U.S.
Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July 2015
10 ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening
Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing
Status of High-GWP Alternatives—Revised. July
2015.
11 EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP
Program Status Change Rule. July 2015.
12 ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives. July 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
B. Does this action apply to me?
Potential entities that may be affected
by this final rule include:
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42874
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 .....................................................
Industry .....................................................
Industry .....................................................
Retail .........................................................
336211
3363
336611
336612
339113
423620
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Services ....................................................
Services ....................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
Retail .........................................................
423740
44511
445110
445120
44521
44522
44523
445291
445292
445299
4453
446110
44711
452910
452990
72111
72112
72241
722513
722514
722515
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,
consult the person listed in the above
section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are
used in the preamble?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Below is a list of acronyms and
abbreviations used in the preamble of
this document:
AAM—Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers
ACGIH—American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AGC—Asahi Glass Company
AHAM—Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers
AHRI— Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute
AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene
Association
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
Ship Building and Repairing.
Boat Building.
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
The Alliance—Alliance for Responsible
Atmospheric Policy
ARPI—Automotive Refrigeration Products
Institute
ASHRAE—American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers
CAA—Clean Air Act
CAP—Climate Action Plan
CARB—California Air Resource Board
CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service
Registry Identification Number
CBI—Confidential Business Information
CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon
CFESA—Commercial Food Equipment
Service Association
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CH4—Methane
CO2—Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq—Carbon dioxide equivalent
CRA—Congressional Review Act
CSPA—Consumer Specialty Products
Association
DME—Dimethyl ether
DoD—United States Department of Defense
DOE—United States Department of Energy
DX—Direct expansion
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
EIA—Environmental Investigation AgencyUS
EO—Executive Order
EPA—United States Environmental
Protection Agency
EU—European Union
FDA—United States Food and Drug
Administration
FM—Factory Mutual
FMI—Food Marketing Institute
FR—Federal Register
GHG—Greenhouse Gas
Global Automakers—Association of Global
Automakers
GWP—Global Warming Potential
HC—Hydrocarbon
HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF—ICF International, Inc.
IGSD—Institute for Governance and
Sustainable Development
IPAC—International Pharmaceutical Aerosol
Consortium
IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
LCCP— Life Cycle Climate Performance
LD GHG—Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
MAC Directive—Directive on Mobile Air
Conditioning
MDI—Metered Dose Inhaler
Mexichem—Mexichem Fluor, Inc.
MMTCO2eq—Million Metric Tons of Carbon
Dioxide equivalent
MVAC—Motor vehicle air conditioning
MY—Model Year
N2—Nitrogen
N2O—Nitrous Oxide
NAA—National Aerosol Association
NADA—National Automobile Dealers
Association
NAICS—North American Industrial
Classification System
NAFEM—North American Association of
Food Equipment Manufacturers
NAM—National Association of
Manufacturers
NAMA—National Automatic Merchandising
Association
NASA—National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
NFPA—National Fire Protection Association
NHTSA—National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
NIOSH—United States National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
NMMA—National Marine Manufacturers
Association
NPRM—Notice of proposed rulemaking
NRA—National Restaurant Association
NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council
NSF—National Sanitation Foundation
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
PU—Polyurethane
RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
REACH—Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals
RfC—Reference Concentration
RRR—Recovery, Recycling and Recharging
RSC—Radiator Specialty Company
RSES—Refrigeration Service Engineers
Society
SIP—State Implementation Plan
SAE ICCC—SAE International’s Interior
Climate Control Committee
SF6—Sulfur Hexafluoride
SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
SISNOSE—Significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES—Special Report on Emissions
Scenarios
TEAP—Technical and Economic Assessment
Panel
TEWI—Total Equivalent Warming Impact
TLV—Threshold Limit Value
TXV—Thermostatic Expansion Valve
UL—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UNEP—United Nations Environmental
Programme
VOC—Volatile Organic Compounds
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
WEEL—Workplace Environmental Exposure
Limit
XPS—Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and
Billet
XPSA—Extruded Polystyrene Association
II. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements
and authority for the SNAP program?
CAA section 612 requires EPA to
develop a program for evaluating
alternatives to ozone-depleting
substances (ODS). This program is
known as the 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 (chlorofluorocarbon,
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl
chloroform, methyl bromide,
hydrobromofluorocarbon, and
chlorobromomethane) or class II (HCFC)
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 substitutes 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42875
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
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 initial SNAP rule (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 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,13 it
13 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
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
Continued
20JYR2
42876
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
may also apply to importers,
formulators, equipment manufacturers,
or end users 14 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.
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.15 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.16
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
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.
14 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.
15 The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’
referring to submissions for which EPA has not
reached a determination, under this provision.
16 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
conditions are in violation of section
612 of the CAA 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 17 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
17 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)
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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
consistent with 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
Substitutes found to be acceptable
must not pose significantly greater risk
than other substitutes, but they do not
have to be risk free. A key goal of the
SNAP program is to promote the use of
substitutes that minimize risks to
human health and the environment
relative to other alternatives. In some
cases, this approach may involve
designating a substitute acceptable even
though the compound may pose a risk
of some type, provided its use does not
pose significantly greater risk than other
alternatives.
• Restrict those substitutes that are
significantly worse
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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, and does
not intend to do so unless a substitute
has been proposed or is being used that
is clearly 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 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
potential environmental or human
health effects 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
environmental effects, 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), 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
the environment 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42877
considers Recommended Exposure
Limits from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Workplace Environmental
Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the
American Industrial Hygiene
Association (AIHA), or threshold limit
values (TLVs) set by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH). 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
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. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) 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 like
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 (VOC). 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 (RCRA) 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
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42878
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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, since the inception of the
SNAP program, we have interpreted 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 lower
overall risk to human health and the
environment. In determining whether to
modify a listing of a substitute we
undertake the same consideration, but
do so in the light of new data not
considered at the time of our original
listing decision, including information
on new substitutes and new information
on substitutes previously reviewed.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
G. What does EPA consider in deciding
whether to modify the listing status of
an alternative?
As described in this document and
elsewhere, including in the initial SNAP
rule published in the Federal Register
on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), CAA
section 612 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
The initial 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
substitutes acceptable only for limited
end-uses or subject to use restrictions.
It has now been over 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 varying 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 upon which 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 made clear
that a listing under the SNAP program
could not convey permanence.
Since EPA issued the initial SNAP
rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 19
rules and 30 notices that generally
expand the menu of options for all
SNAP sectors and end-uses.
Comparisons today apply to a broader
range of options—both chemical and
non-chemical—than was available 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 regard to that information,
our review of substitutes in this rule
includes comparative assessments that
consider our evolving understanding of
a variety of factors, including climate
change. GWPs and climate effects are
not new elements in our evaluation
framework, but as is the case with all of
our review criteria, the amount and
quality of information has expanded.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing
management of the SNAP program
considers new information and
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 blend 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 overall 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 other
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 relevant 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 established a
change of status date that recognized
that existing users needed time to 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.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
For more information on the Agency’s
process for administering the SNAP
program or criteria for evaluation of
substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP
rule 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 final action to modify
prior SNAP determinations?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
GWP is one of several criteria EPA
considers 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 18 under
section 202(a) of the CAA:
• 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 ODS they replace, HFCs are
potent GHGs.19 Although they represent
a small fraction of the current total
volume of GHG emissions, their
warming impact is very strong. The
most commonly used HFC is HFC–134a.
HFC–134a is 1,430 times more
damaging to the climate system than
carbon dioxide. HFC emissions are
projected to increase substantially and
at an increasing rate 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
18 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.
19 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
increasing 10–15% annually.20 At that
rate, emissions are projected to double
by 2020 and triple by 2030.21 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.22 23
Annual global emissions of HFCs are
projected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 Gt
CO2eq in 2050,24 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
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s (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.25 26 Additional
information concerning the peerreviewed scientific literature and
emission scenarios is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
20 UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting
Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations
Environment Programme.
21 Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and
Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific
and Papers, 2013.
22 Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere:
Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/
NIST Conference 2012.
23 NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/
hfcs/.
24 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.
25 HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp
26 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42879
IV. What petitions has EPA received
requesting a change in listing status for
HFCs?
A. Summary of Petitions
EPA received three petitions
requesting EPA to modify certain
acceptability listings of HFC–134a and
HFC–134a blends. These petitions are
more fully described in the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 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 in multiple enduses and move it to the list of
unacceptable substitutes in those enduses. In support of their petition, the
petitioners identified other substitutes
that they claimed were available for use
in those end-uses and they claimed
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 such
substitutes.
On April 26, 2012, EPA received a
second petition submitted by 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
chlorofluorocarbons (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
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42880
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
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 enduses; and 3) HFC–134a is not
flammable, and its toxicity is low.27 The
petitioner stated that the analysis used
in the listing decisions may have been
appropriate in the 1990s but was no
longer so today given the range of other
available or potentially available
substitutes at present.
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.
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 nextgeneration alternatives and substitutes;
• Remove, in addition to HFC–134a,
all other refrigerants with 100-year
GWPs greater than 150 from the
acceptable 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.
B. How This Action Relates to the
Climate Action Plan and Petitions
This action is consistent with a
provision in the President’s CAP
announced June 2013: 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 climatefriendly chemicals while prohibiting
certain uses of the most harmful
chemical alternatives.
The CAP further states: ‘‘to reduce
emissions of HFCs, the United States
can and will lead both through
international diplomacy as well as
27 See,
e.g., 60 FR at 31097.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
domestic actions.’’ This rule is also
consistent with that call for leadership
through domestic actions. As regards
international leadership, 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 amendment proposal would yield
significant reductions of over 90
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2eq) through 2050.
This action 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 MVAC systems.
(See section V.B.) Second, regarding the
remaining aspects of the three petitions,
which EPA found to be incomplete, EPA
has independently acquired sufficient
information to address certain other
requests made by the petitioners. EPA’s
action in this final rule may be
considered responsive to certain aspects
of those petitions such as: Changing the
listing of certain HFCs used in specific
aerosol uses from acceptable to
unacceptable or acceptable, subject to
use conditions; changing the listing of
certain HFCs used in specific foams
end-uses from acceptable to
unacceptable for most uses; changing
the listing of HFC–134a from acceptable
to unacceptable for new stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers; and
changing the listing of a number of
refrigerant blends with higher GWPs
from acceptable to unacceptable for new
and retrofit stand-alone retail food
refrigerators and freezers. Specifically,
as explained in more detail in the
sector-specific sections of this
document, we are revising the listings
for substitutes in the aerosols, foams,
and refrigeration and air conditioning
sectors that pose significantly greater
overall risk to human health and the
environment as compared with other
available or potentially available
substitutes in the specified end-uses.
Throughout the process of our
discussions with the regulated
community, we have sought to convey
our continued understanding of the role
that certainty plays in enabling the
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 setting specific numerical criteria for
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
environmental evaluations (e.g., all
compounds with GWP greater than 150).
That being said, we believe that the
action we are taking today, and future
action we may take, does provide
additional certainty in the specific cases
addressed. In addition, we remain
committed to continuing to actively
seek stakeholder views and to share our
thinking at the earliest moment
practicable on any future actions, as part
of our commitment to provide greater
certainty to producers and consumers in
SNAP-regulated industrial sectors.
V. What is EPA’s final action
concerning the HFCs addressed in this
rule?
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, and compressed air) have
long been used as propellants. Prior to
1978, the aerosol industry
predominantly used CFCs. In 1978, in
response to evidence regarding
depletion of the earth’s ozone layer, the
United States banned CFC propellants,
with few exceptions.
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.
However, since the 1990s HCFCs have
been controlled substances under the
Montreal Protocol and subject to
regulation under the CAA, as amended
in 1990, including a phaseout of
production and import under section
605(b)–(c) and use restrictions under
section 605(a).
2. What is EPA finalizing concerning
aerosols?
For aerosol propellants, EPA
proposed to list, as of January 1, 2016:
• HFC–125 as unacceptable;
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
• HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to
use conditions, allowing its use only in
specific types of technical and medical
aerosols (e.g., MDIs) and
• HFC–227ea as acceptable, subject to
use conditions, allowing its use only in
MDIs.28
Today’s action changes the status of
HFC–125; HFC–227ea; blends of HFC–
134a and HFC–227ea; and HFC–134a, as
follows:
• We are changing the status of the
aerosol propellant HFC–125 from
acceptable to unacceptable as of January
1, 2016.
• We are changing the status of HFC–
134a, HFC–227ea, and blends of HFC–
134a and HFC–227ea from acceptable to
unacceptable for use as aerosol
propellants as of July 20, 2016 except
for those uses specifically listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions.
• We are changing the status of the
aerosol propellant HFC–227ea and for
blends of HFC–227ea and HFC–134a
from acceptable to acceptable, subject to
use conditions, as of July 20, 2016, for
use in MDIs approved by FDA.
• We are changing the status of the
aerosol propellant HFC–134a from
acceptable to acceptable, subject to use
conditions, as of July 20, 2016, until
January 1, 2018, for the following
specific uses: Products for which new
formulations require federal
governmental review, including: EPA
pesticide registration, military (U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD)) or space
agency (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)) specifications,
or FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and
products for smoke detector
functionality testing.
• We are changing the status of the
aerosol propellant HFC–134a from
acceptable to acceptable, subject to use
conditions as of July 20, 2016, for the
following specific uses: Cleaning
products for removal of grease, flux and
other soils from electrical equipment or
electronics; refrigerant flushes; products
for sensitivity testing of smoke
detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays
for electrical equipment or electronics;
sprays for aircraft maintenance; sprays
42881
containing corrosion preventive
compounds used in the maintenance of
aircraft, electrical equipment or
electronics, or military equipment;
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 lowerGWP propellants; mold release agents
and mold cleaners; lubricants and
cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic
fabrics; duster sprays specifically for use
on removal of dust from photographic
negatives, semiconductor chips,
specimens under electron microscopes,
and energized electrical equipment;
adhesives and sealants in large
canisters; document preservation
sprays; MDIs approved by FDA for
medical purposes,29 wound care sprays;
topical coolant sprays for pain relief;
and products for removing bandage
adhesives from skin.
The change of status determinations
for aerosols are summarized in the
following table:
TABLE 2—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR AEROSOLS
Substitutes
Decision
Propellants ...................
HFC–125 ....................
Propellants ...................
HFC–134a ..................
Unacceptable as of January 1,
2016.
Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016
except for uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
Propellants ...................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
End-use
HFC–227ea and
blends of HFC–
227ea and HFC–
134a.
Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016
except for uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
28 EPA did not explicitly state in our proposal
whether blends of HFC–134a and HFC–227ea
would also be acceptable subject to use conditions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Uses that are acceptable, subject to use conditions
None.
From July 20, 2016 to January 1, 2018: Products for
smoke detector functionality testing; products for which
new formulations require governmental review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military or space agency specifications, or FDA approval (other than MDIs).
As of July 20, 2016: Cleaning products for removal of
grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment;
refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity testing of
smoke detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft
maintenance; sprays containing corrosion preventive
compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment;
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 and mold cleaners; lubricants and cleaners for
spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives,
semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical equipment; adhesives
and sealants in large canisters; document preservation
sprays; FDA-approved MDIs for medical purposes;
wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and products for removing bandage adhesives
from skin.
As of July 20, 2016: FDA-approved MDIs for medical
purposes.
However, in general in the SNAP program, blends
of acceptable aerosol propellants are also acceptable
and do not require separate approval.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29 Includes
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
veterinary purposes.
20JYR2
42882
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(a) What other alternatives are available?
EPA is changing the listing decisions
for HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea,
and blends of HFC–134a and HFC–
227ea, with some exceptions, because,
as discussed in more detail in this
section, for the uses for which we are
listing these substitutes as unacceptable,
alternatives (i.e., chemical compounds
and technological options) are available
or potentially available that reduce 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 3,500.30
All of these alternatives, both the ones
remaining acceptable and those for
which we are changing the listing, 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, 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 VOC as well as being
flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane,
and DME are not excluded from the
definition of VOC 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 and restrict their use under this
action. HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC–
227ea, HFC–152a, HFO–1234ze(E), and
the compressed gas CO2 are exempted
from the definition of VOC under these
regulations and their use is expected to
have negligible impact on ground-level
ozone levels. As well as HFC–152a,
HFO–1234ze(E), and CO2, compressed
30 GWP values cited in this final rule 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
N2 and not-in-kind alternatives are not
VOC.
The aerosols industry is generally
familiar with how to address
flammability risks. The aerosols
industry has been using flammable
compounds, including flammable
propellants, for decades, consistent with
OSHA requirements addressing
flammability. There may be greater
flammability risks for some specific uses
of aerosol products because of their use
in situations where there is a source of
heat or electrical energy that could
cause a fire (e.g., use on energized
electrical equipment). Concerns with
flammability occur more with industrial
products, often referred to as ‘‘technical
aerosols.’’ For further discussion on
consumer aerosols, technical aerosols,
and medical aerosols, see the NPRM at
79 FR 46136 through 46138 (August 6,
2014).
There are a number of alternatives
with GWPs lower than the GWPs for the
substitutes that we are listing as
unacceptable and that are not defined as
VOC for purposes of SIPs, including:
HFC–152a with a GWP of 124, HFO–
1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6, and CO2
with a GWP of 1. CO2 and HFO–
1234ze(E) are nonflammable under
ambient temperature conditions, while
HFC–152a is flammable, but less so than
hydrocarbons or DME. All three have
GWPs significantly lower than those of
the HFCs for which we are changing the
listing (range of GWPs from 1,430 to
3,500 for HFC–134a, HFC–227ea and
HFC–125).
(1) Aerosols With Flammability and
Vapor Pressure Constraints
Aerosols for industrial and
commercial uses often require
nonflammability and in some cases,
specific vapor pressure criteria. For
example, nonflammable aerosols are
needed for use on energized electrical
circuits, where sparking can create a fire
or explosion hazard. Of the different
alternatives that have previously been
listed as acceptable, the nonflammable
options at room temperature include
HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea,
HFO–1234ze(E), compressed gases
including CO2 and N2, and not-in-kind
products. At slightly higher
temperatures (30 °C or 85 °F), HFO–
1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher
flammability limits, and thus in theory
could catch fire under specific
conditions of concentration and applied
energy. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
adequate performance in propelling the
contents of a can for technical aerosols
or may exceed Department of
Transportation pressure requirements
under elevated temperatures (ITW
Polymers Sealants, 2014). For
comparison, the vapor pressures of
HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–134a, and CO2 at
20 °C are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5,776
kPa, respectively.
Based on the information available
today, EPA believes it cannot list HFC–
134a as unacceptable for all aerosol
uses. Thus, we are creating a use
condition that would restrict use of
HFC–134a to specific uses for which
alternatives are not currently or
potentially available.
Both HFC–227ea and HFC–125 have
significantly higher GWPs than HFC–
134a (HFC–227ea’s GWP is 3220 and
HFC–125’s GWP is 3500) or other
substitutes that could be potentially
used where flammability is a concern,
and there is not a significantly different
level of risk based on the other factors
that we consider. Thus, EPA has
determined that HFC–227ea and HFC–
125 pose significantly more risk than
other available substitutes and EPA is
changing their listing from acceptable to
unacceptable in most uses where HFC–
134a may be used to mitigate
flammability risks. We note that we are
not aware of any use of HFC–227ea or
of HFC–125 in industrial aerosols to
mitigate flammability risks.
(2) Aerosols for Specific Medical Uses
For medical aerosols, there are special
needs to address safety and toxicity.
Furthermore, in order for a substitute to
be available for use in medical devices,
the device using the substitute must first
be reviewed and approved by the FDA.
FDA has approved medications for
use in MDIs using HFC–134a, HFC–
227ea, and blends of these two HFCs as
propellants. No medications have been
approved for use in MDIs using other
propellants. Although some dry powder
inhalers that are not-in-kind substitutes
are approved by FDA, these alternatives
do not work for some situations. Thus,
we cannot conclude that there are other
alternatives available for use in MDIs
that pose lower risk than HFC–134a,
HFC–227ea, or blends of these two. In
addition, it is our understanding that
because of differences in the solubility
of water in HFC–134a and HFC–227ea,
there are some medications that are
sensitive to the presence of water for
which only HFC–227ea may be used in
an MDI.
For other medical uses, EPA is aware
of medical aerosols that currently are
using hydrocarbons or DME as the
propellant, as well as not-in-kind
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
alternatives for uses such as antifungals,
calamine sprays, freeze sprays for wart
removal, and liquid bandages (ICF,
2014a). However, EPA does not have
information that alternatives other than
HFC–134a are available and are
approved by FDA as propellants in
wound care sprays; topical coolant
sprays for pain relief; and products for
removing bandage adhesives from skin.
The available substitutes for medical
devices are limited to those approved by
FDA, and the available substitutes differ
by the type of product and medical
conditions treated. For these reasons,
we are listing HFC–134a, HFC–227ea
and blends of HFC–134a and HFC–
227ea as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for specific uses for which
other alternatives that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the
environment are not currently or
potentially available. The use
conditions limit use of HFC–227ea and
blends of HFC–227ea and HFC–134a to
MDIs approved by FDA and limit use of
HFC–134a to MDIs approved by FDA
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 3,220; HFC–134a has a GWP of
1,430; 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. We
are not aware of any medical or other
aerosols currently using HFC–125, or of
any FDA approval for aerosols using
HFC–125. For these reasons, we have
determined that there are other available
substitutes that pose lower overall risks
to human health and the environment in
this use and we are changing the listing
of HFC–125 from acceptable to
unacceptable.
For more information on the
environmental and health properties of
the different aerosol substitutes, please
see the proposed rule at 79 FR 46137–
46138 and a technical support
document that provides the additional
Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d)
in the docket.
(b) When will the listings change?
On or after January 1, 2016, aerosol
products may not be manufactured with
HFC–125 and on or after July 20, 2016,
aerosol products may not be
manufactured with HFC–134a or HFC–
227ea, or blends thereof except for the
specific uses allowed under the use
conditions. In addition, as of January 1,
2018, HFC–134a will be unacceptable
for certain uses, and aerosol products
for those uses may not be manufactured
with HFC–134a as of that date:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
• Products for which new
formulations require U.S. federal
government review, including: EPA
pesticide registration, military or space
agency specifications, and FDA
approval (aside from MDIs); and
• products for functional testing of
smoke detectors.
In the case of HFC–125, EPA is
unaware of any products using HFC–
125, and no public commenters
mentioned the existence of such
products or requested a date other than
the proposed date of January 1, 2016.
We are setting July 20, 2016, as the
date on which the status of HFC–134a,
HFC–227ea, and blends thereof will
change to unacceptable, or to
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for
certain specific uses. For those uses that
would no longer be allowed as of July
20, 2016, this timeframe will allow
formulators and packagers of aerosols to
make the necessary changes. (ICF,
2014a; Honeywell, 2014a). A number of
formulators have already been testing,
and in many cases introducing, new
formulations with alternatives that
remain listed acceptable. This timing
will provide affected aerosol
manufacturers and packagers sufficient
time to change and test formulations
and, to the extent necessary, to change
the equipment in their factories.
For two aerosol uses, continued use of
HFC–134a will be allowed under the
use conditions until January 1, 2018.
EPA is providing this longer transition
time for these two uses because of
additional safety precautions and
approvals outside of the control of the
aerosol formulator that must be
addressed before transitioning. The first
category is those that must undergo
specific federal governmental reviews:
EPA pesticide registration under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, military or space
agency specifications, and FDA
approval. The second category is aerosol
products for functional testing of smoke
detectors, which have National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 72
requirements adopted in building codes.
These types of aerosols must be tested
not only for performance but also
reviewed by third parties for
compliance with regulatory or code
requirements or military specifications.
Given both the safety implications of
insufficient testing and the additional
time required for third-party testing
and/or governmental approval that is
not required for other aerosol
formulations, we have determined that
alternatives that reduce overall risk will
not be available for these uses until
January 1, 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42883
As of the change of status dates,
products cannot be manufactured with
HFC–134a or HFC–227ea or blends
thereof except for the aerosol product
types that are listed under the use
conditions. Products manufactured
prior to the change of status date may
still be sold, imported, exported, and
used by the end-user after that date. As
discussed below in the responses to
comment, restricting use of aerosols by
the end-user, as well as restricting the
sale of previously manufactured
aerosols, may disrupt the market and
may not result in environmental
benefits.
3. How is EPA responding to comments
about this end-use?
(a) Timeline
Comment: EPA received comments
from a number of commenters on the
status change date of HFC–134a, HFC–
227ea, and HFC–125 as an aerosol
propellant. Members of the aerosol
industry proposed alternate years
ranging from 2018 to 2021, always in
reference to HFC–134a or to ‘‘technical’’
aerosols. Reasons provided for these
dates included aligning with the
European Union’s (EU) timeline of
January 1, 2018; a need for at least one
to two more years to complete
reformulation and all testing required;
and additional time of two to five years
to complete approval processes: e.g.,
Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
approvals to meet NFPA requirements,
EPA pesticide registration or testing for
conformance with military
specifications. Members of the aerosol
industry also suggested that January 1,
2016, is too soon to transition away
from HFC–134a because of the need for
coordination with other regulatory
requirements, because of business
considerations including the timing of
the need for budgeting for capital
expenditures, developing and
implementing worker education,
negotiating contracts between aerosol
formulators and retailers, and for
technical reasons such as stability issues
with HFO–1234ze(E), one of the
alternatives that remains acceptable for
use. NRDC and IGSD stated that EPA
must maintain its 2016 timeline for
transition to ensure that important
climate reductions are realized.
Response: In determining when
alternatives that reduce overall risk will
be available for use, EPA considers
technical constraints on the use of other
alternatives, including when other
alternatives may be used consistent with
safety requirements. Unlike some enduses, such as some of the refrigeration
end-uses, there are a much wider variety
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42884
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
of uses with a much broader range of
considerations under the aerosol
propellant end-use. While there are
exceptions, as we address in this action,
for most of these wide-ranging uses, we
do not anticipate significant hurdles to
transitioning to alternatives. Based on
information provided by the
manufacturer of HFO–1234ze(E), a
number of their customers have been
able to develop and introduce aerosol
products using HFO–1234ze(E) in a
matter of months rather than years.
Except in limited cases, as discussed
below, commenters requesting a longer
transition period did not provide
concrete support for why more time for
specific uses is needed, resting only on
general statements that time is needed
for ‘‘formulation’’ and ‘‘testing.’’ Based
on the information available showing
that manufacturers have been able to
transition relatively quickly, but also
recognizing that there may be some
variation in the time needed for specific
uses, we are establishing a change of
status date of July 20, 2016—roughly
seven months later than the proposed
date of January 1, 2016. This will allow
approximately one year from the time
this rule is issued in which
manufacturers should be able to address
their generalized testing and
reformulation concerns. Also, HFC–
134a remains acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for many uses, reducing the
number of products for which
companies must reformulate, test, and
transition to other alternatives.
For certain aerosol products using
HFC–134a that must go through a
federal government or other third-party
approval process for new formulations,
we are establishing a change of status
date of January 1, 2018. These products
include those needing EPA pesticide
registration, testing to U.S. military or
space agency specifications, and FDA
approval (aside from MDIs). In addition,
we are establishing a change of status
date of January 1, 2018, for a product
that requires extensive testing to NFPA
standards, specifically for smoke
detector functional testing. Based on
information received during the public
comment period, we have determined
that for these specific uses, alternatives
that pose less risk are not available until
these testing and registration processes
are complete.
EPA disagrees that we should align
the timelines in this rule with the EU
timelines. The EU regulations rely upon
different authority than the SNAP
program, and reflect the European
context. We believe it is appropriate for
EPA decisions to base timelines upon
when alternatives that reduce overall
risk are available in the United States.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Comment: National Aerosol
Association (NAA), Radiator Specialty
Company (RSC), LPS Laboratories,
Consumer Specialty Products
Association (CSPA), and Aeropres
commented that there is currently no
industry consensus on the safe handling
of HFO–1234ze(E) (and ‘‘any alternative
products’’) in aerosol plants. CSPA
states that the CSPA Aerosol Propellants
Safety Manual will need to be updated
to include new propellants like HFO–
1234ze(E), and that the consensus
guidelines will then be used to assure
that fire and building codes are updated
to properly cover new propellants. The
commenter also states that while they
seek consensus on updating their safety
manual, companies are able to proceed
using the guidance provided by the
supplier, but many CSPA members
prefer to await industry consensus
standards. LPS Laboratories comments
that applicable codes need to be
updated before other alternatives can be
used and suggests that a January 1,
2018, date for listing HFC–134a as
unacceptable is more appropriate.
Response: In the absence of industry
consensus guidance, a number of
aerosol formulators are already
manufacturing products safely using
HFO–1234ze(E) relying upon safety
guidelines developed by the chemical
producer. No commenters raised, and
we are unaware of, any specific safety
concerns that are not addressed in this
guidance issued by the chemical
producer. CSPA mentioned updating
fire and building codes using the
consensus guidelines, but did not state
how these are related and also indicated
that some companies have been able to
move ahead without updates to fire and
building codes based upon the
guidance. For that reason, we do not
believe there is a basis for determining
that HFO–1234ze(E) is not available for
safe use until January 1, 2018, as
suggested by commenters.
(b) Sell-Through Period
Comment: Honeywell stated that there
should be a limited sell-through period
to prevent stranded inventories for
aerosol products, while avoiding delays
in the transition to low-GWP
substitutes. The commenter suggested
that EPA prohibit the sale, import and
export of aerosol products manufactured
with unacceptable substitutes by no
later than January 1, 2017. The
commenter also suggested that the sellthrough period should apply only to
products that were manufactured prior
to January 1, 2016, and that have
entered the distribution channel.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s suggestion that a limited
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
sell-through period would be sufficient.
Based on past experience with
implementing a limited sell-through
period for certain kinds of aerosols
containing CFCs and with implementing
an unlimited sell-through period for
other aerosols, we found that a limited
sell-through can result in market
disruption and can strand inventory.
Further, a limited sell-through period
does not necessarily preclude emissions
of HFCs to the environment because
while manufacturers and distributors
would need to dispose of stranded
inventory, there is no current
requirement prohibiting venting of the
contents to the atmosphere (unlike for
refrigeration or MVAC). In this rule, we
allow new cars or new stand-alone
refrigeration equipment manufactured
with HFC–134a before the change of
status date to be used and serviced after
the change of status date to avoid
market disruption, creation of stranded
inventory, and perverse incentives for
releasing refrigerant to the environment;
a closely analogous treatment for
aerosols is to allow manufacturers and
distributors to sell and end users to use
aerosol products manufactured before
the relevant change of status date.
Finally, because of the relatively short
period from issuance of EPA’s final rule
to the compliance date, we do not
expect that there will be a large
accumulation of inventory. Accordingly,
this rule allows for an unlimited sellthrough and use period for covered
aerosol products manufactured before
the change of status date.
(c) Use Conditions
Comment: Honeywell, the producer of
HFO–1234ze(E), stated that there are
either commercially available products
or shelf-ready products that have not yet
been commercialized that do not
contain HFC–134a for some of the uses
for which EPA proposed to change the
status of HFC–134a, to acceptable,
subject to use conditions, including
cleaning products for electronics, sprays
for aircraft maintenance, and dusters.
Response: EPA agrees, and we note
that the uses identified in the use
conditions encompass a variety of
highly specific uses. While products
without one of these substitutes or a
blend of these substitutes might be used
in one specific use, this does not hold
true for the entire range of uses in the
use category. In particular, this is the
case for uses where flammability is of
concern, such as for electronics cleaning
and specialty dusters that are used on
high-voltage equipment. In the future,
additional testing may indicate that
other alternatives, such as HFO–
1234ze(E), can be used safely even
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
under conditions where flammability is
of concern, but the information
available to date is not currently
sufficient. Thus, we agree with other
commenters from the aerosol industry,
such as CSPA, that HFC–134a continues
to be necessary in specific uses where
other alternatives that pose less overall
risk to human health and the
environment are not available.
Comment: Arkema asked whether
EPA is proposing that HFC–227ea
continue to be acceptable for MDIs
because of ‘‘the volumes or a record of
unique suitability for a particular
purpose,’’ when HFC–134a might pose
lower overall risk compared to HFC–
227ea, since its GWP is less than half
that of HFC–227ea.
Response: Arkema’s comment seems
to suggest that we should list HFC–
227ea as unacceptable for use in MDIs,
because it has a higher GWP than HFC–
134a; we disagree. Although the GWP
for HFC–227ea is significantly higher
than that for HFC–134a, our
understanding is that there are technical
reasons why HFC–134a may not
perform adequately as a propellant in
MDIs using certain kinds of
medications. For example, because
some medications could react or
degrade in the presence of moisture, and
water is much more soluble in HFC–
134a than in HFC–227ea, further
technical work is needed to determine
if HFC–134a is able to serve as a
propellant in all MDIs. Currently, it is
our understanding that for those types
of medications, there are no alternatives
to HFC–227ea that pose lower overall
risk to human health and the
environment.
Comment: The International
Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium
(IPAC) and Mexichem Fluor, Inc.
(Mexichem) suggested using the same
language for the listing for MDIs for
HFC–227ea as for HFC–134a. IPAC,
Mexichem, and King & Spaulding
suggested revising the language to apply
to a wider group of medical uses,
including the treatment of conditions or
diseases of other organs (for example
diabetes) where aerosols can be used for
systemic delivery through the lung or
nose, or that HFC–134a and HFC–227ea
should be allowed for any medical MDI
that has been FDA-approved regardless
of disease condition treated. One of the
commenters also stated it should be
made clear that blends of HFC–134a and
HFC–227ea are also acceptable for such
use.
Response: EPA agrees with the
commenters that the lists of medical
conditions treated with MDIs should be
consistent for HFC–134a and HFC–
227ea. Additionally, we agree that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
language should more clearly specify
our intent, which is to cover all MDI
uses for which FDA has approved HFC–
134a, HFC–227ea, or blends of these
HFCs. This would include the wider
group of medical uses suggested by King
& Spaulding, including the treatment of
conditions or diseases of other organs
(for example diabetes) where aerosols
can be used for systemic delivery
through the lung or nose. It is our
understanding that HFC–134a and HFC–
227ea are the only available alternatives
for MDIs approved by FDA, with dry
powder inhalers as an additional
possible not-in-kind alternative in
limited cases. Thus, we believe that
there are no other alternatives available
or potentially available for all MDIs
approved by FDA that pose less risk
overall to human health and the
environment. We have revised the
wording of the regulatory listing
decision to make clear that the use
condition for HFC–134a, HFC–227ea,
and blends of HFC–134a and HFC–
227ea applies to all MDIs approved by
FDA.
Comment: HSI (Fire & Safety Group,
LLC), Honeywell, DuPont, and EIA
commented that there are available
alternatives and there is sufficient
supply of these alternatives to support
EPA’s proposed change of status
decisions for the aerosol propellants
end-use.
Response: EPA agrees with the
commenters that, for the most part,
there is a sufficient supply of
alternatives that will support a
transition away from the substitutes that
we have concluded provide a greater
risk to human health and the
environment. However, as discussed in
more detail above and in response to
other comments, in some specific cases
we received information that
demonstrates the existence of
technological challenges that support a
later date for the change in status. In
those cases, we are providing a later
date.
Comment: Commenters in the aerosol
industry commented on situations
where some alternatives other than
HFC–134a are not effective or feasible.
NAA commented that if CO2 were
feasible, it would already be used. LPS
Laboratories commented that
formulators must consider chemical
compatibility with formulations; for
example, CO2 cannot be used with
water-based formulations due to the
formation of carbonic acid. LPS
Laboratories commented that nitrogen
has very limited uses due to its lack of
solubility and the substantial pressure
drop that occurs as the product is used.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42885
Response: EPA recognizes that not all
alternative propellants work in every
particular formulation. The commenters
have described specific situations where
CO2 and nitrogen may not be
appropriate propellants. However, other
alternatives are also listed as acceptable.
HFO–1234ze(E) and HFC–152a have
some physical similarities with HFC–
134a and the commenters do not claim
that these other alternatives are not
available.
Comment: NRDC and IGSD urged the
Agency to deny any requests in the
aerosols sector for additional
exemptions.
Response: EPA has considered the
comments and information submitted
during the comment period and is
adding a limited number of uses to the
use conditions that would allow
continued use of HFC–134a, HFC–
227ea, or blends thereof for the reasons
provided elsewhere in this preamble.
Comment: Honeywell, NAA, and
CSPA commented on the
nonflammability of HFO–1234ze(E).
NAA indicated that HFO–1234ze(E) was
found to be nonflammable by a number
of standard tests (e.g., ASTM E-681) and
aerosol flammability test methods (e.g.,
flame extension, enclosed space
ignition), as well as by a non-standard
test including a test that found no
ignition up to temperatures greater than
900 °F. Honeywell commented that
while it is accurate to say that HFO–
1234ze(E) may exhibit vapor flame
limits at elevated temperatures, that is
only one of many properties that must
be taken into consideration when
characterizing HFO–1234ze(E) and its
usefulness in formulating nonflammable
aerosol products. This commenter also
provided additional information about
other tests on the flammability of HFO–
1234ze(E). CSPA said that there is still
some concern about the potential for
flammability at higher ambient
temperatures, and that CSPA member
product marketers, formulators and
manufacturers are working to assure
that specific products in various
categories can be formulated,
manufactured and used safely and
effectively.
Response: Based on the information
available to EPA at this time, we agree
that HFO–1234ze(E) is nonflammable in
most situations that aerosols will be
used. However, we have not seen results
of testing that cover all of the types of
products for which there are concerns
about the need for a nonflammable
aerosol propellant, such as aerosol
products used on energized circuits or
other electrical equipment. For other
uses, where we have evidence of
product-specific testing on HFO–
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42886
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
1234ze(E) showing nonflammability
(e.g., tire inflators), we have concluded
that the flammability risks of HFO–
1234ze(E) are not a significant concern.
Comment: Several commenters
discussed flammability concerns for tire
inflators, with some suggesting that they
should be added as a use for which
HFC–134a is acceptable, subject to use
conditions, others suggesting a later
change of status date, and others
supporting the proposal. NAA and RSC
stated that due to past accidents traced
to flammability of tire inflators, it is
necessary to test all aspects of the
inflators to ensure that there are no
flammability issues with HFO–
1234ze(E). RSC and Honeywell
commented on the specific testing
required to ensure that new tire inflators
using HFO–1234ze(E) are
nonflammable, because of the
possibility of ignition sources such as
application of a torch to the rim of the
tire or sparking from metal tools
contacting a steel belt during tire repair.
ITW Global Tire Repair commented that
previous Aerosol Tire Inflators were
flammable and there were several
accidents in which tire repair
professionals were injured when a spark
ignited the product. This commenter
also stated that EPA should not dismiss
the need for a nonflammable product
because other aspects of motor vehicles
are flammable; tires and wheels have
not been designed and engineered to
contain flammable products, unlike
many other flammable products in
motor vehicles. CSPA referred to a
March, 1999 recall from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) recall for 32 million units of
an aerosol tire inflator due to injuries
caused by the product’s flammability.
Mexichem comments HFO–1234ze(E)
requires further evaluation before
implementation for emergency tire
inflators and sealers because of its
flammability and uncertainty regarding
its compatibility with sealants.
Honeywell, the manufacturer of HFO–
1234ze(E), commented that third-party
testing of aerosol tire inflators using
HFO–1234ze(E) found them to be
nonflammable.
Response: We acknowledge that there
have been reports of accidents
associated with use of flammable tire
inflators in the past, particularly
affecting tire repair professionals. Not
all manufacturers of tire inflators agree
that a nonflammable propellant is
necessary, given there are tire inflators
using hydrocarbons already on the
market. Although HFO–1234ze(E) can
ignite under higher temperature
conditions using the standard test
ASTM E 681, a relevant question is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
whether data indicate that an aerosol
tire inflator using HFO–1234ze(E)
would be flammable under the pressure,
temperature, and likely ignition sources
specific to this use. This will ensure a
relevant risk comparison and will not
compare to other flammable substances
used in other parts of a motor vehicle.
One manufacturer of aerosol tire
inflators has tested a formulation using
HFO–1234ze(E) and has found it is
nonflammable under the conditions that
exist for use of a tire inflator (RSC,
2014). Therefore, other alternatives are
available besides HFC–134a that
sufficiently mitigate flammability risks
for this use. Concerning RSC’s
suggestion for a change of status date of
January 1, 2018, to give sufficient time
for additional testing, the commenter
provided insufficient information on the
types of testing or timeframes involved
to warrant providing additional time.
Further, in this final rule, we are
providing roughly an additional seven
months beyond the date in the proposal
to meet commenters’ general comments
about requiring additional time for
testing. Based on the information
available, HFO–1234ze(E) is an option
that other manufacturers of aerosol tire
inflators are using to formulate products
that are not flammable under the
conditions expected for that use.
Comment: Commenters from the
aerosol industry requested that EPA
include additional uses for which HFC–
134a is acceptable, subject to use
conditions. These uses include certain
aerosols used for testing smoke detector
sensitivity and ‘‘emergency safety horns
exclusively used for marine emergency
situations and/or industrial emergencies
and evacuations.’’ Reasons cited include
allowing time for developing and
approving new smoke detector
sensitivity testing equipment and the
need for nonflammability because
emergency safety horns function where
flames or other ignition sources are
present. An environmental group states
that it disagrees with comments that
request continued use of HFC–134a in
freeze sprays, tissue freezes, portable
safety horns and personal defense
sprays, as these applications can use
other lower-GWP alternatives such as
dimethyl ether, HFO–1234ze(E), and
CO2.
Response: For aerosols used for smoke
detector sensitivity testing, EPA
received information from a
manufacturer of such products that this
use requires redesign of equipment for
testing smoke detectors, and not just
reformulation of the aerosol. This
information indicates that the
equipment for such testing is designed
based on the vapor pressure of HFC–
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
134a and would not work with another
propellant. Therefore, we are adding
aerosols for sensitivity testing of smoke
detectors to the list of use conditions.
For portable safety horns, personal
defense sprays, and freeze sprays for
wastes (as opposed to electronic freeze
sprays), there are other alternatives that
are available or potentially available
that reduce overall risk to human health
and the environment. Products using
HFO–1234ze(E) already exist or are in
development for these uses. EPA
received no information indicating that
alternatives other than HFC–125, HFC–
134a or HFC–227ea, or blends thereof,
cannot be safely used in tissue freeze
sprays.
Comment: ITW Polymers Sealants
requested that EPA either clarify that
canister adhesives and sealants are not
considered to be aerosols, or else that
EPA add this use to the list of use
conditions for HFC–134a. ITW Polymers
Sealants provided information
indicating that flammability of the
propellant is of concern in the
fabrication facilities with this use, and
that use of hydrocarbon propellants
would exceed VOC limits set for these
products in many areas of the country.
The commenter also indicated that
HFO–1234ze(E), CO2, and N2, the only
other propellants that would address
flammability concerns for this use
besides HFC–134a, have vapor pressures
outside of the range that would provide
sufficient performance. In the absence of
sufficient vapor pressure, as with HFO–
1234ze(E), the commenter claims that
there will be performance problems
such as lower bond strength or bumps
and mounds in furniture surfaces; with
the higher pressure propellants N2 and
CO2, the commenter states that these
will result in exceeding Department of
Transportation internal pressure limits
at elevated temperatures.
Response: We do consider canister
adhesives and sealants to be aerosols
because they are pressurized containers
and they use a propellant, as opposed to
solely mechanical means, to expel the
other ingredients of the formulation
from the container. The information
provided by the commenter on vapor
pressure concerns is plausible, based on
the relative vapor pressures of the
different propellants. It is possible for
fabrication facilities to use flammable
adhesives and propellants safely, but it
would require time to make the
necessary upgrades to address these
risks. It is also of concern that in VOC
nonattainment areas, large amounts of
hydrocarbons in these large canister
adhesive containers would cause
canister adhesives and sealants to
exceed their VOC limits. Of the
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
available propellant options that are not
VOC or are exempted from the
definition of VOC—HFC–134a, HFO–
1234ze(E), CO2, and N2—to date, only
HFC–134a has been shown to be in a
pressure range that provides sufficient
performance. Thus, it is likely that
HFC–134a is the only available
propellant for canister adhesives and
sealants in many areas of the country.
Therefore, this final rule adds adhesives
and sealants in large canisters to the list
of uses where HFC–134a is acceptable,
subject to use conditions.
Comment: A number of members of
the aerosol industry requested that EPA
consider adding aerosols for use on
energized electrical equipment as a use
for which HFC–134a is acceptable,
subject to use conditions. Specific
products mentioned include dusters for
use on live electric circuits, contact
cleaners for energized circuits, mold
cleaners, and electronic freeze sprays.
Response: EPA agrees that, given the
high temperatures and high electrical
energy present on energized electrical
equipment, it is necessary to retain the
option of a propellant that remains
nonflammable at high temperatures. As
described elsewhere in the preamble,
compressed gases such as CO2 and N2
may be nonflammable but are not
appropriate in some situations, due to
pressure drop-off and reactions with
other formulation ingredients. HFO–
1234ze(E) is nonflammable in many
situations, but it is not yet clear if it
remains nonflammable in the presence
of the high temperatures and high
electrical energy in the specific uses
mentioned by the commenters. If
additional information becomes
available showing that HFO–1234ze(E)
remains nonflammable in such
situations, we may revisit this decision
in the future. In this final rule, we are
adding mold cleaners, electronic freeze
sprays, and dusters for use on energized
electrical circuits to the list of aerosol
products that may continue to use HFC–
134a under the use conditions. We
consider electrical contact cleaners for
energized electrical equipment to be
part of the use ‘‘cleaning products for
removal of grease, flux and other soils
from electrical equipment or
electronics’’ and therefore covered by
the use condition.
Comment: MicroCare, a company
specializing in cleaning, and Traulsen, a
manufacturer of commercial
refrigeration equipment, request that
refrigeration system flushes be added to
the use condition specifying which enduses may still use HFC–134a. They
explain that after removing refrigerant
and flushing any oils or particulates left,
the lines are brazed, soldered or welded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
back together at high temperatures well
above the level at which HFO–1234ze(E)
becomes flammable (e.g., above 1,995
°C).
CSPA stated that it should be clarified
that ‘‘Cleaning products for removal of
grease, flux, and other soils from
electrical equipment or electronics’’
includes cleaners for refrigeration coils
because of similar requirements for
nonflammability. NAA stated that its
members did not reach consensus on
whether refrigerant flushes should be
added to the acceptable list. This
commenter states that it is common
practice in the industry to remove
flushing agents from lines and blowing
them dry with nitrogen or compressed
air after flushing, which eliminates risks
posed by welding lines after flushing.
Response: Because of the extremely
high temperatures cited by MicroCare
and Traulsen that may be present in a
refrigerant line after flushing, EPA
agrees that it is necessary to have a
nonflammable propellant available for
refrigerant flushes. The term ‘‘refrigerant
flushes’’ also refers to cleaners for
refrigerant coils. Although nitrogen can
be used to purge refrigerant lines to
remove refrigerant flushes prior to
brazing or welding, it is not clear that
this is a universal practice in the
industry. Therefore, we are adding
refrigerant flushes to the use condition
specifying uses that may continue to use
HFC–134a.
Comment: SAE International and
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(AAM) commented that there are
aerosol products available for servicing
MVAC systems which contain additives
in a can propelled by HFC–134a which
the commenters believe should be
acceptable, subject to use conditions.
The commenters stated that the use of
propellants other than HFC–134a could
cause technical problems, could
contaminate refrigerant so that EPAapproved Recovery, Recycling and
Recharging (RRR) equipment cannot be
used, or could be incompatible with
SAE standards if the propellant goes
into the MVAC systems.
Response: EPA considers an aerosol
can containing HFC–134a used to
recharge an MVAC system to fall under
the MVAC end-use and not the aerosol
propellant end-use. Under the SNAP
lists for the MVAC end-use, HFC–134a
remains an acceptable substitute for
servicing existing systems. An aerosol
can containing HFC–134a refrigerant
and oil or leak sealant, which is used to
inject oil or repair leaks and to then
recharge MVAC systems, would also fit
in the MVAC end-use and remains
acceptable for use on existing systems.
These cans must have the unique
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42887
fittings required by SNAP for HFC–134a
as a motor vehicle air conditioner
refrigerant. However, an aerosol can
primarily intended to inject additives,
e.g., dye, rather than to add HFC–134a
as a refrigerant would be considered an
aerosol, and use of HFC–134a as the
propellant would not be allowed as of
July 20, 2016, under this final rule. We
do not consider this type of product to
fit under the commenter’s request for
products for servicing. Further, we
disagree with the commenter that it is
necessary to have a propellant that is
the same as the refrigerant used in
MVAC. We note that in the future,
HFO–1234yf or other refrigerant
substitutes will be used as a refrigerant
in many vehicles; thus, in the future,
automotive products will need to be
formulated to include propellants other
than HFC–134a, as well as formulated
with propellants that are different from
the refrigerant used in the MVAC
system.
Comment: DuPont recommended that
EPA establish use conditions rather than
narrowed use limits in implementing
any changes of status for HFCs used in
aerosols. The commenter stated that
acceptable conditions of use are a
relatively straightforward, selfimplementing regulatory approach that
would limit the burden on aerosol
companies, most of which are small
businesses, in complying with the
changed status. DuPont commented that
narrowed use limits are a much more
administratively intensive approach for
both the Agency and the regulated
community, and would impose
significant burdens on these small
businesses, as well as on EPA.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that narrowed use limits are
more administratively burdensome. We
are establishing use conditions in the
final rule.
(d) HFC Consumption and Climate
Impact of Aerosols
Comment: DuPont, Mexichem and the
Consumer Specialty Products
Association (CSPA) commented on the
relatively small contribution of nonmedical aerosols to HFC consumption,
stating that it represents between 1 and
2% of all HFC consumption. A producer
of tire inflators noted that tire inflators
make up less than 0.2% of the current
use of HFC–134a. Mexichem stated that
the continued availability of HFC–134a
for the small businesses and consumers
that produce/rely on aerosol products,
will make no appreciable difference to
EPA’s goal of reducing GHG emissions,
because aerosol products account for
only five percent of total HFC
consumption, and of that portion, only
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42888
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
24% serve non-medical purposes. This
commenter suggested that EPA should
accommodate these uses through
exemptions or a delay in the ‘‘delisting’’ of HFC–134a. In contrast,
Honeywell mentions that its new
technologies in the aerosol sector could
reduce GHG emissions by more than 6
MMTCO2eq per year in 2016.
Response: EPA agrees that the aerosol
sector comprises a small portion of the
total consumption of HFCs. However,
we disagree that we should not change
the status of HFCs for the aerosol
propellant end-use because GHG
emissions from that end-use are small.
We note that any given end-use within
the 50-some SNAP end-uses may be
relatively small compared to the whole.
Section 612(c) of the CAA directs EPA
to publish lists of substitutes prohibited
for specific uses and safe alternatives for
specific uses. Thus, we make our
decision by considering the overall risk
to human health and the environment
posed by the available or potentially
available substitutes within each enduse, rather than comparing risks in
different end-uses to each other. We
disagree with the commenter’s
suggestion that EPA provide a later
change of status date for aerosol uses
because of their relatively low GHG
emissions. Instead, EPA considers the
time in which alternatives are available
for use, which involves the feasibility of
implementing alternatives with lower
overall impacts on human health and
the environment. EPA appreciates the
information provided by one commenter
that indicates that for the aerosol sector,
the change in status for HFC–134a,
HFC–227ea, and HFC–125 could reduce
GHG emissions by more than 6
MMTCO2eq per year.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(e) Small Business Impacts
Comment: Falcon Safety Products
comments that they transitioned from
HCFCs to HFCs in 1993, after which it
began transitioning from HFC–134a
(with a GWP of 1,430) to HFC–152a
(with a GWP of 124) in compressed gas
dusters, at a significant cost to its
company, in terms of retooling and
installing new gas tanks and filing lines.
Falcon Safety Products supports the
EPA’s high-GWP emissions reduction
efforts, but believes that they should not
negatively impact small businesses or
have a detrimental impact on the safety,
affordability, or efficacy of its product
categories. Falcon Safety Products
comments that transitioning to HFO–
1234ze(E) is very expensive for small
businesses like itself, in terms of
changing tanks, filling lines, and
revising labels and marketing materials.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Response: EPA did not propose and is
not finalizing a change in status for
HFC–152a in aerosols. See preamble
section V.A.3 for EPA’s status changes
for HFCs in the aerosols sector, and
supporting document Economic Impact
Screening Analysis for Regulatory
Options to Change Listing Status of
High-GWP Alternatives (ICF, 2014f; ICF,
2015b).
(f) Imports
Comment: CSPA expressed concern
about noncomplying products from
offshore, which they state has been a
large problem in the past. CSPA stated
that for retail products, more time is
needed to adjust contracts and to work
with EPA to ensure that CSPA member
complying products are not displaced
by non-complying products from
offshore.
Response: For aerosol products, the
rule applies to imported products as
well as to manufacture of products in
the United States. By providing a full
year after finalization of the rule before
a change of status is required for the
HFCs covered by this action known to
be in current use for aerosol product
manufacture, there is now additional
time to adjust contracts and work with
retailers. EPA welcomes the suggestion
that we should work together with the
aerosol industry and retailers to avoid
sale of non-complying products that
might be imported.
B. MVAC Systems for Newly
Manufactured Light-Duty Motor
Vehicles
1. Background
MVAC systems cool passenger cars,
light-duty trucks, buses, and rail
vehicles. CFC–12 was the refrigerant
historically used in the manufacture of
MVAC systems. HFC–134a, along with a
number of other substitutes, was found
acceptable for use in light-duty vehicles
in 1994 and at the same time, CFC–12
was being phased out of production. By
the mid-1990s, use of CFC–12 in
manufacturing new light-duty vehicles
ceased in the United States and
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles
uniformly decided to adopt HFC–134a
for use in MVAC. Today, while MVAC
systems in some older vehicles may still
be using CFC–12, HFC–134a remains
the dominant refrigerant used in lightduty vehicles worldwide. More recently,
additional alternatives for MVAC have
been listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions,31 including HFO–1234yf,
HFC–152a, and carbon dioxide (CO2 or
R–744). Manufacturers are currently
PO 00000
31 Listed
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
manufacturing or are actively
developing light-duty models using
HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and CO2. The
development of MVAC systems using
lower-GWP refrigerants has been
encouraged by MVAC refrigerant
requirements in Europe, where the
European Union Directive on Mobile
Air Conditioning (MAC Directive)
mandates transition to a refrigerant with
a GWP below 150 by January 1, 2017,32
and in the United States by the
availability of credits under the LightDuty Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) Rule,
described in further detail below.
Neither HFC–134a nor any of the
refrigerants listed more recently is
ozone-depleting. HFO–1234yf, HFC–
152a, and CO2 have much lower GWPs
than HFC–134a. HFO–1234yf has a
GWP of 4, HFC–152a has a GWP of 124,
and CO2 (by definition) has a GWP of 1
while HFC–134a has a GWP of 1,430.
HFC–134a and CO2 are nonflammable;
HFO–1234yf and HFC–152a are
flammable. All of the gaseous
refrigerants can cause asphyxiation at
high concentrations. CO2 concentrations
that could potentially result from
refrigerant leaks into the passenger
compartment without mitigation
measures could reduce a driver’s
attentiveness and performance. HFC–
134a and the three lower-GWP
alternatives are exempt from the
definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
addressing the development of SIPs to
attain and maintain the national
ambient air quality standards. As
discussed in the NPRM, EPA has
created use conditions for HFC–134a,
HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and CO2 that
establish unique fittings and labeling
requirements, and where appropriate,
mitigate flammability and toxicity risks.
HFO–1234yf is being used in cars on
the road today in the United States. At
the time of the proposal for this rule,
EPA was aware that HFO–1234yf was in
use in MVAC systems in approximately
nine 33 models in the United States
produced by several manufacturers of
light-duty vehicles. EPA expects, and
several commenters indicated that,
additional models have or will be
introduced using HFO–1234yf systems
over the next several years. The results
of a 2014 industry survey submitted by
32 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU
MAC Directive). This document is accessible at:
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML.
33 Nelson, 2013. Gabe Nelson. Automakers’
switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA
credits, European mandate. Automotive News.
Available online at www.autonews.com/article/
20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
AAM and the Association of Global
Automakers (Global Automakers) as a
public comment to this rule found that
automobile manufacturers who
responded to the survey had plans in
place to transition 90% of light-duty
models sold in the United States by or
before MY 2021.34 According to
comments submitted by Honeywell,
there are approximately 28 different
automobile brands selling around 60
different models designed to use HFO–
1234yf globally.35 DuPont stated that
more than 7 million vehicles using
HFO–1234yf are estimated to be on the
road by the end of 2015 globally, and in
addition to infrastructure being in place
at vehicle assembly plants, equipment
suppliers are already producing the
under hood, in factory, and service
equipment.36
While EPA was aware in the 1990s
that CO2 might be a feasible alternative
in this application, the state of research
and development indicated that it was
not yet available because a design had
not yet been developed that would
allow safe use in MVAC systems in
light-duty vehicles. More than 20 years
later, EPA is still not aware of current
commercial use of CO2 in MVAC
systems. However, significant research
and development are occurring in order
to design a system that will ensure CO2
can be used safely as an MVAC
refrigerant. At least one global
manufacturer of light-duty vehicles has
announced its intention to
commercialize vehicles that use CO2 as
the MVAC refrigerant in the next five
years, and perhaps as early as 2016.37
In 2008, EPA found HFC–152a
acceptable subject to use conditions.
MVAC systems using HFC–152a have
not been commercialized to date;
however, EPA is aware of a
demonstration project in India with a
major Indian motor vehicle
manufacturer considering HFC–152a in
secondary loop MVAC systems.38
In addition to the use and
development of HFO–1234yf, HFC–
152a, and CO2 MVAC systems, EPA is
aware of ongoing research and
development which could ultimately
result in future listings of additional
alternatives for light-duty MVAC
systems. For example, since the
publication of the proposed rule, the
SNAP program received a new
submission for another low-GWP
alternative that is a blend with a GWP
below 150.
There are also several blend
refrigerants that have been listed as
acceptable or acceptable, subject to use
conditions, since 1994, but that have
never been developed for use in MVAC
or used in manufacture of new vehicles.
Today’s action will change the status of
these refrigerant blends to unacceptable
as of MY 2017 for use in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles. These
substitutes include HFC blends SP34E
42889
and R–426A (also known as RS-24) with
GWPs of 1,380 and 1,508, respectively,
and the HCFC blends, R–416A (also
known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC
FR12), R–406A, R–414A (also known as
HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B
(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron),
HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free
Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC
Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP),
with GWPs ranging from 1,480 to 2,340
and ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056.
For simplicity, we refer to these
substitutes as ‘‘the refrigerant blends’’ in
the following discussion.
As noted above, none of these are
currently used by the original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) nor
are we aware that any models are being
developed for use with these
substitutes. All of these refrigerant
blends have GWPs that are significantly
higher than the GWPs for HFO–1234yf,
HFC–152a, and CO2 and the blends
containing HCFCs have ODPs ranging
from 0.012 to 0.056. As discussed, there
are alternatives with lower overall risk
to human health and the environment
that are available for this use.
2. What is EPA finalizing regarding
MVAC systems for newly manufactured
light-duty motor vehicles?
The change of status determinations
for MVAC are summarized in the
following table:
TABLE 3—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR MVAC
End-use
Substitutes
Decision
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment
in passenger cars and light-duty trucks only).
HFC–134a ........................................................
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment
in passenger cars and light-duty trucks only).
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),
SP34E, R–426A (RS–24, new formulation).
Unacceptable as of Model Year (MY) 2021,
except where allowed under a narrowed
use limit through MY 2025. Acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits, for vehicles
exported to countries with insufficient servicing infrastructure to support other alternatives, for MY 2021 through MY 2025; Unacceptable for all newly manufactured vehicles as of MY 2026.
Unacceptable as of MY 2017.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(a) HFC–134a
In the August 6, 2014, proposal, EPA
proposed to change the listing status of
HFC–134a from acceptable to
34 EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0207 and EPA–
HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0113.
35 EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0170.
36 EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0077.
37 Daimler, 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
unacceptable for use in air conditioning
systems in newly manufactured
passenger cars and light-duty trucks
beginning in MY 2021.39 This final
action adopts the proposed approach,
but with one exception. Specifically, we
are including a narrowed use limit for
HFC–134a in MVAC systems of newly
manufactured passenger cars and lightduty trucks destined for use in countries
38 Andersen et al., 2015. ‘‘Secondary Loop Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL–MACs).
Using Low-Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Refrigerants in Leak-Tight Systems In Climates with
High Fuel Prices and Long, Hot and Humid Cooling
Seasons. Building on the Previous Success of
Delphi, Fiat, General Motors, Volvo, Red Dot, SAE
Cooperative Research Projects, And Other
Engineering Groups.’’ MACS Briefing, 2015.
39 Because the MVAC system used is so closely
related to vehicle design, we are using model years
and not calendar years.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42890
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
that do not have infrastructure in place
for servicing with other acceptable
refrigerants. This narrowed use limit
will be in place through MY 2025.
This change of status applies to
MVAC systems for passenger cars and
light-duty trucks as defined at 40 CFR
86.1803–01, referred to jointly in this
FRM as light-duty vehicles. As
discussed in the NPRM and above, three
alternatives currently on the SNAP list
of substitutes that are acceptable,
subject to use conditions—HFC–152a,
CO2, and HFO–1234yf—are in use or
under various stages of development
and have significantly lower GWPs than
HFC–134a. Use conditions for these
substitutes mitigate flammability and
toxicity risks, as relevant, and thus for
the other factors EPA evaluates, there
was not an appreciable difference in
risk. Because HFC–134a has a
significantly higher GWP than HFC–
152a, CO2, and HFO–1234yf, and
because the use conditions for these
three refrigerants ensure that other risks
are not appreciably higher than for
HFC–134a, we are listing HFC–134a as
unacceptable for use in MVAC systems
in new light-duty vehicles in MY 2021.
Without the use conditions these
other substitutes do not pose overall
lower risk than HFC–134a. Thus, in
deciding when the unacceptability
determination should apply, we
considered when it would be feasible
for manufacturers to develop systems
meeting the use conditions. We
proposed MY 2021 while also
requesting comment on MY 2017, MY
2019 and MYs later than 2021. As
explained in the NPRM, EPA considers
MY 2021 the date by which automobile
manufacturers will be able to redesign
all vehicle models (including design of
the MVAC systems) for use with a
lower-GWP alternative, consistent with
the use conditions.
EPA previously considered the model
year by which manufacturers of lightduty vehicles would be able to
transition away from use of HFC–134a
in support of the greenhouse gas and
fuel economy standards for MY 2017–
2025 light-duty vehicles issued jointly
by EPA and NHTSA on August 28,
2012.40 As part of that rulemaking, EPA
established the availability of credits for
the use of alternative refrigerants with
lower GWPs than that of HFC–134a
towards meeting the LD GHG standards.
For today’s action, EPA relied on the
analysis conducted in support of the LD
GHG standards for MYs 2017–2025. The
40 77 FR 62624, 62807–810 (October 15, 2012);
see also 75 FR 25325, 25431–32 (May 7, 2010)
(discussing the same issue for MY 2012–2016 lightduty vehicles)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
analysis considered the practices used
by the automobile manufacturing
industry in introducing new
technologies into their vehicles through
manufacturing redesign changes and
refresh cycles. For each vehicle model,
manufacturers establish a product
development cycle over which they
plan any significant technological
changes or ‘‘redesigns’’ to that vehicle.
Between the major redesign model
years, they may make only minor
‘‘refresh’’ changes.41 At any point in
time, a manufacturer may have some
vehicles at or approaching a major
redesign point and others that are earlier
in their product cycle.
In developing the LD GHG standards,
EPA assumed that the transition to
alternative refrigerants would generally
need to occur during manufacturer
model redesigns because of changes to
the system design that are needed to
allow the safe use of these alternatives
consistent with the regulatory use
conditions.42 EPA used the overall
typical industry redesign cycle of five
model years to estimate how the
expected industry-wide transition to
new refrigerants might occur. Thus, EPA
projected that the industry, in order to
safely make use of the credits offered for
use of lower-GWP refrigerants, would
fully transition to these refrigerants over
the time between MY 2017 and MY
2021, beginning with 20 percent
transition in MY 2017, to be followed by
a 20 percent increase in substitution in
each subsequent model year, completing
transition in MY 2021.43 EPA continues
to rely on the projections made in
support of the LD GHG Rule as well as
all other information currently available
to the Agency to support the decision in
this action that MY 2021 is the MY by
which it will be feasible for
manufacturers to safely, but
expeditiously, transition MVAC systems
for all light-duty vehicle models.
EPA proposed to modify the listing of
HFC–134a to unacceptable as of MY
2021 for light-duty vehicles, and sought
comment on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs
later than 2021. Some commenters
argued that full transition cannot occur
until after MY 2021 because a limited
number of models do not currently have
plans in place to transition by MY 2021.
For these models, commenters claimed
that two full design cycles, which could
take 10 years, will be necessary in order
41 See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for
a more detailed discussion of this practice.
42 As previously noted, HFO–1234yf, CO and
2
HFC–152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use
conditions and many of the use conditions address
the design of systems to account for flammability
or exposure.
43 77 FR 62720.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to transition. Commenters also provided
information that the vehicle redesign is
not ‘‘locked-in’’ until two years before
the model year. EPA understands that
because MY 2016 vehicles are being
produced in the 2015 calendar year, this
means most manufacturers have
‘‘locked-in’’ their planned product
designs for MY 2016 and MY 2017, or
potentially even out to MY 2018.44 EPA
did not receive information on why
manufacturers cannot redesign models
that are not yet locked-in or why MVAC
system redesign cannot occur during a
product refresh for those models that are
locked-in. According to the 2014 survey
of the automobile industry,
manufacturers who participated in the
study indicated that they already expect
to have transitioned 90% of the fleet by
MY 2021. We did not receive any
information indicating it was not
technically feasible to also transition the
remaining 10% of models by MY 2021.
EPA expressly requested specific
information supporting claims that a
transition by MY 2021 would not be
technically feasible because specific
model vehicles cannot be redesigned to
safely use alternative refrigerants by MY
2021. No such information was
forthcoming. Although one
manufacturer did provide information
on the increase in cost to transition for
a particular type of vehicle that was
originally not planned for a refrigerant
change by MY 2021,45 commenters did
not submit specific information,
confidential or otherwise, that showed it
would not be technically feasible for
any specific model vehicles to adjust
their redesign cycle, switch refrigerants
mid-cycle, or switch during a refresh.
After thoroughly reviewing all of the
information in the possession of the
Agency, EPA did not find a technical
basis for extending the change of status
date beyond MY 2021. We believe the
information in the record supports a
conclusion that it is feasible for vehicles
and the associated MVAC systems to be
redesigned to safely use alternative
refrigerants by MY 2021.
EPA also received comments on this
rule requesting an earlier change of
44 Global Automakers, in their comments on the
NPRM, stated, ‘‘These major model re-designs
typically occur every five or six model years, and
are staggered year-by-year so that the
manufacturer’s full product line is refreshed over
time rather than all at once. Because of the need to
lock in suppliers to support production well in
advance, vehicle designs are usually locked in
about two years before the model year.’’ EPA–HQ–
OAR–2014–0198–0207.
45 As explained in more detail in the responses
to comments, under the SNAP criteria for review in
40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only cost information that
EPA considers as part of its SNAP review is the
‘‘cost and availability of the substitute.’’
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
status date based on the availability of
alternative refrigerants and the fact that
transition is already occurring in the
United States and globally. The
available information indicated that
many of the models that have already
transitioned are being sold in Europe
rather than in the United States. There
is no information showing that it is
technically feasible for all or most
models to transition to alternatives
safely by MY 2017 or MY 2019, which
begin in 2016 and 2018 respectively. As
discussed below in the responses to
comments, MY 2021 is the earliest year
that we find provides sufficient time to
transition refrigerant during vehicle
redesign cycles or to plan a mid-cycle
transition to alternatives that ensures
safety through compliance with SNAP
use conditions.
We also considered the supply of the
alternative refrigerants in determining
when alternatives would be available.
At the time the light-duty GHG rule was
promulgated, there was a concern about
the potential supply of HFO–1234yf.
Some commenters indicated that supply
is still a concern, while others,
including two producers of HFO–
1234yf, commented that there will be
sufficient supply. Moreover, some
automotive manufacturers are
developing systems that can safely use
other substitutes, including CO2, for
which there is not a supply concern for
the refrigerant. If some global light-duty
motor vehicle manufacturers use CO2 or
another acceptable alternative,
additional volumes of HFO–1234yf that
would have been used by those
manufacturers will then become
available. Based on all of the
information before the Agency, EPA
believes production plans for the
refrigerants are in place to make
available sufficient supply no later than
MY 2021 to meet current and projected
demand domestically as well as abroad,
including, but not limited to, the EU.
Based on information the Agency
possessed at the time of the proposal
and additional information submitted
during the comment period regarding
the technical feasibility of transitioning
the fleet of light-duty vehicles and
refrigerant supply, we conclude that MY
2021 represents the time by which other
alternative refrigerants that pose less
overall risk than HFC–134a can be used
in all light-duty vehicle models
consistent with the use conditions.
Thus, MY 2021 is the time at which
those alternative refrigerants will be
‘‘available’’ within the meaning of CAA
section 612(c)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
(b) Refrigerant Blends
In today’s action, EPA is also
finalizing changes to the listing status of
SP34E, R–426A, R–416A, R–406A, R–
414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or
GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as HCFC
Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta
(also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12,
GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda
(also known as GHG–HP) from
acceptable to unacceptable for use in
newly manufactured light-duty motor
vehicles beginning in MY 2017, as
proposed. The GWPs of HFC–152a,
HFO–1234yf, and CO2 are significantly
lower than those of the refrigerant
blends and all but two of these blends
have ODPs, whereas HFC–152a, HFO–
1234yf, and CO2 do not. Moreover, if
used consistent with the established use
conditions, the three lower-GWP
refrigerants do not pose greater overall
risk than any of the refrigerant blends.
At the time of the proposal, EPA was
not aware of current or projected future
use of these refrigerant blends in any
MVAC systems in newly manufactured
light-duty vehicles. We did not receive
any comments providing information
suggesting current or projected use of
these refrigerant blends in any newlymanufactured light-duty MVAC systems
and received several comments
supporting this aspect of the proposal.
EPA is changing the listing status for the
refrigerant blends to unacceptable for
use in new light-duty vehicles as of MY
2017, the next model year in production
after this rule is issued.
3. MVAC Servicing
EPA did not propose and is not
making any changes that would alter the
ability to service existing motor vehicles
designed to use HFC–134a or a
refrigerant blend.46
MVAC systems designed to use lowerGWP substitutes and installed in
vehicles will need to be serviced. Some
stakeholders and commenters have
expressed a concern that the price
differential between HFO–1234yf and
HFC–134a provides an economic
incentive to replace HFO–1234yf with
HFC–134a during servicing.47 HFC–
134a is listed, and will remain listed, as
an acceptable refrigerant for retrofit of
existing systems designed to use CFC–
12, but because of the use restrictions
for refrigerants listed as acceptable, it
cannot be used as a retrofit for MVAC
systems using other alternatives.
Specifically, the SNAP listings for all
MVAC refrigerants require the use of
46 EPA is also clarifying that thermostatic
expansion valves (TXVs) are not impacted by
today’s action.
47 See also 77 FR 62807.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42891
unique fittings for each alternative
refrigerant. These fittings are found at
attachment points on the car itself, on
all recovery and recycling equipment,
on can taps and other charging
equipment, and on all refrigerant
containers. The purpose of these fittings
is to prevent cross-contamination. Using
an adapter or deliberately modifying a
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a
violation of these use conditions. If used
properly, the unique fittings will not
allow for the introduction of HFC–134a
refrigerant to an HFO–1234yf system.
Furthermore, the SNAP regulations
prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to
‘top-off’ a system that uses another
refrigerant and the SNAP use conditions
for refrigerants in this end-use require
that the original refrigerant be
recovered, in accordance with
regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA, prior to charging with a
substitute (40 CFR 82.34). Thus, the
SNAP use conditions prohibit adding a
new refrigerant to the system without
first recovering the refrigerant already in
the system.
For vehicles for which the
manufacturer counts air conditioning
credits toward its LD GHG compliance,
the MVAC systems (or elements of those
systems) are considered emissionrelated components as defined in 40
CFR 86.1803. This designation includes
provisions for emission-related
warranty, requirements that they
operate properly for the specified useful
life, as well as tampering restrictions.
For example, if a manufacturer claims
air conditioning credits for an MVAC
system that uses a lower-GWP
refrigerant on a particular vehicle as
part of the LD GHG program, removing
and replacing that refrigerant with any
other refrigerant that has a higher GWP,
including HFC–134a, would be
considered tampering with an emissionrelated component under Title II of the
CAA.
4. Would this action affect EPA’s LD
GHG Rule?
In their comments, AAM stated that
‘‘EPA should state clearly and
unequivocally in the final rule that EPA
is committed to continuing the A/C
credits through MY 2025 and beyond.’’
Global Automakers made a similar
request. EPA in fact stated in the NPRM,
and reiterates here, that nothing in this
final rule changes the regulations
establishing the availability of air
conditioning refrigerant credits under
the GHG standards for MY 2017–2025,
found at 40 CFR 86.1865–12 and 1867–
12. Those standards and credits are
established by rule and EPA did not
reopen that rule in this proceeding.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42892
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Thus, manufacturers can generate
credits from use of lower-GWP
alternative refrigerants through MY
2025, and the ability to generate and use
those credits towards compliance with
the LD GHG standards will not change
under this final rule. 48 We do note
further, however, that the LD GHG
standards do not require any specific
means of compliance, so that
manufacturers have the flexibility to
either switch refrigerants or to comply
with the standards by other means. If a
manufacturer chooses to comply with
the LD GHG standard by a strategy not
involving refrigerant substitution, for
MY 2021 and later vehicles, this final
rule would still require the
manufacturer to use refrigerant other
than HFC–134a.
5. How will the change of status apply
to exports of MVAC systems?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(a) SNAP Interpretation
Under 40 CFR 82.174, no person may
introduce a refrigerant substitute into
interstate commerce without notifying
EPA 90 days in advance. Our
longstanding interpretation of this
regulatory provision is that the
notification requirement applies to
products manufactured in the United
States and exported. EPA has defined
interstate commerce in our labeling
regulations at 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: ‘‘The
distribution or transportation of any
product between one state, territory,
possession or the District of Columbia,
and another state, territory, possession
or the District of Columbia, or the sale,
use or manufacture of any product in
more than one state, territory,
possession or the District of Columbia.
The entry points for which the product
is introduced into interstate commerce
are the release of a product from the
facility in which the product was
manufactured, the entry into a
warehouse from which the domestic
manufacturer releases the product for
sale or distribution, and at the site of
United States Customs clearance.’’
While this definition appears in EPA’s
labeling regulations, EPA’s practice is to
use it for purposes of the SNAP program
as well. See e.g., 76 FR 78846, December
20, 2011 (‘‘This definition applies to any
appliances produced in the United
States, including appliances that will be
exported.’’)
In addition, under the SNAP
regulations EPA regulates ‘‘use’’ in the
United States and ‘‘use’’ is defined at 40
CFR 82.172 to include ‘‘use in a
manufacturing process or product, in
consumption by the end user, or in
48 See
77 FR 62804–809.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
intermediate uses, such as formulation
or packaging for other subsequent uses.’’
Charging a MVAC system with
refrigerant during the manufacturing of
a vehicle in the United States is
considered a ‘‘use’’ under the SNAP
program. This is consistent with our
statement in the initial SNAP rule that
‘‘Substitutes manufactured within the
U.S. exclusively for export are subject to
SNAP since the definition of use in the
rule includes use in the manufacturing
process, which occurs within the United
States.’’ (59 FR 13052; March 18, 1994)
(b) Narrowed Use Limit for MVAC
Based on comments received, we
understand that certain countries to
which vehicles are exported do not, and
may not for some period of time, have
in place the infrastructure for servicing
MVAC systems with flammable
refrigerants. Because this raises
concerns with the safe usage of HFC–
152a and HFO–1234yf, we have
determined that there may be
circumstances in which alternatives that
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment will not be
available for MVAC systems in those
vehicles by MY 2021. Therefore, EPA is
providing a narrowed use limit for
MVAC systems that applies to vehicles
being exported to countries that do not
have infrastructure to service vehicles
containing the alternatives found to
pose less overall risk.
Under a narrowed use limit, the
manufacturer needs to ascertain that
these other alternatives are not
technically feasible because of the lack
of infrastructure for servicing with the
alternative refrigerants and document
the results of their analysis. See 40 CFR
82.180(b)(3). Users are not required to
report the results of their investigations
to EPA, but must retain the
documentation in their files for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance.
Documentation should include
descriptions of:
• Products in which the substitute is
needed;
• Substitutes examined and rejected
for the destined country;
• Reason for rejection of other
alternatives; and
• Anticipated date other substitutes
will be available and projected time for
switching.
Based on the comments received, EPA
does not anticipate that a significant
number of countries will lack the
necessary infrastructure needed to
service MVAC systems with the
alternatives for which the equipment is
designed by MY 2021. Also, based on
the comments received, we do not
believe that an extensive additional
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
amount of time will be needed before
the necessary infrastructure is in place.
Therefore, under this final rule, the
narrowed use limit will no longer be
available beginning with MY 2026
vehicles.
6. How is EPA responding to comments
concerning this end-use?
(a) Timeline
Comment: EPA received several
comments on the current and projected
pace of adoption of alternative
refrigerants. Several commenters stated
that transition to HFO–1234yf is already
occurring. Honeywell commented that
there are approximately 28 different
automobile brands selling around 60
different models designed to use HFO–
1234yf globally and that more than a
dozen models are being manufactured
by U.S. manufacturers. Other
commenters provided similar statistics.
One of these commenters, DuPont,
estimated that globally, more than 7
million vehicles using alternatives other
than HFC–134a will be on the road by
the end of 2015. They also commented
that in addition to infrastructure being
in place at vehicle assembly plants,
equipment suppliers are already
producing the under-hood, in-factory,
and service equipment necessary for the
transition.
AAM and Global Automakers
‘‘conducted an industry survey to create
a ‘non-confidential’ blinded summary of
individual manufacturer refrigerant
changeover plans.’’ 49 Ten automobile
manufacturers, representing 85% of
light-duty vehicles sold in the United
States in MY 2013, submitted
information. The survey found that out
of 139 vehicle platforms, manufacturers
currently plan to transition 90% of the
models by MY 2021.
Response: EPA recognizes some
manufacturers have already transitioned
to use of HFO–1234yf in a limited
number of models. In the United States
the transition began in a small number
of MY 2013 vehicles, and increased in
MY 2014 50 and MY 2015. As of the
beginning of 2015, the U.S. fleet was
continuing on a trajectory that we
expect to achieve 20% adoption by MY
2017, which aligns with EPA’s
projection in the supporting documents
for the light-duty GHG rule.51 While
adoption is occurring in the United
States, most of the estimated 7 million
vehicles mentioned by DuPont are in
Europe where the EU MAC Directive
49 EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0207 and EPA–
HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0113
50 Nelson, 2013.
51 77 FR 62720.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mandates transition to refrigerant with a
GWP below 150 by January 1, 2017.
The Agency recognizes and
appreciates the factual information
supplied by the commenters, including
the information shared as a result of the
2014 industry-led survey conducted by
AAM and Global Automakers. EPA’s
responses to the comments submitted by
AAM and Global Automakers within the
context of the survey are provided
below. EPA relied on all of the
information in our possession as we
made our decision on the change of
status for HFC–134a.
Comment: Several commenters noted
that the transition from CFC–12 to HFC–
134a was achieved in about three to four
model years and claimed that the
transition from HFC–134a to lower-GWP
alternatives could also happen in the
same timeframe.
Response: Regarding the comments
suggesting that the current transition
could occur in a similar period of time
to the transition from CFC–12 to HFC–
134a for MVAC, EPA disagrees because
the system changes required for this
transition are more extensive than those
required for the transition from CFC–12
to HFC–134a. It is EPA’s understanding,
as confirmed by comments, such as
those from the automobile associations,
that many models will need to
transition during a redesign cycle.
EPA understands that many model
types will require hardware changes
that normally occur during a redesign,
unlike the transition from CFC–12 to
HFC–134a. HFO–1234yf has a slightly
lower cooling efficiency than that of
HFC–134a; offsetting this efficiency
difference usually requires hardware
changes, specifically the incorporation
of an internal heat exchanger and
potentially other system adjustments,
which in some cases could result in
changes to overall air conditioning
system design and layout. CO2 MVAC
systems will require significantly more
hardware changes, which in many cases
is expected to result in changes to the
system design and layout. This
transition contrasts with the case of the
transition in the 1990s from CFC–12 to
HFC–134a, where the systems did not
require changes to the components of
the MVAC system, besides the fittings,
allowing manufacturers to switch many
vehicles mid-cycle. Some models were
already being manufactured using HFC–
134a as early as 1992, with a significant
proportion already being manufactured
with HFC–134a by the time that EPA
listed it as acceptable in the initial
SNAP rule (59 FR 13044; March 18,
1994).
Comment: EPA received several
comments related to the proposed time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
for changing the listing status of HFC–
134a in MVAC. Several commenters
support accelerating the proposed
transition to earlier than MY 2021, and
recommended implementation dates of
MYs 2017, 2018, and 2019. Many cited
the progression of transition in the EU,
as well as the transition already seen in
the United States as a result of EPA’s LD
GHG Rule in support of an earlier
transition timeframe. Honeywell, a
producer of HFO–1234yf, commented
‘‘that given manufacturers’ experience
in the EU and United States there is
already an understanding and capability
to transition vehicles for U.S. car
production’’ and they recommended a
transition date of MY 2018. DuPont,
another producer of HFO–1234yf, stated
‘‘there are no technology, supply or
engineering barriers to rapid transition’’
and recommended a transition date of
MY 2019. EIA commented that there is
no reason to delay the change in status
and recommended MY 2017 as the
implementation date. Two commenters,
NRDC and IGSD, jointly commented
that EPA should adopt MY 2017, a
deadline that would be set based on the
leaders in the industry that are already
using safer chemicals, rather than the
laggards. Effective Altruism at the
University of Maryland commented that
HFC–134a should be listed as
unacceptable as of January 2017, and
the California Air Resource Board
(CARB) commented that MY 2018 is a
reasonable timeframe for the
unacceptable listing to apply.
Some commenters stated that aligning
with the EU transition by January 1,
2017, will signal to the international
community that the United States is
taking steps to ‘‘promote the rapid
deployment of climate-friendly and safe
alternatives in motor vehicle air
conditioning’’ as agreed to in the
Leaders’ statement at the G–7 Summit in
June 2014. Some commenters suggested
an accelerated transition date is needed
to achieve the President’s
environmental goals, and would have a
significant trickle-down effect in other
markets around the world, specifically
commenting that selecting MY 2017
would encourage Japan to ‘‘set the same
global motor vehicle air-conditioning
phaseout schedule for HFC–134a.’’ Also,
NRDC and IGSD commented that
‘‘matching the MY 2017 European
schedule is protecting against American
automakers finding themselves
unprepared when other markets close
their doors to automobiles made with
HFC–134a.’’ Some commenters stated
that the transition can be achieved by an
earlier date and that greater
environmental benefits would be
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42893
achieved with an earlier transition.
These commenters stated that MY 2021
would not provide benefits beyond
those achieved under ‘‘business as
usual.’’
Response: EPA agrees with the
commenters that suggested that an
earlier transition year would result in
greater environmental benefits to the
extent that it would result in earlier
reduction of use of HFC–134a in MVAC.
However, in considering whether other
listed alternatives are available that pose
lower overall risk, EPA needs to
consider whether there are any
technical challenges that would prevent
use of those alternatives consistent with
the use conditions which are necessary
to ensure that they pose lower risk than
HFC–134a. EPA does not agree that a
safe, smooth transition in compliance
with the use conditions required for the
lower-GWP alternatives can be made for
all vehicles prior to MY 2021 in the
United States. This is based on the need
to transition most vehicles during
redesign cycles, which in many cases
requires hardware changes, as discussed
above. EPA has also considered the
potential benefits to aligning our
domestic transition to the EU’s, in light
of the fact that the transition to MVAC
systems using one of the three
alternatives began earlier than we
predicted, and in light of the adequate
supply of alternatives. Based on our
current understanding and the
information provided by commenters,
especially the automobile
manufacturers, the Agency has
concluded that MY 2021 is the earliest
date by which all model vehicles can be
safely transitioned to lower-GWP
alternatives in accordance with the use
conditions.
We note that even though we are
establishing MY 2021 as the date by
which HFC–134a will be
unacceptable,52 EPA expects health and
safety benefits will be realized sooner,
as manufacturers will be designing new
models each year using lower-GWP
refrigerants for MVAC. The benefits
analysis provided with the NPRM (EPA,
2014) and the analysis associated with
this final action (EPA, 2015b) use a
‘‘business as usual’’ scenario that
assumes a transition in refrigerant for
MVAC will occur for vehicles
manufactured and sold in the United
States, in order to be consistent with the
LD GHG Rule, and that assumes no
regulatory action, and thus no benefits,
under SNAP. However, our analysis of
52 As noted elsewhere, we are creating a narrowed
use limit for vehicles exported to countries without
adequate facilities for servicing vehicles with the
other acceptable alternatives.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42894
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the effects of a change of status for
MVAC as of MY 2021 shows some
benefits beyond the ‘‘business as usual’’
scenario, reflecting the use of lowerGWP refrigerants in exported vehicles.
While not relevant to EPA’s decision
regarding the appropriate date for
changing the status of HFC–134a for use
in MVAC, EPA also agrees its action to
change the status of HFC–134a will send
a valuable signal to the international
community regarding the continued use
of high-GWP alternatives.
Comment: NRDC and IGSD suggested
that EPA set a status change date as of
MY 2017, and address any sub-sectors
that have problems meeting a transition
date earlier than MY 2021 through a
narrowed use limit. EIA recommended
transition in MY 2017 and suggested
EPA grant a limited exemption until MY
2021 for companies who publicly
pledge to convert to CO2 systems.
Response: EPA is not finalizing
today’s rule with a change of status for
HFC–134a as of MY 2017, as
recommended by these commenters. As
discussed above, it is our understanding
that because of the necessary changes to
hardware, manufacturers will need to
transition most vehicles during a
redesign cycle. Although in some cases
where less extensive hardware changes
are required, it will be possible to
transition mid-cycle, it is not reasonable
to expect that most manufacturers will
be able to do so. Achieving a transition
by MY 2017, approximately one year
from now, would not be feasible for any
manufacturers that had not already
started transition planning before
issuance of the NPRM, and in such a
circumstance, we do not consider it
reasonable to require compliance based
on actions that would have been
necessary before issuance of the NPRM.
Rather than setting a change of status
date that we expect manufacturers may
have difficulty meeting, we are setting
the change of status date at the earliest
model year by which the best
information indicates that all model
vehicles can be safely transitioned to
lower-GWP alternatives in accordance
with the use conditions.
Concerning EIA’s suggestion for a
limited exemption until MY 2021 for
companies who publicly pledge to
convert to CO2 systems, because we
have set MY 2021 as the status change
date for all vehicles, there is no need for
an exemption related to adoption of CO2
MVAC systems.
Comment: A private citizen
commented in support of a MY 2021
change of status.
Response: EPA is finalizing a MY
2021 transition date for the reasons
previously stated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Comment: Several commenters
supported transition in MY 2025 or
later, including AAM, Global
Automakers, NADA and Mexichem. The
majority of these commenters stated that
reengineering and system design
requirements for alternative refrigerants
require significant lead time and
necessitate transition during a vehicle
redesign cycle. Commenters stated that
two full design cycles lasting beyond
MY 2021 may be necessary in order to
complete the transition due to timing of
publication of the proposed status
change rule, and the relationship of that
to where manufacturers are in the
redesign cycle for each model. Global
Automakers commented that the vehicle
redesign cycle is usually locked in about
two years before the model year.
Commenters supporting a transition
date of MY 2025 or later also
commented that a later date would align
with the existing LD GHG Rule with no
measurable environmental impact at
stake, and address supply concerns.
With regard to the 10% of vehicle
platforms identified in the 2014
industry survey as planning to
transition after MY 2021, AAM, and
Global Automakers commented that
those are not all small volume platforms
and the production will account for a
small, but not insignificant percentage
of production after MY 2021.
Response: Regarding comments by
AAM, Global Automakers, and
Mexichem suggesting that two full
design cycles, extending past MY 2021,
would be needed to transition all
vehicle models to alternative
refrigerants, the commenters failed to
provide any specific, technical support
for such a claim. EPA appreciates the
submission of 2014 survey data
indicating that automobile
manufacturers have plans in place to
transition 90% of vehicle models to
alternative refrigerants by MY 2021.
However, the commenters did not
provide support or an explanation of
why it will not be technically feasible to
transition each of the remaining
individual models by MY 2021.
According to commenters, the vehicle
redesign is locked in two years before
the model year; therefore, time still
exists to make the necessary alterations
to MY 2017, MY 2018 and later
vehicles. While we believe it would be
possible for the majority of models to
transition by MY 2021 during a redesign
cycle, EPA is aware that sometimes it is
technically feasible to transition
between redesign cycles during a midcycle redesign, or refresh. A
manufacturer shared with EPA
information claimed as confidential that
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
more than one vehicle model in the
United States has been transitioned to
HFO–1234yf, in compliance with the
SNAP use conditions, between
scheduled redesign cycles. Although it
would not be feasible to expect most
models to transition mid-redesign cycle,
for such a small number of models, this
is likely to be feasible. EPA did not
receive any information that provides
specific and sufficient information to
show that transition by MY 2021 is not
technically feasible for any specific
model vehicle. One automobile
manufacturer provided information
claimed as confidential concerning
vehicles used for a specific purpose but
did not provide sufficient justification
that transition by MY 2021 was not
feasible for technical reasons. EPA is
aware of two automobile manufacturers
that will have the majority of their U.S.
fleet transitioned by MY 2016. EPA is
also aware of several automobile
manufacturers intending to transition all
of their vehicle models by MY 2021.
While the AAM and Global
Automakers survey does not indicate
the impetus for the transition plans for
the various manufacturers and models,
EPA assumes the plans were adopted in
response to the credits offered under
EPA’s LD GHG Rule. EPA further
assumes these transition plans were
based on strategic utilization of credits
available under the rule as a flexibility
measure, rather than technical
feasibility of transition, and EPA did not
receive any information to the contrary.
Comment: AAM stated that a MY
2025 transition date would
accommodate ‘‘run-out’’ models.
‘‘Run-out’’ models are defined as
models that, for a variety of reasons,
will continue to be produced and
marketed without any updates to major
vehicle sub-systems, including AC
systems. Commenters indicated that to
require an early end of production for
such run-out models would increase the
levels of stranded investment associated
with ending the production of such
models prematurely.
Response: Commenters did not
indicate what portion of the vehicle
models with current plans to transition
in MYs after 2021 is made up of ‘‘runout’’ models, if any, as compared to
other models captured in the results of
the industry survey. In the proposed
rule, EPA requested comment on
changing the status of HFC–134a in a
MY later than 2021, ‘‘including specific
information supporting claims that a
transition by MY 2021 would not be
technically feasible because specific
model vehicles cannot be redesigned to
safely use alternative refrigerants by MY
2021.’’ EPA did not receive this type of
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
information. EPA is not aware of any
technical barriers that preclude
transition of ‘‘run-out’’ models by MY
2021 given the time available between
now and MY 2021 to implement a
transition for these models.
Comment: Commenters indicated the
challenges associated with designing
MVAC systems to use alternative
refrigerants, especially CO2. AAM
provided information on the hardware
changes and component supply, as well
as industry standards needed for MVAC
systems to use CO2. AAM commented
that ‘‘a MY 2025 date would allow extra
time for commercialization of CO2
MVACs.’’
Response: EPA is aware that CO2
systems require significantly more
complex redesign and hardware
development than HFO–1234yf systems,
primarily because the operating
pressures of these systems will be
significantly higher than that of a HFC–
134a system. Therefore, EPA
understands that incorporation of CO2
MVAC systems would most likely need
to occur during product redesign, not
product refresh. At least one
manufacturer has stated that it plans on
using CO2 systems. These systems are
currently in prototype phase, and we
understand that there may be significant
technical hurdles yet to overcome.
However, those pursuing this option
have announced plans to introduce cars
in Europe with CO2 MVAC systems as
early as MY 2017. This timing allows for
several years after initial deployment of
these systems for automobile
manufacturers to redesign models prior
to the MY 2021 date in the United
States.
Given the transition plans in place,
EPA disagrees that other alternatives,
including CO2, cannot be used
consistent with the use conditions by
MY 2021. However, even if a particular
alternative could not be used in some or
any vehicles consistent with the use
conditions by MY 2021, for the reasons
already provided, we have determined
that other alternatives can be safely used
consistent with the use conditions by
MY 2021. Because alternatives that pose
lower risk than HFC–134a will be
available by MY 2021, we do not believe
there is a basis for selecting a later date
for changing the status of HFC–134a.
Comment: AAM raised concerns
about the transition of manufacturing
facilities and the need to modify or
upgrade refrigerant storage facilities and
charging stations on assembly lines.
Also, the commenters stated that
because many manufacturing facilities
produce multiple vehicle models, some
plants may not have the space necessary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
to accommodate infrastructure for both
refrigerants.
Response: EPA understands that there
are challenges associated with
transitioning refrigerants. EPA is also
aware that prior to issuance of the
NPRM, manufacturers were planning a
gradual, model-by-model transition, in
which some models would be filled
with HFC–134a while others are filled
with HFO–1234yf or another alternative
refrigerant at the same plant.
Comment: In the proposed rule EPA
requested specific information
supporting claims that a transition by
MY 2021 would not be technically
feasible because specific model vehicles
cannot be redesigned to safely use
alternative refrigerants by MY 2021.
AAM commented stating that ‘‘EPA did
not properly consider confidentially
submitted information that alternatives
will not be available until after MY
2021.’’
Response: EPA has considered
information provided to the Agency and
claimed as confidential as support for
this and other decisions that are part of
this action. As described elsewhere in
this section, EPA did not receive
sufficient information, whether claimed
confidential or not, to conclude that
other alternatives cannot be used
consistent with their use conditions by
MY 2021.
Comment: Many commenters
provided comments about the impact
the supply of acceptable alternatives
could have on the timeline for
transition. Several commenters believe
there is enough supply of alternatives to
transition prior to MY 2021.
The comments submitted by
Honeywell and DuPont, current
suppliers of HFO–1234yf, indicate that
both companies are confident in their
ability to supply enough HFO–1234yf to
support a full transition by MY 2018
and MY 2019, respectively. According
to comments submitted by Honeywell
‘‘there is one commercial scale HFO–
1234yf production plant operating today
in China, a second one is expected to be
commissioned in the first half of 2015
in Japan via a strategic supply
relationship between Honeywell and
Asahi Glass Company Ltd, and a third
world-scale plant will be commissioned
by Honeywell by the end of 2016 in
Geismar, Louisiana.’’ DuPont submitted
similar comments on announced or
planned production capacity in Asia,
the United States and Europe by
multiple producers, including DuPont,
Honeywell, and Asahi Glass Co. (AGC),
indicating that production will begin in
2015–2017 at most of these facilities.
CARB commented that they
understand that chemical manufacturers
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42895
expect to be capable of providing a
sufficient supply of HFO–1234yf for
complete U.S. transition away from
HFC–134a starting with MY 2018. In
support of a MY 2017 transition date,
NRDC and IGSD commented that the
supply of alternatives (HFO–1234yf and
others) is not a constraint; they believe
EPA correctly recognizes that
‘‘production plans for the refrigerant
appear to be in place to make it
available in volumes that meet current
and projected domestic auto industry
demand.’’
Response: EPA appreciates
information provided by commenters
supporting EPA’s understanding at the
time of the proposal that sufficient
supply will be available to support a
transition in MY 2021. The companies
producing HFO–1234yf commented that
sufficient supplies should be available
for MY 2018 or 2019, indicating that
there will be sufficient supplies prior to
MY 2021. In addition, the commenter
submitted additional information to the
Agency that they claimed as
confidential and that further supports
that adequate supply will be available
by MY 2021.
Comment: Several commenters
supported MY 2025 or later, expressing
concerns about ongoing uncertainty in
sufficient supply of HFO–1234yf for a
full U.S. transition by MY 2021 due to
limited production, as well as lack of
competition, artificial constraints, and
other factors. Arkema commented that
they estimate the global demand for
HFO–1234yf in 2021 will be around
45,000 metric tons and they believe
Honeywell and DuPont will only be able
to supply half that amount. Arkema
commented that the supply shortage
would cause a serious dislocation in
supply and demand (i.e., willing buyers
would be unable to find willing sellers
of HFO–1234yf) and having only two
suppliers would create highly restricted
competitive conditions. Arkema also
commented that the manufacturer has
not publicly announced production
capacities for the coming years and EPA
has not provided reliable evidence, and
none exists, that adequate volumes of
HFO–1234yf are or will be available to
‘‘meet current and projected domestic
auto industry demand.’’ Global
Automakers commented that it is too
soon to conclude that there will be
adequate supplies of alternative
refrigerants to meet U.S. demand as well
as other possible demands for
alternative refrigerants worldwide by
MY 2021.
Response: Based on EPA’s
understanding of refrigerant supply at
the time of the proposed rule, the
information received from commenters
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42896
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
in response to the proposed rule, and
information claimed as confidential and
provided during meetings, EPA remains
confident that sufficient supply of
alternatives will exist to transition
MVAC systems in all new light-duty
vehicles manufactured in the United
States by MY 2021. EPA is fully aware
of delays with the launch of some
production facilities prior to the
implementation of the European Union
regulations. However, EPA notes that
those facilities are now online and are
producing supplies well in excess of
what is needed to meet EU demand.
They are not currently operating at full
capacity. Moreover, Honeywell and
DuPont, two producers of HFO–1234yf,
provided information regarding plans to
launch additional facilities, one of
which will be a joint effort between
Honeywell and a third chemical
manufacturer, AGC.53 For these reasons,
EPA does not agree with commenters
that there will be an insufficient supply
of alternatives by MY 2021. Further,
EPA is also aware of public
announcements by Arkema indicating
planned production in 2017 of HFO–
1234yf.54
Comment: Commenters indicated
concern because available supply of
HFO–1234yf will need to go to Europe
for the January 1, 2017, transition before
automobile manufacturers will have
access to supply to transition in the
United States. These commenters
believe a MY 2025 or later transition
date would allow sufficient time to
alleviate supply concerns.
Response: EPA does not agree that the
January 1, 2017, transition in the EU
will limit supply in the United States.
The SNAP transition date is several
years after the transition in the EU will
be complete and, as noted above, the
manufacturers of HFO–1234yf have
provided information supporting that
supply will be adequate by MY 2021.
EPA does acknowledge that supply in
the United States would likely not be
adequate by MY 2017. The main
suppliers of HFO–1234yf stated as much
in their comments.
Comment: Mexichem commented that
the ‘‘pending re-examination
proceedings involving sham patents
53 AGC, 2014. ‘‘AGC to Supply Honeywell with
HFO–1234yf—New-generation Automobile
Refrigerant,’’ January 23, 2014. This document is
accessible at: https://www.agc.com/english/news/
2014/0123e.pdf.
54 Arkema, 2013. ‘‘Arkema is announcing the
construction of production capacities for new
refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf,’’ September 4,
2013. This document is accessible at:
www.arkema.com/en/media/news/news-details/
Arkema-is-announcing-the-construction-ofproduction-capacities-for-new-refrigerantfluorinated-gas-1234yf/?back=true.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
registered by Honeywell, continue to be
a barrier to the effective development of
HFO–1234yf.’’ Arkema commented that
EPA overlooks the considerable efforts
that Honeywell has undertaken to
maintain its exclusive control over the
manufacture of HFO–1234yf. Arkema
commented that ‘‘Although legal
proceedings and investigations
regarding Honeywell and DuPont’s
exclusive control of HFO–1234yf are
underway at the European Commission,
the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office, and
elsewhere, those proceedings and
investigations are not yet resolved.’’
Arkema stated that ‘‘until those
investigations are resolved, Honeywell
and DuPont will control the
manufacture of HFO–1234yf and will
impose restrictive supply conditions, all
with the apparent de facto endorsement
of the EPA in violation of the Sixth
Principle to ‘‘not endorse products
manufactured by specific companies’’.
Arkema adds that this will slow the
transition to HFO–1234yf and add to its
cost.
Response: EPA is aware that
proceedings and investigations are
occurring related to the patents on
HFO–1234yf; however, EPA is not
involved and cannot comment on these
proceedings. EPA believes that based on
the information available today,
sufficient supply will be available of
HFO–1234yf for a full transition in MY
2021 for new light-duty MVAC systems
even if all manufacturers choose to use
HFO–1234yf. Regarding the comment
that this action is in violation of the
‘‘Sixth Principle,’’ we disagree that EPA
endorsed HFO–1234yf or the companies
producing it by its inclusion on the list
of acceptable substitutes for the MVAC
end-use at issue in this action. HFO–
1234yf is one of three acceptable lowerGWP alternatives and EPA does not
believe it is appropriate to assume
manufacturers will use only HFO–
1234yf. In addition to HFO–1234yf, CO2
and HFC–152a are listed as acceptable
and the manufacturers can choose
which substitute they wish to use in
their product. EPA does not recommend
or require the use of a specific
refrigerant and does not endorse
products manufactured by specific
companies. At least one global motor
vehicle manufacturer has announced
plans to have cars with MVAC systems
using CO2 on the road in Europe by MY
2017; we are not aware of any reason
why such models would not be
introduced into the United States by MY
2021. EPA is also aware of a
demonstration project planned by a
major Indian motor vehicle
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
manufacturer considering HFC–152a
and HFO–1234yf in MVAC systems
using secondary loops (Andersen et al.,
2015). As noted elsewhere in this final
action, EPA is aware of ongoing research
and development which could
ultimately result in future listings of
additional alternatives and notes that
since the issuance of the proposal the
Agency received a submission for one
additional MVAC alternative.
(b) Interaction With EPA’s LD GHG Rule
Comment: EPA received several
comments related to the interaction of
this rulemaking with EPA’s LD GHG
Standards. Commenters requesting a
MY 2025 or later transition, including
AAM, Global Automakers, the National
Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA), and Mexichem, commented
that the later date would preserve the
integrity and commitments made under
the GHG program, preserve the
compliance flexibilities granted to
automakers and provide the same
environmental benefits. Commenters
stated that a MY 2025 transition allows
for full compliance flexibility, in
addition to credits, allotted to
manufacturers in the vehicle GHG
rulemakings throughout MYs 2012–
2025. AAM requested that EPA ‘‘state
clearly and unequivocally that EPA is
committed to continuing the A/C credits
through MY 2025 and beyond’’ and
asked EPA to include this certainty in
the regulatory text of the final SNAP
rule and not just in the preamble.
Response: Nothing in this final rule
changes the regulations establishing the
availability of air conditioning
refrigerant credits under the GHG
standards for MY 2017–2025, found at
40 CFR 86.1865–12 and 1867–12. The
stringency of the standards remains
unchanged. As stated above,
manufacturers may still generate and
utilize credits for substitution of HFC–
134a through the 2025 model year.
Further, this final rule is also not in
conflict with the Supplemental Notice
of Intent (76 FR 48758, August 9, 2011)
that described plans for EPA and
NHTSA’s joint proposal for model years
2017–2025, since EPA’s GHG program
continues to provide the level of air
conditioning credits available to
manufacturers as specified in that
Notice. Specifically, the Supplemental
Notice of Intent states that
‘‘(m)anufacturers will be able to earn
credits for improvements in air
conditioning . . . systems, both for
efficiency improvements . . . and for
leakage or alternative, lower-GWP
refrigerants used (reduces [HFC]
emissions).’’ 76 FR at 48761. These
credits remain available under the light-
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
duty program at the level specified in
the Supplemental Notice of Intent, and
using the same demonstration
mechanisms set forth in that Notice.
Moreover, the supporting assessment for
this rulemaking is consistent with the
assumptions set forth in the 2017–2025
LD GHG Rule that automakers would
switch to lower-GWP refrigerants by MY
2021. Indeed, the standards’ stringency
was predicated on 100% substitution
beginning in MY 2021.55
We are not adding a statement to the
regulatory text in the final SNAP rule.
As noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule, and reiterated here: ‘‘The
light duty standards do provide that
manufacturers can generate credits from
use of alternative refrigerants with lower
GWPs than that of HFC–134a through
MY 2025, and the ability to generate and
use those credits towards compliance
with the light duty standards will not
change if this action is finalized as
proposed.’’ (79 FR 46142)
(c) Environmental Impacts
Comment: Several commenters
addressed the climate impacts of the
proposed HFC–134a unacceptability
determination for MVAC. The vast
majority of commenters on this section
of the rule support a transition to
climate-friendly alternatives in MVAC
due to HFC–134a’s high global warming
potential. Several commenters
supporting transition prior to MY 2021
related these impacts to the proposed
timeline for the transition and we
addressed those comments above (e.g.,
that if an earlier change of status date
were adopted, there would be additional
environmental benefits). Commenters
requesting a transition date of MY 2025
or later commented that the
environmental benefits of a delayed
change of status date will be
substantially the same as a MY 2021
transition because the majority of
vehicles will transition by MY 2021 as
a result of the LD GHG Rule. These
commenters stated that any benefits of
a MY 2021 or earlier transition may be
averaged out against tailpipe emissions,
and could result in automobile
manufacturers slowing other fleet GHG
reductions. DuPont commented that it is
unlikely that any additional credits
achieved under the LD GHG regulations
from a MY 2019 transition date would
be fully offset and instead there would
likely be net additional CO2 reductions
over those achieved by current
regulations. Arkema commented that
there is no significant climate risk
reduction to be had from any SNAP
55 See id. at 62,779; see also id. at 62778 and
62805.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
action on HFC–134a in the MVAC
sector, and that no further control,
beyond that imposed by the LD GHG
Rule, is necessary.
Response: EPA anticipates that if a
change of status date earlier than MY
2021 were shown to be feasible and thus
were adopted, additional environmental
benefits would be gained beyond those
accounted for under EPA’s analysis to
support the LD GHG Rule.56 In EPA’s
analysis of the environmental benefits
associated with the proposed and final
change of status rule, EPA assumed no
environmental benefits from domestic
transition of MVAC systems in lightduty vehicles given that the
environmental benefits resulting from a
full transition by MY 2021 were
accounted for in the LD GHG Rule. The
LD GHG Rule anticipated that transition
for MVAC systems manufactured for use
in the United States, while continuing
to provide flexibility to manufacturers
until MY 2025. This rule, however,
ensures a complete transition away from
HFC–134a by MY 2021 to a refrigerant
that reduces the overall risks to human
health and the environment for all
MVAC systems manufactured in the
United States, including those exported
to other countries,57 and those imported
into the United States. The benefits
analysis includes these benefits. Also,
the analysis was updated to reflect the
potential impact of the narrowed use
limits in this final rule that allow
continued use of HFC–134a for vehicles
exported to countries with inadequate
infrastructure to support safer
alternatives. For additional information
on environmental benefits analysis
conducted for this rule, see the
supporting document ‘‘Climate Benefits
of the SNAP Program Status Change
Rule’’ (EPA, 2014; EPA, 2015b).
Comment: Arkema commented that
the NPRM deprives U.S. plants of
existing global business in HFC–134a
without yielding any environmental
benefit. Arkema also noted that EPA
said, as part of its regulations for
HCFCs, that production of HCFC–22 for
export from the U.S. might displace
production in other countries that do
not control their emissions as
stringently as U.S. chemical producers.
Arkema stated, ‘‘if U.S. production of
HCFCs reduces overall environmental
risks, then so does U.S. production of
HFC–134a, and EPA should not be using
56 See Chapter 7 of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017–2025 LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
EPA–420–R–12–016, August 2012.
57 Except those vehicles subject to the narrowed
use limit.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42897
the risk-based SNAP program to restrict
auto exports.’’
Response: This rule does not directly
regulate production of HFC–134a,
unlike the rulemaking on the phaseout
of HCFCs that Arkema cited; rather, we
are regulating use of HFC–134a as a
substitute in specific uses. Further, we
disagree with Arkema’s assertion that
U.S. production of HFC–134a would
potentially reduce overall
environmental risks if U.S. production
of HCFCs reduces environmental risks.
EPA’s HCFC allocation rule specifically
mentioned that HCFC–22 production
(and not production of HCFCs in
general) results in byproduct emissions
of HFC–23, a gas with a very high GWP
of 14,800. The commenter has not
provided any information indicating
that emissions from production of HFC–
134a, with a GWP of 1,430, or its
byproducts would have a similar high
environmental impact. We disagree with
the commenter’s assumptions as well as
the conclusion that the SNAP program
should not regulate exports of vehicles.
Comment: AAM stated that the
MVAC-related climate benefits of this
rulemaking have been incorrectly
calculated and that ‘‘the environmental
benefits of a MY 2025 change of listing
status date are substantially the same as
in MY 2021 date.’’ AAM also
commented that the cessation of exports
of vehicles containing HFC–134a to EU
countries should not be included in the
benefits calculation because the EU
already prohibits the use of HFC–134a
and that subtracting exports to EU
countries and to Canada would reduce
the climate benefit due to exports by
half to 1 MMTCO2eq.
Response: EPA directs commenters to
the benefits analysis associated with the
final rule and in particular to the
anticipated long term change in the
trajectory for high-GWP HFCs and
alternatives. The benefits analysis is
available in the docket and reflects the
final decisions in this action. It has been
updated since the issuance of the NPRM
to reflect changes between the NPRM
and the final rule. The benefits analysis
for the final rule does not include
vehicles sold into the EU or Canada,
given the EU’s existing F-gas regulations
and MAC Directive, and for Canada, the
relationship between their market and
ours.
(d) Cost Impacts of Rule
Comment: EPA received several
comments concerning the cost impact of
this rulemaking for the MVAC end-use.
AAM, Global Automakers, and
Mexichem commented that delaying
transition to MY 2025 or later would
avoid costs and engineering burdens on
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42898
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturers resulting from making
adjustments to their refrigerant changeover plans for both vehicles and
manufacturing plants. NRDC and IGSD
commented that a transition date of MY
2017 would align the U.S. and EU
markets and erase these competitive
disadvantages with minimal impact to
industry. The Automotive Refrigeration
Products Institute (ARPI) and Auto Care
Association commented that a change
from HFC–134a to lower-GWP
refrigerants should not cause any
substantial economic hardship to car
owners. Additional comments relating
to EPA’s economic analysis are included
in section VII.B of the preamble, ‘‘Cost
and economic impacts of proposed
status changes.’’
Response: EPA understands that there
are challenges associated with
transitioning refrigerants, including
costs to manufacturers in redesigning
equipment and making changes to
manufacturing facilities. However, as
explained in more detail in the response
to comments later in this preamble,
under the SNAP criteria for review in 40
CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost
is limited to cost of the substitute under
review, and that consideration does not
include the cost of transition when a
substitute is found unacceptable.
Moreover, we note that during model
redesigns, many other engineering
changes are being made and that
changing the MVAC system during a
planned redesign cycle could reduce
costs when compared to MVAC system
changes mid-redesign cycle. We
anticipate that a change of status in MY
2021 will allow manufacturers to make
changes to the MVAC systems for most
vehicle models as part of the model
redesign process.
Comment: A few commenters noted
the high price of HFO–1234yf relative to
HFC–134a. One commenter, referring to
the NPRM, stated that EPA continues to
believe that HFO–1234yf is unlikely to
ever be as inexpensive as HFC–134a is
currently. Commenters stated that the
high price of HFO–1234yf is likely to
slow the transition away from HFC–
134a in the United States.
Response: As explained in more detail
in the response to comments later in
this preamble, under the SNAP criteria
for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the
only cost information that EPA
considers as part of its SNAP review is
the cost of the substitute under review.
As part of EPA’s cost analysis
conducted in support of this
rulemaking, the potential costs to
manufacturers were estimated based on
per-system costs of alternative systems,
as identified in EPA’s report on Global
Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Gases: 2010–2030 (EPA, 2013a), and
converted to 2013 dollars. The
incremental per-system cost of an
alternative MVAC system compared to
an HFC–134a system is estimated to be
about $62/unit. EPA previously
analyzed these costs in documents
supporting the LD GHG Rule and in that
analysis accounted for the cost of 100%
of domestic vehicles to transition to use
of HFO–1234yf by MY 2021. These
incremental costs are less than 1%
relative to the total direct manufacturing
cost for a light-duty vehicle.58 EPA does
not believe an incremental cost of less
than 1% of the total direct
manufacturing cost will slow the
transition away from HFC–134a. EPA
understands that often new alternatives
have higher initial costs, but this is not
always true. In addition, over time the
cost of the alternative often drops as
demand and supply increase.
Comment: Global Automakers and
AAM commented that if EPA includes
exports in this regulation, EPA would be
placing U.S.-based manufacturers of
export vehicles at a competitive
disadvantage compared to automakers
producing vehicles outside of the
United States. Global Automakers stated
in their comment that ‘‘this rulemaking
will unnecessarily cause substantial
economic harm to the U.S. economy,
U.S. jobs, and balance of payments if
exports are included in the regulatory
provisions.’’ Arkema, Mexichem, and
BMW also commented on the potential
economic impacts of regulating exports.
Response: An inability to export
vehicles manufactured with HFC–134a
could be a competitive disadvantage in
any countries where vehicles
manufactured with other alternatives
cannot be supported. However, as
discussed above, the additional cost of
a vehicle manufactured using an
alternative (e.g., HFO–1234yf) is
anticipated to be approximately $62
more per vehicle; this is not sufficient
to create a competitive disadvantage in
countries where both HFC–134a and
other alternatives are supported.
Further, EPA is providing a narrowed
use limit in this final action that would
allow vehicles destined for export to a
country with insufficient infrastructure
to be manufactured with HFC–134a
through MY 2025. Thus, U.S.
manufacturers should not experience a
competitive disadvantage.
58 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). 2012. Joint Technical Support Document:
Final Rulemaking for 2017–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards. August 2012.
Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
climate/documents/420r12901.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(e) Servicing and Retrofits
Comment: EPA received comments
related to the continued servicing of
MVAC systems manufactured to use
HFC–134a. Two commenters support
the continued acceptability of HFC–
134a for servicing, and one commenter
requests assurance that continued
servicing will be permitted. ARPI and
the Auto Care Association, representing
the automotive aftermarket industry,
jointly commented that they support the
change of status of HFC–134a in MVAC
provided that systems using
replacement refrigerants are available at
the time at a reasonable price and that
the ‘‘phase out’’ does not adversely
affect the use of HFC–134a in the
millions of vehicles which will then
still have MVAC systems designed for
that refrigerant.
Response: EPA did not propose and is
not finalizing a change of status for
HFC–134a used for servicing MVAC
systems designed to use HFC–134a.
Thus, vehicles manufactured to use
HFC–134a may, consistent with this
rule, continue to be serviced with HFC–
134a.
Comment: EPA received a comment
requesting clarification on the ability to
retrofit or service an HFO–1234yf
system with HFC–134a.
Response: As discussed elsewhere in
the preamble, the SNAP regulations
include use conditions and other
requirements that limit the ability to
service an MVAC system designed to
use an alternative with a refrigerant
other than the one the system was
designed to use. See section V.B.3 for a
detailed description.
Also, as discussed in more detail in
section V.B.3, for vehicles for which the
manufacturer counts air conditioning
credits toward its LD GHG compliance,
the MVAC systems (or elements of those
systems) are considered emissionrelated components as defined in 40
CFR 86.1803. This designation includes
provisions for emission-related
warranty, requirements that they
operate properly for the specified useful
life, and tampering restrictions.
(f) Refrigerant Blends for Retrofits of
MVAC Systems
Comment: Two commenters requested
that EPA also list the refrigerant blends
as unacceptable for use in retrofits in
the final rule as well as in new
equipment. SAE Interior Climate
Control Committee (SAE ICCC), the
leading standards writing body in the
United States for MVAC, commented
that they support the extension of the
unacceptability finding to retrofits
because they have never written any
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
standards for these refrigerants. The
other commenter, DuPont,
recommended that because the
refrigerants are not currently in use and
it would be undesirable to have them
used, EPA should also change the SNAP
status for the blend refrigerants to
unacceptable for retrofit (in addition to
new) MVAC uses.
Response: EPA has not undertaken
the full analysis necessary to determine
whether to list these refrigerant blends
as unacceptable for retrofits.
Accordingly, EPA did not propose to
find the refrigerant blends unacceptable
for retrofits. Additional information, as
well as an opportunity for public
comment, would be necessary before we
would be able to potentially find the
refrigerant blends unacceptable for use
in retrofits (e.g., information on the
extent of use of the refrigerant blends).
EPA appreciates the comments
submitted on this topic and will take
them into consideration when preparing
additional status change rules.
(g) Use Conditions for HFC–134a
Comment: Arkema commented that it
is ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ for EPA to
find acceptable substances that could
compete with HFC–134a in MVAC only
because those other substances are
subject to use conditions, and then to
find HFC–134a unacceptable based on
comparisons to those other substances
without considering any comparable use
restriction on HFC–134a. The
commenter referred to a discussion in
the proposed rule concerning
establishing charge limits through use
conditions for a number of high GWP
refrigerant blends for use in
supermarket systems and condensing
units as an example.
Response: EPA has not proposed
additional use conditions for HFC–134a
comparable to those for HFO–1234yf,
HFC–152a, and CO2 because the ways of
addressing risks for these substitutes are
not comparable. The use conditions
unique to HFO–1234yf and HFC–152a
address flammability risks through
engineering strategies that will keep
refrigerant concentrations below the
lower flammability limit in each vehicle
and by requiring labels providing
information on the flammability risk.
The use conditions unique to CO2
address toxicity and consumer exposure
risks through requiring engineering
strategies that will keep refrigerant
concentrations at safe levels in the
passenger compartment of the vehicle.
In contrast, the environmental risks
from HFC–134a are due to the collective
global impact of refrigerant emissions
released over time from the entire
automotive industry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
In past cases where the SNAP
program has regulated other substitutes
that posed high environmental risk due
to collective global emissions, we have
taken three different approaches. One
approach has been to restrict the
substitute to a niche use through a
narrowed use limit, where it was
particularly difficult to find any feasible
substitute and the niche use was
unlikely to result in significant total
emissions (e.g., narrowed use limit on
high-GWP fire suppressant SF6 for use
only as a discharge agent in military
applications and in civilian aircraft at
appendix B to 40 CFR part 82, subpart
G). A similar approach has been to
restrict the substitute through a
narrowed use limit to use only ‘‘where
other alternatives are not technically
feasible due to performance or safety
requirements’’ (e.g., narrowed use limits
on perfluorocarbon solvents for
precision cleaning and C6F14 as a total
flooding agent for fire suppression at
appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart
G). The third approach EPA has used to
address environmental risks from global
emissions of a substitute, and the only
approach we have taken to date for such
a substitute that is already widespread
in industry, is to find the substitute
unacceptable (e.g., HCFC–141b in
solvent cleaning at appendix A to 40
CFR part 82, subpart G and HCFC–141b
in foam blowing at appendix M to 40
CFR part 82, subpart G). MVAC is not
a niche use, and there are clearly other
technically feasible substitutes that will
be available by the status change date
specified in this final rule for use in
vehicles that will be sold domestically,
so it is not reasonable to provide a
narrowed use limit for HFC–134a
beyond that established in this final rule
for export to nations with insufficient
infrastructure for other alternatives.
Concerning Arkema’s reference to a
discussion on use conditions for charge
size limits, we note that in the proposed
rule we also stated, ‘‘However, given the
high GWP of these refrigerants
compared to other refrigerants that are
available in these end-uses, we do not
believe that use with a small charge size
adequately addresses the greater risk
they pose.’’ This is even more so in
MVAC than in commercial refrigeration
products, due to the more widespread
use of MVAC in hundreds of millions of
vehicles and the greater difference in
GWP between the unacceptable
substitute and other, lower-GWP
alternative, compared to supermarket
systems and remote condensing units.
(h) Flexibility for Exports
Comment: NRDC, IGSD, and DuPont
suggested that if EPA finalizes MY 2017
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42899
or MY 2019, respectively, EPA could
consider narrowed use limits to address
any sub-sectors that have problems
meeting a transition date earlier than
MY 2021, if, for example, the Agency
believed there was a basis to claims of
country-specific performance barriers
(e.g., due to high ambient temperatures)
or lack of infrastructure for safer
alternatives.
Response: As discussed further in this
section, EPA has finalized a narrowed
use limit for certain vehicles to be
exported to countries that have not yet
developed sufficient infrastructure for
using safer alternatives. EPA has
received no documentation supporting a
narrowed use limit related to ambient
temperature conditions, and therefore,
has not included such a narrowed use
limit in this final action.
Comment: EPA received comments
from several commenters related to the
servicing infrastructure for lower-GWP
alternatives outside the United States.
Some details are provided below and
the remaining details can be found in
the Response to Comments document.
Arkema, Mexichem, BMW, AAM, and
Global Automakers raised concerns
including whether destinations for
exported vehicles will have sufficient
service sector support and refrigerant
distribution networks for HFO–1234yf;
and the ability to conform to SNAP use
conditions, given the large proportion of
automobiles manufactured in the U.S.
for export (up to one-fourth).
Commenters question whether the
alternatives are truly ‘‘available’’ for use
in export markets if there is a lack of
service sector support and comment that
this regulation could lead to
manufacturers having to limit export
production at U.S. assembly plants.
Commenters are also concerned about
the time needed to overcome regulatory
and legislative barriers. AAM suggested
that EPA designate certain export
markets that can still receive U.S.
exports of HFC–134a vehicles, which
they believe currently should be all
export markets except Canada and
Europe.
In contrast, DuPont and Honeywell,
manufacturers of HFO–1234yf, asserted
that service supply follows demand and
the equipment for low GWP refrigerant
service is readily available. These
commenters stated that dealers and
service shops can be expected to acquire
the necessary equipment and materials
to serve the market demand and that it
is the responsibility of the vehicle
manufacturer to ensure that their
authorized dealers in those countries are
able to provide all the necessary service
to these exported cars under warranty.
Honeywell and DuPont both stated that
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42900
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
they have already developed an
extensive network of distributors that
are capable of supplying HFO–1234yf
globally. DuPont stated that based on
demand from the motor vehicle
aftermarket, they have distribution
covering more than 40 countries, 11
more than the combined EU member
states and the United States, and
including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel
and the United Arab Emirates.
Response: EPA is aware that many
countries, in addition to Canada and
those in the EU, already have servicing
infrastructure in place, and anticipates
that the number will grow by MY 2021.
However, EPA also recognizes that there
may be some markets where additional
time may be needed to ensure servicing
infrastructure is available. EPA is
providing a narrowed use limit for
HFC–134a in new MVAC systems
destined for use in countries that do not
have infrastructure in place for servicing
with other acceptable refrigerants. This
narrowed use limit will remain in place
through MY 2025. The remaining
information in this response explains
why EPA believes it is not necessary to
have a narrowed use limit in place
indefinitely. EPA is particularly
encouraged to learn that there is
currently distribution for HFO–1234yf
in 40 countries, 11 more than the
combined EU member states and the
United States and, that these countries
include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and
the United Arab Emirates, which
indicates that infrastructure is already
being put in place in a significant
number of countries.
EPA does not agree that every country
in the world would need as much time
as was needed in North America and
Europe to resolve barriers to transition.
Many countries look to the SNAP
program and the EU’s REACH program
as a source of information to inform
their domestic programs and, thus
transition for those countries should
proceed more quickly. EPA notes the
widespread use of flammable
refrigerants for various end-uses in other
countries (more so than in the United
States) as well as the inclusion of such
refrigerants for projects considered by
the Executive Committee of the
Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund.
We anticipate that many countries that
do not have adequate infrastructure in
place in 2015 will have it in place in
time to service MY 2021 vehicles.
In many cases international agencies,
such as the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), have been working
with developing countries to facilitate
changes in domestic regulations to
allow for the use of lower-GWP
solutions. This has been particularly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
true since 2007 when the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol adopted a more
aggressive phaseout schedule for
HCFCs, for end-uses using HCFCs such
as stand-alone commercial refrigeration
appliances. Thus there are systems in
place for communicating information on
new refrigerants and for sharing
experience. Further, the experiences of
the United States and Europe are being
shared widely. We have provided
information to the Montreal Protocol’s
Secretariat and to UNEP. We already are
also seeing information shared through
a range of mechanisms by the
Secretariat and UNEP as well as
included in reports of the Montreal
Protocol’s Technical and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP), SAE, and
other bodies.
In addition, EPA notes that the G–7
leaders committed in June 2014 to
promote the rapid deployment of
climate-friendly and safe alternatives to
HFCs in motor vehicle air-conditioning
and to promote public procurement of
climate-friendly HFC alternatives. EPA
notes that many countries already are
committed to take action to promote
public procurement of climate-friendly
lower-GWP alternatives whenever
feasible and would likely consider
MVAC as a potentially feasible end-use.
For the reasons above, we believe that
sufficient progress is being made and
will continue to be made such that the
narrowed use limit need not apply
beyond MY 2025.
Comment: Global Automakers
commented that it is imperative to have
trained technicians and shops equipped
with the necessary equipment to service
and repair MVAC systems using
flammable refrigerants, and special
equipment is needed to recover, recycle,
and re-charge flammable refrigerants
before vehicles using such refrigerants
can be marketed in a specific country.
AAM commented that on average, every
vehicle gets completely recharged with
new refrigerant at least once during its
lifetime, and therefore, the unique need
for such widespread service support for
MVAC differentiates this situation from
past SNAP considerations of export
markets for other appliances.
Response: EPA agrees with the value
of providing information and training to
technicians. In the United States, we are
currently working with technician
certification programs to include
information on HFC–152a, R–744, and
HFO–1234yf. EPA agrees with
commenters that there is value in
technician training and education on a
global basis. International agencies such
as UNEP could potentially be a source
of such training in developing countries.
EPA does not agree that it is necessary
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to ensure such training is in place in all
markets worldwide in order to fully
accommodate U.S. exports with the new
refrigerants. EPA has already developed
information on the newer alternative
refrigerants acceptable in the United
States that is available on our Web site
and could be a resource for others. In
addition, the use conditions requiring
labeling and unique fittings for
refrigerants for MVAC for service
equipment and vehicle service ports
serves as a means for informing
technicians as to what refrigerant is
being used.
EPA understands that the commenters
are suggesting that there still may be
markets that do not have infrastructure
in place by MY 2025. Based on the
speed of transition that we are seeing,
EPA does not agree. However, the
Agency could consider proposing a
change in the future if needed.
C. Retail Food Refrigeration and
Vending Machines
1. Background
(a) Overview of SNAP End-Uses, EndUse Categories and Commonly-Used
Refrigerants
EPA refers readers to section V.C.1 of
the preamble to the proposed rule for a
detailed discussion of the end-uses
within the refrigeration sector covered
by this rule as well as information on
some of the refrigerants used within
those end-uses.
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to
change the listing for certain refrigerants
for two end-uses within the
‘‘commercial refrigeration’’ sector—
retail food refrigeration and vending
machines. Retail food refrigeration, as
affected by today’s rule, is composed of
three main categories of equipment:
Stand-alone equipment; remote
condensing units; and supermarket
systems. Stand-alone equipment
consists of refrigerators, freezers, and
reach-in coolers (either open or with
doors) where all refrigeration
components are integrated and, for the
smallest types, the refrigeration circuit
is entirely brazed or welded. These
systems are termed ‘‘stand-alone’’
within the SNAP program because they
are fully charged with refrigerant at the
factory and typically require only an
electricity supply to begin operation.
Condensing units, called remote
condensing units in this final action as
discussed below, exhibit refrigerating
capacities that typically range from 1
kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration
tons) and are composed of one (and
sometimes two) compressor(s), one
condenser, and one receiver assembled
into a single unit, which is normally
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
located external to the sales area. The
modifier ‘‘remote’’ indicates that the
condenser (and often other parts of the
system) are not located in the space or
area cooled by the evaporator but are
instead located outside the room,
typically ejecting heat to the outdoor
ambient environment. Remote
condensing units are commonly
installed in convenience stores and
specialty shops such as bakeries and
butcher shops, as well as in
supermarkets, restaurants and other
locations where food is stored, served or
sold.
Typical supermarket systems are
known as multiplex or centralized
systems. They operate with racks of
compressors installed in a machinery
room. Two main design classifications
are used: Direct and indirect systems. At
least 70% of supermarkets in the United
States use centralized direct expansion
(DX) systems to cool their display
cases.59 In these systems, the refrigerant
circulates from the machinery room to
the sales area, where it evaporates in
display-case heat exchangers, and then
returns in vapor phase to the suction
headers of the compressor racks.
Another direct supermarket design,
often referred to as a distributed
refrigeration system, uses an array of
separate compressor racks located near
the display cases rather than having a
central compressor rack system. Indirect
supermarket designs include secondary
loop systems and cascade refrigeration.
Indirect systems use a chiller or other
refrigeration system to cool a secondary
fluid that is then circulated throughout
the store to the cases.
Refrigerant choices depend on the
refrigerant charge (i.e., the amount of
refrigerant a system is designed to
contain under normal operating
conditions), the product temperature
required, energy efficiency, system
performance, ambient temperatures,
operating conditions, potential impact
on community safety, potential risk to
personal safety, cost, and minimization
of direct and indirect environmental
impacts, among other things. In
addition, federal or local regulations
may also affect refrigerant choice. For
instance, regulations from the OSHA
may restrict or place requirements on
the use of some refrigerants, such as
ammonia (R–717). Building codes from
local and State agencies may also
incorporate limits on the amount of
particular refrigerants used. There are
and will continue to be a number of
factors that retailers must consider
when selecting the refrigerant and
59 www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advancedrefrigeration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
operating system design. While a
number of approaches exist, there is no
uniformly accepted holistic analysis of
the multiple factors listed above. EPA
recognizes that there must be a range of
options, and that the decision as to
which option to select must remain with
the owner and operator of the system.
(b) Terms and Coverage
During a meeting with EPA just prior
to publication of the proposed rule, an
industry trade organization representing
manufacturers of refrigeration
equipment, Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI),
raised concerns that in some situations
the definitions and categories used in
the SNAP program differ from those
used by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and/or the industry and they
submitted a document identifying those
definitions and categories (see EPA
Meeting on Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment—June 10, 2014 under
Docket ID# EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–
0005). They indicated that the term
‘‘commercial refrigeration’’ is often first
divided by the type and location of the
condensing unit, using two broad terms.
‘‘Remote condensing’’ is used to
indicate systems where the condensing
unit and compressors are located
remotely from where food is stored or
displayed and instead the refrigerant or
secondary-fluid is piped to the cases or
rooms where the food is located. ‘‘Selfcontained’’ is used to indicate that the
condensing unit (along with the
compressor and evaporator) is
integrated into the case in which the
food is stored and displayed. These
units are generally initially charged by
the case manufacturer at the
manufacturing plant.
EPA notes that the term ‘‘selfcontained’’ is synonymous with the
SNAP end-use category ‘‘stand-alone’’
and we are retaining use of the term
stand-alone for this rulemaking action.
The term ‘‘remote condensing’’ applies
to the SNAP end-use categories of
‘‘supermarket systems’’ and
‘‘condensing units.’’ For the latter enduse category, in this final rule we are
revising the term ‘‘condensing units’’ to
be ‘‘remote condensing units.’’ EPA
draws a distinction between
‘‘supermarket systems’’ and ‘‘remote
condensing units’’ based on the number
of compressors in the remote
condensing system. Supermarket
systems generally have more than two
compressors arranged in a ‘‘rack’’
whereas remote condensing units
typically have only one or two
compressors linked to a single
condenser. For purposes of this rule, we
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42901
are keeping these two categories
separate.
The AHRI document (Docket ID#
EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0005) also
attempts to draw an additional
distinction regarding commercial walkin coolers and freezers. We note that we
do not treat such units separate from the
categories described above. Rather such
units would fall within the end-use
category ‘‘supermarket system’’ if the
refrigerant is supplied on the same
multi-compressor circuit used to cool
food elsewhere in the store or within the
end-use category ‘‘remote condensing
unit’’ if only a one- or two-compressor
system is used (generally dedicated to
just the individual walk-in cooler or
freezer).
AHRI further notes that both
supermarket systems and remote
condensing units can be connected to
various types of display cases designed
to maintain products at various
temperatures, often subdivided as
‘‘medium-temperature’’—roughly
between 32 °F (0 °C) and 41 °F (5 °C)—
and ‘‘low-temperature’’—roughly
between ¥40 °F (¥40 °C) and 32 °F
(0 °C). EPA notes that within the SNAP
end-uses and categories described
above, no distinction is currently made
based on application temperature
(medium or low) and so the decisions
finalized in today’s rule apply to all
equipment fitting within the
supermarket and remote condensing
units end-use categories as described;
however, based on comments received,
within the stand-alone equipment enduse category a distinction is made
between equipment designed for ‘‘low’’
temperatures and other equipment.
During the comment period on the
proposed rule, we received additional
questions and comments about whether
certain types of equipment were
included in the end-uses addressed in
this action. We are clarifying here that
specific types of equipment used in the
food industry do not fall within the enduses and end-use categories affected by
this rule: Blast chillers, ice making
machines not connected to a
supermarket system, very low
temperature refrigeration, and certain
food and beverage dispensing systems.
A ‘‘blast chiller’’ or ‘‘blast freezer’’ is
a type of equipment in which cold air
is supplied and circulated rapidly to a
food product, generally to quickly cool
or freeze a product before damage or
spoilage can occur. Such units are
typically used in industrial settings
(e.g., at a factory or on a large fishcatching vessel) and fall under the
SNAP end-use ‘‘Industrial Process
Refrigeration’’ and hence are not subject
to this rule.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42902
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘Ice makers’’ are machines designed
for the sole purpose of producing ice, in
various sizes and shapes, and with
different retrieval mechanisms (e.g.,
dispensers or self-retrieval from bins).
Under SNAP, ‘‘commercial ice
machines’’ are identified as a separate
end-use not part of the retail food
refrigeration end-use (e.g., not a ‘‘standalone’’ unit). See e.g., 59 FR 13070
(March 18, 1994) where EPA clearly
designated ‘‘commercial ice machines’’
as a separate end-use than ‘‘retail food
refrigeration.’’ Thus, both self-contained
ice makers, as well as ice-making units
solely connected via piping to a
dedicated remote condenser, do not fall
under the retail food refrigeration enduse and hence are not subject to this
rule. In contrast, ice-making units that
are connected to a supermarket system
are subject to this rule. For instance, if
a supermarket rack system supplies
refrigerant to a unit to make ice, such as
for use in meat and seafood storage,
display and sales, and that refrigerant
and compressor rack are part of a larger
circuit that also provides cooling for
other products in the store, the entire
system would be classified as a
‘‘supermarket system’’ and hence would
be subject to today’s rule. EPA would
like to clarify that since remote
condensing ice makers designed solely
to be connected to a supermarket remote
rack are not sold or manufactured with
a condensing unit, they do not meet the
definition of automatic commercial ice
maker used by DOE in the automatic
commercial ice maker energy
conservation standards.
Several commenters, including Master
Bilt Products and Thermo Fisher,
identified products they manufacture to
reach temperatures of ¥50°F (¥46°C) or
even lower. These products fit under the
end-use ‘‘very low temperature
refrigeration’’ and hence are not covered
by this rule. EPA also notes that it
recently found R–170 (ethane) as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in
the very low temperature refrigeration
end-use. (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453)
Other commenters, such as Emerson,
HC Duke/Electro-Freeze, and United
Technologies, mentioned equipment
designed to make or process cold food
and beverages that are dispensed via a
nozzle, including soft-serve ice cream
machines, ‘‘slushy’’ iced beverage
dispensers, and soft-drink dispensers.
Such equipment can be self-contained
or can be connected via piping to a
dedicated condensing unit located
elsewhere. EPA does not consider this
equipment to fall under either the
‘‘stand-alone’’ or ‘‘remote condensing
unit’’ categories of retail food
refrigeration. While our definition of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
retail food refrigeration includes ‘‘cold
storage cases designed to chill food for
commercial sale,’’ these units generally
do more than just store food or
beverages. For instance, United
Technologies states such equipment
‘‘transform[s] a liquid product into a
frozen beverage or confection with the
incorporation of air to provide
uniformity and specific customer
requirements. These products are
transformed and manufactured within
the equipment, held in a frozen state
and ultimately dispensed into a serving
vessel that is provided to an end
customer.’’ Hence, these types of
products are in a category separate from
the three ‘‘retail food refrigeration’’ enduse categories addressed in today’s rule.
We also received several comments
and questions regarding energy
conservation standards established by
DOE and how the equipment subject to
this rule is also subject to the DOE
standards. While EPA is not making any
decisions on the applicability of the
DOE standards to specific equipment,
we see that at least three such standards
and perhaps more apply to types of
equipment that are also subject to this
rule. These three standards are titled
Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
(79 FR 17725; March 28, 2014), Energy
Conservation Standards for Walk-In
Coolers and Freezers (79 FR 32049; June
3, 2014) and Energy Conservation
Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or
Canned Beverage Vending Machines (74
FR 44914; August 31, 2009). These are
referred to in this rule using shortened
names or a generic name such as ‘‘DOE
Standards.’’
The Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment Standards have an effective
date of May 27, 2014 and a compliance
date of March 27, 2017. The Walk-In
Coolers and Freezers Standards have an
effective date of August 4, 2014 and a
compliance date of June 5, 2017. The
Beverage Vending Machines Standards
have effective dates of October 30, 2009
and August 31, 2011 and a compliance
date of August 31, 2012. DOE posted a
notice of a public meeting and
availability of the Framework document
for an expected proposed rule to amend
the standards for refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines (78
FR 33262; June 4, 2013). Material in the
docket for that action indicate DOE’s
plans for a final rule with a compliance
date three years later (see EERE–2013–
BT–STD–0022).
EPA’s review indicates that
equipment designated in the
Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
Standards may fall under the
supermarket systems, remote
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
condensing units, and stand-alone
equipment end-use categories.
Specifically, equipment classes
designated in the DOE Standard as
XXXX.RC.T, where XXXX is the
equipment class, RC specifies a remote
condensing operating mode code, and T
indicates a rating temperature (e.g., M
and L for medium and low temperature,
respectively), may fall under either the
supermarket system or remote
condensing unit end-use category,
depending on how that equipment is
applied. In addition, equipment classes
designated as XXXX.SC.T, where SC
specifies a self-contained operating
mode code, may fall under the standalone equipment end-use category.
EPA’s review indicates that
equipment designated in the Walk-In
Cooler and Freezers Standards may fall
under the supermarket systems, remote
condensing units, and stand-alone
equipment end-use categories.
Specifically, equipment within the class
descriptor Multiplex Condensing (either
Medium or Low Temperature) may fall
under the supermarket systems end-use
category, i.e., if such a walk-in cooler or
freezer utilizes refrigerant from a larger,
multi-compressor (rack) system. In
addition, equipment within the class
descriptor Dedicated System, Outdoor
System (regardless of temperature and
capacity) may fall under the remote
condensing units end-use category, i.e.,
if connected to a remote condensing
unit and not integrated into a larger,
multi-compressor (rack) system.
Furthermore, equipment falling in the
class descriptor Dedicated System,
Indoor System (regardless of
temperature and capacity) may fall in
the stand-alone equipment end-use
category, i.e., if the equipment is
manufactured and fully charged with
refrigerant at the factory.
EPA’s review indicates that
equipment covered by the Beverage
Vending Machine Standards (including
Class A, Class B and Combination
vending machines) falls under the
vending machines end-use.
In all cases, the DOE Standards apply
to new equipment, not retrofitted
equipment. Also, any foam used in such
systems or components that are also
covered (e.g. various panels and doors
within the Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
Standard), may fall under the rigid PU
commercial refrigeration and sandwich
panel end-use and be affected by the
changes of status discussed in section
V.D below.
(c) The Terms ‘‘New’’ and ‘‘Retrofit’’
and How They Apply to Servicing
Several commenters, including the
Food Marketing Institute (FMI),
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Supermarket Company ABC, and
Hussmann sought clarification of the
terms ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘retrofit’’ and how
these terms might affect store remodels
and the use of cases or other equipment
that in the future are added to or
replaced for existing cases or
equipment.
For the refrigeration and airconditioning sector, the SNAP program
has, since the inception of the program,
made a distinction between new
equipment and retrofitted equipment. In
some cases, a particular refrigerant is
acceptable or acceptable subject to use
conditions only in new equipment, not
in retrofits. In other cases, a particular
refrigerant is only acceptable in retrofits,
not new equipment. In the NPRM, EPA
evaluated whether to change the status
of refrigerant substitutes for retrofits
separate from its evaluation of whether
to change the status of refrigerant
substitutes for new equipment in each
of the four end-uses and categories—
supermarket systems, remote
condensing units, stand-alone
equipment, and vending machines—
addressed. Since the inception of the
SNAP program, EPA has made separate
determinations for refrigerants used in
‘‘new’’ equipment and as a ‘‘retrofit’’ to
existing equipment. We are likewise
today making separate decisions for new
and retrofit equipment within the retail
food refrigeration and vending machines
end-uses.
EPA uses the term ‘‘retrofit’’ to
indicate the use of a refrigerant in an
appliance (such as a supermarket
system) that was designed for and
originally operated using a different
refrigerant 60 and does not use the term
to apply to upgrades to existing
equipment where the refrigerant is not
changed. For instance, we drew this
distinction when we found R–290
acceptable for use in retail food
refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone
units) subject to use conditions (76 FR
78832; December 20, 2011) stating
‘‘none of these substitutes may be used
as a conversion or ‘retrofit’ refrigerant
for existing equipment designed for
other refrigerants’’ (40 CFR part 82,
subpart G, appendix R). Some
alternative refrigerant providers
describe their retrofit products as ‘‘dropins’’ but EPA does not use that term
interchangeably with retrofit (see 79 FR
64270). We recognize that some changes
typically would be required for
equipment to use a refrigerant other
than the one for which it was designed.
In many cases, lubricants need to be
changed (for instance, changing from a
mineral oil to a polyolester lubricant
when retrofitting from a CFC to an
HFC). Due to different performance
characteristics, other changes may need
to occur when retrofitting, such as
adjustments to or replacement of
thermostatic expansion valves (TXVs)
and filter-driers. In addition, gaskets
and other materials may need to be
replaced due to different compatibility
properties of the different refrigerants.
Such changes could occur as part of
maintenance as well as during a retrofit.
In addition to drawing a distinction
between new and retrofit for the SNAP
program, EPA also included a
distinction between new and existing
equipment in its regulations
implementing the HCFC phaseout and
use restrictions in section 605 of the
CAA. As of January 1, 2010, use of
HFC–22 and HFC–142b was largely
restricted to use as a refrigerant in
equipment manufactured before that
date (40 CFR 82.15(g)(2); 74 FR 66412).
Similarly, as of January 1, 2015, use of
other HCFCs not previously controlled
was largely restricted to use as a
refrigerant in equipment manufactured
before January 1, 2020 (40 CFR
82.15(g)(4); 74 FR 66412). In that
context, EPA defined ‘‘manufactured,’’
for an appliance, as ‘‘the date upon
which the appliance’s refrigerant circuit
is complete, the appliance can function,
the appliance holds a full refrigerant
charge, and the appliance is ready for
use for its intended purposes’’ (40 CFR
82.3, 82.302). We provided further
explanations and example scenarios of
how the HCFC phaseout and use
restrictions apply to supermarkets in the
fact sheet Supermarket Industry Q & A
on R–22 Use (www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/
phaseout/Supermarket_Q&A_for_R22.html).
Under today’s rule, existing systems
may continue to be serviced and
42903
maintained for the useful life of that
equipment using the original refrigerant,
whereas new systems (including new
supermarket systems) manufactured
after the change of status date will not
be allowed to use refrigerants for which
the status has changed to unacceptable.
Consistent with the definition in
subparts A and I of part 82, quoted
above, EPA will consider a system to be
new for purposes of these SNAP
determinations as of the date upon
which the refrigerant circuit is
complete, the system can function, the
system holds a full refrigerant charge,
and the system is ready for use for its
intended purposes. As explained in the
fact sheet referenced above, a
supermarket may undergo an expansion
and continue to use the existing
refrigerant ‘‘if there is sufficient cooling
capacity within the system to support
the expansion’’ as EPA would consider
that in such a situation ‘‘the store is not
changing the intended purpose of the
system.’’ As pointed out by FMI, the
replacement of existing display cases
with ones that operate at a higher
evaporator temperature, but still provide
the same purpose of maintaining
products at required temperatures, is
one way in which a system may be
remodeled without changing the
intended purpose of the system. On the
other hand, if a supermarket remodel or
expansion changes the intended
purpose of the original equipment, for
instance by adding additional cases,
compressors, and refrigerant that were
not supported by the original
compressor system, EPA would
consider the expanded system a ‘‘new’’
system. In that situation, a supermarket
would not be allowed to use a
refrigerant that was listed as
unacceptable as of the date that new
system was expanded or remodeled,
even if the system had been using that
refrigerant before the expansion or
remodel.
2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food
refrigeration (supermarket systems)?
The change of status determinations
for retail food refrigeration (supermarket
systems) are summarized in the
following table:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
TABLE 4—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION (SUPERMARKETS SYSTEMS)
End-use
Substitutes
Decision
Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)
(new).
HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A,
R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017.
60 A chemical or mixture that is not the same as
that used before the retrofit, typically denoted by
different ‘‘R’’ numbers under ASHRAE Standard 34.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42904
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION (SUPERMARKETS SYSTEMS)—Continued
End-use
Substitutes
Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems)
(retrofit).
R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–
422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.
(a) New Supermarket Systems
For new supermarket systems, EPA
had proposed to change the status, as of
January 1, 2016, for nine HFC blends
and HFC–227ea to unacceptable: The
HFC blends are R–404A, R–407B, R–
421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–
428A, R–434A, and R–507A. In today’s
final rule, we are changing the status of
these ten refrigerants to unacceptable in
new supermarkets as of January 1, 2017
(i.e., one year later than proposed),
based on information the Agency
received concerning timelines for
planning new stores; this information
implied that contractual arrangements
for specific equipment purchases could
have already been in place at the time
the proposal was issued but that new
systems will not be completed by
January 1, 2016. A January 1, 2017,
status change date will address this
concern. We note that systems not ready
for use by January 1, 2017 would not be
able to use a substitute listed as
unacceptable as of that date.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(1) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are
listed as acceptable for new supermarket
systems: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a,
IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–407A,
R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–
417A, R–421A, R–422B, R–424A, R–
426A, R–437A, R–438A, R–448A, R–
449A, R–450A, R–513A, R–744, RS–24
(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, THR–02, and
THR–03.61 In addition, R–717 is listed
as acceptable in new supermarkets
when used as the primary refrigerant in
a secondary loop system.
Several of these alternatives, such as
R–407A, R–407F, and R–744, are in
widespread use today in supermarket
systems in the United States. EPA
considers this widespread use as
indicative of the availability of these
acceptable alternatives. HFC/HFO
blends are also entering the market. For
instance, R–448A and R–449A are being
used in supermarkets in the United
States and R–450A is in use in a
61 HFC–22
and several blends containing HCFCs
are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
supermarket in Spain.62 The producer
of R–450A, Honeywell, indicated in
their comments that supply of this
acceptable alternative was ‘‘soon to
become available.’’ They indicated that
they have invested in their U.S. facility
‘‘to ensure high-volume manufacturing
capability for HFO–1234ze(E),’’ one
component of R–450A. The other
component, HFC–34a, is widely
available from multiple producers and
refrigerant suppliers. Honeywell noted
that ‘‘commercial quantities of HFO–
1234yf and HFO–1234ze [are] available
today.’’ Likewise, DuPont indicated an
increasing supply of HFO–1234yf, a
component in a number of acceptable
refrigerants for new supermarket
systems, specifically R–448A, R–449A
and R–513A, amongst other applications
discussed below.
In the preamble to the NPRM, 79 FR
at 46144, EPA provided information on
the risk to human health and the
environment presented by the
alternatives that are being found
unacceptable as compared with other
available alternatives. In addition, EPA
listed as acceptable R–450A on October
21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) and included
information on its risk to human health
and the environment. Concurrently with
this rule, EPA is also listing R–448A, R–
449A and R–513A as acceptable in this
end-use category and is including
information on their risk to human
health and the environment. A technical
support document that provides the
additional Federal Register citations
concerning data on the SNAP criteria
(e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity,
flammability) for these alternatives may
be found in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary,
the other available substitutes all have
zero ODP and have GWPs ranging from
0 to 2,630. The refrigerants we are
finding unacceptable through this action
also have zero ODP, but they have
GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. With
the exception of R–717, the other
available refrigerants have toxicity
lower than or comparable to the
refrigerants whose listing status is
changing from acceptable to
unacceptable. Also, with the exception
62 Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test
new R404A ‘‘drop-in.’’ October 5, 2014. Available
online at www.coolingpost.com/world-news/
spanish-store-first-to-test-new-r404a-drop-in/.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Decision
Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016.
of R–717, the other available
refrigerants, as well as those that we are
finding unacceptable, are not
flammable. R–717 is classified as B2L
(higher toxicity, lower flammability, low
flame speed) under the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 34–2013. However, since it is
acceptable only for use as the primary
refrigerant (i.e., the one housed in the
machine room and limited-access
condensers) in secondary loops systems,
potential exposure is limited to
technicians and operators who are
expected to have had training on its safe
use. Because of this limited access, the
fact that R–717 has been used
successfully as a refrigerant for over 100
years, and because building codes and
OSHA regulations often apply
specifically to the use of R–717, EPA
previously determined that in this enduse the risk posed with regard to
toxicity and flammability is not
significantly greater than for other
available refrigerants or for the
refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable. Some of the refrigerant
blends listed as acceptable, as well as
some of the substitutes that we are
finding unacceptable include small
amounts (up to 3.4% by mass) of VOC
such as R–600 (butane) and R–600a
(isobutane). These amounts are small,
and EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon
refrigerants show that even when used
neat (i.e., as the sole refrigerant, not as
a component within a blend) they are
not expected to contribute significantly
to ground level ozone formation (ICF,
2014e). In the original actions listing
these refrigerants as acceptable or
acceptable subject to use conditions,
EPA concluded none of these
refrigerants pose significantly greater
risk than for the refrigerants that are not
or do not contain VOC. Because the
risks other than GWP are not
significantly different for the other
available alternatives than for those we
proposed to list as unacceptable and
because the GWP for the refrigerants we
proposed to list as unacceptable is
significantly higher and thus poses
significantly greater risk, we are listing
the following refrigerants as
unacceptable: HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–
407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–
422D, R–428A, R–434A, and R–507A.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(2) When will the status change?
As explained here and in our
responses to comments, EPA is
finalizing a change of status date for
new supermarket systems of January 1,
2017.
EPA noted in the NPRM, and multiple
commenters echoed, that supermarket
equipment using some of the acceptable
alternatives, notably HFC–134a, R–
407A, R–407C, R–407F and R–744, is
available today and has been used in
supermarkets for several years. While
some, but not all, manufacturers argued
more time was warranted to develop
additional equipment and address
performance issues, they did not
provide adequate justification or
specificity on when such equipment
would be available or when such issues
would be addressed.
A supermarket system manufacturer
believed time was needed to develop
contractor training materials. While EPA
agrees that training is valuable, we note
below that such training is already
available and, given that acceptable
alternatives have already been
implemented in new supermarkets, we
do not see the need to delay our
proposed status change date for new
equipment in this end-use category
more than one year.
However, one system manufacturer
noted that supermarket plans are
developed in time frames that could
hinder the proposed status change date
of January 1, 2016. EPA understands
that such planning is necessary and we
are establishing a status change date of
January 1, 2017, to accommodate those
end users who have already planned
changes to their systems or may have
plans to manufacture a new system (e.g.,
for a new store) but that may not have
such systems operational in the period
between the time this rule is issued and
January 1, 2016. As noted earlier, this
change in the proposed status change
date will affect those end users who are
currently in the midst of planning for a
new system or a change to their existing
system. A new system not ready for use
by January 1, 2017, would not be able
to use a refrigerant listed as
unacceptable as of that date.
(b) Retrofit Supermarket Systems
For retrofit supermarket systems, EPA
proposed to list, as of January 1, 2016,
nine HFC blends as unacceptable: R–
404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–
422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, and
R–507A. In today’s final rule we are
finding these refrigerants unacceptable
in retrofit supermarkets as of July 20,
2016.
Consistent with the proposal, this
action does not apply to servicing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
equipment designed to use these nine
refrigerants or servicing equipment that
was retrofitted to use those refrigerants
before the July 20, 2016, status change
date. For example, supermarket systems
designed for use with or retrofitted to R–
404A or R–507A prior to July 20, 2016,
may continue to operate and to be
serviced using those refrigerants.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are
listed as acceptable for retrofit
supermarket systems: FOR12A,
FOR12B, HFC–134a, IKON A, IKON B,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R–407A, R–407C, R–407F, R–
417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–422B, R–
424A, R–426A, R–427A, R–437A, R–
438A, R–448A, R–449A, R–450A, R–
513A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–02,
and THR–03.63 A technical support
document that provides the additional
Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP,
GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
these alternatives may be found in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA,
2015d).
Several of the alternatives that remain
acceptable are in use today in the
United States for supermarket system
retrofits. While blends such as R–407A
and R–407F have become the norm,
GreenChill partners also report use of
other refrigerants as retrofits in
supermarket systems.64 Also, as noted
earlier, R–450A was used to retrofit a
supermarket system in Spain (Cooling
Post, 2014).
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA
provided information on the risk to
human health and the environment
presented by the alternatives that are
being found unacceptable and those that
remain acceptable. In addition, EPA
listed R–450A as acceptable on October
21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) and included
information on its risk to human health
and the environment. Concurrently with
this rule, EPA is also listing as
acceptable R–448A, R–449A and R–
513A and including information on
their risk to human health and the
environment. As discussed above, the
producers of the substitutes that will
remain acceptable do not expect supply
problems. In summary, the refrigerants
63 HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs
are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.
64 The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration
Partnership is a voluntary program with food
retailers to reduce refrigerant emissions and
decrease their impact on the ozone layer and
climate change. See
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42905
listed above that remain acceptable have
zero ODP as do those that we are finding
unacceptable. The refrigerants
remaining acceptable have GWPs
ranging from below 100 to 2,630, lower
than the GWPs of the nine blends we are
finding unacceptable, which have GWPs
ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. All of the
refrigerants remaining acceptable have
toxicity lower than or comparable to the
refrigerants whose listing status is
changing from acceptable to
unacceptable. None of the refrigerants
that remain acceptable or those that are
being listed as unacceptable are
flammable. Some of the refrigerant
blends that remain acceptable and some
of those that we are finding
unacceptable include small amounts (up
to 3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R–
600 (butane) and R–600a (isobutane).
Because these amounts are small, and
EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon
refrigerants shows that even when used
neat (100% by mass), they are not
expected to contribute significantly to
ground level ozone formation (ICF,
2014e), these blends would also not
contribute significantly to ground level
ozone formation. Because the risks other
than GWP are not significantly different
for the other available alternatives than
for those we proposed to list as
unacceptable, and because the GWP for
the refrigerants we proposed to list as
unacceptable is significantly higher and
thus poses significantly greater risk, we
are listing the following refrigerants as
unacceptable: R–404A, R–407B, R–
421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–
428A, R–434A, and R–507A.
EPA regulations have eliminated or
will eliminate by 2020 the production
and import of HCFC–22. These and
other regulations also affect end users
who are using CFC–12, R–502, and
several HCFC-containing blends such as
R–401A, R–402A and R–408A.
Therefore, we believe that the impact of
this action addressing retrofits will
primarily affect those owners who are
faced with the choice of continuing to
operate systems with a refrigerant that
has been phased out of production and
import or to switch to a refrigerant listed
as acceptable for retrofit at the time the
retrofit occurs.
Many retail chains maintain their own
stockpile of HCFC–22, for instance by
recovering from stores that are
decommissioned or retrofitted and using
such supplies to service stores that
continue to operate with HCFC–22. In
addition, over four millions pounds of
HCFC–22 has been reclaimed every year
since at least 2000 and over seven
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42906
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
million pounds every year since 2006.65
Equipment operating with ODS
refrigerants may continue to do so given
the supply of such materials in
stockpiles and through the reclaim
market. Thus, owners have the option to
continue to operate this equipment
through its useful life with the
refrigerant they are using, such as
HCFC–22. Regardless of the continued
supply of HCFC–22 and other ODS
refrigerants, we believe that the majority
of retrofits are planned for reasons other
than the supply of the refrigerant
currently in use; for instance, owners
may decide to retrofit when upgrading
to more energy efficient equipment or
during planned maintenance overhauls
of their stores.
We see that many retrofits are already
directed towards lower-GWP blends
such as R–407A and R–407F, which are
widely available and remain acceptable
for such use under today’s rule, and not
those of the refrigerants whose status
will change to unacceptable under
today’s rule. These two refrigerants (R–
407A and R–407F), other available HFC
blends, the additional HFC/HFO options
that EPA recently listed as acceptable,
and other HFC/HFO blends that are
being evaluated by chemical producers
and equipment manufacturers, as well
as the option of continuing to operate
with HCFC–22, are sufficient to meet
the various features—such as capacity,
efficiency, materials compatibility, cost
and supply—that affect the choice of a
retrofit refrigerant.66
(2) When will the status change?
As explained here and in our
responses to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for
retrofit supermarkets of July 20, 2016.
In the NPRM and above, EPA pointed
out that retrofits of supermarkets using
acceptable alternatives are already
occurring. Supermarket Company ABC
indicated that their experience with the
use of R–407A in retrofits indicates the
availability and viability of it and other
alternatives. FMI similarly indicated
that many of its members have already
stopped performing retrofits with
refrigerants we are finding
unacceptable. EPA considers these
comments directly from the
supermarket retailer to indicate that
adequate performance can be achieved
using refrigerants that will remain listed
as acceptable.
As indicated in section V.C.1.c above,
retrofits may require various changes to
65 EPA, 2012a. The latest data on refrigerant
reclamation can be found on EPA’s Web site at:
www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/
recsum_merged.pdf.
66 For example, see CCAC, 2012.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
the existing equipment, such as
different lubricants, new materials such
as gaskets and filter driers, and
adjustments to expansion valves. These
changes include readily available
materials and common refrigeration
practices. Such retrofits to acceptable
alternatives are already occurring, and
the option to continue to operate and
service existing systems remains;
however, EPA received comment that
users may plan a ‘‘new store layout’’ in
advance. While not specifically
referencing retrofits, a new layout of an
existing store may include the
retrofitting of the existing supermarket
system. Therefore, EPA is modifying the
change of status date to provide a full
year from publication of the final rule to
ensure that any supermarkets that may
have retrofits underway using a
refrigerant that will no longer be
acceptable will be able to complete
those retrofits ahead of the change of
status date. While EPA did not receive
specific comments on the time to
complete retrofits that are underway, it
is our understanding that any ongoing
retrofits can be completed within this
timeframe .
(c) How is EPA responding to comments
on retail food refrigeration (supermarket
systems)?
Comment: Several commenters
commented on the proposed January 1,
2016 change of status date for new
supermarket systems. One supermarket
owner, Supermarket Company ABC,
specifically supported the proposed
2016 date for both new and retrofit
systems. An industry organization
representing supermarkets, FMI, stated
that ‘‘a majority of our members have
already voluntarily and proactively
discontinued the use of R–404A, R–507
and R–422D for new systems and as a
retrofit refrigerant.’’ Two environmental
organizations, NRDC and IGSD,
supported the proposed 2016 date for
both new and retrofitted supermarket
systems. One manufacturer of
supermarket systems, Hillphoenix,
supported the change of status date of
January 1, 2016, for HFC–227ea, R–
407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–
422D, R–428A and R–434A in new and
retrofit supermarket systems.67
Several other manufacturers of
supermarket equipment, including
Hussmann, Master-Bilt, Lennox, and
Zero Zone, and an association
representing such manufacturers—
AHRI—suggested later dates for the
change of status. Hussmann suggested a
67 They addressed the change of status date for R–
404A and R–507A with regard to stand-alone units
but not supermarket systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
change of status date of 2018 for new
equipment as store layouts of their
customers are planned ‘‘up to three
years in advance.’’ Another
manufacturer, Lennox, requested three
years from the date of any final rule, a
position supported by AHRI, which also
noted ‘‘alternatives are available and
manufacturers have started re-designing
products to minimize or eliminate the
use of high GWP refrigerants.’’ MasterBilt indicated that under the proposed
January 1, 2016, change of status date
for new supermarket systems, they
would convert to HFC–134a and R–
407A, but would have to address issues
of energy efficiency and reliability. They
believed ‘‘these HFCs will also be
banned as soon as lower GWP
alternatives are available’’ and therefore
did not offer a long-term solution.
Instead, they stated blends with even
lower GWPs than the ones remaining
acceptable would be available in 1–3
years and requested a minimum of 3
years from then to develop products.
Zero Zone indicated that it has products
available for R–407A and R–407C, but
needs time to address performance
issues.
Response: Several commenters
indicated that many stores were already
using alternatives other than the ones
we proposed to list as unacceptable.
While two manufacturers of equipment,
Zero Zone and Lennox, and AHRI
advocated for a later change of status
date, they also indicated that products
using refrigerants that will remain
acceptable are already in use.
Hillphoenix and Hussmann, both of
whom offer supermarket systems with
such refrigerants, and Supermarket
Company ABC and FMI, who have used
such products, did not indicate that
there were performance, efficiency or
reliability issues when using R–407A,
R–407C or R–407F in supermarket
systems.
We recognize the concern raised by
Hussmann regarding store layout plans
for new systems. Store design plans are
generally developed well in advance of
the physical change-over or
construction, because of several
different factors related to construction
and installation as well as the need to
address any commissioning,
performance optimization or start-up
procedures. Hussmann suggested a
change of status date of 2018 to allow
up to three years for design. Hussmann
did not indicate if the ‘‘up to three years
in advance’’ for planning a new design
was a typical planning cycle or a rare
maximum, nor did they indicate that
any particular customer currently is in
the planning stage but will not have
equipment designed to use a refrigerant
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
we are listing as unacceptable
operational until 2018. We further note
that the NPRM was proposed on August
6, 2014, and thus supermarkets were on
notice at that time that the refrigerants
currently listed as acceptable would
possibly be unacceptable for use as of
January 2016. In order to address
concerns about those end users who
began planning prior to the proposal, we
are establishing a change of status date
one year later than proposed for new
supermarket systems and July 20, 2016
for retrofits. This will provide those end
users who were in the planning stage
prior to the time of the proposal over
two years after issuance of the proposal
to ensure new supermarket systems are
in place and operational and likewise
approximately two years to complete
any retrofits.
Comment: Lennox noted that
supermarket system designs exist for R–
407 series refrigerants, but stated that
manufacturers ‘‘need at least 3 years to
develop complete product lines,
technical literature and contractor
training materials.’’ Lennox did not
indicate specifically how much time
was needed to complete their
equipment development. Zero Zone Inc.
comments that the industry needs at
least six years to make a smooth
complete transition away from R–404A,
R–507A, and HFC–134a; they indicated
this time was needed ‘‘to eliminate the
performance issues and design product
that uses these refrigerants in the most
energy efficiency manner.’’ In its
comments regarding supermarket
systems, AHRI indicated low-GWP
alternatives are available and stated
research on other, lower-GWP
refrigerants was underway but requested
‘‘a minimum of 3 years’’ to transition.
AHRI contended that ‘‘manufacturers
have started re-designing products to
minimize or eliminate the use of high
GWP refrigerants’’ but that
‘‘manufactures need more time’’ on ‘‘the
re-design effort that started [a] few years
ago.’’ In general comments not specific
to the three retail food refrigeration enduse categories addressed in the
proposal, AHRI also indicated that ‘‘a
typical design cycle takes an average 7
years from start to finish’’ for nonflammable alternatives. Supermarket
Company ABC referenced the NPRM
discussion of new supermarket systems
(79 FR 46144) and stated that their
‘‘own experience and testing with
R134a, CO2 and the R–407 series of
refrigerants have demonstrated to our
satisfaction that implementable
alternatives to R–404A and R–507A are
available to meet that time frame’’ of
January 1, 2016.
Response: The commenters have not
provided sufficient information to
support that alternatives will not be
available for several years because of
technical constraints. As indicated in
the comments from AHRI, Lennox, and
Zero Zone, manufacturers have been
working for the past several years to
design systems using low GWP
alternatives and as FMI noted many
supermarkets are already choosing to
use them. EPA noted in the proposal
that R–407A systems have already
become a norm for supermarkets and
Supermarket Company ABC indicated it
was using R–407A in its comments. In
fact, EPA notes that the amount of R–
404A in use from partners participating
in EPA’s GreenChill partnership
program reporting in 2012 and 2013
increased only 1.3%, while the amount
of R–407A in use increased 24%. Hence,
we do not agree that a several year delay
in the change of status date is needed to
accommodate design of systems.
With respect to contractor training,
EPA agrees proper education and
42907
training is important, and we note that
there are already many manufacturers
and suppliers who have been
conducting such training. For example,
Hillphoenix, a manufacturer of
supermarket systems and other
equipment affected by this rule,
operates a learning center with courses
available including several on R–744
equipment.68 Learning material is also
available from EPA’s GreenChill
program, including for instance the
GreenChill retrofit guidelines,69 which
contain material on refrigerants R–407A,
R–407F and R–427A, all of which
remain acceptable in retrofit
supermarket systems. For supermarket
systems, we note that alternatives such
as R–407A have been in the market and
have been used successfully for many
years. Other alternatives, such as R–
448A, R–449A, R–450A and R–513A,
are nonflammable and operate with
similar characteristics to HFC–134a or
R–404A, and hence should require only
minimal extra training. EPA believes the
January 1, 2017, change of status date
for new supermarket systems, will allow
technicians that focus on particular enduses or end-use categories to obtain the
training they need and likewise for
those that cover all end-uses and enduse categories to build their skills across
those end-uses over time. We disagree
that a need to develop complete
technical lines and technical literature
are technical challenges that limit the
availability of refrigerants for new
supermarket systems beyond January
2017.
3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food
refrigeration (remote condensing units)?
The change of status determinations
for retail food refrigeration (remote
condensing units) is summarized in the
following table:
TABLE 5—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION (REMOTE CONDENSING UNITS)
End-use
Substitutes
Decision
Retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units)
(new).
Retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units)
(retrofit).
HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A,
R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.
R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–
422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2018.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(a) New Remote Condensing Units
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, and
R–507A. In today’s final rule, we are
finding that same list of nine HFC
blends and HFC–227ea as unacceptable
as of January 1, 2018. The change from
the proposal is in response to
information provided by commenters
concerning technical challenges with
meeting the January 1, 2016, proposed
date.
69 EPA, 2011b. GreenChill Best Practices
Guidelines, Commercial Refrigeration Retrofits.
August 2011. This document is accessible at
For new remote condensing units,
EPA proposed to list, as of January 1,
2016, nine HFC blends and HFC–227ea
as unacceptable. The HFC blends are R–
404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–
68 See www.hillphoenixlc.com/coursecurriculum/refrigeration-systems/.
Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016.
https://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
documents/retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42908
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(1) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are
listed as acceptable for new remote
condensing units: FOR12A, FOR12B,
HFC–134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R–
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R–407A, R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–
410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R–
424A, R–426A, R–437A, R–438A, R–
448A, R–449A, R–450A, R–513A, R–
744, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–02,
and THR–03.70 R–717 is acceptable in
remote condensing units when used as
the primary refrigerant in a secondary
loop system.
Some of these acceptable alternatives
are currently in use in remote
condensing unit systems in the United
States, such as R–407C and R–407F.
Others, such as R–744 and
hydrocarbons, while not indicated as in
use in the United States, are being used
in limited demonstration trials in
Europe and elsewhere. In addition,
commenters have pointed out that
testing of low-GWP HFC/HFO blends is
underway; several of these HFC/HFO
blends have been submitted to EPA for
SNAP review in this end-use category
and four are listed as acceptable.
See section V.C.2.a.1 above for a
summary of our comparative assessment
of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC,
toxicity, flammability) for the
refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable with the other available
refrigerants. The refrigerants we are
listing as unacceptable for new remote
condensing units are the same as those
we are listing unacceptable for new
supermarket systems. Likewise, the
other available refrigerants are the same
for new remote condensing units as for
new supermarket systems. For the same
reasons as presented in section 2, EPA
concludes that there are other
refrigerants for use in new remote
condensing units that pose lower overall
risk to human health and the
environment than the alternatives we
are listing as unacceptable.
(2) When will the status change?
As explained here and in our
responses to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for
new remote condensing units of January
1, 2018.
Blends such as R–407A, R–407C and
R–407F are technically viable options.
We did not receive any comments
suggesting that these or other
70 HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs
are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
alternatives that will remain acceptable
could not be used in these systems. In
fact, information in the docket to this
rule supports the feasibility of these
alternatives. For example, information
in the Agency’s possession from a
manufacturer of remote condensing
units provides an energy efficiency
analysis for R–407A as compared with
R–404A in remote condensing units,
with results ranging from 10% lower to
1% higher in low-temperature
equipment and 0% to 6% higher in
medium-temperature equipment (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0184). For unit
coolers, this information showed
improved results of 4.3% to 13.3% in
medium-temperature applications.
While the low-temperature applications
showed 3.6% to 6.7% decreases, it was
noted this came ‘‘as the capacity
increased;’’ hence, we expect
adjustments to the equipment could
improve the efficiency while still
meeting the original capacity
requirements. In addition, Honeywell
indicated that R–448A and R–449A,
which have been submitted to SNAP for
review in this end-use, are undergoing
extensive field trials and that R–448A is
‘‘close to being qualified with numerous
manufacturers,’’ indicating that
manufacturers are developing
equipment to use this alternative.
DuPont indicates that R–449A (also
referred to as DR–33 and XP40), which
has been submitted to SNAP for review
in this end-use, works well in their tests
of a display case connected to a remote
condensing unit. DuPont found that the
energy consumption for this refrigerant
in a remote condensing unit originally
designed for R–404A was 3% to 4% less
than R–404A in low-temperature tests
and 8% to 12% less in mediumtemperature tests.
Although there are technically viable
alternatives, we recognize the testing
and certification needs for this
equipment. Compliance with DOE
energy conservation standards will be
required on March 27, 2017 for
commercial refrigeration equipment and
on June 5, 2017 for walk-in coolers and
freezers (see also section V.C.1.b above
and V.C.7 below). Commenters noted
the challenges with timing for designing
products with acceptable alternatives
and testing these products to meet the
2017 DOE energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment and for walk-in coolers and
freezers. EPA agrees with the
commenters that the challenge of
meeting both this status change rule and
the DOE standards creates a significant
technical hurdle that would be difficult
to overcome by a January 2016 change
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of status date. A January 1, 2018, change
of status date for remote condensing
units recognizes the time needed for
redesign and testing to meet both
regulatory obligations.
(b) Retrofit Remote Condensing Units
For retrofit remote condensing units,
EPA proposed to list, as of January 1,
2016, nine HFC blends as unacceptable:
R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–
422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, and
R–507A. In today’s final rule, we are
establishing a change of status date for
these refrigerants of July 20, 2016.
Consistent with the proposal, this
action does not apply to servicing
equipment designed to use these nine
refrigerants or servicing equipment that
was retrofitted to use those refrigerants
before the January 1, 2018 status change
date. For example, remote condensing
units designed for use with or retrofitted
to R–404A or R–507A prior to July 20,
2016, are allowed to continue to operate
and to be serviced using those
refrigerants.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are
listed as acceptable for retrofitting
remote condensing units: FOR12A,
FOR12B, HFC–134a, IKON A, IKON B,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R–407A, R–407C, R–407F, R–
417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–422B, R–
424A, R–426A, R–427A, R–437A, R–
438A, R–448A, R–449A, R–450A, R–
513A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–02,
and THR–03.71
Unlike retrofits of supermarket
systems, which are common, retrofits of
remote condensing units are unusual.
However, given that the operating
conditions and requirements between
supermarket systems and remote
condensing units are generally similar,
EPA believes blends such as R–407A,
R–407C and R–407F are available
options.
See section V.C.2.b.1 above for a
summary of our comparative assessment
of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC,
toxicity, flammability) for the
refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable with the other available
refrigerants. The refrigerants we are
listing as unacceptable for retrofit
remote condensing units are the same as
those we are listing as unacceptable for
retrofit supermarket systems. Likewise,
the available alternatives for retrofit
71 HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs
are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
remote condensing units are the same as
those for retrofit supermarket systems.
For the same reasons as presented in
section V.C.2.b.1, EPA concludes that
there are other refrigerants for use in
retrofit remote condensing units that
pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment than the
alternatives we are listing as
unacceptable.
EPA regulations have eliminated or
will eliminate by 2020 the production
and import of HCFC–22. These and
other regulations also affect end users
who are using CFC–12, R–502, and
several HCFC-containing blends such as
R–401A, R–402A and R–408A.
Therefore, we believe that the impact of
this action addressing retrofits will
primarily affect those owners who are
faced with the choice of continuing to
operate systems with a refrigerant that
has been phased out of production and
import or to switch to a refrigerant listed
as acceptable for retrofit at the time the
retrofit occurs.
As noted in section V.2.b.1, millions
of pounds of HCFC–22 are reclaimed
every year, and this supply is available
to remote condensing unit owners,
operators and technicians, just as it is
available for supermarket owners,
operators and technicians. We also
noted that many retail chains have
maintained their own stockpile of
HCFC–22, for instance by recovering
from stores that are decommissioned or
retrofitted and using such supplies to
service stores that continue to operate
with HCFC–22. This same strategy is
possible for those who own or operate
multiple facilities using remote
condensing units. By establishing a
change of status date of July 20, 2016,
we are providing owners and operators
of remote condensing units the
opportunity to begin to address any
HCFC–22 supply concerns they may
have. Thus, owners have the option to
continue to operate this equipment
through its useful life with the
refrigerant they are using, such as
HCFC–22.
Supermarket Company ABC indicated
that they have used R–407A to retrofit
HCFC–22 systems and that their
experience indicates the availability and
viability of this and other alternatives.
The success of R–407A as a retrofit
refrigerant, the other available HFC
blends, the additional HFC/HFO options
that EPA recently listed as acceptable,
and the other HFC/HFO blends that are
being evaluated by chemical producers
and equipment manufacturers, as well
as the option of continuing to operate
with HCFC–22, are sufficient to meet
the various features—such as capacity,
efficiency, materials compatibility, cost
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
and supply—that affect the choice of a
retrofit refrigerant.
(2) When will the status change?
As explained here and in our
response to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for
retrofit remote condensing units of July
20, 2016.
We did not receive any comments
suggesting that alternatives that remain
acceptable could not be used in these
systems. As noted above, Supermarket
Company ABC indicated that they have
had success using R–407A to retrofit
HCFC–22 systems. Results from testing
of remote condensing units with R–
407A and R–449A are presented above
in section V.C.3.a.2. Those results
showed increased energy efficiency
and/or increased capacity with those
refrigerants, indicating that they are
viable for both new and retrofit
equipment. As indicated in section
V.C.1.c above, retrofits may require
various changes to the existing
equipment, such as different lubricants,
new materials such as gaskets and filter
driers, and adjustments to expansion
valves. These changes include readily
available materials and common
refrigeration practices. Such retrofits to
acceptable alternatives are already
occurring, and the option to continue to
operate and service existing systems
remains. However, as discussed in
Section V.C.2.b.2 above, comments
indicate that a ‘‘new store layout’’ could
be planned or otherwise underway, and
that such layout may include the
retrofitting of existing remote
condensing units to a refrigerant that
will no longer be acceptable. Therefore,
by providing one full year from the final
rule’s publication, EPA is providing
sufficient time for any such retrofits in
this end-use category to occur as
planned.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments
on retail food refrigeration (remote
condensing units)?
Comment: Two environmental
organizations, NRDC and IGSD, urged
EPA to maintain the proposed status
change date of January 1, 2016, for new
remote condensing units. Supermarket
Company ABC stated that they did not
oppose the January 1, 2016, change of
status date for new remote condensing
units. FMI, an industry organization
representing supermarkets, a market
segment that also utilizes remote
condensing units, pointed out that ‘‘a
majority of our members have already
voluntarily and proactively
discontinued the use of R–404A, R–507,
and R–422D for new systems and as a
retrofit refrigerant.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42909
Many equipment manufacturers
including: Hussmann; Continental
Refrigerator; Nor-Lake; Master-Bilt
Products; International Cold Storage,
Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite WalkIns; Lennox; and Manitowoc requested
later dates for the status change ranging
from 2018 to 2025. In some cases the
date requested applied to new
equipment in other end-use categories
as well as new remote condensing units.
AHRI suggested a minimum of six years
to transition. The North American
Association of Food Equipment
Manufacturers (NAFEM) and Howe
Corporation submitted comments that
were general rather than specific to any
particular refrigeration end-use. Based
on NAFEM’s membership and the
products Howe discussed, EPA believes
these comments apply to remote
condensing units and stand-alone
equipment. Howe proposed that the
status of R–404A and R–507A change
‘‘no sooner than year 2024’’ while
NAFEM suggested a ten-year delay for
all of the refrigeration end-uses
addressed in the proposed rule and
enumerated 14 tasks that they indicate
are ‘‘necessary to safely introduce
different/flammable refrigerants into the
manufacturing process.’’ A separate
comment from NAFEM listed five
phases, totaling 10 to 12 years, to adopt
hydrocarbon refrigerants but also stated
that ‘‘in no case should any
manufacturer be expected to transition
prior to 2022.’’ These manufacturers and
industry associations cited concerns
over the availability of alternatives, the
need to design and test products using
those alternatives, as well as other
concerns that we summarize and
address in the Response to Comments
Document that has been placed in the
docket. Several manufacturers indicated
that a January 1, 2016, change of status
date would create significant difficulties
in designing products with refrigerants
that remain acceptable while also
meeting the DOE energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment and for walk-in coolers and
freezers that are scheduled to become
effective in 2017 (see also section
V.C.1.b above and V.C.7 below). In
particular, the commenters claimed that
additional development of lowtemperature products may be necessary
to match current efficiency levels.
Hussmann was concerned with the
lead time of its customers in planning
store layouts with ‘‘remote systems,’’
which could include remote condensing
units as well as supermarket systems,
and indicated that a date of 2018 would
allow its customers to better determine
what types of systems and refrigerants
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42910
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
to use. Lennox proposed a ‘‘phased in
implementation timing by refrigerant
equipment end-use category,’’
suggesting five years from publication of
the final for remote condensing units
compared to three years for
supermarkets and seven years for standalone units. AHRI similarly suggested
that the change of status date for remote
condensing units occur after that of
supermarkets.
Regarding HFC/HFO blend
alternatives, Honeywell, indicates that
supply of R–450A, an alternative listed
as acceptable, will be available soon and
that R–448A and R–449A, which are
currently under SNAP review, are
undergoing extensive field trials.
Honeywell further stated that R–448A is
‘‘close to being qualified with numerous
manufacturers,’’ indicating that
manufacturers are developing
equipment to use this refrigerant.
DuPont indicated that R–449A works
well in their tests of a display case
connected to a remote condensing unit.
Response: Supermarket Company
ABC and FMI as well as environmental
organizations supported or did not
oppose the proposed status change date
of January 1, 2016. A number of other
commenters supported a later date
ranging from 2017 to as late as 12 years
after this action is finalized. The
comments requesting later status change
dates either did not address retrofits or
did not provide adequate information
indicating why a date earlier than that
for new remote condensing units would
be infeasible for retrofit equipment.
Although some use of alternatives is
already occurring, we agree with the
commenters that certain technical
challenges still exist that support a
change of status date later than we
proposed for new and retrofit
equipment. However, we do not agree
that significant additional time is
needed before alternatives listed as
acceptable will be available for new
equipment.
There are alternatives that are not
subject to a status change that are used
already in new and retrofit remote
condensing units and others are being
developed and deployed. As supported
by the comments from FMI, many
supermarkets have already transitioned
away from the refrigerants we are listing
as unacceptable and are using
refrigerants that will remain acceptable
after this final action. Supermarket
Company ABC stated that alternatives
were available, pointing towards their
experience with R–407A in retrofits and
HFC–134a, R–744 and the R–407 series
in new equipment. Information in the
Agency’s possession from a
manufacturer of such equipment,
explained above, is indicative that R–
407A, among other available
alternatives, can be readily
implemented now in new remote
condensing units at mediumtemperature applications both during
and after meeting DOE energy
conservation standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment and for walk-in
coolers and freezers. However, the
information showed efficiency losses for
this refrigerant in low-temperature
applications. Although DuPont points to
positive results using R–449A in a
display case connected to a remote
condensing unit, this refrigerant too
showed lower energy efficiency in lowtemperature than medium-temperature
conditions. Both comments indicate that
there is a more significant challenge for
low-temperature applications.
Thus, while there has been significant
progress in transitioning to alternatives
that will remain acceptable in mediumtemperature applications, there has been
less progress in doing so for lowtemperature applications. However, the
information provided by Honeywell and
DuPont indicates that significant
additional time will not be needed
before equipment is available. In
recognition that new remote-condensing
unit equipment will need to meet DOE
and National Sanitation Foundation
(NSF) standards, and some efficiency
challenges exist particularly with lowtemperature equipment, we are
establishing a status change date of
January 1, 2018, for new remote
condensing units and July 20, 2016 for
retrofits.
Given that the low-temperature
results with R–407A showed only 3.6%
to 6.7% efficiency declines along with
capacity increases, and those from
DuPont with R–449A showed a slight
improvement in efficiency, we consider
a status change date of January 1, 2018,
to be adequate to adopt these or other
acceptable alternatives into new
equipment and perform any testing and
certification necessary. A January 1,
2018, change of status date for new
remote condensing units will allow time
for manufacturers to redesign any
products that require additional
engineering to meet both this rule and
the DOE standards. In situations where
these refrigerants do not show energy
efficiency improvements, other design
changes as described in the DOE
rulemakings and in the literature can be
utilized to achieve required efficiencies.
In addition, as indicated above, current
research and testing on some HFC/HFO
blends show similar or better energy
efficiency for these products.
While we agree than a short
additional amount of time is needed to
address these technical challenges and
the testing and certification
requirements for new equipment, we
disagree with commenters who suggest
that a lengthy period is needed prior to
the change of status. NAFEM estimated
10 to 12 years to adopt hydrocarbon
refrigerants; however, as hydrocarbons
are not listed as acceptable for remote
condensing units, and no schedule was
provided for nonflammable refrigerants,
EPA views this comment as pertaining
to stand-alone equipment. (See section
V.C.4 below). All of the refrigerant
blends that remain acceptable are
nonflammable and some were designed
to mimic HFC–134a and R–404A. EPA
believes that these can be adopted into
manufacturers’ products with minor
changes while still meeting the DOE
requirements. The commenters failed to
identify specific technical challenges
that would support a more lengthy
delay in the change of status date.
4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food
refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)?
The change of status determination
for retail food refrigeration (stand-alone
equipment) is summarized in the
following table:
TABLE 6—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR STAND-ALONE EQUIPMENT
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
End-use
Substitutes
Decision
Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone medium-temperature units 72 with a compressor capacity
below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded
evaporator) (new).
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–
407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–
421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–
424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–
438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–
44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–03.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
42911
TABLE 6—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR STAND-ALONE EQUIPMENT—Continued
End-use
Substitutes
Decision
Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor capacity equal
to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and stand-alone
medium-temperature units containing a flooded
evaporator) (new).
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–
407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–
421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–
424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–
438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–
44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–03.
HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–
407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–
421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–
422D, R–424A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–
438A, R–507A, RS–44 (2003 formulation).
R–404A and R–507A ..............................................
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020.
Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone low-temperature units 73) (new).
Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone units only)
(retrofit).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(a) New Stand-Alone Equipment
507A, and RS–44 (2003 formulation).
While EPA proposed to change the
status from acceptable to unacceptable
for FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, R–
426A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), SP34E,
and THR–03 in all new stand-alone
equipment, EPA is not changing the
status for these refrigerants in this final
rule in stand-alone low-temperature
equipment, or for IKON B for any standalone equipment, for the reasons
provided below. EPA clarifies below
how the compressor capacity is to be
determined as well as how to
distinguish medium-temperature and
low-temperature stand-alone
equipment.
For new stand-alone equipment, EPA
proposed to list HFC–134a and 31 other
refrigerants for new stand-alone retail
food refrigeration equipment
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2016. In
today’s final rule, EPA is subdividing
the new retail food refrigeration (standalone equipment) end-use category. For
new stand-alone medium-temperature
units with a compressor capacity below
2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a
flooded evaporator, EPA is changing the
listing for HFC–134a and 30 other
refrigerants from acceptable to
unacceptable as of January 1, 2019.
These 30 other refrigerants are FOR12A,
FOR12B, R–426A, RS–24 (2002
formulation), SP34E, THR–03 and 24
additional refrigerants, listed below, for
which EPA is changing the status in all
types of stand-alone equipment. For
new stand-alone medium-temperature
units with a compressor capacity equal
to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and all
stand-alone medium-temperature units
containing a flooded evaporator, EPA is
changing the listing of HFC–134a and
the same 30 other refrigerants from
acceptable to unacceptable as of January
1, 2020. For new stand-alone lowtemperature units, EPA is changing the
status from acceptable to unacceptable
of 24 refrigerants as of January 1, 2020.
The 24 refrigerants are: HFC–227ea,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–
407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–
417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–
422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–
428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–
EPA has listed R–290, R–600a and R–
441A acceptable subject to use
conditions in new stand-alone
equipment. R–290 is already in use
globally, including in the United States,
and R–600a is in use outside of the
United States as well as in test market
trials in the United States. For instance,
at a recent exposition, stand-alone
equipment using R–290 was displayed
by multiple companies and component
suppliers exhibited compressors, filter
driers, controls and expansion valves
that are designed to use R–290 or R–
600a.74
R–450A, R–513A, R–744, IKON A,
IKON B and THR–02 are listed as
acceptable substitutes in new standalone equipment without use
conditions.75 In addition, HFC–134a,
72 ‘‘Medium-temperature’’ refers to equipment
that maintains food or beverages at temperatures
above 32 °F (0 °C).
73 ‘‘Low-temperature’’ refers to equipment that
maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or
below 32 °F (0 °C).
74 See ‘‘New regulations inspire hydrocarbon
displays at U.S. NAFEM Show,’’
www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/view/6143.
75 Shecco, 2015. ‘‘New Regulations Inspire
Hydrocarbon Displays at U.S. NAFEM Show,
February 24, 2015. This document is accessible at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
(1) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020.
Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016.
FOR12A, FOR12B, R–426A, RS–24
(2002 formulation), SP34E and THR–03
remain acceptable without use
conditions and are not subject to a
change of status date in new stand-alone
low-temperature equipment. Also,
concurrently with this rule, EPA is
listing R–448A and R–449A acceptable
without use conditions for new standalone low-temperature equipment. EPA
is aware of equipment deployment
using R–744 and HFC–134a. We are not
aware of such deployment with respect
to any other of these substitutes,
although we are aware that several are
undergoing research and testing. The
producer of R–450A, Honeywell, stated
that the supply of R–450A is ‘‘soon to
be available.’’ Although we did not see
evidence that products were produced
with the HFC/HFO blends that are listed
as acceptable, publicly-available
literature indicates that R–448A, R–
449A, R–450A, R–513A and others are
under investigation. For example, R–
513A (trade name XP10) was tested in
commercial bottle cooler/freezer under
test 008 of AHRI’s Low-GWP Alternative
Refrigerants Evaluation Program
research.76 The Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Magazine quoted
Emerson, a major supplier of
compressors for this industry, as saying
it is ‘‘prepared to support customers and
devote more resources to qualifying
lower-GWP A1 refrigerant alternatives
such as R448A, R449A, R–450A and
https://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/
viewprintable/6143.’’
76 Shapiro, Doron. ‘‘System Drop-In Tests of R–
134a, R–1234yf, OpteonTM XP10, R–1234ze(E), and
N13a in a Commercial Bottle Cooler/Freezer’’,
January 25, 2013. This document is accessible at
https://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/
RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI%20LowGWP%20AREP-Rpt-008.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42912
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
R513A.’’ 77 EPA addressed the supply of
these HFC/HFO blends, and specifically
the production of HFO–1234yf and
HFO–1234ze(E), which are components
of these blends, above in section
V.C.2.a.1.
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA
provided information on the risk to
human health and the environment
presented by the alternatives that are
being found unacceptable compared
with other alternatives, including
several refrigerants listed as acceptable
(October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863) or
acceptable, subject to use conditions
(April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453) after the
NPRM was issued. A technical support
document that provides the additional
Federal Register citations concerning
data on the environmental and health
properties (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC,
toxicity, flammability) for the acceptable
alternatives as well as those we are
finding unacceptable may be found in
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA,
2015d).
In summary, for stand-alone mediumtemperature refrigeration equipment,
the substitutes listed above that remain
acceptable have zero ODP and GWPs
ranging from 1 to about 630. In contrast,
the alternatives that we are listing as
unacceptable for stand-alone mediumtemperature equipment also have zero
ODP and they have GWPs ranging from
approximately 900 to 3,985. Three of the
substitutes that remain acceptable, R–
290, R–600a, and R–441A, are or are
composed primarily of VOC. EPA’s
analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use are not
expected to contribute significantly to
ground level ozone formation (ICF,
2014e). These three substitutes are also
flammable; however, the use conditions
specified ensure that they do not pose
greater overall risk than any of the
substitutes currently listed as acceptable
in new stand-alone mediumtemperature equipment.78 None of the
refrigerants currently listed as
acceptable present significant human
health toxicity concerns or other
ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the
refrigerants we are finding unacceptable
are similar in ODP (zero ODP),
flammability (low risks of flammability),
toxicity (low toxicity), and VOC (non77 Gaved, 2015. ‘‘Emerson Climate Technologies
offers to help supply chain move to lower-GWP
refrigerants,’’ www.racplus.com/news/-emersonclimate-technologies-offers-to-help-supply-chainmove-to-lower-gwp-refrigerants/8677708.article.
78 The risks due to the flammability of these
refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the
SNAP rules finding them acceptable subject to use
conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832 and
April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453). Refer to Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286 and EPA–HQ–
OAR–2013–0748.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
VOC or not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone
formation). Because the risks other than
GWP are not significantly different for
the other available alternatives than for
those we are listing as unacceptable and
because the GWP for the refrigerants we
are listing as unacceptable is
significantly higher and thus poses
significantly greater risk, we are listing
the following refrigerants as
unacceptable for new stand-alone
medium-temperature refrigeration
equipment: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–
134a, HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A,
R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–
410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–
421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–
422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–
434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24
(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, and THR–03.
For stand-alone low-temperature
refrigeration equipment, the substitutes
that remain acceptable have zero-ODP
and GWPs ranging from 1 to about
1,500. The alternatives we are listing as
unacceptable have GWPs ranging from
approximately 1,800 to 3,985. For the
other risk criteria we review, the
analysis provided above for stand-alone
medium-temperature refrigeration
equipment applies also to for the
alternatives that remain acceptable and
those we are listing as unacceptable.
Because the risks other than GWP are
not significantly different for the other
available alternatives than for those we
proposed to list as unacceptable and
because the GWP for the refrigerants we
proposed to list as unacceptable is
significantly higher and thus poses
significantly greater risk, we are listing
the following refrigerants as
unacceptable for new stand-alone lowtemperature refrigeration equipment:
HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/
600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–
407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–
410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–
421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–
422D, R–424A, R–428A, R–434A, R–
437A, R–438A, R–507A, and RS–44
(2003 formulation).
(2) When will the status change?
We are establishing a status change
date of January 1, 2019, for new standalone medium-temperature equipment
with a compressor capacity below 2,200
Btu/hr and not containing a flooded
evaporator, and a status change date of
January 1, 2020, for all other types of
new stand-alone equipment. For this
equipment, there are several alternatives
that can meet the technological needs of
the market. EIA states that ‘‘R–744, R–
290, R–441A, and isobutene (‘R–600a’)
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
can satisfy the vast majority of the
current market for refrigerants in standalone equipment.’’ We are aware of
products using R–290, R–600a and R–
744 that are already on the market.
According to Shecco, based on its
October 2014 survey, the manufacturers
of stand-alone equipment they surveyed
‘‘are already today able to produce
sufficient amount of such [R–290, R–
600a and R–744] equipment to cover the
needs of the entire market. All of the
interviewed manufacturers confirmed
that they plan to covert [sic] their whole
manufacturing facilities to hydrocarbons
and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.’’ While
the alternatives that remain acceptable
will be able to meet the technical
constraints for this equipment, time will
be needed for the transition to occur. On
the aspect of timing, Shecco,
Supermarket Company ABC, Hatco, and
H&K International suggested a 2018
change of status date, while DuPont and
Honeywell suggested 2017. NRDC and
IGSD believed EPA should maintain the
proposed January 1, 2016, change of
status date. In contrast, numerous other
manufacturers of stand-alone equipment
indicated concerns with hydrocarbons
and R–744, and some referenced HFC/
HFO blends as a potential solution.
They recommended change of status
dates ranging from 2020 to 20 years after
the rule becomes final. While we agree
that manufacturers will be able to
produce equipment using lower-GWP
refrigerants addressing a large portion of
the market in the period of 2016–2018,
we also agree that there are some
technical challenges that support a
change of status date of 2019 or 2020 for
this end-use category.
Manufacturers indicated several
necessary steps that will need to occur,
including development and testing of
components, such as compressors and
condensing units, for the full range of
stand-alone products. In addition,
engineering, development, and testing
to meet standards, such as those from
UL, DOE and NSF, of the products
would start as components became
available. Modifications to the factory
could be required, ranging from a
simpler change of the refrigerant storage
area to reconfiguration of the factory to
address concerns such as ventilation or
other safety measures. Information
submitted by the commenters supported
that these actions could take a few
months or up to a couple of years.
However, it is likely that these actions
could occur simultaneously with other
steps such as equipment design and
testing.
Manufacturers identified three
distinct refrigerant types. For
hydrocarbons, including R–290, we do
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
not see any question regarding chemical
supply. NAMA and True Manufacturing
indicated that components have already
been designed globally, including in the
United States, using both R–290 and R–
600a. Danfoss, Manitowoc and Unified
Brands indicated that 1–2 years are
needed to develop air-cooled
condensing units for R–290.
Components using other hydrocarbon
refrigerants, such as R–441A have not
been developed, but these refrigerants
are offered for sale in the U.S. and are
in ample supply.
EPA believes that much of the
component and equipment development
can occur at the same time; in other
words, as certain components become
available, appropriate units could be
redesigned using those components,
prototypes could be built and tested,
and final designs could be produced,
while additional components are
released. Indeed, it appears that many
manufacturers have already identified a
portion of their products that they could
redesign using R–290, as discussed
below. Once product models are
designed, testing and certification could
take place.
In summary, to use hydrocarbon
refrigerants, such as R–290, the
comments support that approximately
three and a half years is needed for
equipment to become fully available.
This includes one to two years to
develop additional components beyond
those that are currently available and to
test the current and newly developed
components in models. Equipment
development and testing would occur in
series, with the final units being
developed and ready for testing
approximately one year after the
components for that unit were available.
Testing and certification would likewise
occur as products were developed and
would span two to three years, much of
which while other actions are occurring.
We estimate the final units might take
an additional six months to a year to test
and certify once developed. As
discussed above, any required
modifications to the factory line and
facilities would occur concurrently if a
manufacturer chose to use R–290 or
another acceptable hydrocarbon
refrigerant. Hence, EPA believes that
new stand-alone equipment for
medium-temperature applications with
a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/
hr and not containing a flooded
evaporator could be available and in
compliance with a status change date of
January 1, 2019.
The steps in developing products for
R–744 would be similar and on a similar
time frame as those for hydrocarbons.
However, although R–744 is in wide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
supply, as supported by commenters
such as Hillphoenix, Coca-Cola, ParkerHannifin, and HC Duke & Son/ElectroFreeze, there has been limited
development of components and
development of necessary components
in a variety of sizes could take two to
three years.
Designing stand-alone equipment
with R–744 presents challenges such as
the need for a complete system redesign
due to higher pressures and the different
thermodynamic and transport
properties. Additionally, as supported
by commenters such as HC Duke & Son/
Electro-Freeze, while CO2 system
efficiency is good at lower ambient
temperatures, CO2 system efficiency
suffers at higher temperatures. Thus, it
may take additional time to develop
components and equipment for both
medium and low-temperature
applications.
Although it may not be feasible to
develop R–744 equipment for the full
spectrum of stand-alone equipment by a
status change date of January 1, 2019,
other alternatives, such as the
hydrocarbons and HFC/HFO blends
would be available for those uses by the
January 1, 2019, status change date.
The third group of alternatives is the
HFC/HFO blends. Refrigerant producers
DuPont and Honeywell provided
detailed comments on the development
of specific HFC/HFO blends and EPA
listed one of these, R–450A, as
acceptable in October 2014.
Concurrently with this rule, EPA is also
listing R–513A as acceptable in all
stand-alone equipment and two
additional HFC/HFO blends, R–448A
and R–449A, acceptable in stand-alone
low-temperature equipment.
Some samples of these refrigerants are
available today and are being tested, as
supported by comments from AHRI.
However, supplies of some of these
blends are limited at this time because
of limits on some of the HFO
components, HFO–1234yf and HFO–
1234ze(E). However, as discussed above
in section V.C.2.a.1, production
facilities for these refrigerants have
commenced operation and thus, as
supported by Honeywell and DuPont,
we expect adequate supplies to be
available by January 2017 if not before.
Unified Brands and Structural Concepts
indicated that components for HFC/
HFO equipment are being tested and
developed today and Unified Brands
further projected that it would be three
years for a full line of production-ready
components.
HFC/HFO blends found acceptable to
date or submitted to the SNAP program
are nonflammable, acceptable without
use conditions, and designed to mimic
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42913
the performance of either HFC–134a or
R–404A, refrigerants in predominant
use currently. Thus, as compared with
hydrocarbons and R–744, there should
be fewer technical challenges in
developing equipment using these
alternatives. Several commenters,
including Master-Bilt, Structural
Concepts, and Hoshizaki America,
supported that transition to these
alternatives would be simpler and
quicker once components have been
developed and there are adequate
supplies.
In summary, should manufacturers
choose to pursue HFC/HFO blends, EPA
expects such equipment would be
widely available in about four years and
that R–450A could be available earlier
as it was the first such blend found
acceptable under SNAP. This includes
one to two years for supplies to become
widely available, approximately one
year for development and testing of
components, and approximately one
year for equipment development. The
short time for development of
components and equipment is due to
the fact that the properties of the blends
are similar to the refrigerants most
manufacturers are currently using.
Similarly, we expect that there would be
limited factory modifications, if any,
and that these could occur concurrently
with the design work. As with other
refrigerants, EPA would expect
equipment testing and certification to be
rolled out as equipment models are
redesigned, with the last units being
available approximately six to twelve
months after designs are developed.
We are finalizing a status change date
of January 1, 2020, for stand-alone lowtemperature retail food refrigeration
units; stand-alone medium-temperature
retail food refrigeration units with a
compressor capacity equal to or
exceeding 2,200 Btu/hr; and stand-alone
retail food refrigeration units employing
a flooded evaporator.
For these three types of stand-alone
equipment, we find that an additional
year beyond January 1, 2019, is needed
for the change of status. For equipment
using a flooded evaporator, Emerson
indicated the lower-GWP refrigerants
are all ‘‘high glide’’ often in the range of
7 °F to 10 °F (3.9 °C to 5.6 °C), and that
such a characteristic presents unique
redesign and performance challenges.
Because of this unique design challenge
that will require additional time to
address, we are establishing a January 1,
2020, change of status date for new
stand-alone equipment that utilizes a
flooded evaporator.
The second segment of the standalone equipment end-use category that
we found faced particular technical
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42914
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
challenges was equipment designed to
hold products at low temperatures. The
choice of refrigerant is in part
determined by the desired temperature
that food or beverage will be stored. As
with ‘‘large’’ equipment, discussed
below, commenters, including
Hussmann and Hillphoenix, indicated
that the charge size limits that apply to
the hydrocarbon refrigerants could limit
their use in low-temperature equipment,
although for some equipment, it may be
possible to redesign equipment to use
multiple circuits. In addition, these
commenters further note that HFC–134a
was not a workable refrigerant for lowtemperature applications, and thus
some of the HFC/HFO alternatives,
specifically R–450A and R–513A, which
were designed to perform similarly to
HFC–134a, would likewise not be
workable in these applications.
However, other HFC/HFO alternatives,
such as R–448A and R–449A, designed
to perform similarly to R–404A could be
available for low-temperature uses.
We believe that these technical
challenges for stand-alone lowtemperature equipment will mean the
date upon which technically feasible
solutions are available will be later than
small, medium-temperature equipment.
For this reason, we are finalizing a
change of status date of January 1, 2020,
for stand-alone low-temperature
equipment.
EPA points to the 2014 ASHRAE
Handbook on Refrigeration, Chapter 15,
which reads ‘‘medium-temperature
refrigeration equipment maintains an
evaporator temperature between 0 and
40 °F [¥18 and 4.4 °C] and product
temperatures above freezing; lowtemperature refrigeration equipment
maintains an evaporator temperature
between ¥40 and 0 °F [¥40 and ¥18
°C] and product temperatures below
freezing.’’ We believe the product
temperature is a more widely
understood criteria, especially amongst
equipment owners and users and for
purposes of compliance, and therefore
clarify here that for purposes of this rule
‘‘stand-alone medium-temperature
equipment’’ is defined as that which is
designed to maintain product
temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and
‘‘stand-alone low-temperature
equipment’’ is defined as that which is
designed to maintain product
temperatures at or below 32 °F (0 °C).
For large stand-alone equipment with
additional cooling capacity
requirements, there are challenges with
using a number of the lower-GWP
refrigerants because the refrigerants are
subject to use conditions, including a
restriction limiting the charge size to
150 grams per circuit. The charge size
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
use condition applies to the alternative
refrigerants that are the farthest along in
design and testing for this end-use
category, specifically, R–290 and R–
600a. Because larger equipment often
needs refrigerant charges that are larger
than those provided in the use
conditions, we sought comment on
possible technical challenges in
transitioning to another alternative and
asked how charge size limits for these
flammable refrigerants might affect our
determination of whether and when
alternatives that pose lower risk are
available for larger equipment. In the
NPRM, we sought comment on the
possibility of establishing a use
restriction that would allow continued
use of some refrigerants for which we
would otherwise change the status in
‘‘large’’ stand-alone equipment. We
sought comment on how we could
define ‘‘large’’ and ‘‘small’’ stand-alone
units in particular considering charge
size.
Several commenters addressed these
issues during the comment period.
Lennox said that over 98% of its ‘‘basic,
self-contained refrigeration models
exceed 500 grams of refrigerant charge,’’
precluding the use of flammable
refrigerants in just one circuit.
Manitowoc and Nor-Lake indicated that
if they were to use R–290, multiple
refrigeration circuits would be required
considering the 150 gram use condition
that applies to that refrigerant. Some
manufacturers discussed the technical
difficulties with using multiple circuits.
Hillphoenix noted that the use of
multiple compressors, each tied to an
individual condensing unit, would
require ‘‘more complex control
synchronization that customers must be
willing to master’’ and raised a concern
about whether customers would do so.
For some equipment, space constraints
would limit the practicality of using
multiple, separate refrigeration circuits.
Minus Forty indicated that ‘‘A
significant number of our models cannot
be or would be very impractical to
transition to R–290 due to their size,
shape, and custom uniqueness.’’ NorLake stated that multiple circuit
equipment would use more energy and
believed that the ‘‘energy efficiency of a
dual system may also create issues with
meeting DOE energy requirements.’’
EPA agrees that there are additional
technical challenges faced in converting
this equipment that use large charge
sizes. In some instances, the challenge
may be in developing multi-circuit
systems that use refrigerants subject to
the charge-size use limits. In other
cases, where multiple circuits are not an
option, these manufacturers will need
additional time to evaluate refrigerants
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
R–744 or the newly listed HFC/HFO
blends R–448A, R–449A, R–450A and
R–513A. Therefore, we have established
a later status change date of January 1,
2020, for ‘‘large’’ stand-alone
equipment.
A few commenters addressed how
EPA could distinguish ‘‘small’’ from
‘‘large’’ stand-alone equipment. NorLake suggested a dividing line and
recommended that it could be set based
on compressor capacity, pointing to
2,400 Btu/hr and 2,200 Btu/hr for
medium and low-temperature freezer
systems, respectively. Hillphoenix also
recommended looking at refrigerant
capacity and performed an analysis that,
under specific design prescriptions,
indicated the maximum capacity
achievable using 150 grams of R–290
would be 4,800 Btu/hr and 1,600 Btu/
hr for medium-and low-temperature
applications, respectively. Supermarket
Company ABC suggested making a
distinction based on interior volume
and refrigeration requirements, but did
not offer specifics. Southern Case Art
indicated difficulty with using R–290 in
its products that are open-display units
reaching capacities up to 25,000 Btu/hr.
Unified Brands indicated R–290
compressors are available to provide
cooling capacity up to 5,000 Btu/hr for
medium-temperature and 2,000 Btu/hr
in low-temperature applications.
Traulsen requested a narrowed use
exemption for ‘‘large stand-alone units
requiring 2 or more systems to operate
within the 150 gram limit.’’
We believe that the compressor
capacity limits are a reasonable, easilyunderstood and easily-enforceable
method to distinguish between products
that may be unable to rely on flammable
refrigerants or that will face greater
challenges in doing so, and those that
are more easily able to use flammable
refrigerants consistent with the 150gram charge size limits established in
the use conditions. We considered
separate capacity limits for medium and
low-temperature systems as suggested
by Nor-Lake and analyzed by
Hillphoenix, but determined that
establishing just one value would
provide more clarity and ease of
implementation. We chose the lower of
Nor-Lake’s capacity of 2,200 Btu/hr as a
dividing line and explain how this
applies further below. In setting one
value, however, we considered the
similarity of the capacities suggested by
Nor-Lake, and the fact that these came
within the range of sizes analyzed by
Hillphoenix.
Although the 2,200 Btu/hr compressor
capacity delineation was based on the
particular comment from Nor-Lake,
neither that commenter nor others
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
indicated how that capacity would be
determined. EPA believes consensus
standards from AHRI, an association
representing manufacturers of such
equipment, may be used for this
purpose. In today’s final rule, we are
indicating that the capacity for a standalone unit is to be calculated based on
the compressor ratings as determined
under AHRI 540–2004, Performance
Rating of Positive Displacement
Refrigerant Compressors and
Compressor Units. Although ‘‘capacity’’
is not a rating specifically to be listed
under that standard, we note that
‘‘Compressor or Compressor Unit
Efficiency’’ and the ‘‘Power Input,’’
which are defined in that standard
under clauses 3.1 and 3.4, respectively,
are required data for the compressor to
be listed, per clause 6.2. The compressor
capacity is the product of those two
items, with adjustment to ensure the
result is in the correct units (i.e., Btu/
hr). Although a range of capacities may
be calculated, EPA is clarifying that to
determine whether the compressor
capacity is equal to or above 2,200 Btu/
hr, we expect the manufacturer to use
Table 1 of the standard and choose the
‘‘Standard Rating Condition’’ (defined
in clause 3.6.1) most appropriate for the
design and intended use of the product.
EPA notes that five standard rating
conditions are listed in the standard, for
instance at Suction Dew Point
Temperatures—which is related to the
designed food or beverage temperature
within the equipment—of 45 °F (7.2 °C),
20 °F (¥6.7 °C), ¥10 °F (¥23 °C), ¥25
°F (¥32 °C), and ¥40 °F (¥40 °C). By
referring to this table EPA believes the
dividing line between ‘‘small’’ and
‘‘large’’ condensing units also considers
the product application (e.g., ‘‘low’’ or
‘‘medium’’ temperature), as suggested
by Nor-Lake and analyzed by
Hillphoenix, and as discussed above.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(b) Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
For retrofit stand-alone equipment,
EPA proposed to change the listing for
R–404A and R–507A from acceptable to
unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. In
today’s final rule, we are establishing
the change of status date of July 20,
2016.
This action does not apply to
servicing existing equipment designed
for those two refrigerants or servicing
equipment that was retrofitted to use
those refrigerants before the January 1,
2016, status change date. For instance,
equipment designed for use with or
retrofitted to R–404A prior to July 20,
2016, would be allowed to continue to
operate using and could be serviced
with R–404A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
(1) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
While we do not believe retrofits are
common in stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment, a number of
refrigerants are listed as acceptable for
this purpose: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–
134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–
407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–
417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–421B, R–
422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–
424A, R–426A, R–427A, R–428A, R–
434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–450A, R–
513A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and
THR-03.79 R–448A and R–449A are also
listed acceptable for retrofitting standalone low-temperature units. We also
note that many of the refrigerants
remaining acceptable are blends with
small amounts of hydrocarbons. The
hydrocarbon content allows the
possibility of retrofitting equipment
from an ODS (which would have used
alkylbenzene or a mineral oil) without
changing the lubricant, whereas usually
a polyolester is required when
retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend.
Thus we believe these refrigerants are
designed for and would prove
successful in retrofits of stand-alone
equipment, should such a retrofit be
desired by the owner.
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA
provided information on the risk to
human health and the environment
presented by the alternatives that are
being found unacceptable compared
with other available alternatives. A
technical support document that
provides the additional Federal Register
citations concerning data on the SNAP
criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity,
flammability) for these alternatives may
be found in the docket to this
rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary,
the other available alternatives have
zero ODP as do those that we are finding
unacceptable. However, the refrigerants
remaining acceptable have GWPs
ranging from below 100 to 3,607, lower
than the GWPs of the two blends we are
finding unacceptable, which have GWPs
of 3,922 and 3,985. All of the
refrigerants remaining acceptable have
toxicity lower than or comparable to the
refrigerants whose listing status is
changing from acceptable to
unacceptable. The other available
refrigerants, as well as those we are
finding unacceptable, are not
flammable. None of the alternatives is
considered a VOC; however, some of the
79 HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs
are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42915
other available refrigerant blends
include small amounts (up to 3.4% by
mass) of VOC such as R–600 (butane)
and R–600a (isobutane). However, these
amounts are small, and EPA’s analysis
of hydrocarbon refrigerants shows that
even when used neat, they are not
expected to contribute significantly to
ground level ozone formation (ICF,
2014e). Because the risks other than
GWP are not significantly different for
the other available alternatives than
those we are listing as unacceptable and
because the GWP for the refrigerants we
are listing as unacceptable is
significantly higher and thus poses
significantly greater risk, we are listing
the following refrigerants as
unacceptable for retrofit stand-alone
refrigeration equipment: R–404A and R–
507A.
(2) When will the status change?
Commenters did not indicate any
technical challenges in retrofitting
stand-alone equipment with the
refrigerants that remain acceptable. In
fact, EIA felt ‘‘The poor energy
efficiency performance of R–404A is
another compelling reason to delist this
refrigerant and replace it with R–134a
for retrofits, which by comparison, has
shown a 10 percent efficiency gain.’’
EPA does not believe retrofits are nearly
as common for stand-alone equipment
as for other retail food refrigeration uses
considered in this final rule,
particularly supermarket systems.
However, similar to the other types of
retail food refrigeration addressed today,
EPA is providing one year to ensure that
any retrofits that are already underway
will have sufficient time to be
completed. Therefore, we are
establishing a change of status date of
July 20, 2016.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments
on retail food refrigeration (stand-alone
equipment)?
Comment: One commenter,
Honeywell, addressed the status change
date for retrofits and supported the
proposed date of January 2016.
Commenters suggested a wide-range
of dates for the status change for new
equipment. NRDC and IGSD urged EPA
to maintain the proposed status change
date of January 1, 2016 for new standalone units. These commenters pointed
out that coolers using transcritical R–
744 have already been developed.
Unified Brands stated ‘‘it will be
impossible to convert all our equipment
from R134a and R404A to R290 by
2016.’’
A number of commenters supported a
change of status a year or two later than
that proposed. Two refrigerant
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42916
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
producers, Honeywell and DuPont
suggested a change of status date of
2017 for new equipment to allow fuller
development of HFC/HFO blends that
require minimal design changes and
offer similar or better performance than
current refrigerants. Shecco indicated
that a date of January 1, 2018, was
needed for ‘‘smaller’’ manufacturers to
meet the requirements. Supermarket
Company ABC also supported a 2018
change of status date for new standalone equipment. H&K International
indicated R–290 is very energy efficient
and that 2018 would provide enough
time to transition. Another
manufacturer, Hatco, also believed a
‘‘January 1, 2018 implementation date
would provide the needed time to do
the necessary testing and certification
for a safe and effective conversion.’’
Other commenters supported a much
later change of status date for new
equipment. Approximately 30
manufacturers, two industry
associations representing equipment
manufacturers (AHRI and NAFEM), an
association representing supermarkets
(FMI), and a beverage supplier (CocaCola) suggested dates ranging from 2020
to 2025. True Manufacturing, indicated
they have been shipping products using
hydrocarbons and R–744 for several
years. Hillphoenix provided a
refrigerant change schedule that
discussed the development of R–744,
hydrocarbons and HFO blends; this
schedule suggested various dates for
different tasks for these three refrigerant
types. Based on the timeframes
associated with these tasks, they
suggested a change of status date of
January 1, 2022, for stand-alone
equipment. Lennox believed the NPRM
‘‘generally contemplates a wholesale
switch to hydrocarbon refrigerants’’ in
stand-alone equipment. NAFEM
indicated it would ‘‘take ten to twelve
years for manufacturers to convert their
product lines to use isobutene or
propane.’’
Response: As provided above in our
discussion of the status change dates we
are finalizing, we agree with the
commenters who suggest a few
additional years are needed for the
status change. However, we do not agree
that commenters advocating a lengthy
delay in the change of status provided
support for such a delay. As an initial
matter, to the extent that these
commenters identified concerns with
alternatives, their concerns were
focused on one refrigerant or class of
refrigerants and the commenters did not
consider the full range of available or
potentially available refrigerants.
Specifically, those comments appeared
to have focused on alternatives for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
which the most significant amount of
design changes would be necessary and
did not appear to consider the range of
available refrigerants, many of which
could be used with less significant
changes to designs. Manufacturers will
likely select different refrigerants for
different products. Those manufacturers
that are not interested in designing
equipment that uses hydrocarbon
refrigerants, given some of their stated
concerns with overcoming challenges
with safety and VOC issues, could select
a nonflammable fluorinated refrigerant
such as an HFC/HFO blend designed to
mimic many of the characteristics of the
refrigerants they are using today. EPA
believes such HFC/HFO blends will
become available by the status change
dates established in this rule and note
that R–448A, R–449A, R–450A and R–
513A are listed as acceptable in this
end-use category, with the latter two
being acceptable in stand-alone
medium-temperature equipment and all
four being acceptable in stand-alone
low-temperature equipment.
Furthermore, EPA points to the fact that
new HFC/HFO blends have been listed
as acceptable and that such blends
perform similarly to traditional
refrigerants and have proved to be as
efficient or even offer an efficiency
advantage. As discussed above, the
supply of these refrigerants is increasing
and the components to use them are in
development. EPA believes that by
finalizing a status change date for new
stand-alone equipment several years
later than proposed, manufacturers will
have the ability to choose such HFC/
HFO blends for their equipment, as well
as the other alternatives, including R–
290, R–441A, R–600a and R–744, which
have already been listed as acceptable or
acceptable, subject to use conditions.
There is ample supply of R–290 and R–
744; however, the technical difficulties
discussed with R–290 (particularly in
‘‘large’’ units) and R–744 suggest that
not all manufacturers will be able to
convert their products and undergo the
testing and certification necessary
before that equipment can be sold.
Because the HFC/HFO blends are
designed to mimic the performance of
the refrigerants they replace, the
adoption of those is expected to take
less time; however, there is only limited
supply of those refrigerants now. Given
the limited current supply, the initiation
of the product conversion, testing and
certification would not start until
approximately 2016–2017, and hence
manufacturers would not be able to
provide products using these
alternatives until approximately 2019–
2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
As pointed out by Honeywell and
DuPont, some of the HFC/HFO blend
alternatives, such as R–448A, R–449A,
R–450A and R–513A, can be used with
little adjustment to existing designs,
show energy efficiencies equal to or
better than current refrigerants. While
there is not currently sufficient supply
of these refrigerants, Honeywell and
DuPont have indicated that production
facilities for the components are on-line
(see V.C.2.a.1 above) and that the blends
will be made available after listed
acceptable with SNAP. As noted
previously, Honeywell has stated that
R–450A supplies will be ‘‘available
soon’’ and multiple component
manufacturers are developing
equipment that uses these alternatives.
Hillphoenix’s refrigerant change
schedule indicates that ‘‘Lab/User
Testing’’ and ‘‘Test & Verification’’ is
already underway with such blends.
These blends offer equipment
manufacturers additional energy
efficient options to rapidly transition
out of refrigerants listed as unacceptable
while also avoiding some of the
concerns (e.g., flammability, charge size
limits, operation in hot temperatures)
manufacturers indicated exist with
other alternatives such as R–290 and R–
744.
Several commenters pointed out that
at least some part of their product line
can be converted to R–290 and some
manufacturers are already offering
products to the market using these
options. For instance, Hillphoenix’s
refrigerant change schedule indicates
that the step of ‘‘Convert Products’’ for
‘‘Hydrocarbons (on applicable systems)’’
can begin in 2015 and continue after
that until 2020. They did not provide a
full explanation of why the process
would continue until 2020; however,
EPA sees from commenters that there
will be time necessary to develop
products and have them undergo the
testing and certification necessary to sell
such products. EPA believes that by our
status change dates of 2019 and 2020,
and not before, manufacturers will be
able to complete the development of
products using R–290 or other
hydrocarbons. EPA also believes that
testing and certification resources are
available to meet this deadline, and that
more can be created if there is a demand
for them.
As many commenters pointed out,
compliance with new DOE energy
conservation standards for certain
commercial refrigeration equipment is
required on March 27, 2017 and for
stand-alone walk-in coolers and freezers
is required on June 5, 2017 (see also
sections V.C.1.b and V.C.7). EPA is
establishing change of status dates of
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
January 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, for
stand-alone units. This allows
additional time after compliance is
required with the DOE standards for
manufacturers to potentially redesign
any products that require additional
engineering to meet both this rule and
the DOE standards. With 2019 and 2020
change of status dates, manufacturers
have the opportunity to integrate lowGWP refrigerants in their models now as
they prepare for the DOE requirements
for some or all of their products. Other
products already meeting those DOE
standards but utilizing refrigerants that
we are listing as unacceptable may be
redesigned after the DOE deadline to
ensure compliance with both EPA and
DOE requirements. Given that some
HFC/HFO blends, such as R–450A and
R–513A, were designed to mimic HFC–
134a in medium-temperature
refrigeration, and others, such as R–
448A and R–449A, were designed to
mimic R–404A in low-temperature
refrigeration, EPA believes that these
42917
can be adopted into manufacturers’
products with minor changes while still
meeting the DOE requirements, once
supplies of those refrigerants are made
available to the manufacturers.
5. What is EPA finalizing for vending
machines?
The change of status determination
for vending machines is summarized in
the following table:
TABLE 7—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR VENDING MACHINES
End-use
Substitutes
Vending machines (new only) ..
Vending machines (retrofit only)
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019.
(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), SP34E.
R–404A, R–507A ...................................................................... Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016.
(a) New Vending Machines
EPA proposed to change the listing for
HFC–134a and 20 other refrigerants for
new vending machines from acceptable
to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. In
today’s final rule, EPA is changing the
listing for HFC–134a and 19 other
refrigerants for new vending machines
from acceptable to unacceptable as of
January 1, 2019. While EPA proposed to
change the status from acceptable to
unacceptable for IKON B, EPA is not
changing the status for this refrigerant in
this final rule for the reasons provided
below.
The 19 other refrigerants in addition
to HFC–134a are: FOR12A, FOR12B,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407C, R–410A, R–
410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R–
422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–437A, R–
438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002
formulation), and SP34E.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(1) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are
acceptable or acceptable subject to use
conditions for new vending machines:
IKON A, IKON B, R–290, R–441A, R–
450A, R–513A, R–600a, R–744, and
THR-02.80
In the NPRM, EPA provided
information on the risk to human health
and the environment presented by the
alternatives that are being found
unacceptable and those that remain
acceptable. Subsequent to the issuance
of the proposal, EPA listed R–290, R–
80 HCFC–22 and some blends containing HCFCs
are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Decision
Jkt 235001
441A and R–600a, as acceptable, subject
to use conditions (April 10, 2015, 80 FR
19453). In addition, concurrently with
this rule, EPA is listing R–450A and R–
513A acceptable in new vending
machines. A technical support
document that provides the additional
Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP,
GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
these alternatives may be found in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA,
2015d). In summary, the other available
refrigerants for new vending machines
have zero ODP and GWPs ranging from
1 to about 630. In contrast, those we are
finding unacceptable have GWPs
ranging from approximately 1,100 to
3,985. IKON B, which we proposed but
are not finalizing to be unacceptable,
has a GWP around 600. R–290, R–600a,
and R–441A are or are composed
primarily of VOCs. We have exempted
R–290, R–600a and R–441A used in
vending machines from the venting
prohibition (80 FR 19453). EPA’s
analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use are not
expected to contribute significantly to
ground level ozone formation (ICF,
2014e). These three substitutes are also
flammable; however, the use conditions
specified ensure that they do not pose
greater overall risk than any of the
substitutes currently listed as acceptable
in new vending machines.81 None of the
refrigerants currently listed as
acceptable present significant human
health toxicity concerns or other
81 The risks due to the flammability of these
refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the
SNAP rule finding them acceptable, subject to use
conditions (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453). Refer to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0748.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the
refrigerants we are finding unacceptable
are similar in ODP (zero ODP), toxicity
(low toxicity), and VOC (non-VOC or
not expected to contribute significantly
to ground level ozone formation). When
the three hydrocarbon substitutes are
used in accordance with the use
conditions, their flammability risks are
not significantly greater than those of
the unacceptable alternatives. Because
the risks other than GWP are not
significantly different for the other
available alternatives than those we are
listing as unacceptable and because the
GWP for the refrigerants we are listing
as unacceptable is significantly higher
and thus poses significantly greater risk,
we are listing the following refrigerants
as unacceptable for new vending
machines: HFC–134a, FOR12A,
FOR12B, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407C, R–
410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–
422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–
437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002
formulation), and SP34E.
(2) When will the status change?
EPA is establishing a change of status
date for the specified HFC refrigerants
in new vending machines of January 1,
2019.
For new vending machines, there are
several alternatives that can meet the
technological needs of the market. EIA
states that ‘‘R–744, R–290, R–441A, and
isobutene (‘R–600a’) can satisfy the vast
majority of the current market for
refrigerants in . . . vending machines.’’
We are aware of products using R–290
and R–744 that are already in use.
According to Shecco, based on its
October 2014 survey, the manufacturers
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42918
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
of vending machines they surveyed ‘‘are
already today able to produce sufficient
amount of such equipment [R–290 and
R–744] to cover the needs of the entire
market. All of the interviewed
manufacturers confirmed that they plan
to covert [sic] their whole
manufacturing facilities to hydrocarbons
and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.’’ While
the alternatives that remain acceptable
will be able to meet the technical
constraints for this equipment, time will
be needed for the transition to occur. On
the aspect of timing, Shecco supported
a status change date of January 1, 2018,
although their survey suggested some
manufacturers might not convert until
2019. Shecco indicated that the supply
of HFC-free vending machines has been
increasing over the last two years. Other
commenters suggested that four to five
years would be required, mentioning in
particular the supply of components as
a major obstacle in achieving the
proposed January 1, 2016, status change
date. While we agree that manufacturers
will be able to produce equipment using
lower-GWP refrigerants addressing a
large portion of the market in the period
of 2016–2017, we also agree that there
are some technical challenges that
support a change of status date of 2019
for this end-use.
Commenters indicated several
necessary steps that will need to occur,
including development and testing of
components, such as compressors, for
the full range of vending machines. In
addition, engineering, development, and
testing to meet standards, such as those
from DOE, of the products would start
as components became available.
Modifications to the factory could be
required, ranging from a simpler change
of the refrigerant storage area to
reconfiguration of the factory to address
concerns such as ventilation or other
safety measures. Information submitted
by the commenters supported that for
the portion of the vending machines
that have not already transitioned to a
lower-GWP refrigerant, these actions
could take a few months or up to a
couple of years. However, it is likely
that these actions could occur
simultaneous with other steps such as
equipment design and testing.
One manufacturer identified two
refrigerant types: R–744 and
hydrocarbons. Refrigerant producers
also pointed towards HFC/HFO blends
as a third group. For R–744, we do not
see any question regarding refrigerant
supply. Information submitted by the
commenters support that some
components are already available. CocaCola indicated time was needed for
testing and certifying new models of
vending machines; however, additional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
information indicated that various types
of R–744 vending machines are already
available or are expected to be available
by January 1, 2016. Pepsi has testmarketed R–744 vending machines in
the United States as early as 2009.82 The
Automated Merchandising Systems
(AMS) however stated that R–744 was
unlikely as a viable substitute for its
equipment, especially for the perishable
food vending machines it offers.
Although EPA did not see the technical
detail to allow us to conclude that R–
744 would not be a viable choice for
such equipment, we agree that
additional time beyond our proposed
status change date is needed to explore
that and other acceptable substitutes for
this equipment. The comments support
that equipment can be designed, tested
and certified using R–744 by January 1,
2019.
Comments also supported that some
components and equipment using
hydrocarbons are available. AMS stated
that one hurdle for using R–290 is
finding 120-volt, 60-hertz components
for the U.S. and Canadian markets. AMS
also echoed the concern of Coca-Cola
that more time is needed for testing and
certifying new models of vending
machines. EPA agrees time beyond the
originally proposed January 1, 2016,
status change date is necessary for
further development of R–290
components and for necessary testing
and certification of R–290 vending
machines. Information in the comments
indicate that some R–290 components
are available from multiple suppliers
and we believe that these components
could be employed in vending
machines.
In summary, to use hydrocarbons
refrigerants, comments support that
approximately three and a half years are
needed for equipment to become fully
available. This includes six months to
test and design products using the
available R–290 components and an
additional year to two years for
development of other components and
equipment designs. Equipment
development and testing would occur in
series, with the final units being
developed and ready for testing
approximately six months after the
components for that unit were available.
Testing and certification would likewise
occur as products were developed and
would span up to three years, much of
which while other actions are occurring.
We estimate the final units might take
82 PepsiCo, 2009. ‘‘PepsiCo Brings First ClimateFriendly Vending Machines to the U.S.,’’ March 30,
2009, this document is accessible at
www.pepsico.com/live/pressrelease/pepsico-bringsfirst-climate-friendly-vending-machines-to-theus03302009.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
an additional six months to test and
certify once developed. As discussed
above, any required modifications to the
factory line and facilities would occur
concurrently if a manufacturer chose to
use R–290 or another acceptable
hydrocarbon refrigerant. Hence, EPA
believes that new vending machines
could be available and in compliance
with a status change date of January 1,
2019.
Comments also support that other
options besides R–744 and
hydrocarbons may be explored for those
products that have not yet transitioned.
Concurrently with this rule, EPA is
listing two HFC/HFO blends, R–450A
and R–513A, as acceptable for new
vending machines. Although
commenters did not indicate a current
supply of components for these
refrigerants, information indicates that
component suppliers are committing
additional resources to develop them.
EPA believes their adoption can happen
quickly as they are both nonflammable
blends and are designed to mimic the
performance of HFC–134a, the only
refrigerant indicated by a manufacturer
as used in its vending machines. As
noted earlier, Honeywell, the producer
of R–450A, indicated that it will be
supplying that refrigerant soon. We
expect that the refrigerant producers
will be able to fully supply these blends
in a year or two. EPA expects that
components designed for the vending
machine market using one or both of
these blends could be developed within
the next year to eighteen months as
more refrigerant supplies become
available. As components become
available, additional design and testing
in vending machines could begin.
Because the comments indicated only
one refrigerant to be replaced, and
because the HFC/HFO blends are
designed to mimic that refrigerant,
equipment development time for
vending machines is expected to be
shorter than other end-uses, perhaps
adding only six months. Limited factory
modifications, if any, could happen
concurrently with the design work. As
with other refrigerants, EPA would
expect equipment testing and
certification to be rolled out as
equipment models are redesigned, with
the last units being available
approximately six months after designs
are developed.
In summary, we find that HFC/HFO
blends could be implemented to meet
the January 1, 2019, status change date
for new vending machines.
(b) Retrofit Vending Machines
For retrofit vending machines, EPA
proposed to change the listing for R–
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
404A and R–507A from acceptable to
unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. In
today’s final rule, we are finalizing a
change of status of July 20, 2016 similar
to the retail food end-uses considered in
this final action. EPA does not believe
retrofits are nearly as common in
vending machines as for some of the
retail food refrigeration uses,
particularly supermarket systems.
However, similar to the retail food
refrigeration addressed today, EPA is
providing one year to ensure that any
retrofits that are already underway, will
have sufficient time to be completed.
This action does not apply to
servicing existing equipment designed
for those two refrigerants or servicing
equipment that was retrofitted to use
those refrigerants before the January 1,
2016, status change date. For instance,
vending machines designed for use with
or retrofitted to use R–404A or R507A
prior to July 20, 2016, would be allowed
to continue to operate using and could
be serviced with that refrigerant.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
A number of refrigerants are
acceptable for retrofitting vending
machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–
134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–
407C, R–417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–
422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–
437A, R–438A, R–448A, R–449A, R–
450A, R–513A, RS-24 (2002
formulation), SP34E, and THR-02.83
We do not believe retrofits are
common in vending machines. Many of
the refrigerants remaining acceptable are
blends with small amounts of
hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content
allows the possibility of retrofitting
equipment from an ODS (which would
have used alkylbenzene or a mineral oil)
without changing the lubricant, whereas
usually a polyolester is required when
retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend.
Thus we believe these refrigerants
would prove successful in retrofits of
vending machines, should such a
retrofit be desired by the owner.
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA
provided information on the risk to
human health and the environment
presented by the alternatives that are
being found unacceptable and those that
remain acceptable. A technical support
document that provides the additional
Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP,
GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
83 HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs
are also listed as available but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
these alternatives may be found in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA,
2015d). In summary, other alternatives
have zero ODP and have GWPs ranging
from below 100 to 3,085, lower than the
GWPs of the two blends we are finding
unacceptable, which have GWPs of
3,922 and 3,985. All of the refrigerants
remaining acceptable have toxicity
lower than or comparable to the
refrigerants whose listing status is
changing from acceptable to
unacceptable. None of the refrigerants
that remain acceptable or those that are
being listed as unacceptable is
flammable. None of the alternatives is
considered a VOC; however, some of the
refrigerant blends that remain
acceptable include small amounts (up to
3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R–600
(butane) and R–600a (isobutane).
However, these amounts are small, and
EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon
refrigerants show even when used neat
they are not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone
formation (ICF, 2014e). Because the
risks other than GWP are not
significantly different for the other
available alternatives than those we are
listing as unacceptable and because the
GWP for the refrigerants we are listing
as unacceptable is significantly higher
and thus poses significantly greater risk,
we are listing the following refrigerants
as unacceptable for retrofit vending
machines: R–404A and R–507A.
(2) When will the status change?
Commenters did not indicate any
technical challenges in retrofitting
vending machines with the refrigerants
that remain acceptable. In fact, EIA felt
‘‘The poor energy efficiency
performance of R–404A is another
compelling reason to delist this
refrigerant and replace it with R–134a
for retrofits, which by comparison, has
shown a 10 percent efficiency gain.’’ As
discussed above, however, commenters
indicated that plans may be underway
and that adequate time should be given
to allow for those plans to be
implemented or changed. Therefore, we
are establishing a change of status date
of July 20, 2016.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments
on vending machines?
Comment: Honeywell supported the
proposed date for retrofit vending
machines. Regarding new vending
machines, NRDC and IGSD believed the
proposed status change date of January
1, 2016, was feasible and stated that the
Consumer Goods Forum has pledged to
transition completely out of HFC
equipment by the end of 2015.
Honeywell and DuPont, suggested a
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42919
change of status date of 2017 for new
vending machines to allow fuller
development of additional alternatives
that would require minimal design
changes and offer similar or better
performance than current refrigerants.
Shecco felt that while the large
manufacturers could meet the proposed
date, a date of January 1, 2018, would
allow for smaller manufacturers to meet
the requirements. The Coca-Cola
Company claimed the change of status
date for new vending machines should
be no earlier than January 1, 2020, to
allow time for the development of
additional compressor models of its
preferred alternative to cover a full
range of required capacities. AMS, a
vending machine manufacturer, believes
that one option that is being pursued on
the beverage side, R–744, is not a viable
solution for perishable food vending
equipment. This manufacturer
recommends a January 1, 2020, change
of status date to allow for development
of additional alternatives. The National
Automatic Merchandising Association
(NAMA) indicated that the conversion
timeline is likely to be four or five years,
although some of its members estimate
the timeline to be as much as eight
years, based on the experience of the
mid-1990s when companies phased out
the use of CFC–12.
Response: We acknowledge the
comment supporting the proposed date
of January 1, 2016 for retrofit vending
machines and note that we are finalizing
that change of status date as proposed.
We do not agree with NAMA that the
switch away from CFC–12 in the mid1990s supports a four, five or even eight
year period. The phaseout of CFC–12
consumption was January 1, 1996, less
than two years after the initial SNAP
listings were issued. Regardless, each
transition is unique and the timing for
transitions can vary end-use by end-use
and even for the same end-uses
depending on a number of factors, such
as whether alternatives that perform
similarly to the current refrigerant can
be used or whether significant design
changes may need to occur.
Regarding this current action for
vending machines, the transition away
from the substitutes we are listing as
unacceptable is already underway based
on public commitments made by some
of the largest purchasers of vending
machines. Shecco conducted a survey of
vending machine manufacturers in
October 2014 and found that all were
planning to convert to hydrocarbons
and/or R–744 in the 2018/2019
timeframe at the latest. Many companies
have already made significant progress.
For example, the Coca-Cola Company
has placed over 1.4 million HFC-free
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42920
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
units globally and EIA indicates that
‘‘Pepsi is approaching 1 million
hydrocarbon vending machines which
use 20 percent less energy than Energy
Star requirements.’’ There has been
success developing and deploying
vending machines with R–744,
including the manufacture of
components for those machines. EIA
enumerated four manufacturers offering
hydrocarbon compressors and
components for light commercial uses,
including vending machines. Although
Coca-Cola requested a 2020 change of
status date, other information listing
commercialization plans for low-GWP
stand-alone equipment and vending
machines indicated that by January 1,
2016, all of the vending machines in
that list were expected to be available
with low-GWP refrigerants. However,
other commenters indicated that more
components need to be developed for
different types of vending machines to
support a complete transition. AMS
stated that more components for R–290
suitable for the U.S. and Canadian
power supply (e.g., 60 Hz) were needed.
We agree that the choice of components
to-date has been limited but we see that
it is growing and expect it to continue
to grow, especially considering that two
large U.S. purchasers of vending
machines have committed to move to
non-HFC technologies. R–744, R–290
and R–600a components used in other
products, like stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment, may also be
adaptable for vending machines.
Thus, although significant progress
has been made, in particular with the
use of R–744 in vending machines that
dispense canned beverages, it is
necessary to provide some additional
time beyond the proposed date of
January 1, 2016 to allow further
development of components for
different types of vending machines and
also to allow further development of
components using other alternative
refrigerants.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
6. General Comments on the Retail Food
Refrigeration and Vending Machine
End-Uses
(a) Specific Numerical Limits for GWP
Comment: Unisom Comfort
Technologies requested that EPA
consider banning all refrigerants with
GWP greater than 10, as there are very
many existing alternatives. DuPont
recommended that EPA change the
status to unacceptable for all
alternatives which generally have GWPs
above 1,500, such as the R–407 series
refrigerants. They suggested this limit
‘‘for new and retrofit refrigeration and
vending applications.’’ DuPont
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
indicated that by January 1, 2017, there
will be multiple low-GWP alternatives
commercially available. Another
refrigerant producer, Honeywell,
recommended a GWP limit for new
supermarket systems and remote
condensing units of 1,500 and a GWP
limit of 2,000 for retrofitted equipment,
based on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5). For new stand-alone
equipment and vending machines,
Honeywell recommended a GWP limit
of 600 (using AR5 GWPs) for HFC–134a
replacements and 1,500 for R–404A
replacements. CARB suggested adding
an additional restriction for all
commercial refrigeration to find
unacceptable all HFCs with a GWP
greater than 1,500 starting in 2018 and
all those with a GWP greater than 150
in 2023. Unison Comfort Technologies
implored us to ‘‘seriously consider
banning all refrigerants with GWP>10.’’
Response: EPA’s proposal was limited
to determinations for the specific
refrigerants proposed which pose
significantly greater risk than other
available refrigerants, and we cannot
take final action changing the status of
additional refrigerants without first
providing notice and an opportunity for
comment. EPA may consider whether to
include additional refrigerants in a
future proposed status change rule in
which EPA would provide the necessary
analysis of the SNAP criteria and an
opportunity for public comment.
Regarding the suggestion that we
establish a specific numerical limit for
GWP, as noted in Section IV.B, the
structure of the SNAP program, which
is based on a comparative framework of
available substitutes at the time a
decision is being made, does not
support the use of such limits. We note
that in making our decision for new and
retrofit supermarket systems and remote
condensing units, EPA pointed to the
multi-year history of the successful use
of some blends that remain acceptable
to support the ‘‘availability’’ of
alternatives that pose less risk than
those we are listing as unacceptable.
Many of these blends have GWPs higher
than the limits recommended by the
commenters. Thus, at this time, we do
not believe an analysis of refrigerants
below those limits recommended by the
commenters with those above the limit
and which remain acceptable would
support a conclusion that the lowerGWP refrigerants are available for use,
as many have not been demonstrated to
be technically feasible for products and
systems in these specific end-use
categories. As noted previously, there
are a number of technical challenges
that must be addressed in selecting a
refrigerant for use in a specific system
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and we do not have information
supporting use of these lower-GWP
refrigerants. However, as we see from
the current action, the refrigeration
industry has made great progress in the
last five to ten years in moving toward
lower-GWP alternatives and we see that
momentum continuing. Therefore, it is
possible that at some future date, we
could determine to list additional
alternatives as unacceptable based on a
determination that there are lower-GWP
alternatives available that, based on
consideration of the SNAP review
criteria, pose lower overall risk.
(b) Comments and Responses
Concerning Small Businesses
Comment: Commercial Food
Equipment Service Association
(CFESA), an organization representing
service companies and technicians,
suggested a timeline ‘‘ideally extended
to 10 years for small businesses’’ and
‘‘no less than 5 years’’ for large
companies. Shecco believed that many
of the smaller manufacturers lag behind
the larger companies in the switch away
from HFC–134a in stand-alone
equipment and vending machines. They
suggested a January 1, 2018, change of
status date would provide sufficient
time for these smaller companies,
‘‘enabling them to remain in the
marketplace and ensuring healthy
competition in this area.’’
Response: EPA does not agree that a
different change of status date should
apply to large companies as compared
to small companies. The available
alternatives that pose lower risk than
those subject to the status change are
equally available to businesses of all
sizes. Under SNAP, EPA has not used
the ‘‘size’’ of the user as a basis for its
listing decisions and the commenter
provides no basis related to the scope
and purpose of the SNAP program to do
so in this instance. EPA’s decision
regarding the status change dates for
new retail food refrigeration equipment
and new vending machines was based
on the technical challenges faced by
businesses of all sizes in adopting new
refrigerants successfully in these
products.
Comment: Some commenters
indicated that they believe additional
time is needed for smaller companies,
especially businesses in the standalone/self-contained retail food
refrigeration end-use that manufacture
custom-built equipment and produce
hundreds of models. The commenters
also indicated particular challenges and
disadvantages for small businesses as
compared to larger businesses.
Response: We note that transition
timelines in the NPRM were based on
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
the Agency’s information concerning
the availability of alternatives for
businesses of all sizes and we did not
provide separate change of status dates
for different size businesses. We address
these concerns further in the previous
comment and response.
(c) Suggestion Regarding Education and
Training
Comment: CFESA points to the need
for ‘‘proper education and safety
training for a successful and safe
transition away from current refrigerants
to the flammable or scarce refrigerants
EPA deems acceptable.’’ Other
commenters likewise stated training of
factory employees and service
technicians would be required,
especially if hydrocarbon refrigerants
were employed.
Response: Because CFESA and others
reference flammable refrigerants, EPA
believes this comment is particular to
stand-alone equipment and vending
machines, where certain flammable
refrigerants are currently acceptable
subject to use conditions. However, for
these two end-uses, not all refrigerants
listed as acceptable are flammable.
Acceptable alternatives for stand-alone
equipment and vending machines, such
as R–448A, R–449A, R–450A and R–
513A, are nonflammable and operate at
similar characteristics to R–404A and
HFC–134a. CFESA does not specify
which refrigerants it considers scarce.
Nonflammable R–744 refrigerant, for
example, is in ample supply. While
some other refrigerants have not been
produced in large quantities to date,
production is increasing as demand
increases, including R–448A, R–449A,
R–450A and R–513A. Honeywell
indicates that R–450A is soon to be
produced in commercial quantities, and
EPA expects it, along with other HFC/
HFO blends, will be available by the
change of status dates of 2019 and 2020
for vending machines and stand-alone
equipment. With respect to technician
training, EPA agrees proper education
and training is valuable, and we note
that there are already many
manufacturers and suppliers who have
been conducting such training. For
example, Shecco notes that ‘‘The GUIDE
North America 2013 84 report has
identified at least 165 [Heating,
Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and
Refrigeration] HVAC&R System &
Component Manufacturers, and
Engineering Contractors in the United
States working with natural refrigerants
already today. In reality we have a
84 Shecco, 2013a: GUIDE 2013: Natural
Refrigerants—Market Growth for North America,
publication.shecco.com/publications/view/6
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
reason to believe that this number is
much higher.’’ Coke noted that it has
developed and trained a servicing
network as it introduced R–744
equipment. Included in the docket to
this rule is Hydrocarbon Refrigerants—
A Study Guide for Service Technicians,
published by the Refrigeration Service
Engineers Society (RSES), that could be
used for those wishing to service new
stand-alone units and new vending
machines using R–290, R–441A or R–
600a.
The HFC/HFO blend alternatives,
identified above, are nonflammable and
operate at similar characteristics to
those subject to the status change and
therefore technicians should require
only minimal extra training to use them.
Because different change of status dates
apply for the different refrigeration enduses technicians will have an
opportunity to stagger training relevant
for the different end-uses and they can
build their skills across those end-uses
over time.
7. Energy Efficiency Considerations
DOE has promulgated, in separate
rulemakings and under separate
authority, energy conservation
standards for several types of
equipment, including products that are
affected by this rule. See section V.C.1.b
for information regarding DOE energy
conservation standards that are
applicable to the equipment addressed
in this rule. New equipment subject to
this rule would need to meet the DOE
requirements and the requirements of
the status change by the dates
established in these rules.85 We note
that for each of these end-uses, there are
many compliant models already
commercially available that do not use
the refrigerants subject to a change of
status. Furthermore, for all the
equipment subject to today’s rule, there
are examples, highlighted below, that
show the energy efficiency using
alternative refrigerants not subject to a
change in status can be at least as good
as, and often better than, the energy
85 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42921
efficiency of equipment using
refrigerants whose status will change to
unacceptable.
We note that we do not have a
practice in the SNAP program of
including energy efficiency in the
overall risk analysis. We do, however,
consider issues such as technical needs
for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE
standards) in determining whether
alternatives are ‘‘available.’’ EPA
recognizes that the energy efficiency of
particular models of equipment is a
significant factor when choosing
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.
Although we cannot know what energy
efficiency will be achieved in future
products using a specific acceptable
refrigerant, we can point to both actual
equipment and testing results that show
promise and often better results than the
equipment using the refrigerants that we
are finding unacceptable. (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2014–0198–0134, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2014–0198–0184, EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–
0198–0077). We recognize that, while
theoretical efficiency of any given
Rankine cycle is not dependent on the
refrigerant used, the refrigerant, the
design of the equipment, and other
factors will affect the actual energy
efficiency achieved.
The efficiency can change based on
the refrigerant chosen and there are
various metrics, such as Total
Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) and
Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP),
that account for climate effects of both
emissions of the refrigerant and the
possible emissions of greenhouse gases,
primarily carbon dioxide, from the
source of power to operate equipment.
Quantification of the portions of TEWI/
LCCP from the refrigerant and energy
use can only be done using broad
assumptions that would not be
applicable to all users of the myriad
equipment models that are affected by
today’s rule. As noted in section
V.C.1.b, energy conservation standards
set by the DOE apply to some of the
equipment covered by today’s rule (e.g.,
stand-alone equipment, vending
machines). If manufacturers were to
offer equipment that meets, but does not
exceed, that standard (or any other
standard, such as ENERGY STAR®),
then the indirect emissions from energy
use would be the same regardless of
which refrigerant were used. In that
case, the refrigerant emissions would be
the only factor that would decide which
system has a lower TEWI or LCCP.
Manufacturers that wish to exceed
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42922
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
energy efficiency requirements may do
so with any acceptable refrigerant they
choose. Although some refrigerants will
in the future be listed as unacceptable
as determined in this final action, that
does not directly affect the theoretical
energy efficiency possible. As noted
below, the results to date for actual
equipment using acceptable alternatives
do not show any significant decline in
energy efficiency and often show the
reverse. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–
0134, EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0184,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0077).
While various sources of data on energy
efficiency results from testing
acceptable refrigerants show varying
results, we believe that with new
designs to use these refrigerants, any
lower energy efficiency results can be
overcome and likewise existing energy
efficiency levels can be improved.
Throughout the history of the SNAP
program, EPA has seen the energy
efficiency of refrigeration and airconditioning 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 many cases,
technological improvement and
optimization of equipment designs and
controls has increased energy efficiency.
Although today’s rule lists some
refrigerants as unacceptable, we do not
believe it will 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, which remains acceptable for
the refrigeration end-uses addressed in
this rule, and R–290 and R–600a, which
remain acceptable subject to use
conditions for new stand-alone
equipment and new vending machines.
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0134,
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Magazine, 2015).86 As part of our review
of whether alternatives are ‘‘available,’’
we determined that equipment has been
designed for and is capable of meeting
existing requirements such as the DOE
energy conservation standards. Below
we highlight the energy efficiency gains
that have been reported for the
commercial refrigeration end-uses and
end-use categories affected by today’s
rule.
Theoretical and prototype testing
show similarly good energy efficiency
results. For instance, in supermarket
refrigeration, a theoretical analysis
(Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014)
examined the energy use of R–407A and
R–410A, both of which are on the list
of acceptable substitutes, against that of
R–404A, which is listed as unacceptable
in new supermarket systems as of
January 1, 2017. 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 mediumtemperature equipment, the net effect
would be for the equipment using those
alternatives to use less energy than
equipment currently designed to use R–
404A. We have pointed out in Section
V.C.2 above that R–407A in particular is
widely used and we might expect it to
be used in a large share of supermarkets
after the change of status date. This
analysis showed similar increases in
energy efficiency of new supermarket
and stand-alone equipment using a
variety of low-GWP refrigerants as
compared with equipment currently
using R–404A.
The analysis also showed a slightly
higher energy consumption by standalone equipment designed to use other
alternatives as compared with one
designed to use R–404A. One user of
stand-alone equipment did not provide
any specific results, but stated that ‘‘HC
freezers are significantly more energyefficient.’’ (Ben and Jerry’s, 2014). True
recently displayed several stand-alone
units using R–290 refrigerant that were
reported to be 15% more efficient than
similar equipment using HFC–134a and
R–404A.87 Similar results were seen by
DuPont, who found that R–449A
reduced energy usage when used in a
display case connected to a remote
condensing unit. They found that the
energy consumption using this
refrigerant was 2% to 3% less than R–
404A in low-temperature tests and 8%
to 12% less in medium-temperature
tests. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–
0077).
Similar results are being seen with
vending machines. As noted in the
NPRM, one purchaser of vending
machines indicated that while
introducing over one million units using
R–744, they have increased the energy
efficiency of their cooling equipment
86 Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine,
2015. ‘‘Coca Cola to narrowly miss HFC-free global
refrigeration target’’ (www.racplus.com/news/cocacola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global-refrigerationtarget/8680290.article).
87 Shecco, 2013b. ‘‘HCs gaining market
prominence in US—view from The NAFE Show—
Part 1’’ February 18, 2013. This document is
accessible at www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/
viewprintable/3891.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
over 40% since 2000, at which time
such equipment was exclusively using
HFC–134a (Coca-Cola, 2014). More
recently, it was reported that 78% of
Coca Cola’s models (vending machines
and stand-alone cases) perform more
efficiently than HFC units.
(Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Magazine, 2015). Furthermore, it has
been reported that PepsiCo has placed
nearly one million hydrocarbon vending
machines on the market and that these
use 20% less energy than ENERGY
STAR requirements.
As new products are designed to use
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. These opportunities and
the examples provided are indicative
that when redesigning equipment for a
new refrigerant, energy efficiency is
often improved. Multiple companies
have reported such gains in the
equipment covered by today’s rule, for
instance with R–407A or R–744 in
supermarket systems, with HFC/HFO
blends in remote condensing units, and
with hydrocarbons and R–744 in standalone equipment and vending machines
D. Foam Blowing Agents
1. Background
Foams are plastics (such as PU 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.
A variety of foam blowing agents have
been used for these applications.
Historically, CFCs and HCFCs were
typically used to blow foam given their
favorable chemical properties. CFCs and
HCFCs are controlled substances under
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
HCFCs, which have a longer phaseout period than CFCs since they are less
potent ozone-depleting substances, have
continued to be used to some extent as
foam blowing agents. In addition, 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, methylal, methyl
formate, HFO–1234ze(E), HFO–
1336mzz(Z), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice 1233zd(E)).
Blowing agents are approved on an
end-use basis. The SNAP program
considers the following end-uses:
• Rigid PU (appliance foam) includes
insulation foam in domestic
refrigerators and freezers.
• Rigid PU (spray, commercial
refrigeration, and sandwich panels)
includes buoyancy foams, insulation for
roofing, wall, pipes, metal doors,
vending machines, coolers, and
refrigerated transport vehicles.
• Rigid PU (slabstock and other)
includes insulation for panels and
pipes.
• Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock includes
insulation for roofing and walls.
• Flexible PU includes foam in
furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and
shoe soles.
• Integral skin PU includes car
steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe
soles.
• Polystyrene (extruded sheet)
includes foam for packaging and
buoyancy or flotation.
• Polystyrene (extruded boardstock
and billet) includes insulation for
roofing, walls, floors, and pipes.
• Polyolefin includes foam sheets and
tubes.
• Phenolic insulation board and
bunstock includes insulation for roofing
and walls.
2. What is EPA finalizing for foam
blowing agents?
For foam blowing end-uses, EPA
proposed to change the status for several
substitutes, as of January 1, 2017, as
follows:
• HFC–134a and blends thereof as
unacceptable for all 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 enduses where they were on the list of
acceptable substitutes at the time of
proposal, except for rigid PU spray
foam; and
42923
• The HFC blend Formacel TI as
unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where it was on the list of
acceptable substitutes at the time of
proposal.
After considering the comments
received on the proposed rule, EPA is
making several changes to what it
proposed in this final action. First, EPA
is creating narrowed use limits for HFC–
134a and blends thereof, for HFC–
365mfc and blends thereof, and HFC–
245fa and blends thereof for all foam
blowing end-uses except rigid PU spray
foam. EPA is also creating narrowed use
limits for certain HFC blends, including
Formacel TI, Formacel Z–6, and
Formacel B, for those end-uses that were
on the list of acceptable substitutes at
the time of proposal. For all these
substitutes, the narrowed use limits
would be for 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. For all other
uses in these identified end-uses, the
status would change to unacceptable,
with the exception of rigid PU spray
foam, for which we are not taking final
action in this rule. Second, we are
establishing change of status dates that
range from January 1, 2017, to January
1, 2021. And, further, for the uses
subject to the narrowed use limits, the
status would change to unacceptable as
of January 1, 2022. The change of status
determination for each end-use is
summarized in the following table:
TABLE 8—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS
Substitutes
Decision *
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance .................................
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and
Sandwich Panels.
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation Foam .............
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
End-use
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.
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 for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2019. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42924
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 8—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—Continued
End-use
Substitutes
Decision *
Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock.
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends
thereof.
Flexible Polyurethane ...............................................
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends
thereof.
Integral Skin Polyurethane .......................................
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet ....................................
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.
Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet (XPS)
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel
Z–6.
Polyolefin ..................................................................
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.
Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock .................
HFC–143a, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc,
and blends thereof.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2021. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
Acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and
unacceptable for all other uses as
of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable
for all uses as of January 1, 2022.
* Under the narrowed use limit, use is limited to 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(a) What other alternatives does EPA
find pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment?
In the NPRM, EPA included a
comparative analysis, end-use by enduse, of the substitutes for which EPA
proposed to change the status and the
other available alternatives. 79 FR at
46151 to 46154. Most of the other
alternatives that EPA identified as
having lower risk than those for which
we proposed to change the status have
zero ODP or have negligible impact on
stratospheric ozone. One alternative that
contains chlorine, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM
1233zd(E)), has an ODP of 0.00024 to
0.00034 and estimates of its maximum
potential impact on the ozone layer
indicate a statistically insignificant
impact, comparable to that of other
substitutes in the same end-uses that are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
considered to be non-ozonedepleting.88 89 For the uses on which we
are taking final action, the substitutes
remaining acceptable have significantly
lower GWP than the substitutes for
which we are changing the status, with
GWPs ranging from zero (water, vacuum
panels) to 124 (HFC–152a) as compared
with GWPs ranging from 725 to
approximately 1,500. The substitutes
changing status and the substitutes
remaining acceptable all can be used
such that the recommended workplace
88 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.
89 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exposure limit for the substitute is not
exceeded in the end-uses where they are
listed as acceptable, and thus, toxicity
risks are comparable.
Most of the substitutes that remain
acceptable are not VOC (e.g., water) or
are exempt from the definition of VOC
under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR
51.100(s)) addressing the development
of SIPs to attain and maintain the
national ambient air quality standards.
Examples of VOC-exempt blowing
agents include acetone, CO2, ecomate,
HFC–152a, HFO–1234ze(E), methyl
formate, and Solstice 1233zd(E). Other
acceptable foam blowing agents are
VOC, including saturated light HCs,
Exxsol blowing agents, and methylal. In
the risk screens that EPA performs when
we review a substitute, we consider
VOC emissions impacts, taking into
account the rate of blowing agent
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
emissions of particular foam end-uses,
estimated market size, and the presence
of emission controls in manufacturing
for different end-uses. Estimated
emissions for these three substitutes is
sufficiently low that we do not expect
significant air quality impacts (ICF,
2014h). The manufacturer of HFO–
1336mzz(Z) claims that this substitute
has low photochemical reactivity and
has petitioned EPA to exempt it from
the definition of VOC for purposes of
the development of SIPs to attain and
maintain the national ambient air
quality standards, but EPA has not yet
acted on that petition. Given the large
variety of alternatives that do not
increase VOC emissions, and the
estimated low impacts from those
alternatives that are VOC, we believe
that changing the status of certain HFC
foam blowing agents through this action
will not significantly increase
environmental or health risks.
Some of the substitutes that remain
acceptable are flammable, but the
hazards of these flammable compounds
can be adequately addressed in the
process of meeting OSHA regulations
and fire codes in all end-uses except
certain rigid PU spray foam
applications. Examples of acceptable
flammable blowing agents are HFC–
152a, ecomate, Exxsol blowing agents,
methylal, methyl formate, and saturated
light hydrocarbons.
Although EPA has listed a number of
flammable alternatives as acceptable for
most foam end-uses, that is not the case
for rigid PU spray foams. Some of the
lower-GWP, flammable alternatives that
are listed as acceptable in other foam
blowing end-uses, such as C3–C6
hydrocarbons and methylal, are not
acceptable for use in rigid PU spray
foam. For rigid PU spray foam
applications, flammability risks are of
particular concern, because they are
applied onsite, sometimes in proximity
to hot, flammable substances such as
tar. Flammability risks are more difficult
to mitigate in rigid PU spray foam than
in most other foam end-uses because,
unlike in a factory setting, in many
cases ventilation cannot 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 rigid PU
spray foam in a residential building.
There are three main types of rigid PU
spray foam: High-pressure two-part
spray foam systems, low-pressure twopart spray foam systems, and onecomponent foam sealants.
For rigid PU spray foam, we are not
taking final action in this rule. We
intend to conduct a more extensive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
comparative risk analysis of the
substitutes available before taking final
action. Thus, the substitutes currently
listed as acceptable for spray foam are
not affected by this rule but may be the
subject of future rulemaking.
For more information on the
environmental and health properties of
the different foam blowing agents,
please see the proposed rule at 79 FR
46151 to 46154 and a technical support
document that provides additional
Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d)
in the docket.
(b) When will the status change?
For foam blowing agents, the time at
which the status will change varies by
end-use.
For the flexible PU, polystyrene
extruded sheet, and phenolic insulation
board and bunstock end-uses, many
users have already transitioned from the
foam blowing agents subject to the
status change. No commenters suggested
that, or provided information that
would suggest, a later change of status
date is necessary for these end-uses.
Therefore, as proposed, we are
establishing January 1, 2017 as the date
of the status change for those end-uses.
For PU integral skin, the systems
house BASF stated that they have had
limited success thus far with HFO
blowing agents in this end-use and
would require at least two years to
formulate and test a system and another
six months for the new system to be
commercialized and accepted by their
customers in this end-use. However,
this commenter did not provide specific
details of the technical challenges they
face nor why they believe two years,
rather than a shorter time, is required
for formulation and testing. Nor did the
commenter explain why customer
acceptance of the new system was
related to technical feasibility that
would require an additional six months
beyond the time needed for formulation
and testing. A period of two and a half
years after issuance of the NPRM would
be January 2017, rather than the July 1,
2017 suggested by the commenter.
There are alternative foam blowing
agents in addition to HFOs in this enduse that pose less risk overall to human
health and the environment, such as
HFC–152a and light saturated
hydrocarbons. Therefore, as proposed,
we are establishing January 1, 2017, as
the date of the status change for PU
integral skin foam.
For the rigid PU and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock end-use, we did
not receive any specific technical
information nor any comments stating
that a change of status date later than
the proposed date of January 1, 2017,
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42925
was warranted. We received a general
comment from EIA that the change of
status date should be January 1, 2016,
but they provided no information
supporting this earlier date. We received
a comment from one systems house,
Huntsman, that provided specific
technical information supporting a later
change of status date for other PU enduses, but not PU and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock. Another systems
house, Dow Chemical, specifically
mentioned that polyisocyanurate
boardstock has previously safely
transitioned to use of hydrocarbons.
Therefore, as proposed, we are
establishing January 1, 2017 as the date
of the status change for PU and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
For all other foam blowing end-uses
for which we are taking final action, we
received comments identifying
technical challenges that mean other
alternatives would not be available until
a later date than January 1, 2017.
Systems houses and appliance
manufacturers also mentioned the need
for third-party testing for end-uses such
as extruded polystyrene boardstock and
billet, rigid PU appliance, and rigid PU
commercial refrigeration and sandwich
panels. Systems houses and DuPont, a
manufacturer of foam blowing agents,
also were concerned with the supply of
lower-GWP foam blowing agents,
especially supply of HFOs (HFO–
1234ze(E) and HFO–1336mzz(Z)) and
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene,
and indicated this was a constraint that
prevents transitioning away from higher
GWP HFCs by January 1, 2017. EPA
agrees that there is validity to these
concerns, as discussed further below for
each end-use.
For rigid PU slabstock, a systems
house (Huntsman) commented they
need additional time for testing and
suggested a change of status date of
January 1, 2019. Huntsman gave three
specific reasons for why there should be
a later change of status date than
January 1, 2017 for this end-use: They
believe it will take more than two years
to develop products with alternatives,
including third-party certification; they
believe the long-term performance of
HFO foams is not widely proven; and
they believe there is insufficient supply
and competition in the market for HFOs.
Huntsman mentioned specific technical
challenges, such as testing the
compatibility and stability of the
blowing agents with the polyol blends
(i.e., other components needed in the
foam formulation) and difficulties with
stability of the catalysts when used with
HFO blowing agents. They also stated
that extended testing of more than six
months was required to test strength,
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42926
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
thermal insulation capability and
dimensional stability of the foam,
including aging testing. Huntsman also
mentioned testing the fire properties of
the foams with different foam blowing
agents as well as optimization of the
blends. Huntsman stated that these
steps required one to one and a half
years initial development by the
systems house that would then be
followed by trials and custom
modification at their customers’
facilities using their specific equipment
and claimed that would require one to
two years in addition. Considering the
technical constraints described by the
systems house such as the need to
research different catalysts and the
lower stability of some alternative foam
blowing agents, we agree that it is
reasonable to expect it would take three
and a half years after this rule is final
for alternatives to be available for this
end-use. Therefore, we are establishing
a change of status date of January 1,
2019, for rigid PU slabstock.
For rigid PU appliance foam, one
systems house, BASF, commented that
it took five years for them to assist the
appliance manufacturer Whirlpool in its
conversion from an HFC-blown foam to
an HFO-blown foam, excluding
flammability certification testing. While
the Agency recognizes that as industry
builds experience with new blowing
agents, future transitions may be quicker
because of the knowledge gained from
earlier transitions, the Agency also
understands that it may not be possible
by 2017 to complete a full transition to
alternative blowing agents for all
appliance manufacturers, particularly if
appliance manufacturers are
maintaining or improving the thermal
insulating value of the foam to meet
DOE energy conservation standards.
Appliance manufacturers and BASF
have described the difficulty and time
needed to overcome technical
difficulties when using alternative
blowing agents, particularly olefins such
as trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene or HFOs, that result in cracking,
thinning of the foam, and irreparable
field failures of the equipment.
Appliance manufacturers and systems
house Huntsman also mentioned the
need for energy efficiency testing and
third-party certification of equipment
and claimed that would require at least
one and a half to two years after the
system house’s development of foam
formulations. However, the time
required for ensuring adequate
performance and third-party testing
warrants a date as late as January 1,
2020. In addition to technical
constraints, we also considered that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
there is unlikely to be a sufficient
supply of alternatives before January 1,
2017, for appliance foam; the supply is
likely to increase once a commercial
plant for HFO–1336mzz(Z) opens
(currently scheduled to open in 2017).
We considered the supply constraints
mentioned by both systems houses and
chemical producers (until 2017),
technical constraints with alternative
foam blowing agents that could result in
failed appliances with insufficient
research (requiring one to two years),
and the need for third-party certification
of each model (requiring one and a half
to two years), and we agree that it is
reasonable to expect it would take until
2020 for alternatives to be available for
this end-use. We are establishing a
change of status date of January 1, 2020,
for appliance foam which allows
sufficient time to work out these
technical issues and to ensure a
sufficient supply of various alternatives.
For rigid PU commercial refrigeration
and sandwich panels, equipment
manufacturers and systems houses such
as Huntsman, Dow and BASF
mentioned similar issues to those raised
for appliance foam. Huntsman
mentioned technical challenges in
developing new formulations for PU
insulation foam, such as testing the
compatibility and stability of the
blowing agents with the polyol blends
(i.e., other components needed in the
foam formulation) and difficulties with
stability of the catalysts when used with
HFO blowing agents. They also stated
that extended testing of more than six
months was required to test strength,
thermal insulation capability and
dimensional stability of the foam,
including aging testing. Huntsman also
mentioned the need for testing fire
properties of foams with different foam
blowing agents and optimization of the
blends. Huntsman stated that these
steps required one to one and a half
years initial development by the
systems house in a process involving
iterative testing. Huntsman specifically
mentioned steps such as developing
new foam formulations (one to one and
a half years), trials at the customers’
plants (half to one year), third-party
certification by UL, Intertek or Factory
Mutual (one to one and a half years),
and implementation of engineering
changes at the customers’ facilities (half
to one year). We also considered that
based on the information and comments
we have received, there is unlikely to be
a sufficient supply of alternatives for
this end-use before January 1, 2017, as
discussed above for appliance foam. The
Laboratory Products Association, whose
members manufacture very low
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
temperature freezers such as those used
in the pharmaceutical industry,
mentioned that some laboratory
products using alternative foam blowing
agents are medical devices listed by
FDA, which would require re-approval
after changing the blowing agent.
Representatives of this application
suggested coordinating with timelines of
EU regulations (2022), without
describing specifically why more time
might be required for very low
temperature freezers than for foam
blowing agents in other commercial
refrigeration equipment which also
require third-party review. It is
reasonable to expect that the timeframe
required for commercial refrigeration
foam and sandwich panels is
comparable to that for appliance foam,
requiring until 2017 for sufficient
supply, and then another three years for
development and testing of formulations
and third-party testing of the resulting
equipment or panels. We are
establishing a status change date of
January 1, 2020, for commercial
refrigeration and sandwich panel foams,
based on the time needed to resolve
technical issues and on supply of
alternative foam blowing agents.
For PU marine flotation foam, we
received a comment from BASF
indicating that systems houses will
require at least a year for technical
development, a year for certification
testing to U.S. Coast Guard standards, a
year for testing of the stability of the
foam product, as well as one to two
years for customer approval, given the
large number of customers for this type
of foam. BASF expected issues similar
to those for appliance foam, such as
dimensional stability and cracking,
because injecting flotation foam is a
similar process and uses similar
polymers in the foam formulation.
BASF asked that EPA clarify whether
marine flotation foam fits under spray
foam and whether this application is
‘‘exempted’’ or instead must transition
to alternatives. EPA consulted with the
U.S. Coast Guard regarding their
certification process and the necessary
time for manufacturers to test and
certify that they meet the requirements
at 33 CFR part 183 (Boats and
Associated Equipment), Subparts F
(Flotation Requirements for Inboard
Boats, Inboard/Outdrive Boats, and
Airboats), G (Flotation Requirements for
Outboard Boats Rated for Engines of
More than 2 Horsepower), and H
(Flotation Requirements for Outboard
Boats Rated for Engines of 2 Horsepower
or Less), which require all
manufacturers of monohull recreational
boats less than twenty feet in length
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(except sailboats, canoes, kayaks,
inflatable boats, submersibles, surface
effect vessels, amphibious vessels, and
race boats) to provide sufficient flotation
foam within the boat to ensure that the
boat will not sink if the boat swamps or
capsizes. This requirement allows the
occupants to hold onto the boat until
they can be rescued. We also met with
representatives from the marine
industry and heard directly from them
about the necessary steps for transition.
After considering the various steps
needed to complete the transition, we
conclude that the need for the systems
houses to perfect formulations that
perform similar or better than what is
being used today will take additional
time beyond what the Agency
considered. In particular, in order to
research and test foam formulations
sufficiently to avoid issues with
dimensional stability and field failures,
and to ensure safety of the flotation
foam and boats built with it, we expect
it would take at least another two and
a half to three years beyond the
proposed date of January 1, 2017. Thus,
we are establishing January 1, 2020 as
the change of status date for marine
flotation foam. We do not believe there
is sufficient information at this time to
support a change of status date later
than January 1, 2020. However, given
the concern for safety associated with
marine floatation foam, we will monitor
the situation carefully and consult with
the U.S. Coast Guard. Given that under
33 CFR 183 manufacturers are required
to certify to the U.S. Coast Guard that
their boats have sufficient flotation to
meet the regulations, EPA recognizes
that the U.S. Coast Guard may be able
to provide information concerning
certification with the alternatives. As
January 2020 approaches, we will
continue to consult with the U.S. Coast
Guard and consider whether it is
appropriate to adjust the change in
status date or to otherwise modify the
SNAP listing to address any uses for
which there may be technical challenges
beyond January 1, 2020. We are listing
this use separately from spray foam due
to differences in the manner in which
the foam is dispensed which make this
use more similar to appliance foam and
commercial refrigeration foam than
spray foam. Our understanding is that
flotation foam is typically injected
rather than sprayed.
For polyolefin, there are niche
applications and specialized plants that
may have particular difficulty in
transitioning away from HFC–134a
because of the time required to build a
pilot plant to work with products using
a new gaseous blowing agent and to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
retrofit current facilities to work with an
alternative blowing agent. One
manufacturer, Pregis, stated that they
must upgrade facilities if they are to
safely adopt flammable blowing agents
when they have been using a
nonflammable agent in the past. EPA
recognizes that such changes to a
facility may take several years.
Considering the heightened challenges
with these specialized facilities, we are
establishing a change of status date of
January 1, 2020, for polyolefin.
For XPS, manufacturers of XPS raised
concerns about the energy efficiency of
the foam using alternative agents, the
extensive testing required, third-party
certification, and the lack of alternatives
and recommended that the status of
HFC–134a change on January 1, 2021.
Owens Corning mentioned specific
steps such as laboratory studies to
develop or test an alternative blowing
agent, pilot tests, conversion of pilot
testing to line production, quality
assurance and quality control testing of
the final product, and product
certification. Dow and Owens Corning
estimated it would take at least six years
to convert multiple lines and multiple
facilities from HFC–134a to an
alternative. Owens Corning and Dow
also cited an EPA memorandum
supporting a transition away from
HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as foam
blowing agents, which found that four
years was necessary. Owens Corning
raised concerns about the viability of
CO2 based on its impact on energy
efficiency; the safety of hydrocarbons
because of their flammability and the
need to consider impacts of additional
flame retardants on the foam; and the
commercial availability of HFO–
1234ze(E) and its technical viability.
Dow stated that of the acceptable
alternatives that EPA mentioned in the
NPRM, only HFO–1234ze(E) has
sufficiently low thermal conductivity
and low permeability to meet industry
standards (e.g., ASTM C 578). We agree
that additional time is required to test
and improve the quality of XPS
manufactured using alternative foam
blowing agents to ensure that it meets or
improves upon thermal insulation
requirements and passes third-party
certification testing; it is reasonable to
expect that at least five years is likely to
be required for all steps to transition
away from HFC–134a, given the status
of current efforts to adopt lower-GWP
alternatives for XPS. Members of the
Extruded Polystyrene Association
(XPSA) have stated that with XPS, it is
not always possible to increase the
thickness of the foam to maintain
thermal insulation requirements,
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42927
because other construction materials
(e.g., boards) may limit the thickness of
boardstock foam. Thus, if alternative
foam blowing agents did not produce
foam meeting thermal insulation
requirements, the transition in this enduse might not reduce climate effects as
intended. Given the technical
constraints, the need for third-party
certification testing, and building code
requirements for energy efficiency that
may limit the available blowing agents,
we are establishing a change of status
date of January 1, 2021, for XPS. EPA
notes that there is now a plant
producing HFO–1234ze(E) in
commercial quantities (Honeywell,
2015) and thus we do not believe that
supply will limit the availability of
alternatives.
(c) Military and Space- and AeronauticsRelated Applications
We proposed to create a narrowed use
limit exception to the unacceptable
listing for military and space, and
aeronautics uses that would allow
continued use of HFC and HFC blend
foam blowing agents through December
31, 2021. These blowing agents were
proposed to be unacceptable for military
or space- and aeronautics-related
applications as of January 1, 2022. For
the reasons discussed in the proposed
rule, we are finalizing these provisions
as proposed.
EPA received comments from DoD
and NASA supporting EPA’s proposed
narrowed use limit, and suggesting that
this additional time is needed to
identify, test and qualify substitutes for
certain specialty applications. Boeing
commented that the DoD and NASA
need adequate time to develop, test and
qualify an acceptable substitute for
HFC–245fa, which is used in many
foams they rely on for density foam
insulation for a number of space and
defense applications (e.g., rockets).
Boeing did not identify any specific
technical challenges but raised a general
concern that, based on its experience
with developing substitutes for foam
blowing agents and the normal course of
time to develop and qualify a substitute,
it will take until 2027 to fully test and
qualify a substitute. We do not believe
there is sufficient information at this
time to support a change of status date
later than January 1, 2022; however, as
January 2022 approaches, we can
consider whether it is appropriate to
adjust the change in status date or to
otherwise modify the SNAP listing to
address any uses for which there may be
technical challenges beyond January 1,
2022.
Users that wish to use one of the
substitutes listed as acceptable, subject
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42928
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
to narrowed use limits, in a military or
space- and aeronautics-related
application must make a reasonable
effort to ascertain whether other
substitutes or alternatives are
technically feasible and, if not, to
document such results. See 40 CFR
82.180(b)(3). Users are not required to
report the results of their investigations
to EPA, but must retain the
documentation in their files for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance.
Documentation should include
descriptions of:
• 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.
(d) How will the requirements apply to
exports and imports?
Since regulations establishing the
SNAP program were promulgated in
1994, we have interpreted the
unacceptability determinations in this
sector to apply to blowing foam with the
foam blowing agent and not to products
made with foam (e.g., 65 FR 42653,
42656; July 11, 2000). That is, an
unacceptable foam blowing agent may
not be used in, imported into, or
exported from the United States.
However, products made overseas with
unacceptable foam blowing agents may
be imported. For example, commercial
refrigerators containing appliance foam
blown with an unacceptable blowing
agent may be imported into the United
States, though appliances manufactured
in the United States may not be
manufactured with foam blown by that
same agent.
In the proposal, EPA took comment
on a different interpretation of our
regulations under which the
unacceptability determination would
apply to imported products containing
closed cell foam that contain any of the
blowing agents listed as unacceptable,
as well as applying to the blowing agent
itself. Public commenters stated that
this was a significant departure from the
Agency’s previous interpretation and
suggested that EPA needed to explain
the basis for such a change. In addition,
some commenters pointed out that the
proposal only allowed 60 days before
this change in interpretation would
apply to HCFC–141b, which they
viewed as insufficient time to adjust.
EPA is not finalizing this change in its
interpretation in this action; however,
we plan to continue assessing the merits
of this change and may provide further
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
explanation and opportunity for
comment in a subsequent rulemaking.
3. How is EPA responding to comments
concerning foam blowing end-uses?
(a) Timeline
Comment: EPA received comments
from more than 500 commenters
concerning the proposal of January 1,
2017, as the status change date for the
foam blowing agents addressed in the
proposed rule. EIA and Honeywell
suggested an earlier date of January 1,
2016, for all or most foam end-uses.
Most other commenters suggested later
dates, varying from July 1, 2017, to
January 1, 2025. Some commenters
indicated that they are small companies
and they believe additional time is
needed beyond that in the NPRM to
reduce cost pressures. Some
commenters suggested different dates
for specific uses and gave a number of
reasons for which dates would be
appropriate for those uses. General
reasons given for the need for additional
time include: Time needed for capital
investments, for employee training, for
re-formulating systems; for designing,
purchasing, awaiting receipt of and
converting equipment; for obtaining
local permits for VOC emissions; for
meeting company and external testing
requirements (e.g., UL/Factory Mutual
(FM) fire safety requirements, DOE
energy conservation standards, building
codes, R-value testing for aged foam),
and if switching to a flammable foam
blowing agent, facility engineering
design and refurbishment. Several
commenters stated that there are no
‘‘drop in’’ replacements, and that
product research and development is an
iterative process. Owens Corning cited
EPA’s previous recognition of time
limitations in the conversion away from
HCFC–142b to HFC–134a, including an
EPA staff memorandum that estimated a
four-year transition time period in the
foam sector. Some commenters also
suggested that EPA adopt the same dates
for transition for foams as in the
European Union’s ‘‘F-gas’’ rule: 2020 for
XPS and 2023 for other foam types. In
addition, some commenters suggested
that there is an insufficient supply of
low-GWP foam blowing agents that will
maintain energy efficiency and
insulation value of foam. Huntsman
stated that there will not be enough
capacity and competition in the HFO
foam blowing market by January 1,
2017, to meet the needs of the PU foam
industry. DuPont commented that while
multiple low GWP alternatives will be
available for foam, they will not be
broadly available in the proposed
timeframe.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response: EPA notes that in a number
of foam blowing end-uses, the industry
has already effectively transitioned
away from HFCs and any additional
transitions for these end-uses can be
made by January 1, 2017. Further, we
received no comments suggesting a later
transition date is necessary specifically
for these end-uses. We received
comments suggesting that this change of
status could be made by January 1,
2016, but in the unlikely event that
there are any end users that have not
already transitioned, we are concerned
that this date may be too soon to finish
adopting an alternative. Therefore, the
final rule retains the proposed change of
status date of January 1, 2017, for those
uses (polystyrene extruded sheet,
flexible polyurethane, and phenolic
insulation board and bunstock). In
addition, we received no comments
specific to rigid PU and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock
that indicated there were challenges for
this end-use that would prevent a
transition to alternatives that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the
environment by January 1, 2017. EIA
suggested that we set a status change
date of January 1, 2016, for this end-use,
but did not provide information
supporting an earlier transition for this
end-use. Therefore, we are retaining this
date in the final rule for rigid PU and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
EPA agrees that additional time is
needed for other specific foam types and
addresses the basis for establishing later
change of status dates in the discussion
of each end-use above. We appreciate
and agree with commenters that note
the importance of maintaining energy
efficiency for appliances and buildings
by ensuring there is adequate time to
develop and deploy new formulations
that meet or exceed existing thermal
insulating values. Further, we recognize
that third-party testing or witness
testing will require additional time that
may be outside the control of the
companies manufacturing the foam.
Some of this testing, such as fire safety
testing for construction foams, could
help reduce any potential flammability
risks associated with the use of
flammable foam blowing agents.
Businesses of all sizes will be able to
benefit from the later change of status
dates in this final rule. We discuss
comments specific to each end-use
below in this section.
Comment: Huntsman, a systems
house, commented they need additional
time for testing alternatives in the PU
slabstock end-use and suggested a
change of status date of January 1, 2019.
Huntsman mentioned specific technical
challenges with reformulating these
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
foam products, such as testing the
compatibility and stability of the
blowing agents with the polyol blends
(i.e., other components needed in the
foam formulation). They also stated that
extended testing of more than six
months was required to test strength,
thermal insulation capability and
dimensional stability of the foam,
including aging testing. Huntsman also
mentioned testing the fire properties of
the foams with different foam blowing
agents as well as optimization of the
blends. Huntsman stated that these
steps required one to one and a half
years initial development by the
systems house, to be followed by trials
and custom modification at their
customers’ facilities using their specific
equipment that would require another
one to two years. The commenter also
raised concerns about whether sufficient
supply of alternative foam blowing
agents would be available by January 1,
2017, and mentioned that there is
currently a single supplier of a key low
GWP foam blowing agent, trans-1chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene.
Response: Considering the technical
constraints raised by the systems house,
such as the need to research different
catalysts and fire retardants and the
lower stability of some alternative foam
blowing agents, we agree that safer
alternatives will not be available for this
end-use for three to three and a half
years. Therefore, we are establishing a
change of status date of January 1, 2019
for PU slabstock foams.
Comment: Commenters suggested
change of status dates for rigid PU
appliance foam, ranging from July 1,
2017 to January 1, 2020. BASF
suggested a transition date of July 1,
2017 for foam used in domestic
refrigerators. In support of a July 1,
2017, change of status date, BASF
indicated that HFO-containing foams
are incompatible with common
polymers used in household
refrigerators and that it will take a
minimum of six months to perform
durability and field testing and possibly
to change construction materials to
resolve this known problem, as well as
at least six months for testing for
compliance with federal energy
conservation standards and 12 more
months for conversion at each
customer’s facility. BASF also stated
that they had already developed
commercially available systems using
cyclopentane and HFOs, so they
expected this transition to take less time
than the five years that it took to assist
the appliance manufacturer Whirlpool
in its conversion from an HFC-blown
foam to an HFO-blown foam, excluding
flammability certification testing.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Solvay commented that technical
questions about alternatives still remain,
such as whether substitutes other than
HFCs attack panel walls or appliance
walls, which could compromise product
integrity and safety, and whether other
alternatives adhere properly to
appliance and panel walls, or to walls
and roofs, which is necessary to satisfy
energy efficiency mandates. Huntsman
mentioned the need for energy
efficiency testing and third-party
certification of equipment that would
require at least one and a half to two
years after the system house’s
development of foam formulations,
which it estimated to take one to one
and a half years. Huntsman suggested a
change of status date of 2019 for PU
appliance foam. The Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers
(AHAM) raised concerns about the
potential adverse impacts on appliance
quality, performance, and longevity, as
well as costs, of a transition by January
1, 2017, and stated that the easiest and
cheapest transitions have been done,
and will be done, first. AHAM suggested
a change of status date of 2020 for
appliance foam to allow for
coordination with DOE energy
conservation standards that could take
effect in 2020 for household
refrigerators and freezers. In addition,
AHAM claimed a 2020 change of status
date was necessary because of the
extensive time required for testing and
third-party certification of multiple
models, and additional time needed to
ensure proper development of new
alternatives to avoid field failures of the
equipment.
Response: We agree that it is
important that appliance manufacturers
are able to ensure the quality,
performance, and useful lifetime of their
equipment. Multiple commenters
provided information and photographs
demonstrating that improperly
implemented alternative foam blowing
agents can create defects in the
appliances, such as cracking or
improper adhesion to the appliance
cabinet. BASF suggested that it would
take closer to two and a half to three
years to work out the technical issues
since they have already developed
commercially available systems using
HFOs and hydrocarbons for other
appliance manufacturers. Because of the
time required for ensuring adequate
performance and third-party testing, we
believe that other alternatives will not
be available for an industry-wide
transition until January 1, 2020. In
addition to technical constraints, we
also considered that there is unlikely to
be a sufficient supply of alternatives
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42929
before the change of status date we
proposed—January 1, 2017 for
appliance foam. The supply is likely to
increase once a commercial plant for
HFO–1336mzz(Z) opens (currently
scheduled to open in 2017) and thus
supply would not be a concern for a
change of status date of January 1, 2020.
Comment: For rigid PU commercial
refrigeration foams and sandwich
panels, commenters suggested change of
status dates ranging from July 1, 2018,
to ten years after the rule is final. The
majority of commenters suggested status
change dates ranging from July 2018 to
January 1, 2020. NAFEM and
manufacturers of commercial
refrigeration equipment such as
Traulsen suggested a much later date of
2025 for all modifications required for
commercial refrigeration equipment,
including both foam blowing agents and
refrigerant.
As an initial matter, Huntsman and
DuPont mentioned the lack of sufficient
supply of alternatives to allow all foam
users to convert in 2017. In support of
a later change of status date, equipment
manufacturers and systems houses such
as Huntsman, Dow and BASF
mentioned similar technical issues to
those for appliance foam, such as the
compatibility and stability of the
blowing agents with the polyol blends
and dimensional stability of the blown
foam. BASF specifically mentioned
reactions between the new blowing
agents and the catalysts in the foam that
could cause the finished foam to shrink,
as well as the need to develop a new set
of flame retardants. Commenters also
stated that extended testing of more
than six months was required to test
strength, thermal insulation capability
and dimensional stability of the foam,
including aging testing. Huntsman
specifically mentioned steps such as
developing new foam formulations (one
to one and a half years), trials at the
customers’ plants (half to one year),
third-party certification by UL, Intertek
or Factory Mutual (one to one and a half
years), and implantation of engineering
changes at the customers’ facilities (half
to one year), with iterative testing often
required. Unified Brands and NAFEM
suggested that there are limitations to
using methyl formate in commercial
refrigeration foam that would not allow
a transition by January 1, 2017, stating:
‘‘Methyl Formate is also
environmentally friendly, but has had
significant shrinkage issues once units
have been placed in the field. This agent
requires very specific foaming processes
to be developed to ensure proper
stability of the foam over time.’’
Response: We agree that there are a
number of technical challenges that will
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42930
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
require approximately four to five years
for the industry as a whole to transition
to alternatives, including stability of
new formulations and difficulty with
using existing catalysts with alternative
foam blowing agents. We agree that
there is unlikely to be a sufficient
supply of alternatives for this end-use
before the proposed change in status
date January 1, 2017. However as
discussed above for appliance foam,
additional supply should be available in
2017 when a new manufacturing plant
is scheduled to open and there should
be a more than sufficient supply to meet
a status change date of January 1, 2020.
The later dates of ten years after
finalization of the rule or 2025
suggested by NAFEM and other OEMs,
appear to be based on the assumption
that stand-alone retail food refrigeration
equipment would need to use propane
or other flammable refrigerants and that
changes would need to be made to
building codes to support the adoption
of these flammable refrigerants.
However, as discussed above in section
V.C on commercial refrigeration, there
are other available refrigerants that are
nonflammable. Moreover, the
commenters did not make clear why,
even assuming that alternative
refrigerants would not be available until
2025, the insulation foam for such
equipment cannot be made using safer
alternatives well before 2025. Thus we
do not believe that safe alternative foam
blowing agents will not be available
before 2025.
Comment: Honeywell stated that ‘‘the
technical requirements [for flotation
foam in boats] may be much simpler
than other industries in which
customers are already transitioning’’
and suggested that a transition date of
January 1, 2016 might be achievable for
this application. BASF commented that
systems houses will require at least a
year for technical development, a year
for certification testing to U.S. Coast
Guard standards, a year for testing of the
stability of the foam product, as well as
one to two years for customer approval,
given the large number of customers for
this type of foam. This commenter
recommended that EPA set a change of
status date no earlier than July 1, 2019.
BASF expected issues seen with
appliance foam also to exist with marine
flotation foam, such as dimensional
stability and cracking, because injecting
flotation foam is a similar process and
uses similar polymers in the foam
formulation. Ninety-four letters from the
marine industry comment that,
according to their suppliers in the
boating industry, a drop-in replacement
for HFC–134a currently does not exist,
and will not be readily available by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
2017. EPA received comments from 436
boat manufacturers to the effect that the
continued introduction of regulations
on the boating industry
disproportionately affects their small
businesses because the cost of
compliance with these standards is
relatively equal across production
scales. According to these comments,
EPA’s proposed timeline for ‘‘phasing
out’’ HFC–134a will have highly
negative consequences for all facets of
the marine industry, but it will have the
greatest impact on their small boats,
small businesses, and middle class
customers. EPA received 93 letters from
the marine industry stating that the
boating industry consists primarily of
small businesses that would face severe
impacts as a result of their limited
financial resources and limited
influence on markets and supply chains.
The National Marine Manufacturers
Association (NMMA) also commented
that the NPRM date would present a
financial and logistical hardship for
many small boat builders. NMMA urged
the EPA to provide an extension of the
proposed timeline. Commenters from
the marine industry suggested 2022 as a
transition date and mentioned the lack
of availability of feasible options and
marine application’s dependency upon
chemical availability from the larger
industry (e.g., HFC–134a for use in
MVAC). These commenters also
mentioned the need for testing to meet
Coast Guard requirements at 33 CFR
part 183.
Response: Regarding the supply of
alternatives, we recognize that a plant
that would produce HFO–1234ze(E) in
commercial quantities has recently been
built (Honeywell, 2015). Additionally,
supply of HFC–134a should not be an
issue as many other uses of that
substitute will be ending in the next
several years. We do not agree that the
certification processes will require
additional time beyond EPA’s
understanding at the time of the
proposal. It is our understanding that
HFOs can be used in this type of foam.
However, as with appliance foams, we
agree that systems houses will need
time to perfect formulations that
perform similar or better than what is
being used today. In particular, issues
with stability of the blown foam likely
will require several years to work out,
as discussed above for appliance foam.
Considering this information, we are
establishing January 1, 2020, as the
change of status date for marine
flotation foam.
Comment: DuPont stated that
polyolefin plants typically are
specialized plants for niche applications
and that this end-use may have
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
particular difficulty in transitioning
away from HFC–134a; DuPont suggested
that EPA consult with manufacturers in
this end-use on appropriate transition
timing. One manufacturer, Pregis, stated
that they must upgrade facilities if they
are to safely adopt flammable blowing
agents when they have been using a
nonflammable agent in the past. They
also suggested that EPA consider a
change of status date of 2022 because of
the time required to build a pilot plant
to work with products using a new
gaseous blowing agent (two years)—
which has yet to begin—and the time to
retrofit current facilities to work with an
alternative blowing agent (another two
years).
Response: EPA recognizes that
construction of a pilot plant and making
the necessary changes to an existing
facility could take approximately four
years after this rule is final; however, it
is not clear from Pregis’s description
that they will require six years or more.
Considering the heightened challenges
with these specialized facilities, we are
establishing a change of status date of
January 1, 2020, for polyolefin.
Comment: Manufacturers of XPS
raised the energy efficiency of the foam
using alternative agents as an issue, the
extensive testing required, third-party
certification, and the lack of alternatives
as reasons for allowing until January 1,
2021 for a change of status. Owens
Corning mentioned specific steps such
as laboratory studies to develop or test
an alternative blowing agent, pilot tests,
conversion of pilot testing to line
production, quality assurance and
quality control testing of the final
product, and product certification. Dow
and Owens Corning estimated it would
take at least six years to convert
multiple lines and multiple facilities
from HFC–134a to an alternative. Owens
Corning and Dow also cited an EPA
memorandum supporting a transition
away from HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as
foam blowing agents, which found that
four years was necessary. Owens
Corning and XPSA commented that a
more realistic status change date of 2021
would also be consistent with the
proposed status change date for MVAC.
IP Moulding commented that it had
tried to use CO2 and water in its
extruded polystyrene molding process
in the past and found it did not create
sufficient internal pressure for their
product; they are further investigating
this option with their polystyrene
supplier. Mexichem commented that
carbon dioxide may not be suitable for
the XPS industry because of its high
thermal conductivity (low insulation
value) and processing difficulties.
Owens Corning raised concerns about
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the viability of CO2 based on its impact
on energy efficiency; the safety of
hydrocarbons because of their
flammability and the need also to
consider impacts of additional flame
retardants on the foam; and the
commercial availability of HFO–
1234ze(E) and its technical viability.
Honeywell commented that CO2 is an
option for XPS, and that Dow has
commercialized other solutions to
improve energy efficiency with CO2
such as Dow’s XENERGY technology,
which, according to Dow’s Web site, has
up to 20% higher insulating properties
than its STYROFOAMTM polystyrene
product that uses HFC–134a. XPSA
commented that one of the alternatives
in the proposed regulations (HFO–
1234ze(E)) is commercially suboptimized, and thus, XPSA’s members
have not conducted testing to confirm
that they can be used to produce
products that provide comparable
thermal efficiency or if there are any
other issues that would make them an
unacceptable alternative to HFC–134a.
Dow stated that of the acceptable
alternatives that EPA mentioned in the
NPRM, only HFO–1234ze(E) has
sufficiently low thermal conductivity
and low permeability to meet industry
standards (e.g., ASTM C 578).
Response: Regarding concerns about
the supply of HFO–1234ze(E), EPA
notes that since the third quarter of
2014, there has been a plant producing
HFO–1234ze(E) in commercial
quantities (Honeywell, 2015), and a
smaller plant was providing lots upon
request before this. Based on the
information we received, we agree that
additional time is required to test and
improve the quality of XPS produced
using alternative foam blowing agents
and for third-party certification testing.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect up to
three years to complete formulation
development and to conduct pilot
testing, an additional two years to
convert the existing plant and test the
quality of the final product (with some
overlap with the pilot testing period),
and a year for certification testing. The
total time needed is five and a half to
six years. Therefore, we are establishing
a change of status date of January 1,
2021, for the XPS end-use.
EPA agrees that additional work with
CO2 as the blowing agent for XPS may
be required to provide a better
performing foam. Available information
indicates CO2 has a higher thermal
conductivity than HFC–134a or HFO–
1234ze(E), and thus, would be expected
to provide lower insulation value in the
absence of major changes to the foam
formulation. The information on Dow’s
Web site that Honeywell references,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
although encouraging, is not sufficient
to determine if CO2 is the sole blowing
agent and if the XENERGY technology
that Honeywell mentions may be used
in all the applications where XPS blown
with HFC–134a is currently used. The
information provided by Honeywell
implies that with additional work, XPS
blown with CO2 could be more broadly
available and could result in XPS with
better foam insulation properties than
current XPS foam using HFC–134a.
Regarding comments suggesting that a
status change date of January 2021 is
appropriate because it would be
consistent with the status change date of
MY 2021 for MVAC, we first note that
the transition for MVAC is required as
of MY 2021, which will be completed in
calendar year 2020. More importantly,
the change of status date for each enduse is based on an evaluation of when
alternatives will be available within that
specific end-use. The change of status
date for MVAC is not relevant for
purposes of determining when safer
alternatives will be available for the XPS
foam blowing end-use.
(b) Foam Blowing Agents Changing
Status and Other Alternatives
Comment: Some commenters,
including commercial refrigeration
equipment manufacturers and
environmental groups, support EPA’s
proposal to find higher GWP HFCs
unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses. Others, including manufacturers of
household appliances and AHAM,
advised EPA to reconsider the proposal,
stating that it unnecessarily accelerates
the transition away from widely used
chemicals that still have ‘‘significant
beneficial uses’’ in the United States
(e.g., HFC–245fa in appliance foam).
Solvay stated that the entire foam
blowing sector should have been
excluded from the proposal to change
the status of certain HFCs.
Response: We disagree that this action
‘‘unnecessarily accelerates’’ the
transition away from chemicals that
have significant beneficial use. EPA
applied the SNAP criteria when making
determinations on what to include in
the proposed rule. For the reasons
provided above and in the proposed
rule, we have determined in most foam
blowing end-uses that there are other
alternatives that pose less risk than
those for which we are changing the
status.
Comment: DuPont commented that
the category of Rigid Spray
Polyurethane foam incorporates several
product sub-categories, including high
pressure spray foam and low pressure
spray foam, each requiring different
foam expansion agent characteristics
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42931
and therefore different alternatives and
different testing requirements. DuPont
and the Center for the Polyurethanes
Industry recommended that EPA create
separate SNAP categories for highpressure spray foam systems, lowpressure foam systems, and one
component spray foam sealants to allow
appropriate change of status dates for
each. DuPont suggested that EPA not
change the status of HFC–134a in lowpressure two-part spray foam and in
one-component foam sealants, because
these applications require a gaseous
foam blowing agent, and not a liquid
agent such as HFC–245fa or HFC–
365mfc.
Response: EPA recognizes that a
gaseous foam blowing agent is required
for these uses, unlike for high-pressure
two-part spray foam systems, and thus,
there is reason to differentiate between
low-pressure two-part spray foam
systems, one-component foam sealants,
and high-pressure two-part spray foam.
We intend to conduct a more extensive
comparative risk analysis of the
substitutes available in each of these
spray foam categories before taking final
action. Thus, the substitutes currently
listed as acceptable for spray foam are
not affected by this rule but may be the
subject of future rulemaking.
Comment: Unified Brands and
NAFEM commented that water-based
blowing agents are environmentally
friendly, but suffer from poorer
insulation performance and
vulnerability towards processing
temperatures that would consequently
require improved control of fixture
temperatures. Thermo Fisher
commented that water-blown foam
could lead to equipment with reduced
energy efficiency and negative
environmental impact because of its
poor insulating properties.
Response: It is EPA’s understanding
that water-blown foams offer lower
energy efficiency than foams blown
with a number of other blowing agents.
This is not a barrier to use for foam
applications that do not require thermal
insulation or for which increased
thickness of the foam is not an issue.
However, thickness of the foam is likely
to be an issue for foams where the
dimensions cannot be increased, such as
foams used in refrigerated transport or
sometimes in construction foams such
as XPS or PU spray foam.
Comment: Mexichem commented that
using hydrocarbons as a blowing agent
may result in less thermally efficient
XPS (as compared to use of HFC-134a).
Unified Brands and NAFEM suggested
there are complications with use of
hydrocarbons in commercial
refrigeration foam, and that ‘‘Pentane
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42932
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
based blowing agents are strong
candidates due to their insulation
performance, but require all foam
fixtures and processes to be
redeveloped’’ due to flammability. Dow
stated that that HC technology is well
understood, and it has been broadly
deemed inappropriate for use as a
blowing agent for XPS and SPF building
and construction products in the United
States. Dow also stated that HCs have
been proactively adopted for use with
polyisocyanurate foams, where they
may be used safely. EIA commented that
hydrocarbons have been used as
blowing agents in Europe since 1992,
including in insulation foams.
Response: It is EPA’s understanding
that hydrocarbons such as pentane and
isopentane have better thermal
conductivity than CO2, but not as good
as that of HFCs or HFOs. This is not a
barrier to use for foam applications that
do not require thermal insulation or
where increased thickness of the foam is
acceptable. We also recognize that
additional safeguards must be taken
when using hydrocarbon foam blowing
agents, such as improving ventilation,
training staff, and explosion-proofing
electrical fixtures. These steps can
reasonably be taken in a manufacturing
facility but are more difficult for
installation in place, as with PU spray
foam.
Comment: Honeywell commented
that in many instances, customers are
seeing benefits such as better
performance, energy efficiency,
nonflammability, and better product
yields (less foam for the same
performance) when using 1233zd(E)
(trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene). This commenter claimed that this
foam blowing agent has been
commercial in the United States in
spray foam applications for more than a
year, and in Japan, EU and China for a
variety of foam applications, including
appliance, panel and spray foam.
Several users of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1-ene mentioned its
properties, such as improved
compressive strength, lower density,
better dimensional stability, and higher
R-value (All-Weather Insulated Panels,
West Development Group for spray
foam, UTMC for commercial
refrigeration foam in refrigerated
transport).
Response: Available information
indicates that trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trifluoroprop-1-ene has many
performance characteristics, including
improved insulation value, that should
allow its adoption as a foam blowing
agent in appliance foam, sandwich
panels, and some spray foam
applications.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
(c) Environmental and Energy Impacts
of Foam Blowing Agents
Comment: A number of commenters
provided comments on the potential
impact of the proposal on greenhouse
gas emissions. AHAM state that they
believe the proposed rule is unnecessary
to protect the environment, because the
use and potential emissions of high
GWP HFC blowing agents for household
refrigerators sold in the U.S. market are
far less than what EPA estimated.
DuPont comments that given that HFCs
remain in these closed cell foams and
provide valuable insulating properties,
emissions of HFCs from foam
production are roughly one-third of total
HFC use in foams, or about 5% of total
HFC emissions on a CO2 equivalent
basis. Two commenters in the foam
blowing industry comment that EPA
should consider the greenhouse gas
emissions and energy savings over the
lifetime of a product.
Response: Some commenters have
suggested that because current HFC
blowing agents, including HFC–134a in
XPS, result in foams with energy
efficiency that reduce overall GHG
emissions, EPA should not change the
status of HFC-134a, or at least should
consider overall lifecycle climate
impacts. While we do not consider
energy efficiency as part of our overall
risk analysis, we believe that other
alternatives, such as olefin foam
blowing agents, could improve energy
efficiency even more than HFC–134a
and other high GWP HFC blowing
agents. Further, as explained below in
our discussion of energy efficiency,
listing higher GWP HFCs unacceptable
likely would improve, rather than
worsen, overall lifecycle GHG
emissions. EPA recognizes that
additional time is needed to ensure that
the formulations provide equal or better
thermal insulating value given the
iterative process that can involve
chemical manufacturers, system houses
and end users. The change of status
dates reflect the need to ensure that
these technical challenges can be
addressed.
Comment: Imperial Brown comments
they cannot know if what is developed
as an alternative will enable the
resulting foam panels to meet DOE
thickness requirements, because there is
not a Class 1 polyurethane foam system
on the market that utilizes a new
blowing agent. Thermo-Kool comments
that new foam formulations are not
guaranteed to have insulating
capabilities comparable to what is
available today to satisfy DOE
requirements. American Panel
Corporation does not intend to use
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
pentanes in its foam blowing
application, because the U.S. DOE has
established new requirements that do
not permit pentanes for walk-in panel
manufacturers, as they would increase
the panel thickness size. International
Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, and
ThermalRite Walk-Ins stated that lower
R-Values will require additional
insulation thickness to meet the energy
regulation, thereby requiring expensive,
complex, and costly modifications to
new walk-in coolers and freezers that
may sit side-by-side with identical
existing equipment that offers the same
degree of performance and protection.
Response: EPA recognizes that
different foam blowing agents result in
different insulation values. We note that
some of the acceptable alternative foam
blowing agents, such as HFO–1234ze(E),
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1ene, and HFO–1336mzz(Z), are expected
to provide better insulation value than
the HFC blowing agents listed as
unacceptable in this action. EPA is not
specifically aware of which, if any, of
these alternatives has been tested by
Factory Mutual (FM) and already
qualifies as a ‘‘Class 1 polyurethane
system.’’ Other foam blowing agents are
expected to have comparable or lower
insulation value, such as CO2, ecomate
and hydrocarbons. Given the variety of
foam blowing agents available, we
expect that foam products that need
higher energy efficiency will have foam
blowing agents available that will result
in lowering the GHG emissions and
energy savings over the lifetime of a
product.
Comment: A number of commenters
stated that they believed the proposed
rule will result in increased energy
consumption, potentially negating the
overall net GHG emission reductions.
One commenter, AMS, believes the
effect of the proposed rule on energy
consumption is a big unknown at this
time. Structural Composites and
Compsys, Inc., stated that the efficiency
and reduced manufacturing impact of
their PRISMA technology offsets the
climate impacts from the small amount
of HFC–134a used in their foam. ACMA
stated that composite panels made using
foam blown with HFC–134a for
refrigerated transport dramatically
reduce fuel usage, and therefore,
exhaust emissions, because the panels
are so lightweight. They suggested,
therefore, that the environmental
benefits of a transition away from HFC–
134a are outweighed by emissions
reductions achieved through lighter,
HFC-134a blown panels. Honeywell
provided information on the relative
energy efficiency, in terms of lambda
values, for CO2, HFC–134a and HFO–
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
1234ze(E), and stated that HFO–
1234ze(E)’s energy efficiency properties
are comparable and in some instances
better than HFC–134a for XPS.
Mexichem claimed that HFO–1234ze(E)
is not nearly as energy efficient as HFC–
134a and stated that it is not clear that
XPS produced with HFO–1234ze(E) will
provide the same thermal efficiency as
achieved with HFC–134a, because
HFO–1234ze(E) is not available for the
industry to begin product testing.
DuPont comments that the emerging
low GWP HFO foam alternatives can
deliver marked energy efficiency
improvements over current alternatives
when they become commercially
available.
Response: EPA notes that some of the
acceptable alternative foam blowing
agents, such as HFO–1234ze(E), trans-1chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and
HFO-1336mzz(Z), can provide better
insulation value than the HFC blowing
agents we are listing as unacceptable.
Contrary to Mexichem’s unsupported
assertion that HFO–1234ze(E) is not
nearly as energy efficient as HFC–134a,
another commenter provided
information showing that HFC–134a has
a lambda (thermal conductivity) value
of 29 to 30, while HFO–1234ze(E) has a
lambda value of 27 to 30 that shows
better insulation (Honeywell, 2014b).
Other foam blowing agents have
comparable or lower insulation value,
such as CO2, ecomate and hydrocarbons.
Given that there are multiple foam
blowing agents available that have lower
thermal conductivity and better
insulation value in each of the end-uses
where we are changing the status of one
or more foam-blowing agent, we expect
that foam products that require higher
energy efficiency will be able to use
foam blowing agents that will result in
lowering the GHG emissions and energy
savings over the lifetime of a product,
rather than raising it. For example,
home appliances that currently use
HFC–245fa could use trans-1-chloro3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene or HFO–
1336mzz(Z) and thereby ensure they
meet DOE energy conservation
standards. Similarly, information from
the supplier of HFO–1234ze(E) indicates
that XPS would maintain or improve its
energy efficiency if HFO–1234ze(E)
were used instead of HFC–134a as the
blowing agent. Manufacturers of
alternative panels or composite
materials have not provided information
showing that use of an alternative
blowing agent would adversely affect
the weight of foam formulations and
thereby reduce fuel efficiency.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
(d) Cost Impacts
Comment: Commenters express
concern about the costs of the transition
required by the proposal, including:
• capital costs;
• research, reformulation, and testing;
• technology and equipment;
• conversion, system re-design, and
retrofit;
• certification;
• costs for the recreational boating
industry;
• increasing cost of HFC–134a;
• increases in costs to consumers;
• market competitiveness impacts;
• reduction in new product
development;
• retesting required due to lack of
coordination with timing of
requirements for DOE energy
conservation standards;
• economic impacts on branding;
• cost savings; and
• other general economic concerns.
Some commenters, such as
Mexichem, Solvay, and AHAM,
suggested that it was not necessary to
change the status of HFC–134a and
other HFC foam blowing agents or to
require industry to incur the costs that
these changes require. Other
commenters, such as NMMA, NAFEM,
XPSA, and their members, requested
additional time for the change of status
of HFC–134a and other HFC foam
blowing agents in order to allow them
to spread costs out over time and thus
make costs of the transition more
manageable. Imperial Brown suggested a
later status change date to allow foam
manufacturers to create sufficient
supply, thereby alleviating a potential
cost premium associated with scarcity
of newer alternatives.
Response: EPA recognizes that
transitioning to new foam blowing
agents is likely to require capital costs
and investments in research, updated
equipment, and related financial
impacts. However, as explained in more
detail in another response to comment,
under the SNAP criteria for review in 40
CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only cost
information that EPA considers as part
of its SNAP review is the cost of the
substitute under review (and not the
cost of transition when a substitute is
found unacceptable).
Although cost is not a consideration
in our decision to change the status of
certain substitutes, we note that based
on technical concerns, the final rule
establishes a later change of status date
in a number of end-uses, which will
allow manufacturers to spread costs
over time. Regarding whether there will
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42933
be a sufficient supply of alternatives, we
considered this issue in establishing the
change of status dates and believe that
there will be more than adequate
supplies of alternatives. This will also
contribute to lower costs. We have
addressed elsewhere why it is necessary
to change the status of substitutes for
the various end-uses based on whether
alternatives that pose lower risk are
available. Where we concluded that
safer alternatives were available, we
determined it was necessary to change
the status. Thus, we disagree with the
commenters who suggest that it is not
necessary to change the status of various
HFC foam blowing agents.
VI. What is EPA finalizing for the
HCFCs addressed in this rule?
A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs
and what is being finalized in this rule?
In the August 6, 2014 NPRM, EPA
proposed to change the listings from
acceptable to unacceptable for three
HCFCs: HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b, and
HCFC–22 (79 FR 46155). As discussed
in the proposed rule, EPA proposed to
modify the listings for these three
HCFCs and blends containing these
HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with
other parts of the stratospheric
protection program, 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. HCFCs are
subject to the use restrictions in CAA
section 605(a) and these specific HCFCs
have been restricted under EPA’s
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
82 subpart A since January 1, 2010.
Additionally, the nonessential products
ban under CAA section 610 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
aligning the requirements. The HCFCs
addressed in this rule were previously
listed as acceptable or acceptable
subject to use conditions in the aerosols,
foam blowing, fire suppression and
explosion protection, sterilants, and
adhesives, coatings and inks sectors. For
more information, please refer to the
relevant section of the proposed rule as
noted above. The change of status
determinations for the HCFCs addressed
in this rule are summarized in the
following table:
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42934
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 9—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR HCFCS ADDRESSED IN THIS RULE
Sector and end-use
Substitutes
Aerosols—Propellants ..............................................
HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b ....................................
Aerosols—Solvents ..................................................
HCFC–141b and blends thereof .............................
Foams—All end-uses ...............................................
HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b, HCFC–22, and blends
thereof
Fire suppression—Total flooding ..............................
HCFC–22 ................................................................
Sterilants ...................................................................
Blends containing HCFC–22 ...................................
Adhesives, coatings, and inks—All end-uses ..........
HCFC–141b and blends thereof .............................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Consistent with the proposal, in
today’s final rule, EPA is modifying the
listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b,
and HCFC–22, as well as blends that
contain these substances, from
acceptable to unacceptable 90 in nonrefrigerant sectors—specifically,
aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire
suppressants, cleaning solvents,
sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and
inks.
As provided in the proposal, EPA is
not addressing HCFC use for
refrigeration and air conditioning in this
rulemaking because CAA section 605(a)
and our implementing regulations allow
for continuing use of HCFCs to service
equipment. Recognizing that other
HCFCs became subject to the use and
interstate commerce prohibitions in 40
CFR 82.15(g) after issuance of the
proposed rule, and that limited
exemptions are available in section
82.15(g) for certain of those HCFCs, EPA
is not modifying 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. We are
finalizing the proposal that the listings
be modified 60 days following issuance
of a final rule.
B. How is EPA responding to public
comments concerning HCFCs?
Comment: EPA received a few
comments on the proposed
modifications affecting HCFCs,
primarily on whether the
unacceptability determination should
apply to imported products containing
closed cell foam that contain any of the
90 These three HCFCs have previously been listed
as unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP
sectors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
blowing agents listed as unacceptable,
as well as applying to the blowing agent
itself.
Response: As explained in section
V.D.2.c, above, EPA is not finalizing the
proposed change to the import of closed
cell foam products blown with an agent
listed as unacceptable. We also
explained that we plan to continue
assessing the merits of this change and
may provide further explanation and
opportunity for comment in a
subsequent rulemaking. Thus, as of the
time of the status change, foam blowing
agents containing HCFC–141b, –142b,
and –22 and blends are prohibited from
being used or imported into the United
States, but foam products or products
containing foam made with these
agents, such as appliances or furniture,
may still be imported.
Comment: Hussmann Corporation
asked for four years from the issuance
of the final rule to make any changes to
the acceptability of HCFC–141b in foam
blowing applications, stating that
considerable time is needed to review
what impact new foam has to structural
integrity and product efficiency. The
commenter stated that this timing
would would allow manufacturers to
make a transition to new products while
remaining within the EPA’s new HCFC
allocation rule (which will completely
phase out HCFC refrigerants in five
years).
Response: EPA would like to clarify
that anyone still using HCFC–141b to
blow foam in the United States is likely
out of compliance with longstanding
regulations promulgated under the
SNAP program (CAA section 612), as
well as the HCFC phaseout (CAA
section 605). Under SNAP, HCFC–141b
was listed as unacceptable effective on
November 29, 2004, for all foam uses,
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Decision
Unacceptable effective [DATE
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
FINAL RULE]
Unacceptable effective [DATE
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
FINAL RULE]
Unacceptable effective [DATE
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
FINAL RULE]
Unacceptable effective [DATE
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
FINAL RULE]
Unacceptable effective [DATE
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
FINAL RULE]
Unacceptable effective [DATE
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
FINAL RULE]
60
OF
60
OF
60
OF
60
OF
60
OF
60
OF
with a limited exemption for use in
space vehicle, nuclear, and defense
applications, as well as for research and
development for foreign customers (see
69 FR 58269). Under the HCFC phaseout
program, EPA stopped the production
and import of HCFC–141b for use in
foams in 2003 (40 CFR 82.16(b)) and
prohibited its use as of January 1, 2010,
with limited exceptions (40 CFR
82.15(g)). All remaining exemptions for
the use of HCFC–141b ended on January
1, 2015. Therefore, this current rule
does not affect the use of HCFC–141b to
blow foam in the United States; it only
ensures the SNAP list is aligned with
other existing regulations under Title VI
of the CAA.
If the commenter is referring to
applying the unacceptability
determination for HCFC–141b to
products containing HCFC–141b, as
discussed above in this section, EPA is
not finalizing the proposed change to
the import of closed cell foam products
blown with an agent listed as
unacceptable.
VII. How is EPA responding to other
public comments?
A. Authority
1. General Authority
Comment: The Agency received
several comments, including those from
Solvay, Arkema, AHAM, BASF,
Mexichem, NRDC and IGSD, Whirlpool,
and Bally Refrigerated Boxes on its
authority to change the status of HFC–
134a and other substitutes that were
addressed in the proposed rule. NRDC
and IGSD asserted that under section
612 of the CAA ((42 U.S.C. 7671k), EPA
has the authority—if not the affirmative
mandate—to remove the proposed
substances from the SNAP list of
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
acceptable substitutes. They quoted
from section 612(a), emphasizing that
replacement of ODS with substitutes
that reduce overall risk is to occur ‘‘to
the maximum extent practicable’’ (42
U.S.C. 7671k(a)). They stated that under
section 612(c)(2), EPA has authority to
decide which substances may and may
not be used in the SNAP sectors.
Finally, they asserted that in speaking of
both alternatives ‘‘currently’’ available,
and those that are ‘‘potentially’’
available, Congress recognized that the
universe of alternatives will evolve over
time, so that as additional alternatives
become available, EPA has an obligation
to revise the SNAP list to ensure that the
substances included will minimize
‘‘overall risks to human health and the
environment’’ (42 U.S.C. 7671k(c)).
In contrast, Mexichem, Solvay,
AHAM/Electrolux and Arkema asserted
that the proposed actions were outside
the scope of Title VI, section 612 of the
CAA, and EPA’s SNAP regulations.
Specifically, these commenters asserted
that Congress and EPA designed the
SNAP program to safeguard
stratospheric ozone, and not to address
climate change and greenhouse gases.
AHAM stated that Title VI of the CAA
does not provide EPA broad authority to
regulate refrigerants, foams and
chemicals in circumstances unrelated to
ozone depletion. Mexichem stated that
the repeated references in section 612 to
class I and class II substances
demonstrate that Congress was
concerned with ODS.
Several commenters emphasized
evaluation of a substitute in relation to
ODS. Mexichem asserted that EPA
recognized ‘‘the limited nature of the
statute’’ in 1994 when it promulgated
the statement of purpose and scope for
the SNAP program (59 FR 13044, Mar.
18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.170). In its
comment, Mexichem provided a
quotation from the statement of purpose
and scope, suggesting that substitutes
are to be compared only to ODS.
Arkema quoted an EPA ‘‘Guide to
Completing a Risk Screen’’ 91 for the fire
suppression sector as explaining that
environmental effects would be
evaluated by comparing the substitute’s
GWP to the GWP of the ODS it replaces.
Solvay contended that changing the
listing status of a previously approved
substitute would eliminate the user’s
ability to use a substance that met the
statutory objective of providing better
overall health and safety in comparison
to the use of an ODS in a specific enduse.
91 https://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/
riskscreenfire.pdf
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Several commenters also asserted that
nothing has happened with respect to
any attribute or impact of the HFCs
addressed in this rulemaking that would
warrant a change in the initial decisions
to list HFCs as acceptable.
Response: EPA agrees with NRDC and
IGSD’s conclusion that the Agency has
authority to take the change of status
actions included in the proposed
rulemaking and disagrees with
comments suggesting that the sole
purpose of section 612 and the SNAP
program is to safeguard the ozone layer.
Section 612(c) requires EPA to take
action when the Agency (1) determines
that a substitute may present adverse
effects to human health and the
environment, and (2) identifies an
alternative that reduces overall risk to
human health and the environment and
is currently or potentially available.
That provision makes clear that the
mandate of section 612 is to reduce
overall risk; it does not limit the risks
of concern to those associated with
ozone depletion. In addition, while
section 612 refers repeatedly to class I
and class II substances, it also refers
repeatedly to substitutes or alternatives,
requiring specific actions with regard to
such substances.
EPA cannot fulfill its section 612(c)
mandate to compare alternatives with a
view to reducing overall risk without
considering impacts related to issues
other than ozone depletion. Toward that
end, the SNAP regulations require
submitters to include information on a
wide range of factors in addition to
ODP, including GWP, toxicity,
flammability, and the potential for
human exposure (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18,
1994 and codified at 40 CFR 82.178).
Further, the SNAP regulations state that
EPA will consider atmospheric effects
(including GWP), exposure assessments,
toxicity data, flammability, and other
environmental impacts such as
ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts
(59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR
82.180).
In addition, while section 612(a)
states the Congressional policy of
reducing overall risk in broad terms,
section 612(c) specifically requires EPA
to compare the risk of the substitute
under review to other substitutes or
alternatives. In that regard, Mexichem’s
comment omits a crucial phrase in the
statement of ‘‘purpose and scope’’ in the
SNAP regulations. The complete
statement reads: ‘‘The objectives of this
program are . . . to promote the use of
those substitutes believed to present
lower overall risks to human health and
the environment, relative to the class I
and class II compounds being replaced,
as well as to other substitutes for the
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42935
same end-use, and to prohibit the use of
those substitutes found, based on the
same comparisons, to increase overall
risks [emphasis added]’’ (59 FR 13044,
Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.170). In
addition, Arkema’s reference to a single
document containing language
mentioning a substitute-to-ODS
comparison ignores the large number of
risk screens that EPA has prepared over
the years that compare the ODP and
GWP, and other environmental and
health attributes, of substitutes to those
of other substitutes, as well to those of
ODS (e.g., risk screens in the following
dockets: EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0798 and
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118.) Further,
EPA’s listings over the years have
included comparisons of substitutes to
other available alternatives in the same
end-uses (e.g., 67 FR 13272, 67 FR
77927, 68 FR 50533, 69 FR 58903, 71 FR
15589, 71 FR 55140, 71 FR 56359, 74 FR
21, 74 FR 50129, 75 FR 34017, 76 FR
17488, 76 FR 61269, 76 FR 78832, 77 FR
47768, 77 FR 58035, 78 FR 29034, 79 FR
62863). The substitute-to-substitute
comparison is essential to fulfilling
EPA’s obligation under section 612(c) to
determine whether there are alternatives
that reduce overall risk as compared
with the substitute under review.
To the extent possible, the Agency has
always sought to ensure that our SNAP
decisions are informed by the most
current overall understanding of
environmental and human health
impacts associated with available and
potentially available alternatives. In that
regard, the Agency has, since the
inception of the SNAP program,
asserted its authority, consistent with
the language of section 612(c) and the
section’s statement of congressional
policy, to review substitutes listed as
acceptable and to take action with
respect to those substitutes on the basis
either of new information generally,
including that related to overall risk, or
of the availability of new alternatives
that pose less overall risk. Specifically,
in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule,
EPA made clear that ‘‘the Agency may
revise these [listing] decisions in the
future as it reviews additional
substitutes and receives more data on
substitutes already covered by the
program’’ (59 FR 13044, 13047). We
interpret section 612 as allowing both
addition of new, safer alternatives to the
listings and removal from the listings of
substitutes found to pose more risk
overall than other available alternatives.
With regard to additional data on
substitutes already covered by the
program, the Agency has previously
responded to the evolution of scientific
and technical information by revisiting
the listing status of a substitute. For
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42936
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
example, on the basis of new
information on toxicity, EPA took action
in January of 2002 to change the listing
for HBFC-22B1 from acceptable, subject
to use conditions to unacceptable (67 FR
4185, January 29, 2002; 40 CFR 82
subpart G, appendix J).
With regard to additional alternatives,
the suite of available or potentially
available alternatives changes over time.
For example, over the past several years,
and as standards and familiarity with
the safe use of various alternatives has
developed, EPA has listed several
specific flammable refrigerants as
acceptable for some end-uses subject to
use conditions (e.g., 76 FR 78832,
December 20, 2011; 40 CFR 82 subpart
G appendix R; 80 FR 19453, April 10,
2015). Most of these refrigerants (e.g.,
ethane, propane, isobutane, HFC–32) are
not new molecules; rather, their recent
listing as acceptable subject to use
conditions is based on an increased
understanding of their ability to be used
in a manner that would reduce overall
risk. The availability of those
alternatives enables a broader review of
comparative risk under section 612(c).
Further, we disagree with the notion
that our understanding of the impact of
HFCs has remained static. Our
understanding of the impact that HFCs
have on climate has evolved and
become much deeper over the years. As
mentioned elsewhere in this
rulemaking, a significant indication of
that change can be seen in EPA’s
December 7, 2009, Endangerment
Finding (74 FR 66496, 66517, 66539)
which makes clear that like the ODS
they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs. In
addition, HFCs are now in widespread
usage. The most commonly used HFC is
HFC–134a. HFC–134a is 1,430 times
more damaging to the climate system
than carbon dioxide (see Table A–1 to
subpart A of 40 CFR part 98). Further,
HFC emissions are projected to
accelerate over the next several decades;
if left unregulated, emissions are
projected to double by 2020 and triple
by 2030.92 Additional information
concerning the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and emission scenarios related
to HFCs is available in the docket for
this rulemaking (e.g., Akerman, 2013;
EPA, 2013b and 2014; IPCC, 2007 and
2013; IPCC/TEAP 2005; Montzka, 2012;
Velders et al., 2009). This information
was taken into account in this
rulemaking.
2. Second Generation Substitutes
Comment: Several comments focused
on the term ‘‘replace’’ in section 612(c),
suggesting that once a company has
switched to a non-ODS alternative, it is
no longer ‘‘replacing’’ a Class I or Class
II ODS in its products, and that it is
unsupportable to read ‘‘replacement’’ as
a continuous process rather than as a
single event. Solvay stated that the
proposed rule would require users that
have already ‘‘replaced’’ ODS with nonODS to make a second replacement, and
that EPA lacks authority to require this
second replacement. Arkema stated that
the statutory terms ‘‘replace’’ and
‘‘replacement’’ must be given their
ordinary meanings, and that to replace
an ODS means to take the place of an
ODS. Arkema further noted that EPA
defines a ‘‘substitute or alternative’’ in
its SNAP regulations as something
‘‘intended for use as a replacement for’’
an ODS (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 1994 and
40 CFR 82.172). Arkema concluded that
Congress and EPA designed the SNAP
program to regulate things taking the
place of ODS, not to replace substances
with no ozone depletion potential.
Arkema contended that EPA has
interpreted the statute and regulations
as excluding non-ODS. In support of
this argument, Arkema quoted the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule as
saying that ‘‘a key issue’’ was ‘‘whether
there exists a point at which an
alternative should no longer be
considered a class I or class II substitute
as defined by 612’’ (59 FR 13044,
13052). The commenter further quoted
the preamble to that rule as saying that
‘‘if a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is
introduced as a first-generation
refrigerant substitute for [an ODS], it is
subject to review and listing under
section 612. Future substitutions to
replace the HFC would then be exempt
from reporting under
section 612 . . . .’’ (id.). In addition,
Arkema quoted a 1996 petition
response 93 as stating that EPA does not
review substitutes for non-ozonedepleting substances such as HFC–134a.
Arkema also quoted the SNAP
Instruction Manual 94 as instructing
applicants to specify the ODS being
replaced.
AHAM commented that the appliance
industry no longer intends HFCs as a
substitute or replacement for ODS. The
commenter stated that there are very
few remaining models that ever used
ODS, and that the substances used in
today’s models are not substitutes or
93 Response
92 Climate Change and President Obama’s Action
Plan. June, 2013. Available in the docket and online
at www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
to Oz Technology’s Petition (Aug 30,
1996).
94 www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/submit/
appguide.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
replacements in the common-sense
meaning of those words.
Arkema further stated that EPA
should be precluded from comparing
non-ODS first-generation alternatives
(such as HFC–134a) to secondgeneration non-ODS alternatives (such
as HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744).
Arkema contended that none of these
second-generation compounds is a
‘‘substitute’’ for SNAP purposes.
Response: In this rulemaking, the
Agency is revising the listing status of
substitutes that are direct replacements
for ODS. Arkema admits as much on
p. 8 of their comment letter, where they
describe HFC-134a as a ‘‘first generation
refrigerant substitute.’’ While we are not
exploring the full scope of the ‘‘first
generation’’ concept in this action, there
is no question that HFC–134a directly
replaced ODS in the relevant sectors.
For example, with respect to foam
blowing, when HFC–134a was listed as
acceptable in foam blowing
applications, foam was still being blown
with HCFCs (59 FR 13044, March 18,
1994; 64 FR 30410, June 8, 1999). In this
action, we are not addressing the extent
of EPA’s authority to revise the listings
of alternatives that are arguably indirect
replacements for ODS, sometimes
termed ‘‘second-generation
alternatives.’’
EPA does not agree with the
commenters who suggest that while
HFC–134a may have replaced ODS at
one point in time, it no longer does so.
The term ‘‘replace’’ is not defined in
section 612, EPA therefore interprets
this term as it is commonly used.
Dictionary definitions can provide
insight into how a reasonable or
ordinary person would interpret the
term. Dictionary definitions of ‘‘replace’’
include the following: ‘‘to be used
instead of’’ 95 ‘‘to take the place of,’’ 96
and ‘‘to provide a substitute or
equivalent for.’’ 97 None of these
definitions suggests that something used
‘‘instead of’’ or ‘‘to take the place’’ of
something else ceases to ‘‘replace’’ it
simply due to the passage of time. Nor
does the Agency view the replacement
of a ODS with a substitute (e.g., HFC–
134a) as limited to the first time a
product manufacturer uses the
substitute. Indeed, in the preamble to
the initial SNAP rule, we interpreted the
term ‘‘replace’’ to apply ‘‘each time a
substitute is used.’’ (59 FR 13044,
13047). We noted that ‘‘[u]nder any
other interpretation, EPA could never
95 Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/replace.
96 Collins, www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/
american/replace.
97 Id.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
effectively prohibit the use of any
substitute, as some user could always
start to use it prior to EPA’s completion
of the rulemaking required to list it as
unacceptable’’ (Id.). Thus, the fact that
HFC–134a is already in use as a
replacement for ODS does not mean that
its future use is any less of a
replacement. In context, the language
that Arkema quotes (‘‘whether there
exists a point at which an alternative
should no longer be considered a class
I or II substitute’’) does not suggest that
a substance that directly replaces the
ODS might somehow cease to qualify as
an ODS substitute. Rather, it raises the
question of whether a substance that
indirectly replaces the ODS might fail to
qualify. That question is not addressed
in this rulemaking because this
rulemaking addresses only substances
that are direct replacements for ODS in
the relevant sectors.
Similarly, the mere passage of time
does not mean that the substances
addressed in this rulemaking have
somehow ceased to be ‘‘substitutes or
alternatives’’ under the regulatory
definition at 40 CFR 82.172. No
commenter suggests that at the time of
their initial SNAP listing these
substances were anything other than
‘‘chemicals . . . intended for use as a
replacement for a class I or II
compound.’’ Rather, commenters assert
that these substances are no longer
intended for use as an ODS
replacement. However, introducing a
temporal aspect into this definition
would mean that a product
manufacturer could make an initial
substitution for a class I or II substance
90 days after providing the required
notification to EPA and thereafter
continue to use the substitute while
disclaiming any intent to replace the
ODS. This is not a supportable
interpretation because it would allow
the manufacturer to circumvent SNAP
requirements simply by beginning to
use a substitute prior to its SNAP
listing.
In addition, EPA implements the
section 612(c) mandate to list
substances as acceptable or
unacceptable ‘‘for specific uses’’ by
listing substitutes on an end-use or
sector basis.98 Similarly, the Agency
views transition as occurring on an enduse by end-use or sector-by-sector basis,
not—as one commenter suggests—on a
model-by-model basis. Thus, the act of
‘‘replacing’’ is not limited to the
redesign of a particular model, or the
introduction of a new model, but
98 This is reflected in the appendices to 40 CFR
part 82, subpart G.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
instead occurs repeatedly within a given
end-use or sector.
Contrary to Solvay’s comment, EPA
has authority to regulate the continuing
replacement of ODS with HFC–134a and
the other substitutes whose listing status
is addressed in this action. In this
rulemaking, EPA considered whether
such replacement should continue to
occur given the expanded suite of other
alternatives to ODS in the relevant enduses and our evolving understanding of
risks to the environment and public
health. The commenter’s line of
reasoning would undermine EPA’s
ability to comply with the statutory
scheme reflected in section 612(c),
under which EPA’s authority to prohibit
use of a substitute is tied to information
on overall risk and the availability of
substitutes.
Regarding Arkema’s suggestion that
HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744 are
not ‘‘substitutes’’ for SNAP purposes
and thus they cannot be used as part of
a review of whether EPA should change
the status of HFC–134a, we disagree.
HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a and R–744 (as
well as the other substances we used for
comparison purposes in this
rulemaking) 99 are currently listed as
acceptable or acceptable, subject to use
conditions under SNAP. Thus, we have
separately taken action to treat these
substances as substitutes for the
purposes of section 612(c) and the
corresponding regulatory provisions.
We are not re-examining in this
rulemaking whether the substances used
for comparison purposes in this action
qualify as substitutes. Rather, in this
rule, we are making listing
determinations for substances that are
direct substitutes for ODS based on their
overall risk compared to these other
alternatives.
3. GWP Considerations
Comment: The Agency received
several comments relating to EPA’s
authority to consider GWP in its
comparative risk evaluation, and to take
99 We note that the requirement under section 612
does not limit our analysis of whether there are
‘‘safer’’ alternatives only to ‘‘substitutes’’ listed
under the SNAP program. Rather section 612(c)
refers to ‘‘alternatives’’ that are currently or
potentially available. Thus, in instances where we
are aware of other alternatives that may not have
completed SNAP review and we have sufficient
information for those alternatives relative to the
SNAP review criteria, we may include those
alternatives in our comparative analysis. In this
action, for purposes of the refrigeration end-uses,
we included in our comparative analysis several
substances we were concurrently reviewing under
SNAP and which we have taken action to list as
acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10,
2015, 80 FR 19453) and for which we are taking
action concurrently with this rule to list as
acceptable.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42937
action on the basis of GWP. Specifically,
Solvay and Mexichem stated that while
section 602 of the CAA requires EPA to
publish the GWP of each listed class I
and class II substance, the Agency’s
authority is limited by the language
stating that it ‘‘shall not be construed to
be the basis of any additional regulation
under this chapter.’’ Solvay stated that
this language expresses Congress’s
intent that no provision of Title VI—
including, but not limited to, § 602,
§ 608, § 612, and § 615—provides
statutory authority for the Agency to
implement an overarching program
under which it can force users to cease
using substances with global warming,
but not ozone-depleting, potentials.
Mexichem commented that if GWPs of
listed compounds cannot be the basis of
further regulation under Title VI, it
follows that regulation based on
comparisons of GWPs of both listed
substances and unlisted alternatives was
intended by Congress equally to be
foreclosed. Commenters asserted that
EPA inappropriately used the physical
characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for
risk; failed to assess the significance to
climate change of the emissions
reductions estimated to be brought
about by the action as they relate to risk
for each substance in each sector
covered; failed to assess and account for
indirect climate impacts; and failed to
apply its customary tests for
consideration of atmospheric effects.
BASF commented that EPA proposed
to find HFCs unacceptable because they
have ‘‘high GWPs as compared with
other available or potentially available
substitutes in those end-uses and pose
significantly greater overall risk to
human health and the environment.’’
BASF noted that while CAA section 612
does require an assessment of risk, it
does not explain how that assessment
should be done. BASF added that
whatever that assessment should
involve, it is possible that Congress did
not intend GWP to be part of that
assessment.
Response: As noted by some
commenters, section 602 of the CAA
calls on EPA to publish the GWP for
each class I or class II substance, but
goes on to say that this mandate ‘‘shall
not be construed to be the basis of any
additional regulation under this
chapter.’’ Consistent with this
provision, we are not relying on section
602 as authority for the action being
taken in this rulemaking. Rather, we are
relying on section 612, which
specifically provides that EPA is
required to list a substance as
unacceptable if it ‘‘may present adverse
effects to human health or the
environment’’ where EPA has identified
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42938
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
alternatives that are currently or
potentially available and that ‘‘reduce
the overall risk to human health and the
environment.’’
Considerations of atmospheric effects
and related health and environmental
impacts have always been a part of
SNAP’s comparative review process,
and the provision of GWP-related
information is required by the SNAP
regulations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and
82.180). The issue of EPA’s authority to
consider GWP in its SNAP listing
decisions was raised in the initial rule
establishing the SNAP program. In the
preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule,
EPA stated: ‘‘The Agency believes that
the Congressional mandate to evaluate
substitutes based on reducing overall
risk to human health and the
environment authorizes use of global
warming as one of the SNAP evaluation
criteria. Public comment failed to
identify any definition of overall risk
that warranted excluding global
warming’’ (59 FR 13044, March 18,
1994).
Consistent with that understanding,
the 1994 SNAP rule specifically
included ‘‘atmospheric effects and
related health and environmental
impacts’’ as evaluation criteria the
Agency uses in undertaking
comparative risk assessments (59 FR
13044, March 18, 1994; 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7)(i)). That rule also
established the requirement that anyone
submitting a notice of intent to
introduce a substitute into interstate
commerce provide the substitute’s GWP
(see 40 CFR 82.178(a)(6)). Accordingly,
we have considered the relative GWP of
alternatives in many SNAP listing
decisions. For example, in the decision
to list C7-Fluoroketone as acceptable we
noted that ‘‘C7 Fluoroketone’s GWP of
about 1 is lower than or comparable to
that of other non-ozone-depleting
substitutes in heat transfer uses, such as
HFE-7100 with GWP of 297, HFC–245fa
with a GWP of 1030, and CO2 with a
GWP of 1’’ (77 FR 47768, August 10,
2012). In that same action, EPA also
considered ODP, VOC status,
flammability, toxicity and exposure,
concluding that ‘‘EPA finds C7
Fluoroketone acceptable in the end-use
listed above because the overall
environmental and human health risk
posed by C7 Fluoroketone is lower than
or comparable to the risks posed by
other substitutes found acceptable in the
same end-use’’ (id). Similarly, in finding
the use of isobutane and R–441
acceptable subject to use conditions in
household refrigeration, we included
an-in depth discussion of the relative
GWP of these and other alternatives
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
listed for household refrigeration (76 FR
78832, December 20, 2011).
In response to comments that EPA
inappropriately used the physical
characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for
risk and that EPA failed to assess the
significance to climate change of the
emissions reductions estimated to be
brought about by the action, as they
relate to risk for each substance in each
sector covered, we note that GWP is a
relative measure and that if comparable
amounts of two substitutes are used,
then the relative climate effects of
resultant emissions will be higher for
the substitute with higher GWP. EPA
considers factors such as charge size of
refrigeration equipment and total
estimates of production in its
assessment of environmental and health
risks of new alternatives, so we can
consider if there would be substantial
differences that might affect total
atmospheric emissions. We believe that
we have appropriately considered GWP
as a metric for comparing climate effects
of substitutes.
In response to comments that EPA
failed to assess and account for indirect
climate impacts, we note that we do not
have a practice in the SNAP program of
including indirect climate impacts in
the overall risk analysis. We do consider
issues such as technical needs for
energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE
standards) in determining whether
alternatives are ‘‘available,’’ and have
followed that practice in this
rulemaking. We believe that there is a
sufficient range of acceptable
alternatives that end users will be able
to maintain energy efficiency levels We
also note that federal energy
conservation standards will continue to
ensure that equipment regulated by this
rule will not increase its indirect
climate impacts. See in particular
section V.C.7 for a discussion on energy
efficiency for commercial refrigeration
products and section V.D.3.c for a
response to comments on energy
efficiency of foams.
In this action, EPA used the same
comparative risk approach it has used in
the past, including the consideration of
GWP.
4. Takings
Comment: Solvay asserted that the
delisting of already approved
alternatives constitutes a taking in
violation of the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. Solvay commented
that the delisting would effectuate a
regulatory taking for which the United
States would owe ‘‘just compensation’’
to regulated parties, including Solvay,
that have made significant investments
in furtherance of U.S. policies under the
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CAA and the Montreal Protocol. Solvay
quoted the Supreme Court case Lucas v.
South Carolina Coastal Council as
saying that ‘‘any limitation [that
prohibits all economically beneficial
uses of real property] . . . cannot be
newly legislated or decreed (without
compensation), but must inhere in the
title itself, in the restriction that
background principles of the State’s law
of property and nuisance already place
upon land ownership’’ (505 U.S. 1003,
1029 (1992)).
Response: The first question in a
takings analysis is whether there is a
property interest protected by the Fifth
Amendment. The commenter does not
identify the property interest that is the
subject of the alleged ‘‘taking.’’ While
the commenter cites a case involving
real property, no real property is at stake
here. To the extent the commenter has
a property interest in the HFCs it
imports or produces, such interest
would be limited to quantities already
in existence, and not those that might be
produced or imported in the future. In
any event, EPA’s change in the listing
status of HFCs does not effectuate a
taking. First, EPA’s action does not
‘‘completely deprive’’ the commenter of
‘‘all economically beneficial us[e]’’ of
the HFCs it produces or imports. See
Lingle v. Chevron, 544 U.S. 528, 538
(2005), quoting Lucas v. South Carolina
Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019
(1992). EPA is not listing all HFCs as
unacceptable in all end-uses; rather,
EPA is listing certain HFCs as
unacceptable in specified end-uses. In
addition, EPA is adopting change of
status dates that provide ample time for
HFCs already in existence to be sold.
Thus, some ‘‘economically beneficial
use’’ of the HFCs remains. In such
situations, courts typically consider
several factors in determining whether a
regulatory taking has occurred. Those
factors include ‘‘the character of the
governmental action, its economic
impact, and its interference with
reasonable investment-backed
expectations.’’ PruneYard Shopping
Center v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74, 83
(1980).
Here, the change in the listing status
of certain HFCs for specified end-uses is
designed to ‘‘promote the common
good’’ (see Penn Central Transportation
Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124
(1978)). The alternatives to which EPA
compared these HFCs in this action
were found to pose less overall risk to
human health and the environment in
the specified end-uses. Thus, removing
these HFCs from the list of acceptable
substitutes for these end-uses provides a
public benefit. Regarding the economic
impact of this action, EPA recognizes
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
that the impact will vary for the
different end-uses. For example, for
some foam blowing agent end-uses,
transitioning to other alternatives is
likely to require capital costs and
investments in research, updated
equipment, and their related financial
impacts. In comparison, for some
aerosol propellant uses and some
refrigeration end-uses, depending on the
alternative selected, there may be little
or no need for capital costs or research.
However, EPA notes that chemical
producers have been investing in lowGWP alternatives for years, and many
have either submitted SNAP
notifications or expressed interest in
submitting SNAP notifications
concerning new molecules and blends
of existing molecules.
The commenter could not have had a
reasonable investment-backed
expectation that these HFCs would
continue to be listed as acceptable
indefinitely in all end-uses, or in any
specific end-use, because EPA expressly
stated in the preamble to the initial
SNAP rule that ‘‘the Agency may revise
these [listing] decisions in the future as
it reviews additional substitutes and
receives more data on substitutes
already covered by the program’’ (59 FR
13044, 13047). In addition, EPA also
noted the ‘‘significant global warming
potentials’’ of some HFCs and stated
‘‘EPA is concerned that rapid expansion
of the use of some HFCs could
contribute to global warming’’ (id. at
13,071). EPA characterized HFCs as a
‘‘near-term option for moving away from
CFCs,’’ not as a long-term solution.
5. Montreal Protocol/International
Comment: Solvay comments that
HFCs are not regulated under the
Montreal Protocol and are not Class I or
Class II substances under Title VI.
Mexichem states that the United States,
Canada, and Mexico have proposed to
amend the Montreal Protocol to provide
an across-the-board phase down of
HFCs, but until then, EPA’s regulatory
authority under Title VI is limited to
ODS. AHAM adds that if at some point
EPA is authorized to phase out HFCs
consistent with future international
obligations that may constitute a more
appropriate avenue for phase-down
measures. AHAM believes there is
minimal purpose in promoting an
international regulatory regime if EPA is
going to apply what it considers to be
a ‘‘blunt and inappropriate’’ regulatory
instrument domestically, regardless of
the shape of a future international
scheme. AHAM comments that the
appliance industry’s transition from
HFCs is well underway, and EPA’s
proposal should reflect and support this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
progress, rather than impede it. Five
commenters commented on the
perceived inconsistency of the proposed
timeline and the proposed amendments
to the Montreal Protocol to adopt a
gradual phase down of HFCs.
Response: EPA agrees that the
Montreal Protocol does not currently
regulate HFCs. Nevertheless, several
sections of Title VI call on EPA to take
measures that are not required by the
Montreal Protocol but are
complementary to the ODS phaseout.
These sections include, in addition to
section 612, sections 608 (national
emissions reduction program), 610
(nonessential products), and 611
(labeling). In addition, while HFCs are
not a Class I or Class II substance under
the Clean Air Act, HFCs are substitutes
for Class I and Class II ODS, and section
612 and its implementing regulations
specifically call on the agency to restrict
substitutes for ODS where the Agency
has identified other available or
potentially available alternatives that
reduce overall risk to human health and
the environment.
The CAP considers both domestic and
multilateral action to address HFCs. The
United States co-proposed and is
strongly advocating for an amendment
to the Montreal Protocol to phase down
production and consumption of HFCs.
EPA sees no conflict between the United
States’ strong support for a global phasedown and this domestic action. The
amendment proposal calls for a phasedown of production and consumption of
a group of HFCs, including HFC–134a as
well as HFC–125 and HFC–143a
(components of R–404A, R–507A and
other blends), on a total CO2-equivalent
basis. It applies phase-down steps to
this group of HFCs as a basket and does
not assign individual deadlines to
specific HFCs or address specific uses.
6. Absence of Petitions
Comment: Solvay questioned whether
the Agency has the authority to issue
this proposed rule in the absence of one
or more petitions that fully satisfy the
requirements of § 612(d). Solvay
commented that while Congress granted
EPA the authority to create an initial list
of approved substitutes for ODS under
§ 612(c), § 612(d) specifies that
additions or deletions to the SNAP list
must be proposed via petition, and that
petitions ‘‘shall include a showing by
the petitioner that there are data on the
substance adequate to support the
petition.’’ Solvay stated that the CAA
puts the burden on a petitioner to
demonstrate that the substance it
proposes to list satisfies all of the SNAP
criteria. Solvay contended that EPA
should not attempt to delist any
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42939
substances on its own initiative. Solvay
commented that to the extent it does,
EPA has the burden, standing in the
shoes of a petitioner, to demonstrate
that it has data adequate to support the
petition.
Response: The Agency disagrees with
the commenter regarding EPA’s
authority to independently review and,
where appropriate, change the status of
substitutes under the SNAP program. In
the preamble to the initial SNAP rule,
the Agency stated that ‘‘section 612
authorizes it to initiate changes to the
SNAP determinations independent of
any petitions or notifications received.
These amendments can be based on new
data on either additional substitutes or
on characteristics of substitutes
previously reviewed’’ (59 FR 13044,
13047). Nothing in section 612(c)
contravenes this interpretation. The
existence of section 612(d), which
provides a right for persons to petition
the Agency to revise a listing, does not
address in any manner whether EPA has
authority to change a listing on its own.
Furthermore, section 612(c) requires
EPA to take action when the Agency (1)
determines that a substitute may present
adverse effects to human health and the
environment, and (2) identifies an
alternative that reduces overall risk to
human health and the environment and
is currently or potentially available.
Section 612(c) does not limit such EPA
determinations to initial review of
substitutes.
For petitions under section 612(d), the
petition must ‘‘include a showing . . .
that there are data on the substance
adequate to support the petition.’’ The
Agency disagrees that EPA stands in the
shoes of a petitioner under 612(d) when
it proposes to change the listing status
of an alternative. Rather, EPA’s action is
governed by section 612(c), and EPA
considers the criteria used in reviewing
substitutes as provided in 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7). Regardless, we note that
we also review section 612(d) petitions
based on the same SNAP criteria and
thus the ‘‘data on the substance
adequate to support the petition’’
necessarily are the data required for
review under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
EPA has changed the listing status of
substitutes in the past without having
received a petition under section 612(d),
as, for example, when we changed the
listing status of MT–31 (64 FR 3861, Jan.
26, 1999; 40 CFR part 82 subpart G
appendix E) and HBFC–22B1 (67 FR
4185, Jan. 29, 2002; 40 CFR part 82
subpart G appendix J).
While EPA has the right to act in the
absence of a petition, as described
above, EPA did receive three petitions
filed under section 612(d) that are
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42940
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
relevant to this rulemaking. Specifically,
NRDC filed a petition on May 7, 2010.
On February 14, 2011, EPA found that
petition complete for MVAC in new
passenger cars and light-duty vehicles
and determined it was incomplete for
other uses of HFC–134a. This rule
responds to the aspect of that petition
that we found complete. In addition,
EIA filed a petition on April 26, 2012,
and NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a
petition on April 27, 2012. Although
EPA found both of these petitions
incomplete, our action in this final rule
may be considered responsive to certain
aspects of the petitions, given that we
are changing the listing of certain HFCs
used in sectors noted in those petitions
from acceptable to unacceptable for
most uses, and placing use conditions or
narrowed use limits on some of the
remaining uses. A more detailed
discussion of the petitions can be found
in section IV of this rule.
7. Application of Criteria for Review of
Alternatives
Comment: Solvay commented that
EPA has failed to properly apply the
SNAP factors to a delisting situation,
has given undue weight to GWP in its
analysis, and has based its decision on
comparative GWPs of various non-ODS
options to the exclusion of all other
factors. Solvay commented that the
proposal was deficient in that EPA
failed to consider many relevant codes,
standards and regulations, including
parallel energy efficiency regulations
issued by the DOE; building code
standards; fire code requirements; and
Coast Guard regulations. Solvay also
stated that EPA should have considered
technical concerns like solubility,
compatibility, and shelf stability;
equipment limits; supply chain
considerations; and safety concerns that
affect many end-use products.
Solvay further commented that in
making a determination whether to list
a substance as an approved substitute to
replace an ODS, the Agency must
conduct a comprehensive analysis of
each alternative in each end-use,
including considerations of the cost of
the alternative, availability, and the
overall practicability of effectuating a
replacement. Solvay focused on the
phrase ‘‘to the maximum extent
practicable’’ in section 612(a) of the
CAA, stating that Congress deliberately
chose the term ‘‘practicable’’ to mandate
an orderly transition from ODS. Solvay
stated that the term ‘‘practicable’’
ordinarily includes consideration of cost
and availability. Solvay further argued
that EPA had acknowledged and agreed
with this understanding of the term by
including cost and availability in its list
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
of criteria. Solvay referred to dictum in
Honeywell v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363, 1373
(D.C. Cir. 2004) stating that ‘‘it is at least
facially plausible to read the term
‘available’ in section 612(c) as
permitting consideration of ‘economic
or practicality’ concerns.’’
Mexichem commented that the text of
the proposed rule and the underlying
docket, including the SNAP program’s
comparative risk framework, are vague
on how EPA reached the required
section 612(c) conclusion that the
alternatives reduce overall risks to
human health and the environment,
leaving the impression that it
considered only GWP. Specifically, they
state that out of the seven documents
that may be relevant to the comparative
risk framework analysis, only the
‘‘Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program
Status Change Rule’’ report refers to
human health and the environment,
with a focus on climate benefits, but
that the report itself is silent on
estimated reduction of ‘‘overall risks to
human health.’’ Mexichem also noted
that EPA promised to prepare a
consolidated analysis document in the
proposed rule, but no such document
was available at the time the comments
were drafted. Mexichem further stated
that an assessment of HFC–134a and
related alternatives is missing, and that
such an assessment should have
included several specific questions
related to the following factors:
Performance, availability, hazard,
exposure, and cost of the alternatives.
These questions include whether the
other alternatives perform as well as
HFC–134a in the specific end-use;
whether the other alternatives will be
available in the necessary quantities;
whether the other alternatives present a
better overall hazard profile; whether
the other alternatives present a better
overall exposure profile; whether use of
the other alternatives involves an
equivalent cost; and whether use of the
other alternatives represents a costeffective mitigation of CO2 emissions in
each end-use.
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc.
questioned whether the CAA authorizes
EPA to delist non-ODS solely on the
basis of GWP. Arkema commented that
EPA is focusing on the potential hazard
of GWP alone and stated that EPA is not
evaluating HFC–134a within a
comparative risk framework. Arkema
stated that if the CAA were to authorize
the SNAP program to ‘‘delist’’
previously approved non-ozone
depleting substances based on climate,
then EPA would need to develop an
objective measure for deciding which
substitute poses a greater risk and
communicate that standard to the
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regulated community. Arkema claimed
that any such measure would need to
include methods for weighing different
types of risks against one another (such
as flammability versus climate) and for
including mitigation, as the existing
SNAP program, which did not originally
provide for quantitative indexing of
risks, does not convey sufficient
information to the Agency or the
regulated community regarding risk
management decisions.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenters’ views regarding the
Agency’s consideration of overall risk.
In this rule, we applied the same
comparative risk framework that was
established for the SNAP program in
1994 and that has been used
successfully for over 20 years. When we
issued the proposal, we did not re-open
fundamental parts of the SNAP
program, such as the factors we evaluate
and the manner in which we weigh
them. Under the SNAP regulations,
proponents of a substitute are required
to submit a wide array of information,
including information on ODP, GWP,
toxicity, environmental fate and
transport, flammability, exposure data
and the cost and availability of the
substitute under review (see 40 CFR
82.178 for a full list of the information
required with SNAP submissions). EPA
reviews these data and applies the
regulatory criteria adopted in 1994,
which include, in addition to
atmospheric effects, general population
risks from ambient exposure to
compounds with direct toxicity and to
increased ground-level ozone,
ecosystem risks, occupational risks,
consumer risks, flammability, and cost
and availability of the substitute under
review (see 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7)). As
regards specific quantification of
reductions in overall risk to human
health and the environment, in the 1994
rulemaking, we considered and rejected
comments suggesting that we develop
an index to rank all substitutes based on
risk. In the preamble to the rule, we
specifically noted that ‘‘a strict
quantitative index would not allow for
sufficient flexibility in making
appropriate risk management decisions’’
(59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). Our
subsequent experience with the SNAP
program has given us no reason to
revisit this approach.
While EPA prepared a variety of
documents in association with the
proposed rule, the bulk of the
comparison of human health and
environmental impacts of alternatives
appeared in the preamble to the
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
NPRM.100 For this final rule, we have
added a technical support document to
the docket which provides the Federal
Register citations for information such
as ODP, GWP, VOC status, flammability,
and workplace exposure limits both for
the substitutes remaining acceptable
and for those with a changed status
(EPA, 2015d). This information was
discussed in the preambles to both the
NRPM and the final rule and is
provided in tabular format in the
technical support document for easier
comparison and consistency of
presentation.
As stated in the NPRM, the
documentation associated with the
proposed rule includes ‘‘market
characterizations, analyses of costs
associated with sector transitions,
estimated benefits associated with the
transition to alternatives, and potential
small business impacts’’ (79 FR 46126).
These documents provide information
to the public about estimated
environmental benefits, the affected
markets, and potential cost impacts, as
well as provide EPA’s screening
analyses to determine whether this rule
may have significant economic impacts
or significant impacts on a substantial
number of small businesses; they are not
part of EPA’s comparison of human
health and environmental effects of
alternatives.
Mexichem noted in its comments that
EPA had included these documents in
the docket for the proposed rule, but
raised a concern about the availability of
the consolidated analysis document
anticipated in the NPRM. The
consolidated analysis is included in the
docket for the final rule, but was not
available during the public comment
period (ICF, 2015a). This document is a
consolidated sector-by-sector market
characterization for those sectors
addressed in this action. While it
incorporates some suggestions and
information provided by commenters, it
otherwise does not add new substantive
information other than that provided in
the individual market characterizations
at the time of the proposed rulemaking.
It merely consolidates the information
for ease of reference.
We disagree with the comments
suggesting that EPA did not consider
factors other than GWP. In the NPRM,
for each end-use or sector, EPA
provided information comparing the
alternatives and applying the full set of
regulatory criteria, not solely GWPs, in
deciding whether to change the status of
100 EPA also placed in the docket a document on
exposure limits for alternatives in the foam blowing
sector, titled, ‘‘Information on workplace exposure
limits for foam blowing agents.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
a listed substitute, consistent with
SNAP’s past practices. As one example,
in discussing the change in status for
HFC–227ea in the aerosol propellant
end-use, the Agency explained in the
preamble that other available substitutes
have zero ODP, are relatively low in
toxicity, are capable of remaining below
their respective exposure limits, and are
expected to have negligible impact on
ground-level ozone levels (79 FR 46126,
46173). In each case, consistent with the
decision criteria listed at 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7), EPA has considered
environmental impacts, flammability,
toxicity, and exposure. In the context of
this review, we considered a large
amount of information including,
among other things: Scientific findings,
information provided by the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP)
that supports the Montreal Protocol,
journal articles, submissions to the
SNAP program, dockets for other EPA
rulemakings, presentations and reports
presented at domestic and international
conferences, and materials from trade
associations and professional
organizations. References cited in the
NPRM were listed in section IX of that
document and the references cited in
this final action are listed in section IX
of this document.
Solvay suggested a number of
considerations they believe should have
been included as part of EPA’s decisionmaking criteria, such as various
standards and codes, product shelf-life,
and equipment limits. Solvay does not
discuss how the various considerations
mentioned relate to the existing SNAP
review process. In general, we took such
considerations into account to the
extent relevant to the criteria for review
of a substitute or to the availability of
other alternatives. For example, we
considered such issues as the supply
and characteristics of alternatives as
well as the status of various regulations
and codes and standards as they relate
to the availability of the alternatives and
thus the appropriate time for the change
of status. EPA specifically mentioned
building codes (id. at 46143) and energy
efficiency and requested comment on
‘‘the effect, if any, [the] proposal would
have on meeting applicable DOE
standards.’’ (id. at 46147). We also noted
that plans for the production of an
alternative to HFC–134a in the MVAC
end-use ‘‘are in place to make it
available in volumes that meet current
and projected domestic auto industry
demand.’’ (id. at 46141)
We also addressed certain of these
issues in the context of the potential
mitigation of risks both for those
substitutes subject to the status change
and those that remain available. For
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42941
example, we noted in the preamble to
the NPRM, in the context of alternatives
in several of the foams end-uses, that
flammability issues would be addressed
in the process of meeting OSHA
regulations and fire codes (id. at 46,152,
46,153); and in the context of the retail
food refrigeration and vending machine
end-uses, that exposure limits for the
alternatives, including workplace
exposure limits of the AIHA and from
OSHA and NIOSH, would be met. (id.
at 46,144). Concerning other technical
concerns such as solubility,
compatibility, and shelf stability, this is
not information that the SNAP program
has routinely requested or received,
either for the substitutes used for
comparison purposes or for those being
evaluated for listing. We have
recognized, and when warranted, made
changes responding to such technical
considerations in this final rule where
commenters provided information
relevant to the availability of
alternatives: For example, in
establishing the change of status date for
stand-alone refrigeration equipment, we
took into consideration that certain
larger capacity commercial stand-alone
refrigeration equipment requires charge
sizes larger than those established in the
use conditions for most flammable
refrigerants.
Similarly, Mexichem suggested that
EPA was required to evaluate specific
questions regarding performance,
availability, hazard, exposure, and cost.
Again, this ignores the established
criteria that EPA uses in determining
whether a substitute is acceptable or
unacceptable in a specified end-use. In
the NPRM, in determining whether
other substitutes were available that
posed lower risk than those for which
we proposed to change the status, EPA
evaluated the ozone-depletion, climate,
local air quality, toxicity and
flammability risks of the substitutes
undergoing a change of status as well as
of other alternatives, thereby addressing
hazard and exposure concerns. We note
that the statute refers to overall risk to
human health and the environment, and
does not require that the substitutes be
better in terms of each potential human
health and environmental concern. EPA
does not typically compare the
performance or efficacy of substitutes
except in considering whether a
substitute is technically feasible (see
definition of ‘‘potentially available’’ at
40 CFR 82.172). In other words, it is not
necessary for EPA to evaluate whether
other alternatives perform as well as
HFC–134a (or other HFCs) in the
specific end-use in order to determine
that overall risks to human health and
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42942
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the environment would be reduced
through use of those alternatives.
We have considered whether other
alternatives will be available in
sufficient quantities as part of our
analysis of the availability of
alternatives. As discussed in the NPRM,
we set dates for the proposed status
changes that reflect when there will be
a sufficient supply of the alternatives.
(id. at 46,141) In some instances, we
have revised those dates in this final
action after taking into account
information on supply of alternatives
submitted by commenters.
One of the regulatory criteria for
review of a substitute is the ‘‘cost and
availability of the substitute’’ (59 FR
13044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR
82.180(7)(vii)). The consideration of cost
under this criterion is limited to the cost
of the substitute under review; it is
distinct from consideration of costs
associated with the use of other
alternatives to which the substitute is
being compared. See Honeywell, 374
F.3d at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in
part and dissenting in part) (‘‘While the
SNAP regulations make the ‘cost and
availability of the substitute’ an element
of acceptability . . . that concern is
limited to whether EPA ‘has . . . reason
to prohibit its use,’ not to whether
cleaner alternatives for the substance are
already ‘currently or potentially
available’. . . . Consideration of
transition costs is thus precluded by the
SNAP regulations as currently written,
irrespective of whether it might be
permitted under CAA § 612(c). . . .’’)
Contrary to Solvay’s contention,
including the cost of the substitute in
the list of review criteria does not
amount to an acknowledgment that the
term ‘‘practicable’’ as used in section
612(a) necessarily involves
consideration of the costs associated
with using other alternatives. EPA has
not determined whether the term
‘‘practicable,’’ the term ‘‘available,’’ or
other terms in section 612 provide
discretion to consider such costs.
Similarly, our existing regulations do
not direct us to consider whether use of
the other alternatives involves an
equivalent cost to that of HFC–134a or
a cost-effective mitigation of CO2
emissions. We are not addressing in this
rulemaking whether to revise the
regulatory criteria to include an
expanded role for the consideration of
costs in SNAP listing decisions. We
have simply applied the existing
regulatory criteria in determining
whether to change the listing status of
the substitutes addressed in this action.
Thus, we have not considered the costs
of transition to other alternatives.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Several commenters suggested or
implied that EPA’s action was based
‘‘excessively’’ or solely on GWP. As
discussed above, we performed a full
comparative risk analysis for each of the
substitutes and for each end-use for
which we are changing the status.
However, as noted in the preamble to
the NPRM, EPA issued this proposal in
response to the CAP. As such, in
determining which substitutes and enduses to address in the proposed rule, we
evaluated the existing listing decisions
in the eight sectors covered by the
SNAP program. In three of the sectors,
we identified a subset of substitutes that
have a high GWP relative to other listed
alternatives and for which we also had
reason to believe other alternatives were
‘‘available’’ for the end-use. For those
substitutes included in the proposed
rule on the basis of having a relatively
higher GWP, in most cases, EPA did not
find significant potential differences in
risk with respect to the other criteria,
with the exceptions of flammability and
local air quality impacts. However,
where flammability risk was a potential
concern, we concluded that such risk is
mitigated by the existing use conditions
or through other existing regulations
(e.g., OSHA). In the case of spray foam,
we proposed to change the status of
fewer HFCs than in other foam blowing
end-uses in consideration of greater
flammability risks in that end-use.
Regarding VOC emissions and potential
impacts on local air quality, for the
aerosol propellant end-use, we did not
propose to change the status of HFC–
152a, a VOC-exempt aerosol propellant.
B. Cost and Economic Impacts of
Proposed Status Changes
EPA received a number of comments
on the cost and economic impacts of the
proposed rule. Some of these comments
are summarized in the response to
comments sections for the end-uses
addressed in this final rule. We
summarize and respond to the more
general cost comments below.
1. Costs of Proposed Rule
Comment: EPA received several
comments indicating that the
commenters believe EPA should
provide more time in order to avoid
undue burden on the U.S. economy.
NAFEM comments that if this rule is
finalized as proposed, the change from
using R–404A will be very costly.
NAFEM stated that compliance cost
estimates range from $500,000 to several
million dollars depending on the
number and variety of custom products
the manufacturer offers. They further
comment that testing costs are routinely
several hundred thousand dollars and
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
increase with the variety and level of
customization. NAFEM comments that
in addition, manufacturers will lose
revenues waiting for the limited number
of testing facilities able to accommodate
the industry’s products. The Alliance
for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the
Alliance) requests that greater weight be
given to economic considerations where
the Agency is determining dates for
availability of new alternatives, or
changing the listing status, which unlike
SNAP listing, may require businesses to
alter practices and business models. The
Alliance also requests that these
economic considerations also be
undertaken cognizant of competing
regulatory initiatives. The Alliance also
comments that the SNAP change of
status process should be used sparingly,
since its economic implications should
require a higher scrutiny in considering
transition dates and market assumptions
than is needed for the SNAP listing
approval process. DuPont comments
that it is important to reduce emissions
in a way that does not slow down global
trade, and to achieve emissions
reductions in a cost-effective manner.
Arkema comments that no SNAP rule
should impose unreasonable burdens on
the U.S. economy. Arkema believes that
EPA must allow more time for
transitions to avoid that outcome.
Mexichem believes EPA failed to take
into account the economic implications
of the proposed rule.
Response: As discussed more fully in
section VII.A.7, under the SNAP criteria
for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the
only cost information that EPA
considers as part of its SNAP review of
substitutes is the cost of the substitute
under review. The transition timelines
in this final rule are based on
information concerning the availability
of alternatives.
Comment: Arkema commented that
EPA underestimated the costs of the
NPRM. Arkema believes EPA’s cost
estimates are unduly optimistic given
all that must be done to redesign
equipment. Arkema further commented
on three areas of economic analysis that
they state need to be addressed. First,
Arkema stated that EPA does not
include the ‘‘wasted costs’’ incurred by
those manufacturers that have actually
changed designs of their equipment to
meet DOE standards, based on the
continued availability of existing SNAP
substitutes, but that now may need to
change their designs again. Second,
Arkema suggested that EPA should
account for ‘‘economic effects’’ on U.S.
plants that produce HFC–134a and the
other HFCs and HFC blends whose
listing the Agency proposed to change.
Third, Arkema suggested that the
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
economic analyses should disclose how
EPA expects prices and availability to
change once it eliminates competing
products, including stimulation of
short-term demand for the HFCs and
HFC blends whose listing the Agency
proposed to change, longer term
increases in prices for the HFCs and
HFC blends, and increased demand for
next-generation fluorinated products.
Solvay commented that given the
cumulative regulatory burden, EPA has
dramatically underestimated the costs of
the NPRM. As an example, Solvay
pointed to the DOE energy conservation
standards.
Response: Although EPA did not
consider the costs of transitioning to
other alternatives in making the listing
decisions in this rulemaking, we did
prepare a cost analysis and a small
business impacts analysis for this rule
for businesses that are directly
regulated.
We do not typically analyze
cumulative regulatory burden in our
cost analyses. Nonetheless, EPA notes
that to the extent that affected entities
recently incurred costs to comply with
DOE rulemakings, the change of status
dates in the final rule for the foam
blowing sector and for some of the
refrigeration end-uses (e.g., vending
machines) may reduce the potential for
additional costs due to complying with
both rules compared to the change of
status dates in the NPRM, since
equipment manufacturers should better
be able to coordinate DOE’s
requirements and these SNAP
requirements. For example, the change
of status date for rigid PU appliance
foam is January 1, 2020, while based on
the 2014 compliance date of the most
recent DOE standards, the compliance
date for any revised energy conservation
standard for household refrigerators and
freezers would be no earlier than 2020.
For vending machines, the final change
of status date is January 1, 2019, which
will likely coincide with compliance
requirements for any new or amended
DOE refrigerated beverage vending
machine standards, as compliance with
such standards would be required three
years after the publication of a final
rule. Material in the docket for that
action indicate DOE’s plans for a final
rule with a compliance date three years
later (see EERE–2013–BT–STD–0022).
Second, EPA has analyzed the costs of
users that are directly regulated and has
not analyzed the impacts on chemical
producers, which are indirectly affected
by the regulation. The commenters did
not provide specific cost or supply
information regarding redesigning
equipment or specific information on
operating costs for chemical plants that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
would have allowed us to analyze the
impacts as requested by Arkema. We
disagree with Arkema that it is
necessary or appropriate to analyze the
indirect impacts upon chemical plants
and producers. Such analysis would be
highly speculative about the degree of
cost pass-through from producers to
consumers of these chemicals. The total
cost estimates would be unchanged;
rather such an analysis would relate to
transfers between producers of the
substitutes undergoing a change of
status, producers of the acceptable
alternatives for the same uses, and
consumers of these products rather than
losses to the economy or to a market
sector as a whole. We note that the
transition affecting the majority of HFC–
134a production, the transition away
from HFC–134a in MVAC, is already
occurring because of other regulations,
and therefore changes to production and
cost of HFC–134a cannot easily be
attributed to this action.
EPA recognizes that transitioning to
other alternatives is likely to require
capital costs and investments in
research, updated equipment, and their
related financial impacts. Many
chemical producers have either
submitted SNAP notifications or
expressed interest in submitting SNAP
notifications concerning new molecules
and blends of existing molecules. EPA
agrees with Arkema that this rule is
likely to stimulate demand in nextgeneration alternatives further.
EPA also notes that, for example,
HFC–134a likely will be a component of
many low-GWP blends that are being
developed specifically to replace HFC–
134a. EPA listed as acceptable one of
those blends, R–450A, on October 21,
2014 at 79 FR 62863. The Agency is
aware of additional blends that multiple
chemical producers are developing. As
noted throughout this document, the
range of alternatives includes new
molecules and existing compounds,
encompassing fluorinated, nonfluorinated and in some cases not-inkind alternatives.
Third, we question Arkema’s
assumption that competition will
decrease and thus cost for low-GWP
alternatives will rise. For each of the
status changes in this final action, more
than one other alternative is currently
listed as acceptable or acceptable,
subject to use conditions, for the
relevant end-use. Moreover, we expect
new SNAP submissions that would
result in the introduction of further
alternatives to increase, rather than
reduce, competition. Further, because
this rule does not regulate production of
individual chemicals directly and
allows servicing of existing refrigeration
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42943
and AC equipment with the refrigerants
for which they are designed, we expect
there will continue to be a market for
HFC–134a and other HFC refrigerants
for years to come.
In those cases where commenters
provided specific, detailed cost
information, we used that information
to revise the cost assumptions in our
updated cost analysis for this final rule.
For additional information on economic
analysis conducted for this rule, see the
supporting document ‘‘Revised Cost
Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives’’ (ICF, 2015c).
Comment: NRDC and IGSD
commented that the rule is important
because it provides a needed signal to
various industrial sectors that as safer
alternatives are brought to market,
substitutes with high GWPs will be
removed from the SNAP list. NRDC and
IGSD commented that this provides
American companies with an
opportunity to become industry leaders
as the global market moves away from
high-GWP substances, by developing
new chemicals and processes to
transition the refrigeration, cooling,
aerosol and foams markets as quickly as
possible. NRDC further commented that
this rule will establish U.S. industry as
a leader in safer chemicals, helping pave
the way for global action under the
Montreal Protocol. NRDC noted that
when EPA previously proposed phasing
down CFCs and ODS, there were
warnings about dire impacts on industry
that did not come to pass, and NRDC
expects this will be true for this rule as
well. NRDC commented that 25 years of
experience with the Montreal Protocol
and the CAA has shown us that
transitioning to safer chemicals works
smoothly.
Response: EPA appreciates this
comment and agrees that there are many
innovative U.S. companies bringing new
low-GWP, energy-efficient products to
market.
2. EPA’s Cost Analysis and Small
Business Impacts Screening Analysis
Comment: EPA received a number of
comments indicating that small
businesses bear a disproportionate share
of the regulatory burden and that the
NPRM represents a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ NAFEM comments
that EPA must conduct a complete
analysis of the impacts on small entities
before any final regulation can be
promulgated. NAFEM comments that
EPA’s analysis is too narrow, is
incomplete, and that its conclusions are
unsupported. NAFEM further comments
that the NPRM disproportionately
affects small entities. NAFEM comments
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42944
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
that the NPRM represents a major rule
and will have a $100 million effect on
the economy and a major impact on the
commercial refrigeration industry and
its consumers. NAFEM commented that
the docket lacks a robust industry
analysis of the effects on small business
manufacturers and customers, or
reasonable support for EPA’s Regulatory
Flexibility Act conclusions. NAFEM
recommends that EPA initiate a Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) Small Entity
Representative review panel to help
inform final rulemaking, as required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Solvay
also commented that EPA should
convene a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel under the SBREFA.
Response: E.O. 12866 states that rules
that have an impact on the economy of
$100 million per year qualify as
significant regulatory actions. EPA
disagrees that this rule would have an
impact on the economy of $100 million
more per year. We performed an
analysis of the costs of the proposed
rule on businesses and estimated the
total annualized upfront compliance
costs to range from $8.9 million to $41.6
million; total annual savings are
estimated to be about $25.1 million
(ICF, 2014g). This cost analysis did not
evaluate the share of costs likely to be
borne by consumers, since it is not clear
what proportion of cost impacts may be
carried on to consumers, and further,
such economic analyses typically look
at costs to the regulated community
rather than indirect impacts on
consumers. We updated this analysis
based upon the regulatory options and
change of status dates in the final rule,
and using cost information provided by
commenters. The changes in the final
rule—especially with respect to
compliance dates—reduce the cost
impacts on small businesses, while the
updated cost information resulted in
higher cost estimates. In this updated
analysis, we estimated the total
annualized upfront compliance costs to
range from $28.0 million to $50.6
million, using a 7% discount rate, and
from $19.5 million to $37.8 million,
using a 3% discount rate. Total annual
savings are estimated to be about $19.3
million (ICF, 2015c). In either case, this
is well below the $100 million per year
threshold to consider this an
economically significant rule on
economic grounds.
EPA disagrees with the commenter
that the ‘‘docket lacks a robust industry
analysis on the effects on small business
manufacturers and customers, or
reasonable support for EPA’s Regulatory
Flexibility Act conclusions.’’ The
Agency’s screening analysis at proposal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
stage is included in the docket (ICF,
2014f). The commenters do not point to
any specific aspect of that analysis that
they believe are deficient. A Small
Business Advocacy Panel is convened
when a proposed rulemaking is
expected to have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
or ‘‘SISNOSE.’’ We have updated our
small business impacts screening
analysis using the change of status
decisions and dates in the final rule,
adding boat manufacturers as affected
entities, and using detailed cost
information provided by commenters
(ICF, 2015b). EPA’s preliminary and
final screening analyses concluded that
this rulemaking would not pose a
SISNOSE. In the analyses, EPA
recognized that some small businesses
may experience significant costs, but
concluded that the number of small
businesses that would experience
significant costs was not substantial.
Both the screening analysis for
purposes of determining whether there
was a SISNOSE and the analysis to
determine whether the rule was
significant based upon economic
grounds were conducted based on the
best market and cost information
available to the Agency. Where
commenters provided specific market or
cost information, the Agency used that
information to update these analyses.
The updated analyses came to the same
conclusions: That the final rule would
not pose a SISNOSE and that it is not
an economically significant rule (ICF,
2015b,c).
C. Environmental Effects of Proposed
Status Changes
EPA received submissions from 42
commenters related to the
environmental impacts of the proposed
status changes. Additionally, EPA
received 7,022 mass mailing letters
commenting on the importance of
transitioning away from HFCs to more
climate-friendly alternatives. Ten
commenters referred to the CAP.
1. General Comments
Comment: EPA received over 7,000
substantially identical comments
regarding the climate impacts of HFCs
and supporting action to address the
growth in usage of these potent
greenhouse gases. The commenters also
stated that that the rest of the world,
including Europe and Japan, is taking
action to reduce HFC emissions, so the
United States should also transition
away from HFCs to protect the planet
from the catastrophic impacts of climate
change. They also stated that it is of the
utmost importance to limit ‘‘superpotent’’ greenhouse gases from use in
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosols
and foams and substitute them with
safer, more climate-friendly alternatives.
They also noted that some HFCs remain
in the atmosphere for decades or even
centuries after they are released, so that
they have a strong cumulative effect.
NRDC stated that if EPA were only
considering human health risks, HFCs
should be banned immediately given
the climate risks. NRDC commented that
we know these chemicals are extremely
potent agents of climate change, and we
know that continuing to use them only
exacerbates the climate problem. EIA
requested that EPA continue to remove
high GWP HFCs from the lists of
acceptable substitutes, given that HFC
emissions are set to double by 2020 and
triple by 2030, and given that this rule
has the potential to reduce 42
MMTCO2eq by 2020. EIA urged EPA to
address all sectors covered in the SNAP
program, given the needs of climate and
the existence of climate-friendly
alternatives. DuPont commented that
they acknowledge the environmental
need to avoid future growth in GHG
emissions, and have thus developed
low-GWP, energy efficient products.
Response: The Agency appreciates the
support of actions to list change the
status of certain HFCs. Other actions
urged by the commenters are outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
2. EPA’s Benefits Analysis
Comment: EPA received a number of
comments regarding the importance,
significance, and magnitude of the
environmental benefits of avoided HFC
emissions that would result based on
the proposed rule.
CARB comments the current
regulations and the SNAP proposal meet
only half of the 80% reduction
necessary for the HFC sector if
California is to meet its overall GHG
reduction goal contained in California
Executive Order (EO) S–3–05 (2005).
Therefore, CARB believes additional
HFC reductions are required to reduce
this fastest-growing source of GHGs.
NRDC and IGSD comment that even
though HFCs may currently make up a
small piece of global climate emissions,
their projected rapid growth
underscores the urgent need to replace
these chemicals with lower-GWP
alternatives. Further, NRDC and IGSD
comment that without stringent rules in
place, HFC emissions increases could
counteract the progress EPA is striving
to make in other sectors to reduce
carbon pollution.
Response: EPA appreciates the
support for reducing GHG emissions,
and appreciates the estimates of the
benefits in terms of MMTCO2eq that the
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
commenters provide. CARB’s comment
concerning meeting GHG reduction
goals in a California EO are beyond the
scope of this rule; we may consider
additional status changes in a future
rule. We agree with NRDC and IGSD
that HFC emissions are growing rapidly
and that it is timely to act now to
encourage use of lower-GWP
alternatives and ensure continuing
progress. The Agency notes that both
EPA’s estimates cited in the NPRM and
the estimates the commenters provide
are based on the provisions of the
proposed rule, and that the benefits
from this final rule differ. For further
information, see EPA, 2014 and EPA,
2015b.
Comment: Arkema comments that at
this time, it is not possible to provide a
more detailed critique of the Vintaging
Model’s assumptions and the levels of
sector emissions given the lack of
meaningful information in the docket.
Arkema comments that the docket does
not provide all the model inputs, nor
does EPA disclose the specific emission
factors that it used to derive its
estimates, how recent those estimates
are, and how they are expected to
change over time. Arkema comments
that EPA’s benefits analysis nowhere
details the extent of the uncertainties in
its emissions estimates, even though the
record elsewhere acknowledges that
such emissions estimates may be
unreliable.
Response: As an initial matter, EPA
did not rely on the Vintaging Model in
reaching decisions about whether other
alternatives present lower overall risk.
Nor did EPA otherwise rely on the
benefits analysis that accompanied the
proposed rule. We estimated emissions
reductions resulting from this
rulemaking in order to provide
information to the public. Consistent
with section 612(c) of the CAA, EPA
relied on the criteria for review
specified in the SNAP regulations at 40
CFR 82.180(a)(7) in determining
whether the substitutes for which we
proposed to change the status presented
greater risk to human health and the
environment than other available
alternatives.
As part of the process for listing
alternatives, EPA evaluates information
concerning a substitute according to the
criteria in EPA’s regulations at
82.180(a)(7) (e.g., atmospheric effects,
ecosystem risks, occupational and
consumer risks, availability) in
comparison with other available
substitutes for the same end-uses. At the
time of review, we prepare a risk screen
and place it in the relevant public
docket for our listing decisions. It is rare
for risk screens to include information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
from the Vintaging Model, although
such information may be used in some
cases to estimate emissions (e.g., VOC
emissions from an end-use where the
submitter has provided insufficient
information). The preambles to this final
rule and the NPRM include information
summarizing the comparisons to other
alternatives. In addition, we also have
docketed a document which provides
the Federal Register citations for the
information on the health and
environmental characteristics of various
alternatives in the end-uses covered in
this final rule (EPA, 2015d).
See the next response for further
information about where one can find
information on the modeling
assumptions and methodology.
Comment: Arkema commented that in
order to calculate HFC sector emission
savings, the Vintaging Model needs to
be revised since it is over-estimating
chemical demand. Arkema also
commented that the basis and
methodology for the Vintaging Model’s
emissions estimates are unclear, but a
comparison to publicly available
information should have raised red flags
because a steady growth rate of HFC
emissions in the U.S. is extremely
unlikely for at least three of the four
covered sectors (i.e., MVAC, aerosols,
and foams). For MVAC, Arkema
comments that refrigerant charge sizes
have been dropping, and new cars will
be transitioning to low-GWP alternatives
over time. Arkema notes that for
aerosols, a significant portion of the
aerosol product manufacturing industry
has already transitioned out of the HFCs
proposed for regulation. In addition,
Arkema points out that UNEP’s 2014
TEAP report shows that hydrocarbon
technologies already dominate the foam
sector.
Response: EPA’s Vintaging Model has
been explained annually in the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and
Sinks 101 report and other places. For
example, the 2015 annual Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks report, EPA Report 430–R–15–004
(EPA, 2015c), covers emissions,
including emissions of HFCs used as
ODS alternatives, for the years 1990
through 2013 and provides in detail the
basis and methodologies used. The
commenter is misinformed with respect
to the assumptions used in the model.
Specifically, the model does assume
that MVAC refrigerant charge sizes have
dropped over time, and it utilizes
detailed sector information to calculate
such changes. In addition, it does
101 Available online at www.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/
2014.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42945
assume that a significant portion of the
aerosol product manufacturing industry
has transitioned out of HFCs. Although
the cited 2014 TEAP report—which the
commenter states indicates hydrocarbon
technologies dominate the foam sector—
applies globally rather than specifically
to the United States, EPA notes that its
Vintaging Model does specifically
assume that significant transition in the
foam industry to non-ozone-depleting,
low-GWP substances, including
hydrocarbons, has occurred.
Comment: Arkema comments that as
far as they are aware, EPA has never
submitted its Vintaging Model for
external peer review. Arkema comments
that the Vintaging Model qualifies under
the Agency’s Peer Review Handbook as
‘‘influential scientific information’’ for
which external peer review is
warranted. Arkema believes that the
underlying data has been kept a secret.
Arkema comments that EPA’s NPRM is
not consistent with Administrator
McCarthy’s three pillars of EPA’s
scientific conclusions: Transparency,
rigorous peer review, and robust,
meaningful public comment. Arkema
comments that EPA cannot obtain
robust, meaningful comments if the
Vintaging Model is not subject to peer
review and if underlying data is kept
secret.
Response: As explained above, EPA
used its Vintaging Model to provide
information to the public, but does not
rely on that information to support
today’s rule. Thus, the issue of whether
the Vintaging Model should be subject
to a peer review process is outside the
scope of this rulemaking action.
3. Energy Efficiency
Comment: EPA received a number of
comments regarding energy efficiency
and LCCP of refrigeration equipment.
NAFEM commented that the life-cycle
climate performances of manufacturers
show that only about 10% of the
environmental impact is due to a
combination of refrigerant leak, charge
amount and GWP of the refrigerant; the
rest relates to energy efficiency. NAFEM
asserted that the proposed SNAP rule
does not account for nor can EPA claim
any significant environmental benefits
to offset significant costs. The Alliance
noted that given the important energy
efficiency consequences of this
proposed rule, it is unclear how this
action will meet the statutory standard
of no greater risk to human health and
the environment. The Alliance
commented that by taking previously
acceptable substitutes off the market,
these proposals could result in less
efficiency in the near term. The Alliance
further comments as EPA evaluates the
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42946
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
timing of transitions in various end-use
segments, it is important that life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions, including
those associated with energy use, are
given proper consideration as part of
ensuring the alternative presents ‘‘no
greater risk to human health and the
environment.’’
Response: EPA provided estimates of
the climate benefits associated with the
NPRM, and we have also estimated the
climate benefits associated with this
final rule (EPA, 2014; EPA, 2015b).
These estimates are based on avoided
direct HFC emissions. They are distinct
from our evaluation of whether other
alternatives are currently or potentially
available that present less overall risk to
human health and the environment.
EPA does not have a practice in the
SNAP program of including indirect
climate impacts or energy efficiency in
the overall risk analysis. We do consider
issues such as technical needs for
energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE
standards) in determining whether
alternatives are ‘‘available.’’ Elsewhere
in this final action, EPA addressed and
responded to comments concerning
energy efficiency (see in particular
sections V.C.3.c, V.C.4.c, V.C.7 and
V.D.3.c). EPA notes that the refrigerant
is only one of many factors affecting
energy efficiency. Moreover, even as
refrigerant transitions have taken place
over past decades, we have seen
improved energy efficiency. This is
often due to equipment redesigns and
technology advancements that include
factors besides the choice of refrigerant.
EPA notes that a number of models are
already commercially available that do
not use the refrigerants subject to a
change of status in this final rule and
also meet or exceed the relevant energy
conservation standards and thus reduce
both direct and indirect climate
impacts.
4. The Climate Action Plan
Comment: EPA received six
comments commending the EPA for
quickly proposing a rule to achieve the
goals in the President’s CAP.
Response: EPA appreciates the
support from this wide variety of
interested stakeholders on addressing
the goals in the President’s CAP.
Comment: EPA received two
comments questioning whether the
President’s CAP provides authority to
regulate HFCs.
Response: Section 612 of the CAA,
not the CAP, provides the authority for
this action. CAA section 612(c) requires
EPA to list a substitute as unacceptable
if other available alternatives pose lower
risk to human health and the
environment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Comment: Two comments stated that
EPA’s response to the President’s CAP
in the NPRM did not consider full
ramifications of the challenges to
industry.
Response: The NPRM proposed
changes to listings based on the
information the Agency had at the time
of the proposal. We requested comments
to further our understanding of any
potential challenges relating to technical
feasibility or supply. We considered that
additional information as we developed
the final rule.
D. Potential Exemptions
Comment: EIA commented on
potential exemptions, specifically the
need for a mechanism to petition for an
essential use exemption or for more
time with a valid basis. The commenter
recognized that the potential for the
misuse of such a mechanism could
overwhelm the resources of the EPA
available for this transition. As a result,
EIA recommended that EPA grant no
blanket exemptions or delays due to the
needs of one or a few sectors but that
EPA establish an exemption mechanism
with a penalty clause to avoid misuse.
Response: The SNAP regulations do
not currently contain an across-theboard mechanism for petitioning for an
exemption, and EPA did not propose
such a mechanism in the NPRM. To
make such a change in our regulations,
we would first need to provide an
opportunity for public comments. In
some instances in the final rule EPA has
changed a listing to acceptable, subject
to narrowed use limits. The narrowed
use limits identify a narrow part of the
end-use in which an end user could use
an otherwise unacceptable substitute if
they can support that no other
acceptable substitutes are available for
their specific application.
E. Interactions With Other Rules
Comment: The Alliance, AHAM,
AHRI, and a number of other
commenters in the commercial
refrigeration and home appliance
industries expressed concern about the
feasibility of using other alternatives to
meet DOE energy conservation
standards. AHRI and Coca-Cola stated
that DOE’s federal minimum energy
conservation standards are based on
refrigerants and foam blowing agents
that EPA is now proposing to list as
unacceptable. NAFEM comments that
manufacturers are now finding that
developing a product to meet both the
energy conservation standards and also
utilizes acceptable alternative
refrigerants and blowing agents is
daunting if not impossible. Commenters
pointed out that they have redesigned
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
products to meet DOE energy
conservation standards due to take
effect in 2017. See section V.C.1.b for a
discussion of DOE energy conservation
standards that apply to the equipment
affected by this rule.
Response: Given that today’s rule
contains later deadlines than proposed,
as well as a phased-in approach with
different status change dates for
different kinds of equipment as
suggested by many commenters, this
should address commenters’ concern
about meeting both sets of
requirements.102 EPA continues to
coordinate with DOE as EPA reviews
alternative refrigerants and foam
blowing agents, DOE tests energy
efficiency of certain alternative
refrigerants, and the two agencies
discuss each other’s rulemakings in
development. EPA sees the redesign of
products as an integral part of business
operations, and believes redesigning
equipment to use refrigerants that pose
a lower overall risk to human health and
the environment is in many ways
similar to past redesigns. We believe
that manufacturers can incorporate
lower-GWP refrigerants in stand-alone
retail food refrigeration equipment and
remote condensing units while
designing for DOE energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment and for walk-in coolers and
freezers, both of which have compliance
dates in 2017, and can incorporate
lower-GWP foam blowing agents while
designing for DOE standards for
household refrigerators/freezers. Based
on the 2014 compliance date of the most
recent DOE standards for residential
refrigerators and freezers, the
compliance date for any revised energy
conservation standard for household
refrigerators and freezers would be no
earlier than 2020. As discussed in the
previous and following responses and in
sections V.C.7 and V.D.3.c) as well as
other sections of this preamble, there are
both refrigerants and foam blowing
agents with lower GWPs available that
allow for improved energy efficiency
compared to the substitutes we are
finding unacceptable in this rule. EPA
anticipates that innovative companies
102 If a manufacturer believes that its design is
subjected to undue hardship by DOE’s regulations,
the manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of
Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or
exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s
authority under section 504 of the DOE
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented
at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the
authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis
if it determines that a manufacturer has
demonstrated that meeting the standard would
cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of
burdens.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
will seize this opportunity to develop
more efficient and profitable designs.
Comment: A number of manufacturers
of commercial refrigeration products
commented on the relative energy
efficiency of alternative refrigerants,
compared to the refrigerants proposed to
be unacceptable. Lennox commented
that the substitution of R–407 family
refrigerants in place of R–404A and R–
507A will negatively affect the
efficiency performance of refrigeration
equipment for walk-in coolers and
freezers. Structural Concepts stated that
switching from R–404A to R–744, and
consequently switching to thicker
piping and new compressors, would
increase energy usage overall by 45%,
which would cause the unit to exceed
the allowable energy level determined
by the DOE. AMS commented that after
studying the suitability of the acceptable
(R–744) and proposed acceptable (R–
290, R–600a and R–441A) alternatives
extensively, it concluded that only R–
290 will allow it to meet DOE energy
conservation mandates. NAMA stated
that because of DOE requirements, CO2’s
use would be limited to indoor selfcontained units, limiting locations of
refrigerated vending machines, reducing
revenues for the entire supply chain and
reducing consumer choice. Information
in the Agency’s possession describes a
manufacturer’s testing of the energy
efficiency of condensing units with R–
404A compared to R–407A, finding that
the energy efficiency was typically
higher with R–407A in mediumtemperature equipment but was
typically lower with R–407A in lowtemperature equipment (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2014–1098–0184). Structural
Concepts comments that R–744 is not
flammable, but it is less energy efficient
than the acceptable, flammable
refrigerant propane, and to meet the
EPA proposed regulation would likely
mean they fail to meet DOE regulations
or go out of business trying to meet
them.
Response: EPA expects that no single
refrigerant will improve energy
efficiency compared to the unacceptable
refrigerants in every type of equipment
or in every situation. For example, the
information regarding a manufacturer’s
test results indicates that R–407A may
provide improved energy efficiency
compared to R–404A for mediumtemperature refrigeration equipment
(refrigerators), but not necessarily for
low-temperature refrigeration
equipment (freezers); this information
indicates that Lenox’s comment about
lower energy efficiency of R–407A
compared to R–404A or R–507A may be
correct for low-temperature equipment
and incorrect for medium-temperature
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
equipment. We agree with the
commenters who noted that R–744 may
be more energy efficient in locations
with lower ambient temperatures and
thus may be more suitable for use
indoors than outdoors. R–290 may
provide better energy efficiency than
HFC refrigerants in many situations, but
not necessarily all, and not all end users
will want to use a flammable refrigerant.
In response to the comment from
Structural Concepts expressing concern
about the ability to meeting energy
conservation standards using CO2 and
the cost of using propane, we note that
there are additional refrigerant choices
available for stand-alone refrigeration
equipment and vending machines
besides CO2 and hydrocarbon
refrigerants, such as the nonflammable
refrigerants R–448A, R–449A, R–450A
and R–513A. As discussed in section
V.C.7, these blends may show improved
energy efficiency over HFC–134a and R–
404A. In addition, design and operation
of refrigeration equipment affects energy
efficiency and not just the refrigerant
used. Given the variety of currently or
potentially available alternatives, EPA
believes it is unlikely that
manufacturers will have to use
refrigerants that will result in reduced
energy efficiency compared to the
refrigerants being listed as unacceptable
or otherwise restricted in this final rule,
and we expect that manufacturers will
be able to meet DOE energy
conservation standards with the
remaining available alternatives.
Comment: Some manufacturers of
commercial refrigeration products
commented on how design changes
needed to accommodate alternative
refrigerants may negatively affect energy
efficiency. Parker Hannifin stated that
most of the alternatives result in higher
discharge temperatures and that some of
the discharge temperature control
methods employed negatively affect
system efficiency. Nor-Lake and
Structural Concepts indicated that they
expected to need dual compressor
systems, and stated that the increased
energy usage of the dual system may
outweigh the environmental gains of
using the alternate lower-GWP
refrigerant.
Response: EPA agrees that some
design changes could have negative
impacts on energy efficiency if they
were done without broader
considerations for the overall
performance of the appliance. As stated
elsewhere, many models that comply
with DOE energy conservation
standards are already commercially
available that do not use the refrigerants
subject to a change of status in this final
rule. We agree with Nor-Lake and
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42947
Structural Concepts that dual
compressor systems are more likely
needed for larger equipment,
particularly larger equipment using
hydrocarbon refrigerants which have
use limits restricting the refrigerant
charge in a single refrigeration circuit.
Recent listings of additional
nonflammable refrigerants (e.g., R–
450A) allow for additional options that
would not require dual compressors. In
response to Parker Hannifin’s comment
about discharge temperatures, we note
that producers of some alternative
refrigerant blends under review by the
SNAP program claim that these new
blends have operating properties similar
to those of HFC refrigerants, such as
similar operating pressures and
discharge temperatures.
Given the variety of currently or
potentially available alternatives, EPA
believes it is unlikely that
manufacturers will have to use
refrigerants that will result in reduced
energy efficiency compared to the
refrigerants being listed unacceptable in
this final rule.
Comment: The Alliance, AHAM,
AHRI, and a number of other
commenters in the commercial
refrigeration and home appliance
industries suggested that the SNAP
rulemaking schedule should be better
coordinated with the ongoing DOE
energy conservation standard
rulemaking schedules. AHAM
comments that firms have invested
millions of dollars to meet new DOE
conservation standards that were based
on the assumption of the availability of
HFCs, and have diverted the scarce
capital that is available for regulationdriven investment. The National
Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
requested that the EPA harmonize the
rule with the DOE rule in order to ease
the capital- and design-intensive
manufacturer transition. Scotsman Ice
Systems and Whirlpool Corporation
stated that as a result of the potential
regulatory measures, their ability to
develop any customer focused products
or new product features during this time
will be constrained. GE Appliances
notes that the burden of overlapping
regulatory requirements between SNAP
and the DOE require consideration and
review under the executive orders
issued by President Obama and his
predecessors that require consideration
of cumulative regulatory burden.
Response: EPA’s timeframes are based
upon our understanding of the
availability of alternatives, considering
technical challenges and supply. The
timeframes in this final rule take into
account additional information on
availability provided to the Agency
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
42948
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
during the comment period. These
timeframes account for the time needed
to meet the technical challenge of
designing equipment using alternative
refrigerants that can meet the DOE
requirements. We note that EPA and
DOE coordinate to the extent possible.
For example, each agency has reviewed
the other’s rules. The list of acceptable
SNAP alternatives is evolving. EPA is
also coordinating with DOE to ensure
more alternative refrigerants are being
tested for energy efficiency. We
recognize that as manufacturers focus
on designing equipment to meet the
DOE standards and to use refrigerants
acceptable under the SNAP program,
they may need to divert design
resources from other projects for that
period of time. However, as provided in
section VII.A.7, this type of transition
cost is not a part of the SNAP review
criteria. As explained in the Statutory
and Executive Order sections at the end
of the NPRM and of this final rule, EPA
has complied with those requirements.
Comment: The National Restaurant
Association (NRA) comments that the
food industry is already being affected
by the EPA’s rule Listing of Substitutes
for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
and Revision of the Venting Prohibition
for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes. NRA
believes the EPA should consider the
impacts of the cumulative regulatory
burden of rulemakings and standards
imposed nearly simultaneously on
manufacturers of this equipment in the
final rulemaking.
Response: The rule entitled ‘‘Listing of
Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning and Revision of the
Venting Prohibition for Certain
Refrigerant Substitutes’’ lists additional
substitutes as acceptable, subject to use
conditions. It does not mandate use of
the newly listed substitutes. Thus, it is
unclear how it might result in
cumulative regulatory burden together
with this rule. Equipment designed
using the refrigerants in that rule is not
affected by this rule, which concerns
different refrigerants. Finally, that rule
also has an exemption from
requirements under section 608 of the
CAA that will reduce regulatory burden.
Comment: Danfoss commented that
several of the refrigerants listed as
acceptable in the rule titled Listing of
Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning and Revision of the
Venting Prohibition for Certain
Refrigerant Substitutes are severely
restricted by building codes and would
not be acceptable for use in most areas
of the U.S, mainly due to their
flammability. Danfoss stated they
believe that the proposed replacement
refrigerants are not able to be used as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
short term alternatives to those being
found unacceptable because changes to
model building codes and subsequent
adoption by states and localities will
likely be much later than 2020.
Response: EPA acknowledges that
some building codes may currently
restrict or prohibit use of flammable
refrigerants. We note that other available
or potentially available refrigerants that
are not flammable and have relatively
low GWP (roughly 600 or less),
including R–744 and R–450A, are listed
as acceptable for use in retail food
refrigeration and in vending machines.
Comment: A number of manufacturers
of laboratory refrigeration equipment
and several foam manufacturers
suggested that EPA align the timelines
for transition of foam blowing agents
and refrigerants with the requirements
of the EU F–Gas regulations. The
commenters summarized the deadlines
for foams as: 2008 for one-component
foams, January 1, 2020, for XPS, January
1, 2023, for other foams, and provisions
for a four-year extension of time where
(1) ‘‘alternatives are not available or
cannot be used for technical or safety
reasons’’ or (2) ‘‘the use of technically
feasible and safe alternatives would
entail disproportionate costs.’’
Commenters summarized the deadlines
for refrigerants in commercial
refrigerators and freezers as being
January 1, 2020, for HFCs with GWP of
2,500 and January 1, 2022, for HFCs
with GWP of 150 or more.
Reasons given for this coordination of
timeline with EU regulations include:
Many companies are trans-national and
had already been planning on a
transition in line with the EU regulatory
deadlines; the SNAP program has
deferred to other regulations in the past;
and the later deadlines will allow for
redesign of refrigeration equipment for
both alternative, flammable refrigerants
and for new foam blowing agents and
for needed third-party testing.
Commenters stated that the proposed
deadlines would create an extreme
burden, particularly on small
businesses; that part supplies needed for
compliance are not offered in the United
States; and that the transition is a
complicated undertaking that cannot be
performed in 18 months.
Response: EPA disagrees that it
should align the timelines in this rule
with the EU timelines. The EU
regulations are based upon different
authority from the SNAP program and
we must decide upon timelines based
upon the availability of alternatives in
the United States. Concerning the
suggestion that EPA has deferred to
other regulations, we note that there are
several key differences. As an initial
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
matter, we have deferred to U.S.
regulations. More importantly, we have
not deferred to other regulations in a
manner that overrides the statutory
mandate governing the SNAP program.
Rather, in the context evaluating risks of
alternatives under our comparative risk
framework we have looked to
regulations in effect, such as workplace
regulations from OSHA or the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, to determine whether a
specific alternative may be used as
safely as other available alternatives.
This is different from aligning with a
timeline in another nation’s regulations
that are not effective within the United
States or deferring to considerations in
those regulations, such as transition
costs, that are not part of the SNAP
decision criteria.
F. Other Comments
Additional public comments not
already discussed above along with
EPA’s responses are available in the
Response to Comments document
which accompanies this action (EPA,
2015a).
VIII. Additional Analyses
EPA does not consider the cost of
transition to other alternatives in
making listing decisions because under
the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is
limited to cost of the substitute under
review. However, EPA has prepared
technical support documents including
analyses of costs associated with sector
transitions, estimated avoided GHG
emissions associated with the transition
to alternatives, and potential small
business impacts.103 104 105
The transition scenarios analyzed
possible ways to comply with the final
rule. The transition scenario in the cost
analysis reflects a direct compliance
cost method and does not assume the
regulated community chooses highercost solutions where known less costly
solutions exist. The scenarios analyzed
in the avoided GHG emissions analysis
reflect possible transitions for
compliance based on considerations of
the market and activity towards lowerGWP solutions. While the emission
reductions have been quantified, they
have not been monetized. Thus, higher
or lower GHG emission reductions do
103 ICF, 2015a. Revised Cost Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives. July 2015.
104 ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening
Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing
Status of High-GWP Alternatives—Revised. July
2015.
105 EPA, 2015. Climate Benefits of the SNAP
Program Status Change Rule, July 2015.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
not necessarily correlate to higher or
lower costs due to the different
assumptions and methodologies used in
the different analyses. However, the
transitions assumed in the lower, less
aggressive scenario here are similar to
the transitions assumed in the cost
analysis.
To extend the assessment to all-sized
businesses potentially affected by the
rulemaking, EPA conducted an analysis
on costs to all-sized businesses building
on the approach taken to estimate
potential economic impacts on small
businesses. Using a 7% discount rate,
total annualized compliance costs
across affected businesses are estimated
to range from $28.0 million to $50.6
million; total annual savings are
estimated to be about $19.3 million.
Using a 3% discount rate, total
annualized compliance costs across
affected businesses are estimated to
range from $19.5 million to $37.8
million, total annual savings are
estimated be about $19.3 million.
EPA conducted an analysis on the
potential avoided GHG emissions
associated with implementation of this
final rule. The emissions avoided from
this final rule are estimated to be 26 to
31 MMTCO2eq in 2020. The avoided
emissions are estimated to be 54 to 64
MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 78 to 101
MMTCO2eq in 2030 (EPA, 2015b) .
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. OMB has
previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations and has assigned
OMB control number 2060–0226. This
final rule contains no new requirements
for reporting or recordkeeping.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The requirements of this final rule with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
respect to HFCs, will impact
manufacturers of some consumer and
technical aerosol products, retail food
refrigeration equipment, vending
machines, motor vehicles, and products
containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate,
polyolefin, PU, and polystyrene foams.
The requirements of this final rule with
respect to HCFCs could theoretically
affect manufacturers of aerosols, foams,
industrial cleaning solvents, fire
suppressants, and adhesives, coatings,
and inks; however, due to existing
regulations that restrict the use of
HCFCs in these products, no actual
impact is expected. In some uses, there
is no significant impact of the final rule
because the substitutes proposed to be
prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use
of HFC–134a as a propellant in
consumer aerosol products, use of HFC–
134a as a foam blowing agent in various
polyurethane foams). A significant
portion of the businesses regulated
under this rule are not small businesses
(e.g., car manufacturers, appliance
manufacturers). About 500,000 small
businesses could be subject to the rule,
although more than 99% of those
businesses are expected to experience
zero compliance costs because other
available substitutes for supermarket
refrigeration systems and condensing
units have costs similar to those of the
refrigerants listed as unacceptable. For
those small businesses with compliance
costs, impacts are estimated to range
from 0% to 48% of annual sales, with
approximately 57 businesses expected
to experience an impact of 3.0% of
annual sales or more. Details of this
analysis are presented in the document,
Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status
of High–GWP Alternatives—Revised
(ICF, 2015b). In our analysis, we found
that while some small businesses may
experience significant costs, the number
of small businesses that would
experience significant costs is not
substantial. We have therefore
concluded that this action will not have
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42949
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in EO 13175.
It will not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically
significant as defined in EO 12866, and
because the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action do
not present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action restricts the use of
certain substitutes that have greater
overall risks for human health and the
environment, primarily due to their
high global warming potential. The
reduction in GHG emissions would
provide climate benefits for all people,
including benefits for children and
future generations.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol
uses are not related to the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. For the
end-uses that are related to energy
effects, including refrigeration and air
conditioning and some rigid cell PU and
polystyrene insulation foams, a number
of alternatives are available to replace
those refrigerants and foam blowing
agents that are listed as unacceptable in
this action; many of the alternatives are
as energy-efficient or more energyefficient than the substitutes being listed
as unacceptable. As described in more
detail in this document, energy
efficiency is influenced, but not
determined, by the refrigerant.
Similarly, although foam blowing agents
influence the insulation properties of
rigid cell foams, this also can vary due
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42950
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
to other properties of the foam (e.g.,
thickness). Thus, we have concluded
that this rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This action does not involve technical
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EPA has determined that this action
will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it
increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
population, including any minority or
low-income population. This action
would prohibit a number of substances
with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction
in ODS and GWP emissions would
assist in restoring the stratospheric
ozone layer and provide climate
benefits.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
X. References
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
This preamble references the
following documents, which are also in
the Air Docket at the address listed in
section I.B.1. Unless specified
otherwise, all documents are available
electronically through the Federal
Docket Management System, Docket
#EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198.
AGC, 2014. AGC to Supply Honeywell with
HFO-1234yf—New-generation
Automobile Refrigerant, 23 January 2014.
This document is accessible at: https://
www.agc.com/english/news/2014/
0123e.pdf.
Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and
Climate Change: Summaries of Recent
Scientific and Papers, 2013.
Andersen, S.O., Sherman, N.J., Craig, T.,
Baker, J., ‘‘Secondary Loop Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL–
MACs). Using Low-Global Warming
Potential (GWP) Refrigerants.’’ In LeakTight Systems in Climates with High
Fuel Prices and Long, Hot and Humid
Cooling Seasons. Building on the
Previous Success of Delphi, Fiat, General
Motors, Volvo, Red Dot, SAE
Cooperative Research Projects, and Other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Engineering Groups.’’ MACS Briefing,
2015.
Arkema, 2013. Arkema is announcing the
construction of production capacities for
new refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf,
September 4, 2013. This document is
accessible at: www.arkema.com/en/
media/news/news-details/Arkema-isannouncing-the-construction-ofproduction-capacities-for-newrefrigerant-fluorinated-gas-1234yf/
?back=true.
Ben and Jerry’s, 2014. Cleaner, Greener
Freezers. This document is accessible at
www.benjerry.com/values/how-we-dobusiness/cleaner-greener-freezers.
CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on ClimateFriendly Alternatives in Commercial
Refrigeration. Meeting Summary,
December 8, 2012.
Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This
document is accessible at: assets.cocacolacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f
4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-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: www.cocacolacompany.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.
Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test
new R404A ‘‘drop-in.’’ October 5, 2014.
This document is accessible at:
www.coolingpost.com/world-news/
spanish-store-first-to-test-new-r404adrop-in/.
Daimler, 2014. ‘‘Climate Change: EU
Scientists Say Daimler’s Safety Concerns
About New Auto Refrigerant Are
Unwarranted,’’ Stephen Gardner, BNA
Inc., Daily Environment Report, March
11, 2014. This document is accessible at:
news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_
display.adp?fedfid=4276
0350&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: 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.
EPA, 2011a. Greenchill. ‘‘Advanced
Refrigeration’’. This document is
accessible at: www2.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/documents/gc_
storecertprogram08232011.pdf.
EPA, 2011b. GreenChill. ‘‘Best Practices
Guidelines: Commercial Refrigeration
Retrofits’’. August 2011. This document
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is accessible at https://www2.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/documents/
retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pdf.
EPA, 2012a. Factsheet: Summary of
Refrigerant Reclamation 2000–2013. This
document is accessible at: www.epa.gov/
spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/
recsum_merged.pdf.
EPA, 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Final Rulemaking for 2017–2025 LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards, EPA–420–R–12–
016, August 2012.
EPA, 2013a. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2
Greenhouse Gases: 2010–2030,
September 2013.
EPA, 2013b. Benefits of Addressing HFCs
under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013.
EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP
Program Status Change Rule, June 2014.
EPA, 2015a. Response to Comments on the
SNAP Status Change Rule. July 2015.
EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP
Program Status Change Rule, July 2015.
EPA, 2015c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013,
EPA Report 430–R–15–004. April 15,
2015. This document is accessible at:
www.epa.gov/climatechange/
ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.
EPA, 2015d. Table of Alternatives for EndUses Considered in the Final Rule,
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes Under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. February,
2015.
FTOC, 2010. 2010 Report of the Foams
Technical Option Committee.
Gaved, 2015. Emerson Climate Technologies
Offers to Help Supply Chain Move to
Lower-GWP Refrigerants. January 28,
2015. This document is accessible at:
https://www.racplus.com/news/-emersonclimate-technologies-offers-to-helpsupply-chain-move-to-lower-gwprefrigerants/8677708.article.
GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program Submission
to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, October 2008.
Honeywell, 2014a. Aerosols OverviewHoneywell Solstice® Propellant. EPA
meeting. February 27, 2014.
Honeywell, 2014b. Honeywell International
Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection
of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of
Listing Status for Certain Substitutes
Under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy Program. October 20, 2014.
Honeywell, 2015. Honeywell Starts FullScale Production of Low-GlobalWarming Propellant, Insulating Agent,
and Refrigerant. January 6, 2015. This
document is accessible at:
honeywell.com/News/Pages/HoneywellStarts-Full-Scale-Production-Of-LowGlobal-Warming-Propellant-InsulatingAgent-And-Refrige.aspx.
ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the
U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
May, 2014.
ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the
U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
May, 2014.
ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the
U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
Industry. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. May,
2014.
ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential
Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on
Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening
Analysis for Regulatory Options to
Change Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives. June 2014.
ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary CostAnalysis for Regulatory Options to
Change Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives. June 2014.
ICF, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in
Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam;
Rigid Polyurethane Commercial
Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels;
Rigid Polyurethane & Polyisocyanurate
Laminate Boardstock; Rigid
Polyurethane Slabstock; Flexible
Polyurethane; Integral Skin Polyurethane
Substitute: Methylal October, 2014.
ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the
U.S. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S.
Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015.
ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening
Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives—Revised. July, 2015.
ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status
of High-GWP Alternatives. July, 2015.
IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
Prepared by the National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston
H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and
Tanabe K. (eds). Published: Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies (IGES),
Japan. This document is accessible at:
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/
index.html.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.
Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA. This document is accessible at:
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/
ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System
Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P.
Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque,
H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate
Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and
P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report:
Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the
Global Climate System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and
Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press,
New York).
ITW Polymers Sealants, 2014. Comments of
ITW Polymers Sealants North America
on Proposed SNAP Status Change Rule.
October 15, 2014. Docket ID EPA–HQ–
OAR–2014–0198–0071.
Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere:
Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts,
ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
Nelson, 2013. Nelson, Gabe ‘‘Automakers’
switch to new refrigerant will accelerate
with EPA credits, European mandate’’
Automobile News, December 30, 2013.
This document is accessible at:
www.autonews.com/article/20131230/
OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea.
NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://
ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric
Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion
Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3trichloropropylene and trans-1,2dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional
model.’’ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–
10874, 2010.
PepsiCo, 2009. PepsiCo Brings First ClimateFriendly Vending Machines to the U.S.,
March 30, 2009. This document is
accessible at https://
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/
pepsico-brings-first-climate-friendlyvending-machines-to-the-us61975262.html.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine,
2015. ‘‘Coca Cola to narrowly miss HFCfree global refrigeration target.’’ This
document is accessible at:
www.racplus.com/news/coca-cola-tonarrowly-miss-hfc-free-globalrefrigeration-target/8680290.article).
Shapiro, Doron. ‘‘System Drop-In Tests of R134a, R-1234yf, OpteonTM XP10, R1234ze(E), and N13a in a Commercial
Bottle Cooler/Freezer’’, January 25, 2013.
This document is accessible at https://
www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/
files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/
AHRI%20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt008.pdf.
Shecco, 2013a. Guide 2013: Natural
Refrigerants—Market Growth for North
America. This document is accessible at
publication.shecco.com/publications/
view/6.
Shecco, 2013b. HCs Gaining Market
Prominence in US—View from the
NAFEM Show—Part 1, February 18,
2013. This document is accessible at
https://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/
viewprintable/3891.
Shecco, 2015. New Regulations Inspire
Hydrocarbon Displays at U.S. NAFEM
Show, February 24, 2015. This document
is accessible at https://
www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/
viewprintable/6143.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42951
UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible
Foams Technical Options Committee,
2010 Assessment. This document is
accessible at: ozone.unep.org/
Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/
FTOC/FTOC-2010-AssessmentReport.pdf.
UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in
Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer,
A UNEP Synthesis Report. November,
2011. This document is accessible at:
www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/
HFC_report.pdf.
UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2:
Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report,
Additional Information on Alternatives
to ODS. September, 2013. This document
is accessible at: conf.montrealprotocol.org/meeting/mop/cop10mop26/presession/Background%
20Documents%20are%20available%
20in%20English%20o1/Corrigendum_
TEAP_TaskForce%20XXIV-7September2013.pdf.
UNEP, 2014. Summary of the Information
Submitted By Parties on Their
Implementation of Paragraph 9 of
Decision XIX/6 to Promote a Transition
from Ozone-Depleting Substances That
Minimizes Environmental Impact
(Decision XXV/5, Paragraph 3).
November, 2014. This document is
accessible at: conf.montreal-protocol.org/
meeting/mop/cop10-mop26/presession/
PreSession%20Documents/MOP-26–
9E.pdf.
Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel,
M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009).
‘‘The large contribution of projected HFC
emissions to future climate forcing.’’
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954.
Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011.
‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s
Potential Impact on Atmospheric
Ozone.’’ Department of Atmospheric
Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL. September 26, 2011.
Weissler, Paul, ‘‘A/C Industry Faces
Challenges From Daimler R–1234yf
Issue, Explores Other Options,’’
Automotive Engineering International,
April 2, 2013.
WMO, 2010. World Meteorological
Organization, Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project—Report No. 52,
516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Stratospheric ozone layer.
Dated: July 2, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42952
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
b. By adding a new entry at the bottom
of the table ‘‘Refrigerants—Acceptable
Subject to Narrowed Use Limits’’.
■ c. By adding three new entries at the
end of the table titled ‘‘Refrigerants—
Unacceptable Substitutes’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
Subpart G—Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program
■
2. Appendix B to subpart G of part 82
is amended as follows:
a. By removing the first entry and
adding four entries in its place in the
table titled ‘‘Refrigerants—Acceptable
Subject to Use Conditions’’.
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82—
Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes
REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS
Application
Substitute
Decision
Conditions
Comments
CFC–12 Automobile Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning
(New Equipment/NIKs
only).
HFC–134a ....
Acceptable subject to use conditions, for
passenger cars and light-duty trucks
manufactured for Model Year 2020 or
earlier, and for vehicles other than passenger cars or light-duty trucks.
—must be used with unique
fittings.
—must be used with detailed labels.
CFC–12 Automobile Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning
(New Equipment/NIKs
only).
HCFC Blend
Beta (R–
416A).
Acceptable subject to use conditions, for
passenger cars and light-duty trucks
manufactured for Model Year 2016 or
earlier, and for vehicles other than passenger cars or light-duty trucks.
—must be used with unique
fittings.
—must be used with detailed labels.
CFC–12 Automobile Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning
(New Equipment/NIKs
only).
R–401C ........
Acceptable subject to use conditions ........
—must be used with unique
fittings.
—must be used with detailed labels.
CFC–12 Automobile Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning
(Retrofit Equipment only).
HFC–134a,
R–401C,
HCFC
Blend Beta
(R–416A).
Acceptable subject to use conditions ........
—must be used with unique
fittings.
—must be used with detailed labels.
—all CFC–12 must be removed from the system
prior to retrofitting.
Refer to the text for a full
description.
EPA is concerned that the existence of
several substitutes in this end-use may
increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning
systems and recovery/recycling equipment.
EPA is concerned that the existence of
several substitutes in this end-use may
increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning
systems and recovery/recycling equipment.
EPA is concerned that the existence of
several substitutes in this end-use may
increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning
systems and recovery/recycling equipment.
EPA is concerned that the existence of
several substitutes in this end-use may
increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning
systems and recovery/recycling equipment. No distinction is made between
‘‘retrofit’’ and ‘‘drop-in’’ refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant
includes all procedures that result in the
air conditioning system using a new refrigerant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS
End-use
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment
in passenger cars and
light-duty trucks only).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jul 17, 2015
Substitute
Decision
Comments
*
*
HFC–134a ..........................
*
Acceptable for use in
Model Year (MY) 2021
through MY 2025 passenger cars and lightduty trucks destined for
export, where reasonable
efforts have been made
to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible because
of lack of infrastructure
for servicing with alternative refrigerants in the
destination country.
*
*
*
Vehicle manufacturers must document their determination that the infrastructure is not in place for each
country to which they plan to export vehicles and
must retain the documentation in their files for at
least five years after date of its creation for the purpose of demonstrating compliance.
Documentation is to include descriptions of:
• Products in which the substitute is needed;
• Substitutes examined and rejected for the destination country;
• Reason for rejection of other alternatives; and
• Anticipated date other substitutes will be available
and projected date of transition in the destination
country.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
42953
REFRIGERANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Comments
*
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment
in passenger cars and
light-duty trucks only).
*
*
HFC–134a ..........................
*
Unacceptable as of Model
Year 2021 except where
allowed under narrowed
use limit.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment
in passenger cars and
light-duty trucks only).
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).
SP34E, R–426A (RS-24,
new formulation).
Unacceptable as of Model
Year 2017.
*
*
*
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 GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes
will be available for this end-use with lower overall
risk to human health and the environment by the
status change date.
This listing does not prohibit the servicing or replacement of motor vehicle air conditioning systems manufactured to use HFC–134a.
These refrigerants all contain HCFCs. They have
GWPs ranging from 1,080 to 2,340 and ODPs ranging from 0.008 to 0.056. Other substitutes will be
available for this end-use with lower overall risk to
human health and the environment by the status
change date.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment
in passenger cars and
light-duty trucks only).
3. Appendix D to subpart G of part 82
is amended by revising the third
paragraph to read as follows:
■
Appendix D to Subpart G of Part 82—
Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes
Summary of Decisions
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Sector Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions
*
*
*
*
Unacceptable as of Model
Year 2017.
These blends have GWPs ranging from approximately
1,410 to 1,510. Other substitutes will be available for
this end-use with lower overall risk to human health
and the environment by the status change date.
In addition, the use of a) R–406A/
‘‘GHG’’/‘‘McCool’’, ‘‘HCFC Blend
Lambda’’/‘‘GHG-HP’’, R–414A/‘‘HCFC
Blend Xi’’/‘‘GHG-X4/‘‘Autofrost’’/
‘‘Chill-It’’, R–414B/‘‘Hot Shot’’/‘‘Kar
Kool’’, and R–416A/‘‘HCFC Blend
Beta’’/‘‘FREEZE 12’’ as CFC–12
substitutes in retrofitted MVACs, and b)
all refrigerants submitted for, and listed
in, subsequent Notices of Acceptability
as substitutes for CFC–12 in MVACs,
must meet the following conditions.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Appendix U to subpart G of part 82
is added to read as follows:
■
Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82—
Unacceptable Substitutes and
Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
Listed in the July 20, 2015 Final Rule,
Effective August 19, 2015
*
AEROSOLS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES
Substitute
Decision
Further information
Propellants ......
HFC–125 ...........
Unacceptable as of January 1,
2016.
Propellants ......
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
End-use
HFC–134a .........
Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016,
except uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
Propellants ......
HFC–227ea and
blends of
HFC–134a and
HFC–227ea.
Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016,
except uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
HFC–125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS
Reg. No.) of 354–33–6 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,2pentafluoropropane. HFC–125 has a GWP of 3,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to
human health and the environment by the status change date.
Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January
1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after
that date.
HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS
Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to
human health and the environment by the status change date.
Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to July 20,
2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after
that date.
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–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–227ea and HFC–134a have GWPs of 3,220 and 1,430, respectively. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by the status
change date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42954
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
AEROSOLS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Further information
Propellants ......
HCFC–22 and
HCFC–142b.
Unacceptable effective September
18, 2015.
Solvents ..........
HCFC–141b and
blends thereof.
Unacceptable effective September
18, 2015.
Products using these propellants that are manufactured prior to July
20, 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.
SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Use conditions
Further information
Propellants ......
HFC–134a ......
Acceptable
subject to
use conditions.
The classes of products listed below are acceptable for use from
July 20, 2016 through December 31, 2017 and are unacceptable thereafter.
• products for functional testing of smoke detectors ..............
• products for which new formulations require governmental
review, including: EPA pesticide registration, approval for
conformance with military or space agency specifications,
or FDA approval (other than MDIs).
The classes of products listed below are acceptable for use and
other uses are unacceptable as of July 20, 2016:
• metered dose inhalers approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration for medical purposes.
• cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other
soils from electrical equipment or electronics.
• refrigerant flushes .................................................................
• products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors ..............
• lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or
electronics.
HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service
Registry Number (CAS
Reg. No.) of 811–97–2
and it is also known by
the name 1,1,1,2tetrafluoropropane.
HFC–134a has a GWP
of 1,430. Use is allowed for the specified
uses because of the
technical and safety
demands in these applications.
Aerosol products using
this propellant that are
manufactured prior to
July 20, 2016, may be
sold, imported, exported, distributed and
used after that date.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Propellants ......
VerDate Sep<11>2014
HFC–227ea
and blends
of HFC–
227ea and
HFC–134a.
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Acceptable
subject to
use conditions.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
• sprays for aircraft maintenance.
• sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the
maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or
military equipment.
• 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
propellants.
• mold release agents and mold cleaners.
• lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics.
• duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic
negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical equipment.
• adhesives and sealants in large canisters.
• document preservation sprays.
• wound care sprays.
• topical coolant sprays for pain relief.
• products for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
Acceptable for use in metered dose inhalers approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration for medical purposes and
unacceptable for all other uses as of July 20, 2016.
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
HFC–227ea has a
Chemical Abstracts
Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of
431–89–0 and it is
also known by the
name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3heptafluoropropane.
HFC–227ea has a
GWP of 3,220.
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
42955
SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Use conditions
Further information
Aerosol products using
this propellant that are
manufactured prior to
July 20, 2016 may be
sold, imported, exported, distributed and
used after that date.
REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES
Substitute
Retail food refrigeration
(supermarket systems) (new).
HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–
422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–
434A, R–507A.
Retail food refrigeration
(supermarket systems) (retrofit).
R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R– Unacceptable as of
422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.
July 20, 2016.
Retail food refrigeration
(remote condensing
units) (new).
HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–
422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–
434A, R–507A.
Retail food refrigeration
(remote condensing
units) (retrofit).
R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R– Unacceptable as of
422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.
July 20, 2016.
Retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone medium-temperature
units with a compressor capacity
below 2,200 Btu/hr
and not containing a
flooded evaporator)
(new).
Retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone medium-temperature
units with a compressor capacity
below 2,200 Btu/hr
and containing a
flooded evaporator)
(new).
Retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone medium-temperature
units with a compressor capacity
equal to or greater
than 2,200 Btu/hr)
(new).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
End-use
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–
407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A,
R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–
422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–
428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03.
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–
407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A,
R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–
422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–
428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03.
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea,
KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–
407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A,
R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–
422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–
428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03.
HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–
407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B,
R–417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–
422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–
428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A,
RS–44 (2003 formulation).
Retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone lowtemperature units)
(new).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Decision
Fmt 4701
Unacceptable as of
January 1, 2017.
Unacceptable as of
January 1, 2018.
Unacceptable as of
January 1, 2019.
Further information
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be
available for this end-use with lower overall
risk to human health and the environment
by the status change date.
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be
available for this end-use with lower overall
risk to human health and the environment
by the status change date.
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be
available for this end-use with lower overall
risk to human health and the environment
by the status change date.
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be
available for this end-use with lower overall
risk to human health and the environment
by the status change date.
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to human health and
the environment by the status change date.
‘‘Medium-temperature’’ refers to equipment
that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C).
Unacceptable as of
January 1, 2020.
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to human health and
the environment by the status change date.
‘‘Medium-temperature’’ refers to equipment
that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C).
Unacceptable as of
January 1, 2020.
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to human health and
the environment by the status change date.
‘‘Medium-temperature’’ refers to equipment
that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C).
Unacceptable as of
January 1, 2020.
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
approximately 1,800 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to human health and
the environment by the status change date.
‘‘Low-temperature’’ refers to equipment that
maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or below 32°F (0 °C).
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42956
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued
End-use
Substitute
Retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone units
only) (retrofit).
R–404A, R–507A ............................................
Unacceptable as of
July 20, 2016.
Vending machines
(new only).
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, 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), SP34E.
R–404A, R–507A. ...........................................
Unacceptable as of
January 1, 2019.
Vending machines (retrofit only).
Decision
Unacceptable as of
July 20, 2016.
Further information
These refrigerants have GWPs of approximately 3,922 and 3,985. Other substitutes
will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.
These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from
approximately 1,100 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to human health and
the environment by the status change date.
These refrigerants have GWPs of approximately 3,922 and 3,985. Other substitutes
will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.
FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS
Substitute
Decision
Narrowed use limits
Further information
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance.
HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc
and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2020,
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 from January 1, 2020,
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 from January 1, 2017,
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
End-use
HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc
and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2019,
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
42957
FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued
Decision
Narrowed use limits
Further information
Rigid Polyurethane and
HFC–134a, HFC–
Polyisocyanurate
245fa, HFC–365mfc
Laminated Boardstock.
and blends thereof.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2017,
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: Marine Flotation Foam.
HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc
and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2020,
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
Sheet.
HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc,
and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2017,
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 TI,
Formacel B, and
Formacel Z-6.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2021,
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
End-use
HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc,
and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2017,
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Substitute
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
42958
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Narrowed use limits
Further information
Polyolefin .......................
HFC–134a, HFC–
245fa, HFC–365mfc,
and blends thereof;
Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2020,
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.
HFC–143a, HFC–134a,
HFC–245fa, HFC–
365mfc, and blends
thereof.
Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits.
Acceptable from January 1, 2017,
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.
UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Further information
All Foam Blowing End-uses
HCFC–141b and blends
thereof.
Unacceptable effective
September 18, 2015.
All Foam Blowing end-uses
HCFC–22, HCFC–142b,
and blends thereof.
Unacceptable effective
September 18, 2015.
Flexible Polyurethane ..........
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc, and
blends thereof.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except
where allowed under a
narrowed use limit.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet
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.
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.
Rigid Polyurethane:
Slabstock and Other.
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc and blends
thereof; Formacel TI,
and Formacel Z-6.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019 except
where allowed under a
narrowed use limit.
Rigid Polyurethane and
Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock.
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc and blends
thereof.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except
where allowed under a
narrowed use limit.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Integral Skin Polyurethane ..
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 ozone depletion potential
(ODP) of 0.11.
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
ODPs of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively.
These foam blowing agents have global warming potentials (GWPs) ranging from 725 to 1,430. Other
substitutes will be available for this end-use with
lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by
the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
725 to 4,470. Other substitutes will be available for
this end-use with lower overall risk to human health
and the environment by the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by
the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by
the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
725 to 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for
this end-use with lower overall risk to human health
and the environment by the status change date.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
42959
UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued
End-use
Substitute
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine
Flotation Foam.
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc and blends
thereof; Formacel TI,
and Formacel Z-6;.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except
where allowed under a
narrowed use limit.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and
Sandwich Panels.
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc, and
blends thereof; Formacel
TI, and Formacel Z-6.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except
where allowed under a
narrowed use limit.
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance.
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc and blends
thereof; Formacel TI,
and Formacel Z-6.
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except
where allowed under a
narrowed use limit.
Polystyrene: Extruded
Boardstock and Billet.
HFC–134a, HFC–245fa,
HFC–365mfc, and
blends thereof; Formacel
TI, 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, 2021 except
where allowed under a
narrowed use limit.
Polyolefin .............................
Decision
Further information
Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except
where allowed under a
narrowed use limit.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by
the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by
the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by
the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
higher than 140 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by
the status change date.
These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from
higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower
overall risk to human health and the environment by
the status change date.
FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Total Flooding ......................
HCFC–22 ...........................
Further information
Unacceptable effective
September 18, 2015.
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.
STERILANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES
End-use
Substitute
Decision
Sterilants ..............................
Blends containing HCFC–
22.
Further information
Unacceptable effective
September 18, 2015.
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. This chemical has an ozone depletion
potential of 0.055.
ADHESIVES, COATINGS AND INKS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES
End-use
Adhesives, coatings and
inks.
Substitute
Decision
HCFC–141b and blends
thereof.
Further information
Unacceptable effective
September 18, 2015.
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
[FR Doc. 2015–17066 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jul 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\20JYR2.SGM
20JYR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42869-42959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17066]
[[Page 42869]]
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 138
July 20, 2015
Part II
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;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 42870]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198; FRL-9926-55-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action changes the status from acceptable to
unacceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits for a number of substitutes, pursuant to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Significant New Alternatives
Policy program. We make these changes based on information showing that
other substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk
overall to human health and the environment. Specifically, this action
changes the listing status for certain hydrofluorocarbons in various
end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam
blowing sectors. This action also changes 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: This rule is effective on August 19, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198. All documents in the docket are listed in the
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed in the electronic
docket and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically or in
hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue 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: Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9163; fax number (202)
343-2338, email address: sheppard.margaret@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 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 the
listing status of an alternative?
H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this final action to modify prior SNAP determinations?
IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for HFCs?
A. Summary of Petitions
B. How This Action Relates to the Climate Action Plan and
Petitions
V. What is EPA's final action concerning the HFCs addressed in this
rule?
A. Aerosols
1. Background
2. What is EPA finalizing concerning aerosols?
(a) What other alternatives are available?
(1) Aerosols With Flammability and Vapor Pressure Constraints
(2) Aerosols for Specific Medical Uses
(b) When will the listings change?
3. How is EPA responding to comments about this end-use?
(a) Timeline
(b) Sell-Through period
(c) Use conditions
(d) HFC Consumption and Climate Impact of Aerosols
(e) Small Business Impacts
(f) Imports
B. MVAC Systems for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
1. Background
2. What is EPA finalizing regarding MVAC systems for newly
manufactured light-duty motor vehicles?
(a) HFC-134a
(b) Refrigerant Blends
3. MVAC Servicing
4. Would this action affect EPA's LD GHG Rule?
5. How will the change of status apply to exports of MVAC
systems?
(a) SNAP Interpretation
(b) Narrowed Use Limit for MVAC
6. How is EPA responding to comments concerning this end-use?
(a) Timeline
(b) Interaction With EPA's LD GHG Rule
(c) Environmental Impacts
(d) Cost Impacts of Rule
(e) Servicing and Retrofits
(f) Refrigerant Blends for Retrofits of MVAC Systems
(g) Use Conditions for HFC-134a
(h) Flexibility for Exports
C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
1. Background
(a) Overview of SNAP End-Uses, End-Use Categories, and Commonly-
Used Refrigerants
(b) Terms and Coverage
(c) The Terms ``New'' and ``Retrofit'' and How They Apply to
Servicing
2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration
(supermarket systems)?
(a) New Supermarket Systems
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(b) Retrofit Supermarket Systems
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food
refrigeration (supermarket systems)?
3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (remote
condensing units)?
(a) New Remote Condensing Units
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(b) Retrofit Remote Condensing Units
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food
refrigeration (remote condensing units)?
4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (stand-
alone equipment)?
(a) New Stand-Alone Equipment
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(b) Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
[[Page 42871]]
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food
refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)?
5. What is EPA finalizing for vending machines?
(a) New Vending Machines
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(b) Retrofit Vending Machines
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(2) When will the status change?
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on vending machines?
6. General Comments on the Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending
Machine End-Uses
(a) Specific Numerical Limits for GWP
(b) Comments and Responses Concerning Small Businesses
(c) Suggestion Regarding Education and Training
7. Energy Efficiency Considerations
D. Foam Blowing Agents
1. Background
2. What is EPA finalizing for foam blowing agents?
(a) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
(b) When will the status change?
(c) Military and Space- and Aeronautics-Related Applications
(d) How will the requirements apply to exports and imports?
3. How is EPA responding to comments concerning foam blowing
end-uses?
(a) Timeline
(b) Foam Blowing Agents Changing Status and Other Alternatives
(c) Environmental and Energy Impacts of Foam Blowing Agents
(d) Cost Impacts
VI. What is EPA finalizing for the HCFCs addressed in this rule?
A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs and what is being finalized in
this rule?
B. How is EPA responding to public comments concerning HCFCs?
VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
A. Authority
1. General Authority
2. Second Generation Substitutes
3. GWP Considerations
4. Takings
5. Montreal Protocol/International
6. Absence of Petitions
7. Application of Criteria for Review of Alternatives
B. Cost and Economic Impacts of Proposed Status Changes
1. Costs of Proposed Rule
2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening
Analysis
C. Environmental Effects of Proposed Status Changes
1. General Comments
2. EPA's Benefits Analysis
3. Energy Efficiency
4. The Climate Action Plan
D. Potential Exemptions
E. Interactions With Other Rules
F. Other Comments
VIII. Additional Analyses
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
X. References
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA reviews
substitutes within a comparative risk framework. More specifically,
section 612 provides that EPA must prohibit the use of a substitute
where EPA has determined that there are other available substitutes
that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment. Thus,
EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, which
implements section 612, does not provide a static list of alternatives
but instead evolves the list as the EPA makes decisions informed by our
overall understanding of the environmental and human health impacts as
well as our current knowledge about available substitutes. In the more
than twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated, EPA has
modified the SNAP lists many times, most often by expanding the list of
acceptable substitutes, but in some cases by prohibiting the use of
substitutes previously listed as acceptable. Where EPA is determining
whether to add a new substitute to the list, EPA compares the risk
posed by that new substitute to the risks posed by other alternatives
on the list and determines whether that specific new substitute poses
more risk than already-listed alternatives for the same use. As the
lists have expanded, EPA has not reviewed the lists in a broader manner
to determine whether substitutes added to the lists early in the
program pose more risk than substitutes that have more recently been
added. EPA is now beginning this process.
Global warming potential (GWP) is one of several criteria EPA
considers in the overall evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP
program. The President's June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) states
that, ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will
lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic
actions.'' Furthermore, the CAP states that EPA 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.'' In our first
effort to take a broader look at the SNAP lists, we have focused on
those listed substitutes that have a high GWP relative to other
alternatives in specific end-uses. In determining whether to change the
status of these substitutes for particular end-uses, we performed a
full comparative risk analysis, based on our criteria for review, with
other available alternatives also listed as acceptable for these end-
uses.
In an August 6, 2014, Federal Register Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (79 FR 46126), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) proposed to change the
status of certain substitutes \1\ that at that time were listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program. After reviewing public comments and
available information, in today's action, EPA is modifying the listings
from acceptable to unacceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions;
or acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits for certain
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC blends in various end-uses in the
aerosols, foam blowing, and refrigeration and air conditioning sectors
where other alternatives are available or potentially available that
pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Per the
guiding principles of the SNAP program, this action does not specify
that any HFCs are unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses.
Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the intersection between the
specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use and the
availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses. EPA is also
not specifying that, for any 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)
[[Page 42872]]
and carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes may pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment, depending on the particular
use. Instead, consistent with CAA section 612 as we have historically
interpreted it under the SNAP program, EPA is making these
modifications based on our evaluation of the substitutes addressed in
this action using the SNAP criteria for evaluation and considering the
current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The terms ``substitutes'' and ``alternatives'' are used
interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On that basis, EPA is modifying the following listings by sector
and end-use as of the dates indicated. EPA will continue to monitor the
development and deployment of other alternatives as well as their
uptake by industries affected by today's action. If EPA receives new
information indicating that other alternatives will not be available by
the change of status dates specified, EPA may propose further action to
adjust the relevant dates.
(1) Aerosols
EPA is listing HFC-125 as unacceptable for use as an
aerosol propellant as of January 1, 2016.
EPA is listing HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of HFC-134a
and HFC-227ea as unacceptable for use as aerosol propellants as of July
20, 2016, except for those uses specifically listed as acceptable,
subject to use conditions.
EPA is listing HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of July 20, 2016,
for use in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).
EPA is listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, as of July 20, 2016, until January 1, 2018, for the
following specific uses:
[cir] products for which new formulations require federal
governmental review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military or
space agency specifications, or FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and
[cir] products for smoke detector functionality testing.
EPA is listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, as of July 20, 2016, for the following specific uses:
[cir] cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils
from electrical equipment or electronics;
[cir] refrigerant flushes;
[cir] products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;
[cir] sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the
maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or
military equipment;
[cir] duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from
photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under
electron microscopes or for use on energized electrical equipment;
[cir] adhesives and sealants in large canisters;
[cir] lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or
electronics;
[cir] sprays for aircraft maintenance;
[cir] 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 propellants;
[cir] mold release agents and mold cleaners;
[cir] lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic
fabrics;
[cir] document preservation sprays;
[cir] MDIs approved by the FDA for medical purposes;
[cir] wound care sprays;
[cir] topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and
[cir] products for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
(2) Refrigeration and air conditioning sector; Motor vehicle air
conditioning (MVAC) systems for newly manufactured light-duty vehicles
EPA is listing HFC-134a as unacceptable for newly manufactured
light-duty motor vehicles beginning in Model Year (MY) 2021 except as
allowed under a narrowed use limit for use in newly manufactured light-
duty vehicles destined for use in countries that do not have
infrastructure in place for servicing with other acceptable
refrigerants. This narrowed use limit will be in place through MY 2025.
Beginning in MY 2026, HFC-134a will be unacceptable for use in all
newly manufactured light-duty vehicles. EPA is also listing the use of
certain refrigerant blends as unacceptable in newly manufactured light-
duty motor vehicles starting with MY 2017.
(3) Refrigeration and air conditioning sector; Retail food
refrigeration and vending machines
EPA is listing a number of refrigerants as unacceptable in a number
of retail food refrigeration categories and in the vending machines
end-use, as follows:
Retrofitted supermarket systems: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B,
R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of July 20, 2016
New supermarket systems: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of January
1, 2017
Retrofitted remote condensing units: R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of July 20,
2016
New remote condensing units: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of January
1, 2018
Retrofitted vending machines: R-404A and R-507A as of July
20, 2016
New vending machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, 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 as of January 1, 2019
Retrofitted stand-alone retail food refrigeration
equipment: R-404A and R-507A as of July 20, 2016
New stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor
capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded evaporator:
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B,
R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03 as of January 1, 2019
New stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor
capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and stand-alone medium-
temperature units containing a flooded evaporator: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-
134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A,
R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B,
R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation),
SP34E, and THR-03 as of January 1, 2020
New stand-alone low-temperature units: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C,
R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003
formulation) as of January 1, 2020
We are also providing clarification on several questions identified
during the comment period. Specifically, we are providing clarification
of the terms we are using for the various end-use categories covered by
this rule, including ``supermarket systems,'' ``remote condensing
units,'' and ``stand-alone equipment.'' We are also providing
clarification on certain types of equipment that do not fall within the
categories and end-uses covered by this
[[Page 42873]]
rule, including blast chillers, certain ice makers, very-low
temperature refrigeration equipment, and equipment that dispenses
chilled beverage or food (e.g., soft-serve ice cream) via a nozzle.
Finally, we are also providing clarification regarding our use of the
terms ``new'' and ``retrofit'' and how those terms relate to service of
existing equipment.
(4) Foams
EPA is listing a number of foam blowing agents unacceptable in each
foams end-use excluding rigid PU spray foam, except as allowed under a
narrowed use limit for military or space- and aeronautics-related
applications. For military or space- and aeronautics-related
applications, we are changing the listing status to acceptable, subject
to a narrowed use limit, as of the status change date for the remainder
of each end-use (January 1 of 2017, 2019, 2020 or 2021) and then to
unacceptable as of January 1, 2022. We are not taking final action on
rigid PU spray foam at this time. The unacceptable listing for all
other end-uses is as follows:
Rigid polyurethane (PU) appliance foam: HFC-134a, HFC-
245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as
of January 1, 2020
Rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels:
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2020
Rigid PU slabstock and other: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January
1, 2019
Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock: HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; as of January 1, 2017
Flexible PU: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof; as of January 1, 2017
Integral skin PU: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and
blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2017
Polystyrene extruded sheet: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of
January 1, 2017
Polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet (XPS): HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel
B, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2021
Polyolefin: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2020
Phenolic insulation board and bunstock: HFC-143a, HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; as of January 1, 2017
Rigid PU marine flotation foam: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January
1, 2020
While EPA proposed and requested comments on interpreting the SNAP
unacceptability determinations to apply to the import of foam products
that retain the blowing agents (i.e., closed cell foams), EPA is not
finalizing that change in this rulemaking.
(5) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
As proposed, EPA is also modifying the listings for HCFC-141b,
HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well as blends that contain these substances
in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion
protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. These
modifications align the SNAP listings with other parts of the
stratospheric protection program, specifically section 605 and the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 610
and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C. The
modified listings will apply 60 days following publication of this
final rule.
(6) Overview of public comments
EPA received over 7,500 comments on the proposed rule. EPA
requested and received comments on the proposed listing decisions as
well as the proposed change of status dates. As noted in response to
comments throughout this document, the decision on modifying each
listing is based on the SNAP program's comparative risk framework. This
includes information concerning whether there are alternatives
available with lower overall risk to human health and the environment
for the end-uses considered. As part of our consideration of the
availability of those alternatives, we considered all available
information, including information provided during the public comment
period, and information claimed as confidential and provided during
meetings, regarding technical challenges that may affect the time at
which the alternatives can be used safely and used consistent with
other requirements such as testing and code compliance obligations. We
grouped comments together and responded to the issues raised by the
comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate response to
comments document which is included in the docket for this rule (EPA,
2015a). This final rule reflects some changes to our proposal, based on
information and data received during the public comment period.
The sections that follow describe EPA's final action for each of
the three sectors covered in this rulemaking--aerosols; foam blowing;
and refrigeration and air-conditioning, including commercial
refrigeration and motor vehicle air conditioning. For the end-uses
addressed within each sector we explain the change of status
determination and the dates when the change of status will apply. EPA
has updated documentation for this rule including market
characterizations, analyses of costs associated with sector
transitions, estimated benefits associated with the transition to other
alternatives, and potential small business
impacts.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 These documents are
available in the docket. EPA provided separate market characterizations
by sector for the proposed rule but is providing a single document
consolidating this information, and updated to reflect information
received during the public comment period, for this final action. The
emissions avoided from this final rule are estimated to be 26 to 31
million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq)
in 2020. The avoided emissions are estimated to be 54 to 64
MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 78 to 101 MMTCO2eq in 2030
(EPA, 2015b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols
Industry. May 2014.
\3\ ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams
Industry. May 2014.
\4\ ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S. Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. May 2014.
\5\ ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry. May 2014.
\6\ ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Options To Change Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives. June 2014.
\7\ EPA, 2014a. 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.
\9\ ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S.
Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July
2015
\10\ ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--
Revised. July 2015.
\11\ EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status
Change Rule. July 2015.
\12\ ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Does this action apply to me?
Potential entities that may be affected by this final rule include:
[[Page 42874]]
Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Category NAICS Code 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....................... 336611 Ship Building and
Repairing.
Industry....................... 336612 Boat Building.
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, consult the person listed in the above
section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble
of this document:
AAM--Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AGC--Asahi Glass Company
AHAM--Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
AHRI-- Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
AIHA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
The Alliance--Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy
ARPI--Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAP--Climate Action Plan
CARB--California Air Resource Board
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFESA--Commercial Food Equipment Service Association
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH4--Methane
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon dioxide equivalent
CRA--Congressional Review Act
CSPA--Consumer Specialty Products Association
DME--Dimethyl ether
DoD--United States Department of Defense
DOE--United States Department of Energy
DX--Direct expansion
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency-US
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FDA--United States Food and Drug Administration
FM--Factory Mutual
FMI--Food Marketing Institute
FR--Federal Register
GHG--Greenhouse Gas
Global Automakers--Association of Global Automakers
GWP--Global Warming Potential
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IPAC--International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCCP-- Life Cycle Climate Performance
LD GHG--Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
[[Page 42875]]
MAC Directive--Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning
MDI--Metered Dose Inhaler
Mexichem--Mexichem Fluor, Inc.
MMTCO2eq--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent
MVAC--Motor vehicle air conditioning
MY--Model Year
N2--Nitrogen
N2O--Nitrous Oxide
NAA--National Aerosol Association
NADA--National Automobile Dealers Association
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NAFEM--North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
NAM--National Association of Manufacturers
NAMA--National Automatic Merchandising Association
NASA--National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIOSH--United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health
NMMA--National Marine Manufacturers Association
NPRM--Notice of proposed rulemaking
NRA--National Restaurant Association
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NSF--National Sanitation Foundation
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
PU--Polyurethane
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REACH--Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of
Chemicals
RfC--Reference Concentration
RRR--Recovery, Recycling and Recharging
RSC--Radiator Specialty Company
RSES--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
SIP--State Implementation Plan
SAE ICCC--SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee
SF6--Sulfur Hexafluoride
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SISNOSE--Significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
TEAP--Technical and Economic Assessment Panel
TEWI--Total Equivalent Warming Impact
TLV--Threshold Limit Value
TXV--Thermostatic Expansion Valve
UL--Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UNEP--United Nations Environmental Programme
VOC--Volatile Organic Compounds
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit
XPS--Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet
XPSA--Extruded Polystyrene Association
II. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP
program?
CAA section 612 requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances (ODS). This program is known
as the 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 (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide,
hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II (HCFC)
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 substitutes 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 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 initial SNAP rule (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
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,\13\ it
[[Page 42876]]
may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or
end users \14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.
\14\ 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.\15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under
this provision.
\16\ 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
CAA 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 \17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 consistent with 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
Substitutes found to be acceptable must not pose significantly
greater risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk
free. A key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of
substitutes that minimize risks to human health and the environment
relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may
involve designating a substitute acceptable even though the compound
may pose a risk of some type, provided its use does not pose
significantly greater risk than other alternatives.
Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse
[[Page 42877]]
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, and does not intend to do so unless a
substitute has been proposed or is being used that is clearly 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 potential environmental or human health effects 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 effects, 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), 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 the environment 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 (NIOSH),
Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), or threshold limit values (TLVs)
set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH). 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 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. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
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 like 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 (VOC). 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 (RCRA) 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
[[Page 42878]]
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, since the inception of the SNAP program, we have
interpreted 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 lower overall risk to human
health and the environment. In determining whether to modify a listing
of a substitute we undertake the same consideration, but do so in the
light of 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 the listing
status of an alternative?
As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the
initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994
(59 FR 13044), CAA section 612 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.
The initial 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.
It has now been over 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 varying 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 upon which 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 made clear that a listing under the SNAP
program could not convey permanence.
Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has
issued 19 rules and 30 notices that generally expand the menu of
options for all SNAP sectors and end-uses. Comparisons today apply to a
broader range of options--both chemical and non-chemical--than was
available 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 regard to that information, our review of
substitutes in this rule includes comparative assessments that consider
our evolving understanding of a variety of factors, including climate
change. GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our evaluation
framework, but as is the case 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 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 blend 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 overall 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 other 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 phase-down step, EPA changed
the listing for these HCFCs in relevant 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 established a change of status date
that recognized that existing users needed time to 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.
[[Page 42879]]
For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP
program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial
SNAP rule 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 final action to modify prior SNAP determinations?
GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers 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 \18\ under section 202(a) of the CAA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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 ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\19\ Although they
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG
emissions, their warming impact is very strong. The most commonly used
HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-134a is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate
system than carbon dioxide. HFC emissions are projected to increase
substantially and at an increasing rate 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.\20\ At that rate, emissions are
projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.\21\ 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.22 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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).
\20\ UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme.
\21\ Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change:
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
\22\ Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations,
Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
\23\ 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,\24\ 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
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (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.25 26
Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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.
\25\ HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone
Layer. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp
\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for HFCs?
A. Summary of Petitions
EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain
acceptability listings of HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends. These petitions
are more fully described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
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 in multiple end-uses and move it to
the list of unacceptable substitutes in those end-uses. In support of
their petition, the petitioners identified other substitutes that they
claimed were available for use in those end-uses and they claimed 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
such substitutes.
On April 26, 2012, EPA received a second petition submitted by 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 chlorofluorocarbons (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
[[Page 42880]]
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.\27\ The petitioner stated that the analysis used in the listing
decisions may have been appropriate in the 1990s but was no longer so
today given the range of other available or potentially available
substitutes at present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., 60 FR at 31097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 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.
B. How This Action Relates to the Climate Action Plan and Petitions
This action is consistent with a provision in the President's CAP
announced June 2013: 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 CAP further states: ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United
States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well
as domestic actions.'' This rule is also consistent with that call for
leadership through domestic actions. As regards international
leadership, 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
amendment proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) through 2050.
This action 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 MVAC systems. (See section V.B.) Second, regarding the remaining
aspects of the three petitions, which EPA found to be incomplete, EPA
has independently acquired sufficient information to address certain
other requests made by the petitioners. EPA's action in this final rule
may be considered responsive to certain aspects of those petitions such
as: Changing the listing of certain HFCs used in specific aerosol uses
from acceptable to unacceptable or acceptable, subject to use
conditions; changing the listing of certain HFCs used in specific foams
end-uses from acceptable to unacceptable for most uses; changing the
listing of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable for new stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers; and changing the listing of a
number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs from acceptable to
unacceptable for new and retrofit stand-alone retail food refrigerators
and freezers. Specifically, as explained in more detail in the sector-
specific sections of this document, we are revising the listings for
substitutes in the aerosols, foams, and refrigeration and air
conditioning sectors that pose significantly greater overall risk to
human health and the environment as compared with other available or
potentially available substitutes in the specified end-uses.
Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated
community, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the
role that certainty plays in enabling the 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 setting specific numerical criteria for environmental evaluations
(e.g., all compounds with GWP greater than 150). That being said, we
believe that the action we are taking today, and future action we may
take, does provide additional certainty in the specific cases
addressed. In addition, we remain committed to continuing to actively
seek stakeholder views and to share our thinking at the earliest moment
practicable on any future actions, as part of our commitment to provide
greater certainty to producers and consumers in SNAP-regulated
industrial sectors.
V. What is EPA's final action concerning the HFCs addressed in this
rule?
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, and
compressed air) have long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the
aerosol industry predominantly used CFCs. In 1978, in response to
evidence regarding depletion of the earth's ozone layer, the United
States banned CFC propellants, with few exceptions.
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. However, since the
1990s HCFCs have been controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol
and subject to regulation under the CAA, as amended in 1990, including
a phaseout of production and import under section 605(b)-(c) and use
restrictions under section 605(a).
2. What is EPA finalizing concerning aerosols?
For aerosol propellants, EPA proposed to list, as of January 1,
2016:
HFC-125 as unacceptable;
[[Page 42881]]
HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical
aerosols (e.g., MDIs) and
HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in MDIs.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EPA did not explicitly state in our proposal whether blends
of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea would also be acceptable subject to use
conditions. However, in general in the SNAP program, blends of
acceptable aerosol propellants are also acceptable and do not
require separate approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's action changes the status of HFC-125; HFC-227ea; blends of
HFC-134a and HFC-227ea; and HFC-134a, as follows:
We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-
125 from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.
We are changing the status of HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and
blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea from acceptable to unacceptable for
use as aerosol propellants as of July 20, 2016 except for those uses
specifically listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-
227ea and for blends of HFC-227ea and HFC-134a from acceptable to
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of July 20, 2016, for use in
MDIs approved by FDA.
We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-
134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of
July 20, 2016, until January 1, 2018, for the following specific uses:
Products for which new formulations require federal governmental
review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military (U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD)) or space agency (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)) specifications, or FDA approval (aside
from MDIs); and products for smoke detector functionality testing.
We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-
134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions as of
July 20, 2016, for the following specific uses: Cleaning products for
removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or
electronics; refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity testing of
smoke detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment
or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; sprays containing
corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft,
electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment; 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 and mold cleaners; lubricants and cleaners for
spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for use
on removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips,
specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical
equipment; adhesives and sealants in large canisters; document
preservation sprays; MDIs approved by FDA for medical purposes,\29\
wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and products
for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Includes veterinary purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The change of status determinations for aerosols are summarized in
the following table:
Table 2--Change of Status Decisions for Aerosols
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uses that are acceptable,
End-use Substitutes Decision subject to use conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propellants....................... HFC-125.............. Unacceptable as of None.
January 1, 2016.
Propellants....................... HFC-134a............. Unacceptable as of From July 20, 2016 to January
July 20, 2016 except 1, 2018: Products for smoke
for uses listed as detector functionality
acceptable, subject testing; products for which
to use conditions. new formulations require
governmental review,
including: EPA pesticide
registration, military or
space agency specifications,
or FDA approval (other than
MDIs).
As of July 20, 2016: Cleaning
products for removal of
grease, flux and other soils
from electrical equipment;
refrigerant flushes; products
for sensitivity testing of
smoke detectors; lubricants
and freeze sprays for
electrical equipment or
electronics; sprays for
aircraft maintenance; sprays
containing corrosion
preventive compounds used in
the maintenance of aircraft,
electrical equipment or
electronics, or military
equipment; 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 and mold
cleaners; lubricants and
cleaners for spinnerettes for
synthetic fabrics; duster
sprays specifically for
removal of dust from
photographic negatives,
semiconductor chips,
specimens under electron
microscopes, and energized
electrical equipment;
adhesives and sealants in
large canisters; document
preservation sprays; FDA-
approved MDIs for medical
purposes; wound care sprays;
topical coolant sprays for
pain relief; and products for
removing bandage adhesives
from skin.
Propellants....................... HFC-227ea and blends Unacceptable as of As of July 20, 2016: FDA-
of HFC-227ea and HFC- July 20, 2016 except approved MDIs for medical
134a. for uses listed as purposes.
acceptable, subject
to use conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42882]]
(a) What other alternatives are available?
EPA is changing the listing decisions for HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-
227ea, and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, with some exceptions,
because, as discussed in more detail in this section, for the uses for
which we are listing these substitutes as unacceptable, alternatives
(i.e., chemical compounds and technological options) are available or
potentially available that reduce 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.\30\ All of these alternatives, both the ones
remaining acceptable and those for which we are changing the listing,
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, 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 VOC as well as being
flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are not excluded from
the definition of VOC 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 and
restrict their use under this action. HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea,
HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and the compressed gas CO2 are
exempted from the definition of VOC under these regulations and their
use is expected to have negligible impact on ground-level ozone levels.
As well as HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and CO2, compressed
N2 and not-in-kind alternatives are not VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ GWP values cited in this final rule 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aerosols industry is generally familiar with how to address
flammability risks. The aerosols industry has been using flammable
compounds, including flammable propellants, for decades, consistent
with OSHA requirements addressing flammability. There may be greater
flammability risks for some specific uses of aerosol products because
of their use in situations where there is a source of heat or
electrical energy that could cause a fire (e.g., use on energized
electrical equipment). Concerns with flammability occur more with
industrial products, often referred to as ``technical aerosols.'' For
further discussion on consumer aerosols, technical aerosols, and
medical aerosols, see the NPRM at 79 FR 46136 through 46138 (August 6,
2014).
There are a number of alternatives with GWPs lower than the GWPs
for the substitutes that we are listing as unacceptable and that are
not defined as VOC for purposes of SIPs, including: HFC-152a with a GWP
of 124, HFO-1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6, and CO2 with a GWP of
1. CO2 and HFO-1234ze(E) are nonflammable under ambient
temperature conditions, while HFC-152a is flammable, but less so than
hydrocarbons or DME. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those
of the HFCs for which we are changing the listing (range of GWPs from
1,430 to 3,500 for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and HFC-125).
(1) Aerosols With Flammability and Vapor Pressure Constraints
Aerosols for industrial and commercial uses often require
nonflammability and in some cases, specific vapor pressure criteria.
For example, nonflammable aerosols are needed for use on energized
electrical circuits, where sparking can create a fire or explosion
hazard. Of the different alternatives that have previously been listed
as acceptable, the nonflammable options at room temperature include
HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFO-1234ze(E), compressed gases including
CO2 and N2, and not-in-kind products. At slightly
higher temperatures (30 [deg]C or 85 [deg]F), HFO-1234ze(E) exhibits
lower and higher flammability limits, and thus in theory could catch
fire under specific conditions of concentration and applied energy.
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 the contents of a can for technical
aerosols or may exceed Department of Transportation pressure
requirements under elevated temperatures (ITW Polymers Sealants, 2014).
For comparison, the vapor pressures of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-134a, and
CO2 at 20 [deg]C are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5,776 kPa,
respectively.
Based on the information available today, EPA believes it cannot
list HFC-134a as unacceptable for all aerosol uses. Thus, we are
creating a use condition that would restrict use of HFC-134a to
specific uses for which alternatives are not currently or potentially
available.
Both HFC-227ea and HFC-125 have significantly higher GWPs than HFC-
134a (HFC-227ea's GWP is 3220 and HFC-125's GWP is 3500) or other
substitutes that could be potentially used where flammability is a
concern, and there is not a significantly different level of risk based
on the other factors that we consider. Thus, EPA has determined that
HFC-227ea and HFC-125 pose significantly more risk than other available
substitutes and EPA is changing their listing from acceptable to
unacceptable in most uses where HFC-134a may be used to mitigate
flammability risks. We note that we are not aware of any use of HFC-
227ea or of HFC-125 in industrial aerosols to mitigate flammability
risks.
(2) Aerosols for Specific Medical Uses
For medical aerosols, there are special needs to address safety and
toxicity. Furthermore, in order for a substitute to be available for
use in medical devices, the device using the substitute must first be
reviewed and approved by the FDA.
FDA has approved medications for use in MDIs using HFC-134a, HFC-
227ea, and blends of these two HFCs as propellants. No medications have
been approved for use in MDIs using other propellants. Although some
dry powder inhalers that are not-in-kind substitutes are approved by
FDA, these alternatives do not work for some situations. Thus, we
cannot conclude that there are other alternatives available for use in
MDIs that pose lower risk than HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, or blends of these
two. In addition, it is our understanding that because of differences
in the solubility of water in HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, there are some
medications that are sensitive to the presence of water for which only
HFC-227ea may be used in an MDI.
For other medical uses, EPA is aware of medical aerosols that
currently are using hydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, as well as
not-in-kind
[[Page 42883]]
alternatives for uses such as antifungals, calamine sprays, freeze
sprays for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 2014a). However, EPA
does not have information that alternatives other than HFC-134a are
available and are approved by FDA as propellants in wound care sprays;
topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and products for removing
bandage adhesives from skin.
The available substitutes for medical devices are limited to those
approved by FDA, and the available substitutes differ by the type of
product and medical conditions treated. For these reasons, we are
listing HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for specific uses for which
other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment are not currently or potentially available. The use
conditions limit use of HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-227ea and HFC-134a
to MDIs approved by FDA and limit use of HFC-134a to MDIs approved by
FDA 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 3,220; HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430; 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. We
are not aware of any medical or other aerosols currently using HFC-125,
or of any FDA approval for aerosols using HFC-125. For these reasons,
we have determined that there are other available substitutes that pose
lower overall risks to human health and the environment in this use and
we are changing the listing of HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable.
For more information on the environmental and health properties of
the different aerosol substitutes, please see the proposed rule at 79
FR 46137-46138 and a technical support document that provides the
additional Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d) in the docket.
(b) When will the listings change?
On or after January 1, 2016, aerosol products may not be
manufactured with HFC-125 and on or after July 20, 2016, aerosol
products may not be manufactured with HFC-134a or HFC-227ea, or blends
thereof except for the specific uses allowed under the use conditions.
In addition, as of January 1, 2018, HFC-134a will be unacceptable for
certain uses, and aerosol products for those uses may not be
manufactured with HFC-134a as of that date:
Products for which new formulations require U.S. federal
government review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military or
space agency specifications, and FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and
products for functional testing of smoke detectors.
In the case of HFC-125, EPA is unaware of any products using HFC-
125, and no public commenters mentioned the existence of such products
or requested a date other than the proposed date of January 1, 2016.
We are setting July 20, 2016, as the date on which the status of
HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends thereof will change to unacceptable, or
to acceptable, subject to use conditions, for certain specific uses.
For those uses that would no longer be allowed as of July 20, 2016,
this timeframe will allow formulators and packagers of aerosols to make
the necessary changes. (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 2014a). A number of
formulators have already been testing, and in many cases introducing,
new formulations with alternatives that remain listed acceptable. This
timing will provide affected aerosol manufacturers and packagers
sufficient time to change and test formulations and, to the extent
necessary, to change the equipment in their factories.
For two aerosol uses, continued use of HFC-134a will be allowed
under the use conditions until January 1, 2018. EPA is providing this
longer transition time for these two uses because of additional safety
precautions and approvals outside of the control of the aerosol
formulator that must be addressed before transitioning. The first
category is those that must undergo specific federal governmental
reviews: EPA pesticide registration under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, military or space agency
specifications, and FDA approval. The second category is aerosol
products for functional testing of smoke detectors, which have National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72 requirements adopted in building
codes. These types of aerosols must be tested not only for performance
but also reviewed by third parties for compliance with regulatory or
code requirements or military specifications. Given both the safety
implications of insufficient testing and the additional time required
for third-party testing and/or governmental approval that is not
required for other aerosol formulations, we have determined that
alternatives that reduce overall risk will not be available for these
uses until January 1, 2018.
As of the change of status dates, products cannot be manufactured
with HFC-134a or HFC-227ea or blends thereof except for the aerosol
product types that are listed under the use conditions. Products
manufactured prior to the change of status date may still be sold,
imported, exported, and used by the end-user after that date. As
discussed below in the responses to comment, restricting use of
aerosols by the end-user, as well as restricting the sale of previously
manufactured aerosols, may disrupt the market and may not result in
environmental benefits.
3. How is EPA responding to comments about this end-use?
(a) Timeline
Comment: EPA received comments from a number of commenters on the
status change date of HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-125 as an aerosol
propellant. Members of the aerosol industry proposed alternate years
ranging from 2018 to 2021, always in reference to HFC-134a or to
``technical'' aerosols. Reasons provided for these dates included
aligning with the European Union's (EU) timeline of January 1, 2018; a
need for at least one to two more years to complete reformulation and
all testing required; and additional time of two to five years to
complete approval processes: e.g., Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
approvals to meet NFPA requirements, EPA pesticide registration or
testing for conformance with military specifications. Members of the
aerosol industry also suggested that January 1, 2016, is too soon to
transition away from HFC-134a because of the need for coordination with
other regulatory requirements, because of business considerations
including the timing of the need for budgeting for capital
expenditures, developing and implementing worker education, negotiating
contracts between aerosol formulators and retailers, and for technical
reasons such as stability issues with HFO-1234ze(E), one of the
alternatives that remains acceptable for use. NRDC and IGSD stated that
EPA must maintain its 2016 timeline for transition to ensure that
important climate reductions are realized.
Response: In determining when alternatives that reduce overall risk
will be available for use, EPA considers technical constraints on the
use of other alternatives, including when other alternatives may be
used consistent with safety requirements. Unlike some end-uses, such as
some of the refrigeration end-uses, there are a much wider variety
[[Page 42884]]
of uses with a much broader range of considerations under the aerosol
propellant end-use. While there are exceptions, as we address in this
action, for most of these wide-ranging uses, we do not anticipate
significant hurdles to transitioning to alternatives. Based on
information provided by the manufacturer of HFO-1234ze(E), a number of
their customers have been able to develop and introduce aerosol
products using HFO-1234ze(E) in a matter of months rather than years.
Except in limited cases, as discussed below, commenters requesting a
longer transition period did not provide concrete support for why more
time for specific uses is needed, resting only on general statements
that time is needed for ``formulation'' and ``testing.'' Based on the
information available showing that manufacturers have been able to
transition relatively quickly, but also recognizing that there may be
some variation in the time needed for specific uses, we are
establishing a change of status date of July 20, 2016--roughly seven
months later than the proposed date of January 1, 2016. This will allow
approximately one year from the time this rule is issued in which
manufacturers should be able to address their generalized testing and
reformulation concerns. Also, HFC-134a remains acceptable, subject to
use conditions, for many uses, reducing the number of products for
which companies must reformulate, test, and transition to other
alternatives.
For certain aerosol products using HFC-134a that must go through a
federal government or other third-party approval process for new
formulations, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1,
2018. These products include those needing EPA pesticide registration,
testing to U.S. military or space agency specifications, and FDA
approval (aside from MDIs). In addition, we are establishing a change
of status date of January 1, 2018, for a product that requires
extensive testing to NFPA standards, specifically for smoke detector
functional testing. Based on information received during the public
comment period, we have determined that for these specific uses,
alternatives that pose less risk are not available until these testing
and registration processes are complete.
EPA disagrees that we should align the timelines in this rule with
the EU timelines. The EU regulations rely upon different authority than
the SNAP program, and reflect the European context. We believe it is
appropriate for EPA decisions to base timelines upon when alternatives
that reduce overall risk are available in the United States.
Comment: National Aerosol Association (NAA), Radiator Specialty
Company (RSC), LPS Laboratories, Consumer Specialty Products
Association (CSPA), and Aeropres commented that there is currently no
industry consensus on the safe handling of HFO-1234ze(E) (and ``any
alternative products'') in aerosol plants. CSPA states that the CSPA
Aerosol Propellants Safety Manual will need to be updated to include
new propellants like HFO-1234ze(E), and that the consensus guidelines
will then be used to assure that fire and building codes are updated to
properly cover new propellants. The commenter also states that while
they seek consensus on updating their safety manual, companies are able
to proceed using the guidance provided by the supplier, but many CSPA
members prefer to await industry consensus standards. LPS Laboratories
comments that applicable codes need to be updated before other
alternatives can be used and suggests that a January 1, 2018, date for
listing HFC-134a as unacceptable is more appropriate.
Response: In the absence of industry consensus guidance, a number
of aerosol formulators are already manufacturing products safely using
HFO-1234ze(E) relying upon safety guidelines developed by the chemical
producer. No commenters raised, and we are unaware of, any specific
safety concerns that are not addressed in this guidance issued by the
chemical producer. CSPA mentioned updating fire and building codes
using the consensus guidelines, but did not state how these are related
and also indicated that some companies have been able to move ahead
without updates to fire and building codes based upon the guidance. For
that reason, we do not believe there is a basis for determining that
HFO-1234ze(E) is not available for safe use until January 1, 2018, as
suggested by commenters.
(b) Sell-Through Period
Comment: Honeywell stated that there should be a limited sell-
through period to prevent stranded inventories for aerosol products,
while avoiding delays in the transition to low-GWP substitutes. The
commenter suggested that EPA prohibit the sale, import and export of
aerosol products manufactured with unacceptable substitutes by no later
than January 1, 2017. The commenter also suggested that the sell-
through period should apply only to products that were manufactured
prior to January 1, 2016, and that have entered the distribution
channel.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that a
limited sell-through period would be sufficient. Based on past
experience with implementing a limited sell-through period for certain
kinds of aerosols containing CFCs and with implementing an unlimited
sell-through period for other aerosols, we found that a limited sell-
through can result in market disruption and can strand inventory.
Further, a limited sell-through period does not necessarily preclude
emissions of HFCs to the environment because while manufacturers and
distributors would need to dispose of stranded inventory, there is no
current requirement prohibiting venting of the contents to the
atmosphere (unlike for refrigeration or MVAC). In this rule, we allow
new cars or new stand-alone refrigeration equipment manufactured with
HFC-134a before the change of status date to be used and serviced after
the change of status date to avoid market disruption, creation of
stranded inventory, and perverse incentives for releasing refrigerant
to the environment; a closely analogous treatment for aerosols is to
allow manufacturers and distributors to sell and end users to use
aerosol products manufactured before the relevant change of status
date. Finally, because of the relatively short period from issuance of
EPA's final rule to the compliance date, we do not expect that there
will be a large accumulation of inventory. Accordingly, this rule
allows for an unlimited sell-through and use period for covered aerosol
products manufactured before the change of status date.
(c) Use Conditions
Comment: Honeywell, the producer of HFO-1234ze(E), stated that
there are either commercially available products or shelf-ready
products that have not yet been commercialized that do not contain HFC-
134a for some of the uses for which EPA proposed to change the status
of HFC-134a, to acceptable, subject to use conditions, including
cleaning products for electronics, sprays for aircraft maintenance, and
dusters.
Response: EPA agrees, and we note that the uses identified in the
use conditions encompass a variety of highly specific uses. While
products without one of these substitutes or a blend of these
substitutes might be used in one specific use, this does not hold true
for the entire range of uses in the use category. In particular, this
is the case for uses where flammability is of concern, such as for
electronics cleaning and specialty dusters that are used on high-
voltage equipment. In the future, additional testing may indicate that
other alternatives, such as HFO-1234ze(E), can be used safely even
[[Page 42885]]
under conditions where flammability is of concern, but the information
available to date is not currently sufficient. Thus, we agree with
other commenters from the aerosol industry, such as CSPA, that HFC-134a
continues to be necessary in specific uses where other alternatives
that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment are not
available.
Comment: Arkema asked whether EPA is proposing that HFC-227ea
continue to be acceptable for MDIs because of ``the volumes or a record
of unique suitability for a particular purpose,'' when HFC-134a might
pose lower overall risk compared to HFC-227ea, since its GWP is less
than half that of HFC-227ea.
Response: Arkema's comment seems to suggest that we should list
HFC-227ea as unacceptable for use in MDIs, because it has a higher GWP
than HFC-134a; we disagree. Although the GWP for HFC-227ea is
significantly higher than that for HFC-134a, our understanding is that
there are technical reasons why HFC-134a may not perform adequately as
a propellant in MDIs using certain kinds of medications. For example,
because some medications could react or degrade in the presence of
moisture, and water is much more soluble in HFC-134a than in HFC-227ea,
further technical work is needed to determine if HFC-134a is able to
serve as a propellant in all MDIs. Currently, it is our understanding
that for those types of medications, there are no alternatives to HFC-
227ea that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment.
Comment: The International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC)
and Mexichem Fluor, Inc. (Mexichem) suggested using the same language
for the listing for MDIs for HFC-227ea as for HFC-134a. IPAC, Mexichem,
and King & Spaulding suggested revising the language to apply to a
wider group of medical uses, including the treatment of conditions or
diseases of other organs (for example diabetes) where aerosols can be
used for systemic delivery through the lung or nose, or that HFC-134a
and HFC-227ea should be allowed for any medical MDI that has been FDA-
approved regardless of disease condition treated. One of the commenters
also stated it should be made clear that blends of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea are also acceptable for such use.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that the lists of medical
conditions treated with MDIs should be consistent for HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea. Additionally, we agree that the language should more clearly
specify our intent, which is to cover all MDI uses for which FDA has
approved HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, or blends of these HFCs. This would
include the wider group of medical uses suggested by King & Spaulding,
including the treatment of conditions or diseases of other organs (for
example diabetes) where aerosols can be used for systemic delivery
through the lung or nose. It is our understanding that HFC-134a and
HFC-227ea are the only available alternatives for MDIs approved by FDA,
with dry powder inhalers as an additional possible not-in-kind
alternative in limited cases. Thus, we believe that there are no other
alternatives available or potentially available for all MDIs approved
by FDA that pose less risk overall to human health and the environment.
We have revised the wording of the regulatory listing decision to make
clear that the use condition for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of
HFC-134a and HFC-227ea applies to all MDIs approved by FDA.
Comment: HSI (Fire & Safety Group, LLC), Honeywell, DuPont, and EIA
commented that there are available alternatives and there is sufficient
supply of these alternatives to support EPA's proposed change of status
decisions for the aerosol propellants end-use.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that, for the most part,
there is a sufficient supply of alternatives that will support a
transition away from the substitutes that we have concluded provide a
greater risk to human health and the environment. However, as discussed
in more detail above and in response to other comments, in some
specific cases we received information that demonstrates the existence
of technological challenges that support a later date for the change in
status. In those cases, we are providing a later date.
Comment: Commenters in the aerosol industry commented on situations
where some alternatives other than HFC-134a are not effective or
feasible. NAA commented that if CO2 were feasible, it would
already be used. LPS Laboratories commented that formulators must
consider chemical compatibility with formulations; for example,
CO2 cannot be used with water-based formulations due to the
formation of carbonic acid. LPS Laboratories commented that nitrogen
has very limited uses due to its lack of solubility and the substantial
pressure drop that occurs as the product is used.
Response: EPA recognizes that not all alternative propellants work
in every particular formulation. The commenters have described specific
situations where CO2 and nitrogen may not be appropriate
propellants. However, other alternatives are also listed as acceptable.
HFO-1234ze(E) and HFC-152a have some physical similarities with HFC-
134a and the commenters do not claim that these other alternatives are
not available.
Comment: NRDC and IGSD urged the Agency to deny any requests in the
aerosols sector for additional exemptions.
Response: EPA has considered the comments and information submitted
during the comment period and is adding a limited number of uses to the
use conditions that would allow continued use of HFC-134a, HFC-227ea,
or blends thereof for the reasons provided elsewhere in this preamble.
Comment: Honeywell, NAA, and CSPA commented on the nonflammability
of HFO-1234ze(E). NAA indicated that HFO-1234ze(E) was found to be
nonflammable by a number of standard tests (e.g., ASTM E-681) and
aerosol flammability test methods (e.g., flame extension, enclosed
space ignition), as well as by a non-standard test including a test
that found no ignition up to temperatures greater than 900 [deg]F.
Honeywell commented that while it is accurate to say that HFO-1234ze(E)
may exhibit vapor flame limits at elevated temperatures, that is only
one of many properties that must be taken into consideration when
characterizing HFO-1234ze(E) and its usefulness in formulating
nonflammable aerosol products. This commenter also provided additional
information about other tests on the flammability of HFO-1234ze(E).
CSPA said that there is still some concern about the potential for
flammability at higher ambient temperatures, and that CSPA member
product marketers, formulators and manufacturers are working to assure
that specific products in various categories can be formulated,
manufactured and used safely and effectively.
Response: Based on the information available to EPA at this time,
we agree that HFO-1234ze(E) is nonflammable in most situations that
aerosols will be used. However, we have not seen results of testing
that cover all of the types of products for which there are concerns
about the need for a nonflammable aerosol propellant, such as aerosol
products used on energized circuits or other electrical equipment. For
other uses, where we have evidence of product-specific testing on HFO-
[[Page 42886]]
1234ze(E) showing nonflammability (e.g., tire inflators), we have
concluded that the flammability risks of HFO-1234ze(E) are not a
significant concern.
Comment: Several commenters discussed flammability concerns for
tire inflators, with some suggesting that they should be added as a use
for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions, others
suggesting a later change of status date, and others supporting the
proposal. NAA and RSC stated that due to past accidents traced to
flammability of tire inflators, it is necessary to test all aspects of
the inflators to ensure that there are no flammability issues with HFO-
1234ze(E). RSC and Honeywell commented on the specific testing required
to ensure that new tire inflators using HFO-1234ze(E) are nonflammable,
because of the possibility of ignition sources such as application of a
torch to the rim of the tire or sparking from metal tools contacting a
steel belt during tire repair. ITW Global Tire Repair commented that
previous Aerosol Tire Inflators were flammable and there were several
accidents in which tire repair professionals were injured when a spark
ignited the product. This commenter also stated that EPA should not
dismiss the need for a nonflammable product because other aspects of
motor vehicles are flammable; tires and wheels have not been designed
and engineered to contain flammable products, unlike many other
flammable products in motor vehicles. CSPA referred to a March, 1999
recall from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
recall for 32 million units of an aerosol tire inflator due to injuries
caused by the product's flammability. Mexichem comments HFO-1234ze(E)
requires further evaluation before implementation for emergency tire
inflators and sealers because of its flammability and uncertainty
regarding its compatibility with sealants. Honeywell, the manufacturer
of HFO-1234ze(E), commented that third-party testing of aerosol tire
inflators using HFO-1234ze(E) found them to be nonflammable.
Response: We acknowledge that there have been reports of accidents
associated with use of flammable tire inflators in the past,
particularly affecting tire repair professionals. Not all manufacturers
of tire inflators agree that a nonflammable propellant is necessary,
given there are tire inflators using hydrocarbons already on the
market. Although HFO-1234ze(E) can ignite under higher temperature
conditions using the standard test ASTM E 681, a relevant question is
whether data indicate that an aerosol tire inflator using HFO-1234ze(E)
would be flammable under the pressure, temperature, and likely ignition
sources specific to this use. This will ensure a relevant risk
comparison and will not compare to other flammable substances used in
other parts of a motor vehicle. One manufacturer of aerosol tire
inflators has tested a formulation using HFO-1234ze(E) and has found it
is nonflammable under the conditions that exist for use of a tire
inflator (RSC, 2014). Therefore, other alternatives are available
besides HFC-134a that sufficiently mitigate flammability risks for this
use. Concerning RSC's suggestion for a change of status date of January
1, 2018, to give sufficient time for additional testing, the commenter
provided insufficient information on the types of testing or timeframes
involved to warrant providing additional time. Further, in this final
rule, we are providing roughly an additional seven months beyond the
date in the proposal to meet commenters' general comments about
requiring additional time for testing. Based on the information
available, HFO-1234ze(E) is an option that other manufacturers of
aerosol tire inflators are using to formulate products that are not
flammable under the conditions expected for that use.
Comment: Commenters from the aerosol industry requested that EPA
include additional uses for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to
use conditions. These uses include certain aerosols used for testing
smoke detector sensitivity and ``emergency safety horns exclusively
used for marine emergency situations and/or industrial emergencies and
evacuations.'' Reasons cited include allowing time for developing and
approving new smoke detector sensitivity testing equipment and the need
for nonflammability because emergency safety horns function where
flames or other ignition sources are present. An environmental group
states that it disagrees with comments that request continued use of
HFC-134a in freeze sprays, tissue freezes, portable safety horns and
personal defense sprays, as these applications can use other lower-GWP
alternatives such as dimethyl ether, HFO-1234ze(E), and CO2.
Response: For aerosols used for smoke detector sensitivity testing,
EPA received information from a manufacturer of such products that this
use requires redesign of equipment for testing smoke detectors, and not
just reformulation of the aerosol. This information indicates that the
equipment for such testing is designed based on the vapor pressure of
HFC-134a and would not work with another propellant. Therefore, we are
adding aerosols for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors to the list
of use conditions.
For portable safety horns, personal defense sprays, and freeze
sprays for wastes (as opposed to electronic freeze sprays), there are
other alternatives that are available or potentially available that
reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. Products using
HFO-1234ze(E) already exist or are in development for these uses. EPA
received no information indicating that alternatives other than HFC-
125, HFC-134a or HFC-227ea, or blends thereof, cannot be safely used in
tissue freeze sprays.
Comment: ITW Polymers Sealants requested that EPA either clarify
that canister adhesives and sealants are not considered to be aerosols,
or else that EPA add this use to the list of use conditions for HFC-
134a. ITW Polymers Sealants provided information indicating that
flammability of the propellant is of concern in the fabrication
facilities with this use, and that use of hydrocarbon propellants would
exceed VOC limits set for these products in many areas of the country.
The commenter also indicated that HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and
N2, the only other propellants that would address
flammability concerns for this use besides HFC-134a, have vapor
pressures outside of the range that would provide sufficient
performance. In the absence of sufficient vapor pressure, as with HFO-
1234ze(E), the commenter claims that there will be performance problems
such as lower bond strength or bumps and mounds in furniture surfaces;
with the higher pressure propellants N2 and CO2,
the commenter states that these will result in exceeding Department of
Transportation internal pressure limits at elevated temperatures.
Response: We do consider canister adhesives and sealants to be
aerosols because they are pressurized containers and they use a
propellant, as opposed to solely mechanical means, to expel the other
ingredients of the formulation from the container. The information
provided by the commenter on vapor pressure concerns is plausible,
based on the relative vapor pressures of the different propellants. It
is possible for fabrication facilities to use flammable adhesives and
propellants safely, but it would require time to make the necessary
upgrades to address these risks. It is also of concern that in VOC
nonattainment areas, large amounts of hydrocarbons in these large
canister adhesive containers would cause canister adhesives and
sealants to exceed their VOC limits. Of the
[[Page 42887]]
available propellant options that are not VOC or are exempted from the
definition of VOC--HFC-134a, HFO-1234ze(E), CO2, and
N2--to date, only HFC-134a has been shown to be in a
pressure range that provides sufficient performance. Thus, it is likely
that HFC-134a is the only available propellant for canister adhesives
and sealants in many areas of the country. Therefore, this final rule
adds adhesives and sealants in large canisters to the list of uses
where HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions.
Comment: A number of members of the aerosol industry requested that
EPA consider adding aerosols for use on energized electrical equipment
as a use for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions.
Specific products mentioned include dusters for use on live electric
circuits, contact cleaners for energized circuits, mold cleaners, and
electronic freeze sprays.
Response: EPA agrees that, given the high temperatures and high
electrical energy present on energized electrical equipment, it is
necessary to retain the option of a propellant that remains
nonflammable at high temperatures. As described elsewhere in the
preamble, compressed gases such as CO2 and N2 may
be nonflammable but are not appropriate in some situations, due to
pressure drop-off and reactions with other formulation ingredients.
HFO-1234ze(E) is nonflammable in many situations, but it is not yet
clear if it remains nonflammable in the presence of the high
temperatures and high electrical energy in the specific uses mentioned
by the commenters. If additional information becomes available showing
that HFO-1234ze(E) remains nonflammable in such situations, we may
revisit this decision in the future. In this final rule, we are adding
mold cleaners, electronic freeze sprays, and dusters for use on
energized electrical circuits to the list of aerosol products that may
continue to use HFC-134a under the use conditions. We consider
electrical contact cleaners for energized electrical equipment to be
part of the use ``cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and
other soils from electrical equipment or electronics'' and therefore
covered by the use condition.
Comment: MicroCare, a company specializing in cleaning, and
Traulsen, a manufacturer of commercial refrigeration equipment, request
that refrigeration system flushes be added to the use condition
specifying which end-uses may still use HFC-134a. They explain that
after removing refrigerant and flushing any oils or particulates left,
the lines are brazed, soldered or welded back together at high
temperatures well above the level at which HFO-1234ze(E) becomes
flammable (e.g., above 1,995 [deg]C).
CSPA stated that it should be clarified that ``Cleaning products
for removal of grease, flux, and other soils from electrical equipment
or electronics'' includes cleaners for refrigeration coils because of
similar requirements for nonflammability. NAA stated that its members
did not reach consensus on whether refrigerant flushes should be added
to the acceptable list. This commenter states that it is common
practice in the industry to remove flushing agents from lines and
blowing them dry with nitrogen or compressed air after flushing, which
eliminates risks posed by welding lines after flushing.
Response: Because of the extremely high temperatures cited by
MicroCare and Traulsen that may be present in a refrigerant line after
flushing, EPA agrees that it is necessary to have a nonflammable
propellant available for refrigerant flushes. The term ``refrigerant
flushes'' also refers to cleaners for refrigerant coils. Although
nitrogen can be used to purge refrigerant lines to remove refrigerant
flushes prior to brazing or welding, it is not clear that this is a
universal practice in the industry. Therefore, we are adding
refrigerant flushes to the use condition specifying uses that may
continue to use HFC-134a.
Comment: SAE International and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(AAM) commented that there are aerosol products available for servicing
MVAC systems which contain additives in a can propelled by HFC-134a
which the commenters believe should be acceptable, subject to use
conditions. The commenters stated that the use of propellants other
than HFC-134a could cause technical problems, could contaminate
refrigerant so that EPA-approved Recovery, Recycling and Recharging
(RRR) equipment cannot be used, or could be incompatible with SAE
standards if the propellant goes into the MVAC systems.
Response: EPA considers an aerosol can containing HFC-134a used to
recharge an MVAC system to fall under the MVAC end-use and not the
aerosol propellant end-use. Under the SNAP lists for the MVAC end-use,
HFC-134a remains an acceptable substitute for servicing existing
systems. An aerosol can containing HFC-134a refrigerant and oil or leak
sealant, which is used to inject oil or repair leaks and to then
recharge MVAC systems, would also fit in the MVAC end-use and remains
acceptable for use on existing systems. These cans must have the unique
fittings required by SNAP for HFC-134a as a motor vehicle air
conditioner refrigerant. However, an aerosol can primarily intended to
inject additives, e.g., dye, rather than to add HFC-134a as a
refrigerant would be considered an aerosol, and use of HFC-134a as the
propellant would not be allowed as of July 20, 2016, under this final
rule. We do not consider this type of product to fit under the
commenter's request for products for servicing. Further, we disagree
with the commenter that it is necessary to have a propellant that is
the same as the refrigerant used in MVAC. We note that in the future,
HFO-1234yf or other refrigerant substitutes will be used as a
refrigerant in many vehicles; thus, in the future, automotive products
will need to be formulated to include propellants other than HFC-134a,
as well as formulated with propellants that are different from the
refrigerant used in the MVAC system.
Comment: DuPont recommended that EPA establish use conditions
rather than narrowed use limits in implementing any changes of status
for HFCs used in aerosols. The commenter stated that acceptable
conditions of use are a relatively straightforward, self-implementing
regulatory approach that would limit the burden on aerosol companies,
most of which are small businesses, in complying with the changed
status. DuPont commented that narrowed use limits are a much more
administratively intensive approach for both the Agency and the
regulated community, and would impose significant burdens on these
small businesses, as well as on EPA.
Response: We agree with the commenter that narrowed use limits are
more administratively burdensome. We are establishing use conditions in
the final rule.
(d) HFC Consumption and Climate Impact of Aerosols
Comment: DuPont, Mexichem and the Consumer Specialty Products
Association (CSPA) commented on the relatively small contribution of
non-medical aerosols to HFC consumption, stating that it represents
between 1 and 2% of all HFC consumption. A producer of tire inflators
noted that tire inflators make up less than 0.2% of the current use of
HFC-134a. Mexichem stated that the continued availability of HFC-134a
for the small businesses and consumers that produce/rely on aerosol
products, will make no appreciable difference to EPA's goal of reducing
GHG emissions, because aerosol products account for only five percent
of total HFC consumption, and of that portion, only
[[Page 42888]]
24% serve non-medical purposes. This commenter suggested that EPA
should accommodate these uses through exemptions or a delay in the
``de-listing'' of HFC-134a. In contrast, Honeywell mentions that its
new technologies in the aerosol sector could reduce GHG emissions by
more than 6 MMTCO2eq per year in 2016.
Response: EPA agrees that the aerosol sector comprises a small
portion of the total consumption of HFCs. However, we disagree that we
should not change the status of HFCs for the aerosol propellant end-use
because GHG emissions from that end-use are small. We note that any
given end-use within the 50-some SNAP end-uses may be relatively small
compared to the whole. Section 612(c) of the CAA directs EPA to publish
lists of substitutes prohibited for specific uses and safe alternatives
for specific uses. Thus, we make our decision by considering the
overall risk to human health and the environment posed by the available
or potentially available substitutes within each end-use, rather than
comparing risks in different end-uses to each other. We disagree with
the commenter's suggestion that EPA provide a later change of status
date for aerosol uses because of their relatively low GHG emissions.
Instead, EPA considers the time in which alternatives are available for
use, which involves the feasibility of implementing alternatives with
lower overall impacts on human health and the environment. EPA
appreciates the information provided by one commenter that indicates
that for the aerosol sector, the change in status for HFC-134a, HFC-
227ea, and HFC-125 could reduce GHG emissions by more than 6
MMTCO2eq per year.
(e) Small Business Impacts
Comment: Falcon Safety Products comments that they transitioned
from HCFCs to HFCs in 1993, after which it began transitioning from
HFC-134a (with a GWP of 1,430) to HFC-152a (with a GWP of 124) in
compressed gas dusters, at a significant cost to its company, in terms
of retooling and installing new gas tanks and filing lines. Falcon
Safety Products supports the EPA's high-GWP emissions reduction
efforts, but believes that they should not negatively impact small
businesses or have a detrimental impact on the safety, affordability,
or efficacy of its product categories. Falcon Safety Products comments
that transitioning to HFO-1234ze(E) is very expensive for small
businesses like itself, in terms of changing tanks, filling lines, and
revising labels and marketing materials.
Response: EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a change in
status for HFC-152a in aerosols. See preamble section V.A.3 for EPA's
status changes for HFCs in the aerosols sector, and supporting document
Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives (ICF, 2014f; ICF, 2015b).
(f) Imports
Comment: CSPA expressed concern about noncomplying products from
offshore, which they state has been a large problem in the past. CSPA
stated that for retail products, more time is needed to adjust
contracts and to work with EPA to ensure that CSPA member complying
products are not displaced by non-complying products from offshore.
Response: For aerosol products, the rule applies to imported
products as well as to manufacture of products in the United States. By
providing a full year after finalization of the rule before a change of
status is required for the HFCs covered by this action known to be in
current use for aerosol product manufacture, there is now additional
time to adjust contracts and work with retailers. EPA welcomes the
suggestion that we should work together with the aerosol industry and
retailers to avoid sale of non-complying products that might be
imported.
B. MVAC Systems for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
1. Background
MVAC systems cool passenger cars, light-duty trucks, buses, and
rail vehicles. CFC-12 was the refrigerant historically used in the
manufacture of MVAC systems. HFC-134a, along with a number of other
substitutes, was found acceptable for use in light-duty vehicles in
1994 and at the same time, CFC-12 was being phased out of production.
By the mid-1990s, use of CFC-12 in manufacturing new light-duty
vehicles ceased in the United States and manufacturers of light-duty
vehicles uniformly decided to adopt HFC-134a for use in MVAC. Today,
while MVAC systems in some older vehicles may still be using CFC-12,
HFC-134a remains the dominant refrigerant used in light-duty vehicles
worldwide. More recently, additional alternatives for MVAC have been
listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions,\31\ including HFO-
1234yf, HFC-152a, and carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744).
Manufacturers are currently manufacturing or are actively developing
light-duty models using HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2. The
development of MVAC systems using lower-GWP refrigerants has been
encouraged by MVAC refrigerant requirements in Europe, where the
European Union Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC Directive)
mandates transition to a refrigerant with a GWP below 150 by January 1,
2017,\32\ and in the United States by the availability of credits under
the Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) Rule, described in further
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
\32\ Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is
accessible at: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither HFC-134a nor any of the refrigerants listed more recently
is ozone-depleting. HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2 have much
lower GWPs than HFC-134a. HFO-1234yf has a GWP of 4, HFC-152a has a GWP
of 124, and CO2 (by definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC-
134a has a GWP of 1,430. HFC-134a and CO2 are nonflammable;
HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are flammable. All of the gaseous refrigerants
can cause asphyxiation at high concentrations. CO2
concentrations that could potentially result from refrigerant leaks
into the passenger compartment without mitigation measures could reduce
a driver's attentiveness and performance. HFC-134a and the three lower-
GWP alternatives are exempt from the definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs
to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. As
discussed in the NPRM, EPA has created use conditions for HFC-134a,
HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2 that establish unique fittings
and labeling requirements, and where appropriate, mitigate flammability
and toxicity risks.
HFO-1234yf is being used in cars on the road today in the United
States. At the time of the proposal for this rule, EPA was aware that
HFO-1234yf was in use in MVAC systems in approximately nine \33\ models
in the United States produced by several manufacturers of light-duty
vehicles. EPA expects, and several commenters indicated that,
additional models have or will be introduced using HFO-1234yf systems
over the next several years. The results of a 2014 industry survey
submitted by
[[Page 42889]]
AAM and the Association of Global Automakers (Global Automakers) as a
public comment to this rule found that automobile manufacturers who
responded to the survey had plans in place to transition 90% of light-
duty models sold in the United States by or before MY 2021.\34\
According to comments submitted by Honeywell, there are approximately
28 different automobile brands selling around 60 different models
designed to use HFO-1234yf globally.\35\ DuPont stated that more than 7
million vehicles using HFO-1234yf are estimated to be on the road by
the end of 2015 globally, and in addition to infrastructure being in
place at vehicle assembly plants, equipment suppliers are already
producing the under hood, in factory, and service equipment.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Nelson, 2013. Gabe Nelson. Automakers' switch to new
refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate.
Automotive News. Available online at www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea.
\34\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113.
\35\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0170.
\36\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While EPA was aware in the 1990s that CO2 might be a
feasible alternative in this application, the state of research and
development indicated that it was not yet available because a design
had not yet been developed that would allow safe use in MVAC systems in
light-duty vehicles. More than 20 years later, EPA is still not aware
of current commercial use of CO2 in MVAC systems. However,
significant research and development are occurring in order to design a
system that will ensure CO2 can be used safely as an MVAC
refrigerant. At least one global manufacturer of light-duty vehicles
has announced its intention to commercialize vehicles that use
CO2 as the MVAC refrigerant in the next five years, and
perhaps as early as 2016.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Daimler, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, EPA found HFC-152a acceptable subject to use conditions.
MVAC systems using HFC-152a have not been commercialized to date;
however, EPA is aware of a demonstration project in India with a major
Indian motor vehicle manufacturer considering HFC-152a in secondary
loop MVAC systems.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Andersen et al., 2015. ``Secondary Loop Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Systems (SL-MACs). Using Low-Global Warming Potential
(GWP) Refrigerants in Leak-Tight Systems In Climates with High Fuel
Prices and Long, Hot and Humid Cooling Seasons. Building on the
Previous Success of Delphi, Fiat, General Motors, Volvo, Red Dot,
SAE Cooperative Research Projects, And Other Engineering Groups.''
MACS Briefing, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the use and development of HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and
CO2 MVAC systems, EPA is aware of ongoing research and
development which could ultimately result in future listings of
additional alternatives for light-duty MVAC systems. For example, since
the publication of the proposed rule, the SNAP program received a new
submission for another low-GWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP
below 150.
There are also several blend refrigerants that have been listed as
acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions, since 1994, but
that have never been developed for use in MVAC or used in manufacture
of new vehicles. Today's action will change the status of these
refrigerant blends to unacceptable as of MY 2017 for use in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles. These substitutes include HFC blends
SP34E and R-426A (also known as RS-24) with GWPs of 1,380 and 1,508,
respectively, and the HCFC blends, R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend
Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or
GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta
(also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda
(also known as GHG-HP), with GWPs ranging from 1,480 to 2,340 and ODPs
ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. For simplicity, we refer to these
substitutes as ``the refrigerant blends'' in the following discussion.
As noted above, none of these are currently used by the original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) nor are we aware that any models are
being developed for use with these substitutes. All of these
refrigerant blends have GWPs that are significantly higher than the
GWPs for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2 and the blends
containing HCFCs have ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. As discussed,
there are alternatives with lower overall risk to human health and the
environment that are available for this use.
2. What is EPA finalizing regarding MVAC systems for newly manufactured
light-duty motor vehicles?
The change of status determinations for MVAC are summarized in the
following table:
Table 3--Change of Status Decisions for MVAC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle air HFC-134a............ Unacceptable as of
conditioning (new equipment Model Year (MY)
in passenger cars and light- 2021, except where
duty trucks only). allowed under a
narrowed use limit
through MY 2025.
Acceptable, subject
to narrowed use
limits, for
vehicles exported
to countries with
insufficient
servicing
infrastructure to
support other
alternatives, for
MY 2021 through MY
2025; Unacceptable
for all newly
manufactured
vehicles as of MY
2026.
Motor vehicle air R-406A, R-414A (HCFC Unacceptable as of
conditioning (new equipment Blend Xi, GHG-X4), MY 2017.
in passenger cars and light- R-414B (HCFC Blend
duty trucks only). Omicron), HCFC
Blend Delta (Free
Zone), Freeze 12,
GHG-X5, HCFC Blend
Lambda (GHG-HP), R-
416A (FRIGC FR-12,
HCFC Blend Beta),
SP34E, R-426A (RS-
24, new
formulation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) HFC-134a
In the August 6, 2014, proposal, EPA proposed to change the listing
status of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable for use in air
conditioning systems in newly manufactured passenger cars and light-
duty trucks beginning in MY 2021.\39\ This final action adopts the
proposed approach, but with one exception. Specifically, we are
including a narrowed use limit for HFC-134a in MVAC systems of newly
manufactured passenger cars and light-duty trucks destined for use in
countries
[[Page 42890]]
that do not have infrastructure in place for servicing with other
acceptable refrigerants. This narrowed use limit will be in place
through MY 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Because the MVAC system used is so closely related to
vehicle design, we are using model years and not calendar years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This change of status applies to MVAC systems for passenger cars
and light-duty trucks as defined at 40 CFR 86.1803-01, referred to
jointly in this FRM as light-duty vehicles. As discussed in the NPRM
and above, three alternatives currently on the SNAP list of substitutes
that are acceptable, subject to use conditions--HFC-152a,
CO2, and HFO-1234yf--are in use or under various stages of
development and have significantly lower GWPs than HFC-134a. Use
conditions for these substitutes mitigate flammability and toxicity
risks, as relevant, and thus for the other factors EPA evaluates, there
was not an appreciable difference in risk. Because HFC-134a has a
significantly higher GWP than HFC-152a, CO2, and HFO-1234yf,
and because the use conditions for these three refrigerants ensure that
other risks are not appreciably higher than for HFC-134a, we are
listing HFC-134a as unacceptable for use in MVAC systems in new light-
duty vehicles in MY 2021.
Without the use conditions these other substitutes do not pose
overall lower risk than HFC-134a. Thus, in deciding when the
unacceptability determination should apply, we considered when it would
be feasible for manufacturers to develop systems meeting the use
conditions. We proposed MY 2021 while also requesting comment on MY
2017, MY 2019 and MYs later than 2021. As explained in the NPRM, EPA
considers MY 2021 the date by which automobile manufacturers will be
able to redesign all vehicle models (including design of the MVAC
systems) for use with a lower-GWP alternative, consistent with the use
conditions.
EPA previously considered the model year by which manufacturers of
light-duty vehicles would be able to transition away from use of HFC-
134a in support of the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for MY
2017-2025 light-duty vehicles issued jointly by EPA and NHTSA on August
28, 2012.\40\ As part of that rulemaking, EPA established the
availability of credits for the use of alternative refrigerants with
lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a towards meeting the LD GHG standards.
For today's action, EPA relied on the analysis conducted in support of
the LD GHG standards for MYs 2017-2025. The analysis considered the
practices used by the automobile manufacturing industry in introducing
new technologies into their vehicles through manufacturing redesign
changes and refresh cycles. For each vehicle model, manufacturers
establish a product development cycle over which they plan any
significant technological changes or ``redesigns'' to that vehicle.
Between the major redesign model years, they may make only minor
``refresh'' changes.\41\ At any point in time, a manufacturer may have
some vehicles at or approaching a major redesign point and others that
are earlier in their product cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 77 FR 62624, 62807-810 (October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR
25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue for MY
2012-2016 light-duty vehicles)
\41\ See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for a more detailed
discussion of this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the LD GHG standards, EPA assumed that the transition
to alternative refrigerants would generally need to occur during
manufacturer model redesigns because of changes to the system design
that are needed to allow the safe use of these alternatives consistent
with the regulatory use conditions.\42\ EPA used the overall typical
industry redesign cycle of five model years to estimate how the
expected industry-wide transition to new refrigerants might occur.
Thus, EPA projected that the industry, in order to safely make use of
the credits offered for use of lower-GWP refrigerants, would fully
transition to these refrigerants over the time between MY 2017 and MY
2021, beginning with 20 percent transition in MY 2017, to be followed
by a 20 percent increase in substitution in each subsequent model year,
completing transition in MY 2021.\43\ EPA continues to rely on the
projections made in support of the LD GHG Rule as well as all other
information currently available to the Agency to support the decision
in this action that MY 2021 is the MY by which it will be feasible for
manufacturers to safely, but expeditiously, transition MVAC systems for
all light-duty vehicle models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ As previously noted, HFO-1234yf, CO2 and HFC-
152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and many
of the use conditions address the design of systems to account for
flammability or exposure.
\43\ 77 FR 62720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposed to modify the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable as
of MY 2021 for light-duty vehicles, and sought comment on MYs 2017,
2019, and MYs later than 2021. Some commenters argued that full
transition cannot occur until after MY 2021 because a limited number of
models do not currently have plans in place to transition by MY 2021.
For these models, commenters claimed that two full design cycles, which
could take 10 years, will be necessary in order to transition.
Commenters also provided information that the vehicle redesign is not
``locked-in'' until two years before the model year. EPA understands
that because MY 2016 vehicles are being produced in the 2015 calendar
year, this means most manufacturers have ``locked-in'' their planned
product designs for MY 2016 and MY 2017, or potentially even out to MY
2018.\44\ EPA did not receive information on why manufacturers cannot
redesign models that are not yet locked-in or why MVAC system redesign
cannot occur during a product refresh for those models that are locked-
in. According to the 2014 survey of the automobile industry,
manufacturers who participated in the study indicated that they already
expect to have transitioned 90% of the fleet by MY 2021. We did not
receive any information indicating it was not technically feasible to
also transition the remaining 10% of models by MY 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Global Automakers, in their comments on the NPRM, stated,
``These major model re-designs typically occur every five or six
model years, and are staggered year-by-year so that the
manufacturer's full product line is refreshed over time rather than
all at once. Because of the need to lock in suppliers to support
production well in advance, vehicle designs are usually locked in
about two years before the model year.'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA expressly requested specific information supporting claims that
a transition by MY 2021 would not be technically feasible because
specific model vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative
refrigerants by MY 2021. No such information was forthcoming. Although
one manufacturer did provide information on the increase in cost to
transition for a particular type of vehicle that was originally not
planned for a refrigerant change by MY 2021,\45\ commenters did not
submit specific information, confidential or otherwise, that showed it
would not be technically feasible for any specific model vehicles to
adjust their redesign cycle, switch refrigerants mid-cycle, or switch
during a refresh. After thoroughly reviewing all of the information in
the possession of the Agency, EPA did not find a technical basis for
extending the change of status date beyond MY 2021. We believe the
information in the record supports a conclusion that it is feasible for
vehicles and the associated MVAC systems to be redesigned to safely use
alternative refrigerants by MY 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ As explained in more detail in the responses to comments,
under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only
cost information that EPA considers as part of its SNAP review is
the ``cost and availability of the substitute.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also received comments on this rule requesting an earlier
change of
[[Page 42891]]
status date based on the availability of alternative refrigerants and
the fact that transition is already occurring in the United States and
globally. The available information indicated that many of the models
that have already transitioned are being sold in Europe rather than in
the United States. There is no information showing that it is
technically feasible for all or most models to transition to
alternatives safely by MY 2017 or MY 2019, which begin in 2016 and 2018
respectively. As discussed below in the responses to comments, MY 2021
is the earliest year that we find provides sufficient time to
transition refrigerant during vehicle redesign cycles or to plan a mid-
cycle transition to alternatives that ensures safety through compliance
with SNAP use conditions.
We also considered the supply of the alternative refrigerants in
determining when alternatives would be available. At the time the
light-duty GHG rule was promulgated, there was a concern about the
potential supply of HFO-1234yf. Some commenters indicated that supply
is still a concern, while others, including two producers of HFO-
1234yf, commented that there will be sufficient supply. Moreover, some
automotive manufacturers are developing systems that can safely use
other substitutes, including CO2, for which there is not a
supply concern for the refrigerant. If some global light-duty motor
vehicle manufacturers use CO2 or another acceptable
alternative, additional volumes of HFO-1234yf that would have been used
by those manufacturers will then become available. Based on all of the
information before the Agency, EPA believes production plans for the
refrigerants are in place to make available sufficient supply no later
than MY 2021 to meet current and projected demand domestically as well
as abroad, including, but not limited to, the EU.
Based on information the Agency possessed at the time of the
proposal and additional information submitted during the comment period
regarding the technical feasibility of transitioning the fleet of
light-duty vehicles and refrigerant supply, we conclude that MY 2021
represents the time by which other alternative refrigerants that pose
less overall risk than HFC-134a can be used in all light-duty vehicle
models consistent with the use conditions. Thus, MY 2021 is the time at
which those alternative refrigerants will be ``available'' within the
meaning of CAA section 612(c)(2).
(b) Refrigerant Blends
In today's action, EPA is also finalizing changes to the listing
status of SP34E, R-426A, R-416A, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC
Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC
Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC
Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) from acceptable to unacceptable for
use in newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning in MY
2017, as proposed. The GWPs of HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and CO2
are significantly lower than those of the refrigerant blends and all
but two of these blends have ODPs, whereas HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and
CO2 do not. Moreover, if used consistent with the
established use conditions, the three lower-GWP refrigerants do not
pose greater overall risk than any of the refrigerant blends. At the
time of the proposal, EPA was not aware of current or projected future
use of these refrigerant blends in any MVAC systems in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles. We did not receive any comments
providing information suggesting current or projected use of these
refrigerant blends in any newly-manufactured light-duty MVAC systems
and received several comments supporting this aspect of the proposal.
EPA is changing the listing status for the refrigerant blends to
unacceptable for use in new light-duty vehicles as of MY 2017, the next
model year in production after this rule is issued.
3. MVAC Servicing
EPA did not propose and is not making any changes that would alter
the ability to service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC-134a
or a refrigerant blend.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ EPA is also clarifying that thermostatic expansion valves
(TXVs) are not impacted by today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MVAC systems designed to use lower-GWP substitutes and installed in
vehicles will need to be serviced. Some stakeholders and commenters
have expressed a concern that the price differential between HFO-1234yf
and HFC-134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO-1234yf with
HFC-134a during servicing.\47\ HFC-134a is listed, and will remain
listed, as an acceptable refrigerant for retrofit of existing systems
designed to use CFC-12, but because of the use restrictions for
refrigerants listed as acceptable, it cannot be used as a retrofit for
MVAC systems using other alternatives. Specifically, the SNAP listings
for all MVAC refrigerants require the use of unique fittings for each
alternative refrigerant. These fittings are found at attachment points
on the car itself, on all recovery and recycling equipment, on can taps
and other charging equipment, and on all refrigerant containers. The
purpose of these fittings is to prevent cross-contamination. Using an
adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different
refrigerant is a violation of these use conditions. If used properly,
the unique fittings will not allow for the introduction of HFC-134a
refrigerant to an HFO-1234yf system. Furthermore, the SNAP regulations
prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to `top-off' a system that uses
another refrigerant and the SNAP use conditions for refrigerants in
this end-use require that the original refrigerant be recovered, in
accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of the CAA, prior
to charging with a substitute (40 CFR 82.34). Thus, the SNAP use
conditions prohibit adding a new refrigerant to the system without
first recovering the refrigerant already in the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See also 77 FR 62807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For vehicles for which the manufacturer counts air conditioning
credits toward its LD GHG compliance, the MVAC systems (or elements of
those systems) are considered emission-related components as defined in
40 CFR 86.1803. This designation includes provisions for emission-
related warranty, requirements that they operate properly for the
specified useful life, as well as tampering restrictions. For example,
if a manufacturer claims air conditioning credits for an MVAC system
that uses a lower-GWP refrigerant on a particular vehicle as part of
the LD GHG program, removing and replacing that refrigerant with any
other refrigerant that has a higher GWP, including HFC-134a, would be
considered tampering with an emission-related component under Title II
of the CAA.
4. Would this action affect EPA's LD GHG Rule?
In their comments, AAM stated that ``EPA should state clearly and
unequivocally in the final rule that EPA is committed to continuing the
A/C credits through MY 2025 and beyond.'' Global Automakers made a
similar request. EPA in fact stated in the NPRM, and reiterates here,
that nothing in this final rule changes the regulations establishing
the availability of air conditioning refrigerant credits under the GHG
standards for MY 2017-2025, found at 40 CFR 86.1865-12 and 1867-12.
Those standards and credits are established by rule and EPA did not
reopen that rule in this proceeding.
[[Page 42892]]
Thus, manufacturers can generate credits from use of lower-GWP
alternative refrigerants through MY 2025, and the ability to generate
and use those credits towards compliance with the LD GHG standards will
not change under this final rule. \48\ We do note further, however,
that the LD GHG standards do not require any specific means of
compliance, so that manufacturers have the flexibility to either switch
refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means. If a
manufacturer chooses to comply with the LD GHG standard by a strategy
not involving refrigerant substitution, for MY 2021 and later vehicles,
this final rule would still require the manufacturer to use refrigerant
other than HFC-134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See 77 FR 62804-809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. How will the change of status apply to exports of MVAC systems?
(a) SNAP Interpretation
Under 40 CFR 82.174, no person may introduce a refrigerant
substitute into interstate commerce without notifying EPA 90 days in
advance. Our longstanding interpretation of this regulatory provision
is that the notification requirement applies to products manufactured
in the United States and exported. EPA has defined interstate commerce
in our labeling regulations at 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: ``The distribution
or transportation of any product between one state, territory,
possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory,
possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture
of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or the
District of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is
introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from
the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a
warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for
sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs
clearance.'' While this definition appears in EPA's labeling
regulations, EPA's practice is to use it for purposes of the SNAP
program as well. See e.g., 76 FR 78846, December 20, 2011 (``This
definition applies to any appliances produced in the United States,
including appliances that will be exported.'')
In addition, under the SNAP regulations EPA regulates ``use'' in
the United States and ``use'' is defined at 40 CFR 82.172 to include
``use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end
user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for
other subsequent uses.'' Charging a MVAC system with refrigerant during
the manufacturing of a vehicle in the United States is considered a
``use'' under the SNAP program. This is consistent with our statement
in the initial SNAP rule that ``Substitutes manufactured within the
U.S. exclusively for export are subject to SNAP since the definition of
use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs
within the United States.'' (59 FR 13052; March 18, 1994)
(b) Narrowed Use Limit for MVAC
Based on comments received, we understand that certain countries to
which vehicles are exported do not, and may not for some period of
time, have in place the infrastructure for servicing MVAC systems with
flammable refrigerants. Because this raises concerns with the safe
usage of HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf, we have determined that there may be
circumstances in which alternatives that pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment will not be available for MVAC systems
in those vehicles by MY 2021. Therefore, EPA is providing a narrowed
use limit for MVAC systems that applies to vehicles being exported to
countries that do not have infrastructure to service vehicles
containing the alternatives found to pose less overall risk.
Under a narrowed use limit, the manufacturer needs to ascertain
that these other alternatives are not technically feasible because of
the lack of infrastructure for servicing with the alternative
refrigerants and document the results of their analysis. See 40 CFR
82.180(b)(3). Users are not required to report the results of their
investigations to EPA, but must retain the documentation in their files
for the purpose of demonstrating compliance.
Documentation should include descriptions of:
Products in which the substitute is needed;
Substitutes examined and rejected for the destined
country;
Reason for rejection of other alternatives; and
Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
Based on the comments received, EPA does not anticipate that a
significant number of countries will lack the necessary infrastructure
needed to service MVAC systems with the alternatives for which the
equipment is designed by MY 2021. Also, based on the comments received,
we do not believe that an extensive additional amount of time will be
needed before the necessary infrastructure is in place. Therefore,
under this final rule, the narrowed use limit will no longer be
available beginning with MY 2026 vehicles.
6. How is EPA responding to comments concerning this end-use?
(a) Timeline
Comment: EPA received several comments on the current and projected
pace of adoption of alternative refrigerants. Several commenters stated
that transition to HFO-1234yf is already occurring. Honeywell commented
that there are approximately 28 different automobile brands selling
around 60 different models designed to use HFO-1234yf globally and that
more than a dozen models are being manufactured by U.S. manufacturers.
Other commenters provided similar statistics. One of these commenters,
DuPont, estimated that globally, more than 7 million vehicles using
alternatives other than HFC-134a will be on the road by the end of
2015. They also commented that in addition to infrastructure being in
place at vehicle assembly plants, equipment suppliers are already
producing the under-hood, in-factory, and service equipment necessary
for the transition.
AAM and Global Automakers ``conducted an industry survey to create
a `non-confidential' blinded summary of individual manufacturer
refrigerant changeover plans.'' \49\ Ten automobile manufacturers,
representing 85% of light-duty vehicles sold in the United States in MY
2013, submitted information. The survey found that out of 139 vehicle
platforms, manufacturers currently plan to transition 90% of the models
by MY 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA recognizes some manufacturers have already
transitioned to use of HFO-1234yf in a limited number of models. In the
United States the transition began in a small number of MY 2013
vehicles, and increased in MY 2014 \50\ and MY 2015. As of the
beginning of 2015, the U.S. fleet was continuing on a trajectory that
we expect to achieve 20% adoption by MY 2017, which aligns with EPA's
projection in the supporting documents for the light-duty GHG rule.\51\
While adoption is occurring in the United States, most of the estimated
7 million vehicles mentioned by DuPont are in Europe where the EU MAC
Directive
[[Page 42893]]
mandates transition to refrigerant with a GWP below 150 by January 1,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Nelson, 2013.
\51\ 77 FR 62720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency recognizes and appreciates the factual information
supplied by the commenters, including the information shared as a
result of the 2014 industry-led survey conducted by AAM and Global
Automakers. EPA's responses to the comments submitted by AAM and Global
Automakers within the context of the survey are provided below. EPA
relied on all of the information in our possession as we made our
decision on the change of status for HFC-134a.
Comment: Several commenters noted that the transition from CFC-12
to HFC-134a was achieved in about three to four model years and claimed
that the transition from HFC-134a to lower-GWP alternatives could also
happen in the same timeframe.
Response: Regarding the comments suggesting that the current
transition could occur in a similar period of time to the transition
from CFC-12 to HFC-134a for MVAC, EPA disagrees because the system
changes required for this transition are more extensive than those
required for the transition from CFC-12 to HFC-134a. It is EPA's
understanding, as confirmed by comments, such as those from the
automobile associations, that many models will need to transition
during a redesign cycle.
EPA understands that many model types will require hardware changes
that normally occur during a redesign, unlike the transition from CFC-
12 to HFC-134a. HFO-1234yf has a slightly lower cooling efficiency than
that of HFC-134a; offsetting this efficiency difference usually
requires hardware changes, specifically the incorporation of an
internal heat exchanger and potentially other system adjustments, which
in some cases could result in changes to overall air conditioning
system design and layout. CO2 MVAC systems will require
significantly more hardware changes, which in many cases is expected to
result in changes to the system design and layout. This transition
contrasts with the case of the transition in the 1990s from CFC-12 to
HFC-134a, where the systems did not require changes to the components
of the MVAC system, besides the fittings, allowing manufacturers to
switch many vehicles mid-cycle. Some models were already being
manufactured using HFC-134a as early as 1992, with a significant
proportion already being manufactured with HFC-134a by the time that
EPA listed it as acceptable in the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13044;
March 18, 1994).
Comment: EPA received several comments related to the proposed time
for changing the listing status of HFC-134a in MVAC. Several commenters
support accelerating the proposed transition to earlier than MY 2021,
and recommended implementation dates of MYs 2017, 2018, and 2019. Many
cited the progression of transition in the EU, as well as the
transition already seen in the United States as a result of EPA's LD
GHG Rule in support of an earlier transition timeframe. Honeywell, a
producer of HFO-1234yf, commented ``that given manufacturers'
experience in the EU and United States there is already an
understanding and capability to transition vehicles for U.S. car
production'' and they recommended a transition date of MY 2018. DuPont,
another producer of HFO-1234yf, stated ``there are no technology,
supply or engineering barriers to rapid transition'' and recommended a
transition date of MY 2019. EIA commented that there is no reason to
delay the change in status and recommended MY 2017 as the
implementation date. Two commenters, NRDC and IGSD, jointly commented
that EPA should adopt MY 2017, a deadline that would be set based on
the leaders in the industry that are already using safer chemicals,
rather than the laggards. Effective Altruism at the University of
Maryland commented that HFC-134a should be listed as unacceptable as of
January 2017, and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) commented
that MY 2018 is a reasonable timeframe for the unacceptable listing to
apply.
Some commenters stated that aligning with the EU transition by
January 1, 2017, will signal to the international community that the
United States is taking steps to ``promote the rapid deployment of
climate-friendly and safe alternatives in motor vehicle air
conditioning'' as agreed to in the Leaders' statement at the G-7 Summit
in June 2014. Some commenters suggested an accelerated transition date
is needed to achieve the President's environmental goals, and would
have a significant trickle-down effect in other markets around the
world, specifically commenting that selecting MY 2017 would encourage
Japan to ``set the same global motor vehicle air-conditioning phaseout
schedule for HFC-134a.'' Also, NRDC and IGSD commented that ``matching
the MY 2017 European schedule is protecting against American automakers
finding themselves unprepared when other markets close their doors to
automobiles made with HFC-134a.'' Some commenters stated that the
transition can be achieved by an earlier date and that greater
environmental benefits would be achieved with an earlier transition.
These commenters stated that MY 2021 would not provide benefits beyond
those achieved under ``business as usual.''
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that suggested that an
earlier transition year would result in greater environmental benefits
to the extent that it would result in earlier reduction of use of HFC-
134a in MVAC. However, in considering whether other listed alternatives
are available that pose lower overall risk, EPA needs to consider
whether there are any technical challenges that would prevent use of
those alternatives consistent with the use conditions which are
necessary to ensure that they pose lower risk than HFC-134a. EPA does
not agree that a safe, smooth transition in compliance with the use
conditions required for the lower-GWP alternatives can be made for all
vehicles prior to MY 2021 in the United States. This is based on the
need to transition most vehicles during redesign cycles, which in many
cases requires hardware changes, as discussed above. EPA has also
considered the potential benefits to aligning our domestic transition
to the EU's, in light of the fact that the transition to MVAC systems
using one of the three alternatives began earlier than we predicted,
and in light of the adequate supply of alternatives. Based on our
current understanding and the information provided by commenters,
especially the automobile manufacturers, the Agency has concluded that
MY 2021 is the earliest date by which all model vehicles can be safely
transitioned to lower-GWP alternatives in accordance with the use
conditions.
We note that even though we are establishing MY 2021 as the date by
which HFC-134a will be unacceptable,\52\ EPA expects health and safety
benefits will be realized sooner, as manufacturers will be designing
new models each year using lower-GWP refrigerants for MVAC. The
benefits analysis provided with the NPRM (EPA, 2014) and the analysis
associated with this final action (EPA, 2015b) use a ``business as
usual'' scenario that assumes a transition in refrigerant for MVAC will
occur for vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States, in order
to be consistent with the LD GHG Rule, and that assumes no regulatory
action, and thus no benefits, under SNAP. However, our analysis of
[[Page 42894]]
the effects of a change of status for MVAC as of MY 2021 shows some
benefits beyond the ``business as usual'' scenario, reflecting the use
of lower-GWP refrigerants in exported vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ As noted elsewhere, we are creating a narrowed use limit
for vehicles exported to countries without adequate facilities for
servicing vehicles with the other acceptable alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not relevant to EPA's decision regarding the appropriate date
for changing the status of HFC-134a for use in MVAC, EPA also agrees
its action to change the status of HFC-134a will send a valuable signal
to the international community regarding the continued use of high-GWP
alternatives.
Comment: NRDC and IGSD suggested that EPA set a status change date
as of MY 2017, and address any sub-sectors that have problems meeting a
transition date earlier than MY 2021 through a narrowed use limit. EIA
recommended transition in MY 2017 and suggested EPA grant a limited
exemption until MY 2021 for companies who publicly pledge to convert to
CO2 systems.
Response: EPA is not finalizing today's rule with a change of
status for HFC-134a as of MY 2017, as recommended by these commenters.
As discussed above, it is our understanding that because of the
necessary changes to hardware, manufacturers will need to transition
most vehicles during a redesign cycle. Although in some cases where
less extensive hardware changes are required, it will be possible to
transition mid-cycle, it is not reasonable to expect that most
manufacturers will be able to do so. Achieving a transition by MY 2017,
approximately one year from now, would not be feasible for any
manufacturers that had not already started transition planning before
issuance of the NPRM, and in such a circumstance, we do not consider it
reasonable to require compliance based on actions that would have been
necessary before issuance of the NPRM. Rather than setting a change of
status date that we expect manufacturers may have difficulty meeting,
we are setting the change of status date at the earliest model year by
which the best information indicates that all model vehicles can be
safely transitioned to lower-GWP alternatives in accordance with the
use conditions.
Concerning EIA's suggestion for a limited exemption until MY 2021
for companies who publicly pledge to convert to CO2 systems,
because we have set MY 2021 as the status change date for all vehicles,
there is no need for an exemption related to adoption of CO2
MVAC systems.
Comment: A private citizen commented in support of a MY 2021 change
of status.
Response: EPA is finalizing a MY 2021 transition date for the
reasons previously stated.
Comment: Several commenters supported transition in MY 2025 or
later, including AAM, Global Automakers, NADA and Mexichem. The
majority of these commenters stated that reengineering and system
design requirements for alternative refrigerants require significant
lead time and necessitate transition during a vehicle redesign cycle.
Commenters stated that two full design cycles lasting beyond MY 2021
may be necessary in order to complete the transition due to timing of
publication of the proposed status change rule, and the relationship of
that to where manufacturers are in the redesign cycle for each model.
Global Automakers commented that the vehicle redesign cycle is usually
locked in about two years before the model year. Commenters supporting
a transition date of MY 2025 or later also commented that a later date
would align with the existing LD GHG Rule with no measurable
environmental impact at stake, and address supply concerns. With regard
to the 10% of vehicle platforms identified in the 2014 industry survey
as planning to transition after MY 2021, AAM, and Global Automakers
commented that those are not all small volume platforms and the
production will account for a small, but not insignificant percentage
of production after MY 2021.
Response: Regarding comments by AAM, Global Automakers, and
Mexichem suggesting that two full design cycles, extending past MY
2021, would be needed to transition all vehicle models to alternative
refrigerants, the commenters failed to provide any specific, technical
support for such a claim. EPA appreciates the submission of 2014 survey
data indicating that automobile manufacturers have plans in place to
transition 90% of vehicle models to alternative refrigerants by MY
2021. However, the commenters did not provide support or an explanation
of why it will not be technically feasible to transition each of the
remaining individual models by MY 2021. According to commenters, the
vehicle redesign is locked in two years before the model year;
therefore, time still exists to make the necessary alterations to MY
2017, MY 2018 and later vehicles. While we believe it would be possible
for the majority of models to transition by MY 2021 during a redesign
cycle, EPA is aware that sometimes it is technically feasible to
transition between redesign cycles during a mid-cycle redesign, or
refresh. A manufacturer shared with EPA information claimed as
confidential that more than one vehicle model in the United States has
been transitioned to HFO-1234yf, in compliance with the SNAP use
conditions, between scheduled redesign cycles. Although it would not be
feasible to expect most models to transition mid-redesign cycle, for
such a small number of models, this is likely to be feasible. EPA did
not receive any information that provides specific and sufficient
information to show that transition by MY 2021 is not technically
feasible for any specific model vehicle. One automobile manufacturer
provided information claimed as confidential concerning vehicles used
for a specific purpose but did not provide sufficient justification
that transition by MY 2021 was not feasible for technical reasons. EPA
is aware of two automobile manufacturers that will have the majority of
their U.S. fleet transitioned by MY 2016. EPA is also aware of several
automobile manufacturers intending to transition all of their vehicle
models by MY 2021.
While the AAM and Global Automakers survey does not indicate the
impetus for the transition plans for the various manufacturers and
models, EPA assumes the plans were adopted in response to the credits
offered under EPA's LD GHG Rule. EPA further assumes these transition
plans were based on strategic utilization of credits available under
the rule as a flexibility measure, rather than technical feasibility of
transition, and EPA did not receive any information to the contrary.
Comment: AAM stated that a MY 2025 transition date would
accommodate ``run-out'' models. ``Run[hyphen]out'' models are defined
as models that, for a variety of reasons, will continue to be produced
and marketed without any updates to major vehicle sub[hyphen]systems,
including AC systems. Commenters indicated that to require an early end
of production for such run[hyphen]out models would increase the levels
of stranded investment associated with ending the production of such
models prematurely.
Response: Commenters did not indicate what portion of the vehicle
models with current plans to transition in MYs after 2021 is made up of
``run-out'' models, if any, as compared to other models captured in the
results of the industry survey. In the proposed rule, EPA requested
comment on changing the status of HFC-134a in a MY later than 2021,
``including specific information supporting claims that a transition by
MY 2021 would not be technically feasible because specific model
vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by
MY 2021.'' EPA did not receive this type of
[[Page 42895]]
information. EPA is not aware of any technical barriers that preclude
transition of ``run-out'' models by MY 2021 given the time available
between now and MY 2021 to implement a transition for these models.
Comment: Commenters indicated the challenges associated with
designing MVAC systems to use alternative refrigerants, especially
CO2. AAM provided information on the hardware changes and
component supply, as well as industry standards needed for MVAC systems
to use CO2. AAM commented that ``a MY 2025 date would allow
extra time for commercialization of CO2 MVACs.''
Response: EPA is aware that CO2 systems require
significantly more complex redesign and hardware development than HFO-
1234yf systems, primarily because the operating pressures of these
systems will be significantly higher than that of a HFC-134a system.
Therefore, EPA understands that incorporation of CO2 MVAC
systems would most likely need to occur during product redesign, not
product refresh. At least one manufacturer has stated that it plans on
using CO2 systems. These systems are currently in prototype
phase, and we understand that there may be significant technical
hurdles yet to overcome. However, those pursuing this option have
announced plans to introduce cars in Europe with CO2 MVAC
systems as early as MY 2017. This timing allows for several years after
initial deployment of these systems for automobile manufacturers to
redesign models prior to the MY 2021 date in the United States.
Given the transition plans in place, EPA disagrees that other
alternatives, including CO2, cannot be used consistent with
the use conditions by MY 2021. However, even if a particular
alternative could not be used in some or any vehicles consistent with
the use conditions by MY 2021, for the reasons already provided, we
have determined that other alternatives can be safely used consistent
with the use conditions by MY 2021. Because alternatives that pose
lower risk than HFC-134a will be available by MY 2021, we do not
believe there is a basis for selecting a later date for changing the
status of HFC-134a.
Comment: AAM raised concerns about the transition of manufacturing
facilities and the need to modify or upgrade refrigerant storage
facilities and charging stations on assembly lines. Also, the
commenters stated that because many manufacturing facilities produce
multiple vehicle models, some plants may not have the space necessary
to accommodate infrastructure for both refrigerants.
Response: EPA understands that there are challenges associated with
transitioning refrigerants. EPA is also aware that prior to issuance of
the NPRM, manufacturers were planning a gradual, model-by-model
transition, in which some models would be filled with HFC-134a while
others are filled with HFO-1234yf or another alternative refrigerant at
the same plant.
Comment: In the proposed rule EPA requested specific information
supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021 would not be technically
feasible because specific model vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely
use alternative refrigerants by MY 2021. AAM commented stating that
``EPA did not properly consider confidentially submitted information
that alternatives will not be available until after MY 2021.''
Response: EPA has considered information provided to the Agency and
claimed as confidential as support for this and other decisions that
are part of this action. As described elsewhere in this section, EPA
did not receive sufficient information, whether claimed confidential or
not, to conclude that other alternatives cannot be used consistent with
their use conditions by MY 2021.
Comment: Many commenters provided comments about the impact the
supply of acceptable alternatives could have on the timeline for
transition. Several commenters believe there is enough supply of
alternatives to transition prior to MY 2021.
The comments submitted by Honeywell and DuPont, current suppliers
of HFO-1234yf, indicate that both companies are confident in their
ability to supply enough HFO-1234yf to support a full transition by MY
2018 and MY 2019, respectively. According to comments submitted by
Honeywell ``there is one commercial scale HFO-1234yf production plant
operating today in China, a second one is expected to be commissioned
in the first half of 2015 in Japan via a strategic supply relationship
between Honeywell and Asahi Glass Company Ltd, and a third world-scale
plant will be commissioned by Honeywell by the end of 2016 in Geismar,
Louisiana.'' DuPont submitted similar comments on announced or planned
production capacity in Asia, the United States and Europe by multiple
producers, including DuPont, Honeywell, and Asahi Glass Co. (AGC),
indicating that production will begin in 2015-2017 at most of these
facilities.
CARB commented that they understand that chemical manufacturers
expect to be capable of providing a sufficient supply of HFO-1234yf for
complete U.S. transition away from HFC-134a starting with MY 2018. In
support of a MY 2017 transition date, NRDC and IGSD commented that the
supply of alternatives (HFO-1234yf and others) is not a constraint;
they believe EPA correctly recognizes that ``production plans for the
refrigerant appear to be in place to make it available in volumes that
meet current and projected domestic auto industry demand.''
Response: EPA appreciates information provided by commenters
supporting EPA's understanding at the time of the proposal that
sufficient supply will be available to support a transition in MY 2021.
The companies producing HFO-1234yf commented that sufficient supplies
should be available for MY 2018 or 2019, indicating that there will be
sufficient supplies prior to MY 2021. In addition, the commenter
submitted additional information to the Agency that they claimed as
confidential and that further supports that adequate supply will be
available by MY 2021.
Comment: Several commenters supported MY 2025 or later, expressing
concerns about ongoing uncertainty in sufficient supply of HFO-1234yf
for a full U.S. transition by MY 2021 due to limited production, as
well as lack of competition, artificial constraints, and other factors.
Arkema commented that they estimate the global demand for HFO-1234yf in
2021 will be around 45,000 metric tons and they believe Honeywell and
DuPont will only be able to supply half that amount. Arkema commented
that the supply shortage would cause a serious dislocation in supply
and demand (i.e., willing buyers would be unable to find willing
sellers of HFO-1234yf) and having only two suppliers would create
highly restricted competitive conditions. Arkema also commented that
the manufacturer has not publicly announced production capacities for
the coming years and EPA has not provided reliable evidence, and none
exists, that adequate volumes of HFO-1234yf are or will be available to
``meet current and projected domestic auto industry demand.'' Global
Automakers commented that it is too soon to conclude that there will be
adequate supplies of alternative refrigerants to meet U.S. demand as
well as other possible demands for alternative refrigerants worldwide
by MY 2021.
Response: Based on EPA's understanding of refrigerant supply at the
time of the proposed rule, the information received from commenters
[[Page 42896]]
in response to the proposed rule, and information claimed as
confidential and provided during meetings, EPA remains confident that
sufficient supply of alternatives will exist to transition MVAC systems
in all new light-duty vehicles manufactured in the United States by MY
2021. EPA is fully aware of delays with the launch of some production
facilities prior to the implementation of the European Union
regulations. However, EPA notes that those facilities are now online
and are producing supplies well in excess of what is needed to meet EU
demand. They are not currently operating at full capacity. Moreover,
Honeywell and DuPont, two producers of HFO-1234yf, provided information
regarding plans to launch additional facilities, one of which will be a
joint effort between Honeywell and a third chemical manufacturer,
AGC.\53\ For these reasons, EPA does not agree with commenters that
there will be an insufficient supply of alternatives by MY 2021.
Further, EPA is also aware of public announcements by Arkema indicating
planned production in 2017 of HFO-1234yf.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ AGC, 2014. ``AGC to Supply Honeywell with HFO-1234yf--New-
generation Automobile Refrigerant,'' January 23, 2014. This document
is accessible at: https://www.agc.com/english/news/2014/0123e.pdf.
\54\ Arkema, 2013. ``Arkema is announcing the construction of
production capacities for new refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf,''
September 4, 2013. This document is accessible at: www.arkema.com/en/media/news/news-details/Arkema-is-announcing-the-construction-of-production-capacities-for-new-refrigerant-fluorinated-gas-1234yf/?back=true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters indicated concern because available supply of
HFO-1234yf will need to go to Europe for the January 1, 2017,
transition before automobile manufacturers will have access to supply
to transition in the United States. These commenters believe a MY 2025
or later transition date would allow sufficient time to alleviate
supply concerns.
Response: EPA does not agree that the January 1, 2017, transition
in the EU will limit supply in the United States. The SNAP transition
date is several years after the transition in the EU will be complete
and, as noted above, the manufacturers of HFO-1234yf have provided
information supporting that supply will be adequate by MY 2021. EPA
does acknowledge that supply in the United States would likely not be
adequate by MY 2017. The main suppliers of HFO-1234yf stated as much in
their comments.
Comment: Mexichem commented that the ``pending re-examination
proceedings involving sham patents registered by Honeywell, continue to
be a barrier to the effective development of HFO-1234yf.'' Arkema
commented that EPA overlooks the considerable efforts that Honeywell
has undertaken to maintain its exclusive control over the manufacture
of HFO-1234yf. Arkema commented that ``Although legal proceedings and
investigations regarding Honeywell and DuPont's exclusive control of
HFO-1234yf are underway at the European Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and elsewhere, those
proceedings and investigations are not yet resolved.'' Arkema stated
that ``until those investigations are resolved, Honeywell and DuPont
will control the manufacture of HFO-1234yf and will impose restrictive
supply conditions, all with the apparent de facto endorsement of the
EPA in violation of the Sixth Principle to ``not endorse products
manufactured by specific companies''. Arkema adds that this will slow
the transition to HFO-1234yf and add to its cost.
Response: EPA is aware that proceedings and investigations are
occurring related to the patents on HFO-1234yf; however, EPA is not
involved and cannot comment on these proceedings. EPA believes that
based on the information available today, sufficient supply will be
available of HFO-1234yf for a full transition in MY 2021 for new light-
duty MVAC systems even if all manufacturers choose to use HFO-1234yf.
Regarding the comment that this action is in violation of the ``Sixth
Principle,'' we disagree that EPA endorsed HFO-1234yf or the companies
producing it by its inclusion on the list of acceptable substitutes for
the MVAC end-use at issue in this action. HFO-1234yf is one of three
acceptable lower-GWP alternatives and EPA does not believe it is
appropriate to assume manufacturers will use only HFO-1234yf. In
addition to HFO-1234yf, CO2 and HFC-152a are listed as
acceptable and the manufacturers can choose which substitute they wish
to use in their product. EPA does not recommend or require the use of a
specific refrigerant and does not endorse products manufactured by
specific companies. At least one global motor vehicle manufacturer has
announced plans to have cars with MVAC systems using CO2 on
the road in Europe by MY 2017; we are not aware of any reason why such
models would not be introduced into the United States by MY 2021. EPA
is also aware of a demonstration project planned by a major Indian
motor vehicle manufacturer considering HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf in MVAC
systems using secondary loops (Andersen et al., 2015). As noted
elsewhere in this final action, EPA is aware of ongoing research and
development which could ultimately result in future listings of
additional alternatives and notes that since the issuance of the
proposal the Agency received a submission for one additional MVAC
alternative.
(b) Interaction With EPA's LD GHG Rule
Comment: EPA received several comments related to the interaction
of this rulemaking with EPA's LD GHG Standards. Commenters requesting a
MY 2025 or later transition, including AAM, Global Automakers, the
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and Mexichem, commented
that the later date would preserve the integrity and commitments made
under the GHG program, preserve the compliance flexibilities granted to
automakers and provide the same environmental benefits. Commenters
stated that a MY 2025 transition allows for full compliance
flexibility, in addition to credits, allotted to manufacturers in the
vehicle GHG rulemakings throughout MYs 2012-2025. AAM requested that
EPA ``state clearly and unequivocally that EPA is committed to
continuing the A/C credits through MY 2025 and beyond'' and asked EPA
to include this certainty in the regulatory text of the final SNAP rule
and not just in the preamble.
Response: Nothing in this final rule changes the regulations
establishing the availability of air conditioning refrigerant credits
under the GHG standards for MY 2017-2025, found at 40 CFR 86.1865-12
and 1867-12. The stringency of the standards remains unchanged. As
stated above, manufacturers may still generate and utilize credits for
substitution of HFC-134a through the 2025 model year. Further, this
final rule is also not in conflict with the Supplemental Notice of
Intent (76 FR 48758, August 9, 2011) that described plans for EPA and
NHTSA's joint proposal for model years 2017-2025, since EPA's GHG
program continues to provide the level of air conditioning credits
available to manufacturers as specified in that Notice. Specifically,
the Supplemental Notice of Intent states that ``(m)anufacturers will be
able to earn credits for improvements in air conditioning . . .
systems, both for efficiency improvements . . . and for leakage or
alternative, lower-GWP refrigerants used (reduces [HFC] emissions).''
76 FR at 48761. These credits remain available under the light-
[[Page 42897]]
duty program at the level specified in the Supplemental Notice of
Intent, and using the same demonstration mechanisms set forth in that
Notice. Moreover, the supporting assessment for this rulemaking is
consistent with the assumptions set forth in the 2017-2025 LD GHG Rule
that automakers would switch to lower-GWP refrigerants by MY 2021.
Indeed, the standards' stringency was predicated on 100% substitution
beginning in MY 2021.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See id. at 62,779; see also id. at 62778 and 62805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not adding a statement to the regulatory text in the final
SNAP rule. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, and
reiterated here: ``The light duty standards do provide that
manufacturers can generate credits from use of alternative refrigerants
with lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a through MY 2025, and the ability
to generate and use those credits towards compliance with the light
duty standards will not change if this action is finalized as
proposed.'' (79 FR 46142)
(c) Environmental Impacts
Comment: Several commenters addressed the climate impacts of the
proposed HFC-134a unacceptability determination for MVAC. The vast
majority of commenters on this section of the rule support a transition
to climate-friendly alternatives in MVAC due to HFC-134a's high global
warming potential. Several commenters supporting transition prior to MY
2021 related these impacts to the proposed timeline for the transition
and we addressed those comments above (e.g., that if an earlier change
of status date were adopted, there would be additional environmental
benefits). Commenters requesting a transition date of MY 2025 or later
commented that the environmental benefits of a delayed change of status
date will be substantially the same as a MY 2021 transition because the
majority of vehicles will transition by MY 2021 as a result of the LD
GHG Rule. These commenters stated that any benefits of a MY 2021 or
earlier transition may be averaged out against tailpipe emissions, and
could result in automobile manufacturers slowing other fleet GHG
reductions. DuPont commented that it is unlikely that any additional
credits achieved under the LD GHG regulations from a MY 2019 transition
date would be fully offset and instead there would likely be net
additional CO2 reductions over those achieved by current
regulations. Arkema commented that there is no significant climate risk
reduction to be had from any SNAP action on HFC-134a in the MVAC
sector, and that no further control, beyond that imposed by the LD GHG
Rule, is necessary.
Response: EPA anticipates that if a change of status date earlier
than MY 2021 were shown to be feasible and thus were adopted,
additional environmental benefits would be gained beyond those
accounted for under EPA's analysis to support the LD GHG Rule.\56\ In
EPA's analysis of the environmental benefits associated with the
proposed and final change of status rule, EPA assumed no environmental
benefits from domestic transition of MVAC systems in light-duty
vehicles given that the environmental benefits resulting from a full
transition by MY 2021 were accounted for in the LD GHG Rule. The LD GHG
Rule anticipated that transition for MVAC systems manufactured for use
in the United States, while continuing to provide flexibility to
manufacturers until MY 2025. This rule, however, ensures a complete
transition away from HFC-134a by MY 2021 to a refrigerant that reduces
the overall risks to human health and the environment for all MVAC
systems manufactured in the United States, including those exported to
other countries,\57\ and those imported into the United States. The
benefits analysis includes these benefits. Also, the analysis was
updated to reflect the potential impact of the narrowed use limits in
this final rule that allow continued use of HFC-134a for vehicles
exported to countries with inadequate infrastructure to support safer
alternatives. For additional information on environmental benefits
analysis conducted for this rule, see the supporting document ``Climate
Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule'' (EPA, 2014; EPA,
2015b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Chapter 7 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final
Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-
12-016, August 2012.
\57\ Except those vehicles subject to the narrowed use limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Arkema commented that the NPRM deprives U.S. plants of
existing global business in HFC-134a without yielding any environmental
benefit. Arkema also noted that EPA said, as part of its regulations
for HCFCs, that production of HCFC-22 for export from the U.S. might
displace production in other countries that do not control their
emissions as stringently as U.S. chemical producers. Arkema stated,
``if U.S. production of HCFCs reduces overall environmental risks, then
so does U.S. production of HFC-134a, and EPA should not be using the
risk-based SNAP program to restrict auto exports.''
Response: This rule does not directly regulate production of HFC-
134a, unlike the rulemaking on the phaseout of HCFCs that Arkema cited;
rather, we are regulating use of HFC-134a as a substitute in specific
uses. Further, we disagree with Arkema's assertion that U.S. production
of HFC-134a would potentially reduce overall environmental risks if
U.S. production of HCFCs reduces environmental risks. EPA's HCFC
allocation rule specifically mentioned that HCFC-22 production (and not
production of HCFCs in general) results in byproduct emissions of HFC-
23, a gas with a very high GWP of 14,800. The commenter has not
provided any information indicating that emissions from production of
HFC-134a, with a GWP of 1,430, or its byproducts would have a similar
high environmental impact. We disagree with the commenter's assumptions
as well as the conclusion that the SNAP program should not regulate
exports of vehicles.
Comment: AAM stated that the MVAC-related climate benefits of this
rulemaking have been incorrectly calculated and that ``the
environmental benefits of a MY 2025 change of listing status date are
substantially the same as in MY 2021 date.'' AAM also commented that
the cessation of exports of vehicles containing HFC-134a to EU
countries should not be included in the benefits calculation because
the EU already prohibits the use of HFC-134a and that subtracting
exports to EU countries and to Canada would reduce the climate benefit
due to exports by half to 1 MMTCO2eq.
Response: EPA directs commenters to the benefits analysis
associated with the final rule and in particular to the anticipated
long term change in the trajectory for high-GWP HFCs and alternatives.
The benefits analysis is available in the docket and reflects the final
decisions in this action. It has been updated since the issuance of the
NPRM to reflect changes between the NPRM and the final rule. The
benefits analysis for the final rule does not include vehicles sold
into the EU or Canada, given the EU's existing F-gas regulations and
MAC Directive, and for Canada, the relationship between their market
and ours.
(d) Cost Impacts of Rule
Comment: EPA received several comments concerning the cost impact
of this rulemaking for the MVAC end-use. AAM, Global Automakers, and
Mexichem commented that delaying transition to MY 2025 or later would
avoid costs and engineering burdens on
[[Page 42898]]
manufacturers resulting from making adjustments to their refrigerant
change-over plans for both vehicles and manufacturing plants. NRDC and
IGSD commented that a transition date of MY 2017 would align the U.S.
and EU markets and erase these competitive disadvantages with minimal
impact to industry. The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute
(ARPI) and Auto Care Association commented that a change from HFC-134a
to lower-GWP refrigerants should not cause any substantial economic
hardship to car owners. Additional comments relating to EPA's economic
analysis are included in section VII.B of the preamble, ``Cost and
economic impacts of proposed status changes.''
Response: EPA understands that there are challenges associated with
transitioning refrigerants, including costs to manufacturers in
redesigning equipment and making changes to manufacturing facilities.
However, as explained in more detail in the response to comments later
in this preamble, under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the
substitute under review, and that consideration does not include the
cost of transition when a substitute is found unacceptable. Moreover,
we note that during model redesigns, many other engineering changes are
being made and that changing the MVAC system during a planned redesign
cycle could reduce costs when compared to MVAC system changes mid-
redesign cycle. We anticipate that a change of status in MY 2021 will
allow manufacturers to make changes to the MVAC systems for most
vehicle models as part of the model redesign process.
Comment: A few commenters noted the high price of HFO-1234yf
relative to HFC-134a. One commenter, referring to the NPRM, stated that
EPA continues to believe that HFO-1234yf is unlikely to ever be as
inexpensive as HFC-134a is currently. Commenters stated that the high
price of HFO-1234yf is likely to slow the transition away from HFC-134a
in the United States.
Response: As explained in more detail in the response to comments
later in this preamble, under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7), the only cost information that EPA considers as part of
its SNAP review is the cost of the substitute under review. As part of
EPA's cost analysis conducted in support of this rulemaking, the
potential costs to manufacturers were estimated based on per-system
costs of alternative systems, as identified in EPA's report on Global
Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030 (EPA, 2013a), and
converted to 2013 dollars. The incremental per-system cost of an
alternative MVAC system compared to an HFC-134a system is estimated to
be about $62/unit. EPA previously analyzed these costs in documents
supporting the LD GHG Rule and in that analysis accounted for the cost
of 100% of domestic vehicles to transition to use of HFO-1234yf by MY
2021. These incremental costs are less than 1% relative to the total
direct manufacturing cost for a light-duty vehicle.\58\ EPA does not
believe an incremental cost of less than 1% of the total direct
manufacturing cost will slow the transition away from HFC-134a. EPA
understands that often new alternatives have higher initial costs, but
this is not always true. In addition, over time the cost of the
alternative often drops as demand and supply increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2012. Joint Technical Support
Document: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards. August 2012. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12901.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Global Automakers and AAM commented that if EPA includes
exports in this regulation, EPA would be placing U.S.-based
manufacturers of export vehicles at a competitive disadvantage compared
to automakers producing vehicles outside of the United States. Global
Automakers stated in their comment that ``this rulemaking will
unnecessarily cause substantial economic harm to the U.S. economy, U.S.
jobs, and balance of payments if exports are included in the regulatory
provisions.'' Arkema, Mexichem, and BMW also commented on the potential
economic impacts of regulating exports.
Response: An inability to export vehicles manufactured with HFC-
134a could be a competitive disadvantage in any countries where
vehicles manufactured with other alternatives cannot be supported.
However, as discussed above, the additional cost of a vehicle
manufactured using an alternative (e.g., HFO-1234yf) is anticipated to
be approximately $62 more per vehicle; this is not sufficient to create
a competitive disadvantage in countries where both HFC-134a and other
alternatives are supported. Further, EPA is providing a narrowed use
limit in this final action that would allow vehicles destined for
export to a country with insufficient infrastructure to be manufactured
with HFC-134a through MY 2025. Thus, U.S. manufacturers should not
experience a competitive disadvantage.
(e) Servicing and Retrofits
Comment: EPA received comments related to the continued servicing
of MVAC systems manufactured to use HFC-134a. Two commenters support
the continued acceptability of HFC-134a for servicing, and one
commenter requests assurance that continued servicing will be
permitted. ARPI and the Auto Care Association, representing the
automotive aftermarket industry, jointly commented that they support
the change of status of HFC-134a in MVAC provided that systems using
replacement refrigerants are available at the time at a reasonable
price and that the ``phase out'' does not adversely affect the use of
HFC-134a in the millions of vehicles which will then still have MVAC
systems designed for that refrigerant.
Response: EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a change of
status for HFC-134a used for servicing MVAC systems designed to use
HFC-134a. Thus, vehicles manufactured to use HFC-134a may, consistent
with this rule, continue to be serviced with HFC-134a.
Comment: EPA received a comment requesting clarification on the
ability to retrofit or service an HFO-1234yf system with HFC-134a.
Response: As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, the SNAP
regulations include use conditions and other requirements that limit
the ability to service an MVAC system designed to use an alternative
with a refrigerant other than the one the system was designed to use.
See section V.B.3 for a detailed description.
Also, as discussed in more detail in section V.B.3, for vehicles
for which the manufacturer counts air conditioning credits toward its
LD GHG compliance, the MVAC systems (or elements of those systems) are
considered emission-related components as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803.
This designation includes provisions for emission-related warranty,
requirements that they operate properly for the specified useful life,
and tampering restrictions.
(f) Refrigerant Blends for Retrofits of MVAC Systems
Comment: Two commenters requested that EPA also list the
refrigerant blends as unacceptable for use in retrofits in the final
rule as well as in new equipment. SAE Interior Climate Control
Committee (SAE ICCC), the leading standards writing body in the United
States for MVAC, commented that they support the extension of the
unacceptability finding to retrofits because they have never written
any
[[Page 42899]]
standards for these refrigerants. The other commenter, DuPont,
recommended that because the refrigerants are not currently in use and
it would be undesirable to have them used, EPA should also change the
SNAP status for the blend refrigerants to unacceptable for retrofit (in
addition to new) MVAC uses.
Response: EPA has not undertaken the full analysis necessary to
determine whether to list these refrigerant blends as unacceptable for
retrofits. Accordingly, EPA did not propose to find the refrigerant
blends unacceptable for retrofits. Additional information, as well as
an opportunity for public comment, would be necessary before we would
be able to potentially find the refrigerant blends unacceptable for use
in retrofits (e.g., information on the extent of use of the refrigerant
blends). EPA appreciates the comments submitted on this topic and will
take them into consideration when preparing additional status change
rules.
(g) Use Conditions for HFC-134a
Comment: Arkema commented that it is ``arbitrary and capricious''
for EPA to find acceptable substances that could compete with HFC-134a
in MVAC only because those other substances are subject to use
conditions, and then to find HFC-134a unacceptable based on comparisons
to those other substances without considering any comparable use
restriction on HFC-134a. The commenter referred to a discussion in the
proposed rule concerning establishing charge limits through use
conditions for a number of high GWP refrigerant blends for use in
supermarket systems and condensing units as an example.
Response: EPA has not proposed additional use conditions for HFC-
134a comparable to those for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and CO2
because the ways of addressing risks for these substitutes are not
comparable. The use conditions unique to HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a
address flammability risks through engineering strategies that will
keep refrigerant concentrations below the lower flammability limit in
each vehicle and by requiring labels providing information on the
flammability risk. The use conditions unique to CO2 address
toxicity and consumer exposure risks through requiring engineering
strategies that will keep refrigerant concentrations at safe levels in
the passenger compartment of the vehicle. In contrast, the
environmental risks from HFC-134a are due to the collective global
impact of refrigerant emissions released over time from the entire
automotive industry.
In past cases where the SNAP program has regulated other
substitutes that posed high environmental risk due to collective global
emissions, we have taken three different approaches. One approach has
been to restrict the substitute to a niche use through a narrowed use
limit, where it was particularly difficult to find any feasible
substitute and the niche use was unlikely to result in significant
total emissions (e.g., narrowed use limit on high-GWP fire suppressant
SF6 for use only as a discharge agent in military
applications and in civilian aircraft at appendix B to 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G). A similar approach has been to restrict the substitute
through a narrowed use limit to use only ``where other alternatives are
not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements''
(e.g., narrowed use limits on perfluorocarbon solvents for precision
cleaning and C6F14 as a total flooding agent for
fire suppression at appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G). The third
approach EPA has used to address environmental risks from global
emissions of a substitute, and the only approach we have taken to date
for such a substitute that is already widespread in industry, is to
find the substitute unacceptable (e.g., HCFC-141b in solvent cleaning
at appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G and HCFC-141b in foam
blowing at appendix M to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G). MVAC is not a
niche use, and there are clearly other technically feasible substitutes
that will be available by the status change date specified in this
final rule for use in vehicles that will be sold domestically, so it is
not reasonable to provide a narrowed use limit for HFC-134a beyond that
established in this final rule for export to nations with insufficient
infrastructure for other alternatives.
Concerning Arkema's reference to a discussion on use conditions for
charge size limits, we note that in the proposed rule we also stated,
``However, given the high GWP of these refrigerants compared to other
refrigerants that are available in these end-uses, we do not believe
that use with a small charge size adequately addresses the greater risk
they pose.'' This is even more so in MVAC than in commercial
refrigeration products, due to the more widespread use of MVAC in
hundreds of millions of vehicles and the greater difference in GWP
between the unacceptable substitute and other, lower-GWP alternative,
compared to supermarket systems and remote condensing units.
(h) Flexibility for Exports
Comment: NRDC, IGSD, and DuPont suggested that if EPA finalizes MY
2017 or MY 2019, respectively, EPA could consider narrowed use limits
to address any sub-sectors that have problems meeting a transition date
earlier than MY 2021, if, for example, the Agency believed there was a
basis to claims of country-specific performance barriers (e.g., due to
high ambient temperatures) or lack of infrastructure for safer
alternatives.
Response: As discussed further in this section, EPA has finalized a
narrowed use limit for certain vehicles to be exported to countries
that have not yet developed sufficient infrastructure for using safer
alternatives. EPA has received no documentation supporting a narrowed
use limit related to ambient temperature conditions, and therefore, has
not included such a narrowed use limit in this final action.
Comment: EPA received comments from several commenters related to
the servicing infrastructure for lower-GWP alternatives outside the
United States. Some details are provided below and the remaining
details can be found in the Response to Comments document. Arkema,
Mexichem, BMW, AAM, and Global Automakers raised concerns including
whether destinations for exported vehicles will have sufficient service
sector support and refrigerant distribution networks for HFO-1234yf;
and the ability to conform to SNAP use conditions, given the large
proportion of automobiles manufactured in the U.S. for export (up to
one-fourth). Commenters question whether the alternatives are truly
``available'' for use in export markets if there is a lack of service
sector support and comment that this regulation could lead to
manufacturers having to limit export production at U.S. assembly
plants. Commenters are also concerned about the time needed to overcome
regulatory and legislative barriers. AAM suggested that EPA designate
certain export markets that can still receive U.S. exports of HFC-134a
vehicles, which they believe currently should be all export markets
except Canada and Europe.
In contrast, DuPont and Honeywell, manufacturers of HFO-1234yf,
asserted that service supply follows demand and the equipment for low
GWP refrigerant service is readily available. These commenters stated
that dealers and service shops can be expected to acquire the necessary
equipment and materials to serve the market demand and that it is the
responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that their
authorized dealers in those countries are able to provide all the
necessary service to these exported cars under warranty. Honeywell and
DuPont both stated that
[[Page 42900]]
they have already developed an extensive network of distributors that
are capable of supplying HFO-1234yf globally. DuPont stated that based
on demand from the motor vehicle aftermarket, they have distribution
covering more than 40 countries, 11 more than the combined EU member
states and the United States, and including Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
Response: EPA is aware that many countries, in addition to Canada
and those in the EU, already have servicing infrastructure in place,
and anticipates that the number will grow by MY 2021. However, EPA also
recognizes that there may be some markets where additional time may be
needed to ensure servicing infrastructure is available. EPA is
providing a narrowed use limit for HFC-134a in new MVAC systems
destined for use in countries that do not have infrastructure in place
for servicing with other acceptable refrigerants. This narrowed use
limit will remain in place through MY 2025. The remaining information
in this response explains why EPA believes it is not necessary to have
a narrowed use limit in place indefinitely. EPA is particularly
encouraged to learn that there is currently distribution for HFO-1234yf
in 40 countries, 11 more than the combined EU member states and the
United States and, that these countries include Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Israel and the United Arab Emirates, which indicates that
infrastructure is already being put in place in a significant number of
countries.
EPA does not agree that every country in the world would need as
much time as was needed in North America and Europe to resolve barriers
to transition. Many countries look to the SNAP program and the EU's
REACH program as a source of information to inform their domestic
programs and, thus transition for those countries should proceed more
quickly. EPA notes the widespread use of flammable refrigerants for
various end-uses in other countries (more so than in the United States)
as well as the inclusion of such refrigerants for projects considered
by the Executive Committee of the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral
Fund. We anticipate that many countries that do not have adequate
infrastructure in place in 2015 will have it in place in time to
service MY 2021 vehicles.
In many cases international agencies, such as the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), have been working with developing
countries to facilitate changes in domestic regulations to allow for
the use of lower-GWP solutions. This has been particularly true since
2007 when the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted a more
aggressive phaseout schedule for HCFCs, for end-uses using HCFCs such
as stand-alone commercial refrigeration appliances. Thus there are
systems in place for communicating information on new refrigerants and
for sharing experience. Further, the experiences of the United States
and Europe are being shared widely. We have provided information to the
Montreal Protocol's Secretariat and to UNEP. We already are also seeing
information shared through a range of mechanisms by the Secretariat and
UNEP as well as included in reports of the Montreal Protocol's
Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), SAE, and other bodies.
In addition, EPA notes that the G-7 leaders committed in June 2014
to promote the rapid deployment of climate-friendly and safe
alternatives to HFCs in motor vehicle air-conditioning and to promote
public procurement of climate-friendly HFC alternatives. EPA notes that
many countries already are committed to take action to promote public
procurement of climate-friendly lower-GWP alternatives whenever
feasible and would likely consider MVAC as a potentially feasible end-
use. For the reasons above, we believe that sufficient progress is
being made and will continue to be made such that the narrowed use
limit need not apply beyond MY 2025.
Comment: Global Automakers commented that it is imperative to have
trained technicians and shops equipped with the necessary equipment to
service and repair MVAC systems using flammable refrigerants, and
special equipment is needed to recover, recycle, and re-charge
flammable refrigerants before vehicles using such refrigerants can be
marketed in a specific country. AAM commented that on average, every
vehicle gets completely recharged with new refrigerant at least once
during its lifetime, and therefore, the unique need for such widespread
service support for MVAC differentiates this situation from past SNAP
considerations of export markets for other appliances.
Response: EPA agrees with the value of providing information and
training to technicians. In the United States, we are currently working
with technician certification programs to include information on HFC-
152a, R-744, and HFO-1234yf. EPA agrees with commenters that there is
value in technician training and education on a global basis.
International agencies such as UNEP could potentially be a source of
such training in developing countries. EPA does not agree that it is
necessary to ensure such training is in place in all markets worldwide
in order to fully accommodate U.S. exports with the new refrigerants.
EPA has already developed information on the newer alternative
refrigerants acceptable in the United States that is available on our
Web site and could be a resource for others. In addition, the use
conditions requiring labeling and unique fittings for refrigerants for
MVAC for service equipment and vehicle service ports serves as a means
for informing technicians as to what refrigerant is being used.
EPA understands that the commenters are suggesting that there still
may be markets that do not have infrastructure in place by MY 2025.
Based on the speed of transition that we are seeing, EPA does not
agree. However, the Agency could consider proposing a change in the
future if needed.
C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
1. Background
(a) Overview of SNAP End-Uses, End-Use Categories and Commonly-Used
Refrigerants
EPA refers readers to section V.C.1 of the preamble to the proposed
rule for a detailed discussion of the end-uses within the refrigeration
sector covered by this rule as well as information on some of the
refrigerants used within those end-uses.
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to change the listing for
certain refrigerants for two end-uses within the ``commercial
refrigeration'' sector--retail food refrigeration and vending machines.
Retail food refrigeration, as affected by today's rule, is composed of
three main categories of equipment: Stand-alone equipment; remote
condensing units; and supermarket systems. Stand-alone equipment
consists of refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open
or with doors) where all refrigeration components are integrated and,
for the smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or
welded. These systems are termed ``stand-alone'' within the SNAP
program because they are fully charged with refrigerant at the factory
and typically require only an electricity supply to begin operation.
Condensing units, called remote condensing units in this final
action as discussed below, exhibit refrigerating capacities that
typically range from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons) and
are composed of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser,
and one receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally
[[Page 42901]]
located external to the sales area. The modifier ``remote'' indicates
that the condenser (and often other parts of the system) are not
located in the space or area cooled by the evaporator but are instead
located outside the room, typically ejecting heat to the outdoor
ambient environment. Remote condensing units are commonly installed in
convenience stores and specialty shops such as bakeries and butcher
shops, as well as in supermarkets, restaurants and other locations
where food is stored, served or sold.
Typical supermarket systems are known as multiplex or centralized
systems. They operate with racks of compressors installed in a
machinery room. Two main design classifications are used: Direct and
indirect systems. At least 70% of supermarkets in the United States use
centralized direct expansion (DX) systems to cool their display
cases.\59\ In these systems, the refrigerant circulates from the
machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in display-case
heat exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the suction headers
of the compressor racks. Another direct supermarket design, often
referred to as a distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of
separate compressor racks located near the display cases rather than
having a central compressor rack system. Indirect supermarket designs
include secondary loop systems and cascade refrigeration. Indirect
systems use a chiller or other refrigeration system to cool a secondary
fluid that is then circulated throughout the store to the cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigeration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge (i.e., the
amount of refrigerant a system is designed to contain under normal
operating conditions), the product temperature required, energy
efficiency, system performance, ambient temperatures, operating
conditions, potential impact on community safety, potential risk to
personal safety, cost, and minimization of direct and indirect
environmental impacts, among other things. In addition, federal or
local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance,
regulations from the OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use
of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R-717). Building codes from
local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the amount of
particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a
number of factors that retailers must consider when selecting the
refrigerant and operating system design. While a number of approaches
exist, there is no uniformly accepted holistic analysis of the multiple
factors listed above. EPA recognizes that there must be a range of
options, and that the decision as to which option to select must remain
with the owner and operator of the system.
(b) Terms and Coverage
During a meeting with EPA just prior to publication of the proposed
rule, an industry trade organization representing manufacturers of
refrigeration equipment, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI), raised concerns that in some situations the
definitions and categories used in the SNAP program differ from those
used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and/or the industry and
they submitted a document identifying those definitions and categories
(see EPA Meeting on Commercial Refrigeration Equipment--June 10, 2014
under Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0005). They indicated that the
term ``commercial refrigeration'' is often first divided by the type
and location of the condensing unit, using two broad terms. ``Remote
condensing'' is used to indicate systems where the condensing unit and
compressors are located remotely from where food is stored or displayed
and instead the refrigerant or secondary-fluid is piped to the cases or
rooms where the food is located. ``Self-contained'' is used to indicate
that the condensing unit (along with the compressor and evaporator) is
integrated into the case in which the food is stored and displayed.
These units are generally initially charged by the case manufacturer at
the manufacturing plant.
EPA notes that the term ``self-contained'' is synonymous with the
SNAP end-use category ``stand-alone'' and we are retaining use of the
term stand-alone for this rulemaking action. The term ``remote
condensing'' applies to the SNAP end-use categories of ``supermarket
systems'' and ``condensing units.'' For the latter end-use category, in
this final rule we are revising the term ``condensing units'' to be
``remote condensing units.'' EPA draws a distinction between
``supermarket systems'' and ``remote condensing units'' based on the
number of compressors in the remote condensing system. Supermarket
systems generally have more than two compressors arranged in a ``rack''
whereas remote condensing units typically have only one or two
compressors linked to a single condenser. For purposes of this rule, we
are keeping these two categories separate.
The AHRI document (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0005) also
attempts to draw an additional distinction regarding commercial walk-in
coolers and freezers. We note that we do not treat such units separate
from the categories described above. Rather such units would fall
within the end-use category ``supermarket system'' if the refrigerant
is supplied on the same multi-compressor circuit used to cool food
elsewhere in the store or within the end-use category ``remote
condensing unit'' if only a one- or two-compressor system is used
(generally dedicated to just the individual walk-in cooler or freezer).
AHRI further notes that both supermarket systems and remote
condensing units can be connected to various types of display cases
designed to maintain products at various temperatures, often subdivided
as ``medium-temperature''--roughly between 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and 41
[deg]F (5 [deg]C)--and ``low-temperature''--roughly between -40 [deg]F
(-40 [deg]C) and 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C). EPA notes that within the SNAP
end-uses and categories described above, no distinction is currently
made based on application temperature (medium or low) and so the
decisions finalized in today's rule apply to all equipment fitting
within the supermarket and remote condensing units end-use categories
as described; however, based on comments received, within the stand-
alone equipment end-use category a distinction is made between
equipment designed for ``low'' temperatures and other equipment.
During the comment period on the proposed rule, we received
additional questions and comments about whether certain types of
equipment were included in the end-uses addressed in this action. We
are clarifying here that specific types of equipment used in the food
industry do not fall within the end-uses and end-use categories
affected by this rule: Blast chillers, ice making machines not
connected to a supermarket system, very low temperature refrigeration,
and certain food and beverage dispensing systems.
A ``blast chiller'' or ``blast freezer'' is a type of equipment in
which cold air is supplied and circulated rapidly to a food product,
generally to quickly cool or freeze a product before damage or spoilage
can occur. Such units are typically used in industrial settings (e.g.,
at a factory or on a large fish-catching vessel) and fall under the
SNAP end-use ``Industrial Process Refrigeration'' and hence are not
subject to this rule.
[[Page 42902]]
``Ice makers'' are machines designed for the sole purpose of
producing ice, in various sizes and shapes, and with different
retrieval mechanisms (e.g., dispensers or self-retrieval from bins).
Under SNAP, ``commercial ice machines'' are identified as a separate
end-use not part of the retail food refrigeration end-use (e.g., not a
``stand-alone'' unit). See e.g., 59 FR 13070 (March 18, 1994) where EPA
clearly designated ``commercial ice machines'' as a separate end-use
than ``retail food refrigeration.'' Thus, both self-contained ice
makers, as well as ice-making units solely connected via piping to a
dedicated remote condenser, do not fall under the retail food
refrigeration end-use and hence are not subject to this rule. In
contrast, ice-making units that are connected to a supermarket system
are subject to this rule. For instance, if a supermarket rack system
supplies refrigerant to a unit to make ice, such as for use in meat and
seafood storage, display and sales, and that refrigerant and compressor
rack are part of a larger circuit that also provides cooling for other
products in the store, the entire system would be classified as a
``supermarket system'' and hence would be subject to today's rule. EPA
would like to clarify that since remote condensing ice makers designed
solely to be connected to a supermarket remote rack are not sold or
manufactured with a condensing unit, they do not meet the definition of
automatic commercial ice maker used by DOE in the automatic commercial
ice maker energy conservation standards.
Several commenters, including Master Bilt Products and Thermo
Fisher, identified products they manufacture to reach temperatures of -
50[deg]F (-46[deg]C) or even lower. These products fit under the end-
use ``very low temperature refrigeration'' and hence are not covered by
this rule. EPA also notes that it recently found R-170 (ethane) as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the very low temperature
refrigeration end-use. (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453)
Other commenters, such as Emerson, HC Duke/Electro-Freeze, and
United Technologies, mentioned equipment designed to make or process
cold food and beverages that are dispensed via a nozzle, including
soft-serve ice cream machines, ``slushy'' iced beverage dispensers, and
soft-drink dispensers. Such equipment can be self-contained or can be
connected via piping to a dedicated condensing unit located elsewhere.
EPA does not consider this equipment to fall under either the ``stand-
alone'' or ``remote condensing unit'' categories of retail food
refrigeration. While our definition of retail food refrigeration
includes ``cold storage cases designed to chill food for commercial
sale,'' these units generally do more than just store food or
beverages. For instance, United Technologies states such equipment
``transform[s] a liquid product into a frozen beverage or confection
with the incorporation of air to provide uniformity and specific
customer requirements. These products are transformed and manufactured
within the equipment, held in a frozen state and ultimately dispensed
into a serving vessel that is provided to an end customer.'' Hence,
these types of products are in a category separate from the three
``retail food refrigeration'' end-use categories addressed in today's
rule.
We also received several comments and questions regarding energy
conservation standards established by DOE and how the equipment subject
to this rule is also subject to the DOE standards. While EPA is not
making any decisions on the applicability of the DOE standards to
specific equipment, we see that at least three such standards and
perhaps more apply to types of equipment that are also subject to this
rule. These three standards are titled Energy Conservation Standards
for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (79 FR 17725; March 28, 2014),
Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers (79 FR
32049; June 3, 2014) and Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated
Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines (74 FR 44914; August 31,
2009). These are referred to in this rule using shortened names or a
generic name such as ``DOE Standards.''
The Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Standards have an effective
date of May 27, 2014 and a compliance date of March 27, 2017. The Walk-
In Coolers and Freezers Standards have an effective date of August 4,
2014 and a compliance date of June 5, 2017. The Beverage Vending
Machines Standards have effective dates of October 30, 2009 and August
31, 2011 and a compliance date of August 31, 2012. DOE posted a notice
of a public meeting and availability of the Framework document for an
expected proposed rule to amend the standards for refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machines (78 FR 33262; June 4, 2013).
Material in the docket for that action indicate DOE's plans for a final
rule with a compliance date three years later (see EERE-2013-BT-STD-
0022).
EPA's review indicates that equipment designated in the Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment Standards may fall under the supermarket
systems, remote condensing units, and stand-alone equipment end-use
categories. Specifically, equipment classes designated in the DOE
Standard as XXXX.RC.T, where XXXX is the equipment class, RC specifies
a remote condensing operating mode code, and T indicates a rating
temperature (e.g., M and L for medium and low temperature,
respectively), may fall under either the supermarket system or remote
condensing unit end-use category, depending on how that equipment is
applied. In addition, equipment classes designated as XXXX.SC.T, where
SC specifies a self-contained operating mode code, may fall under the
stand-alone equipment end-use category.
EPA's review indicates that equipment designated in the Walk-In
Cooler and Freezers Standards may fall under the supermarket systems,
remote condensing units, and stand-alone equipment end-use categories.
Specifically, equipment within the class descriptor Multiplex
Condensing (either Medium or Low Temperature) may fall under the
supermarket systems end-use category, i.e., if such a walk-in cooler or
freezer utilizes refrigerant from a larger, multi-compressor (rack)
system. In addition, equipment within the class descriptor Dedicated
System, Outdoor System (regardless of temperature and capacity) may
fall under the remote condensing units end-use category, i.e., if
connected to a remote condensing unit and not integrated into a larger,
multi-compressor (rack) system. Furthermore, equipment falling in the
class descriptor Dedicated System, Indoor System (regardless of
temperature and capacity) may fall in the stand-alone equipment end-use
category, i.e., if the equipment is manufactured and fully charged with
refrigerant at the factory.
EPA's review indicates that equipment covered by the Beverage
Vending Machine Standards (including Class A, Class B and Combination
vending machines) falls under the vending machines end-use.
In all cases, the DOE Standards apply to new equipment, not
retrofitted equipment. Also, any foam used in such systems or
components that are also covered (e.g. various panels and doors within
the Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Standard), may fall under the rigid PU
commercial refrigeration and sandwich panel end-use and be affected by
the changes of status discussed in section V.D below.
(c) The Terms ``New'' and ``Retrofit'' and How They Apply to Servicing
Several commenters, including the Food Marketing Institute (FMI),
[[Page 42903]]
Supermarket Company ABC, and Hussmann sought clarification of the terms
``new'' and ``retrofit'' and how these terms might affect store
remodels and the use of cases or other equipment that in the future are
added to or replaced for existing cases or equipment.
For the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, the SNAP program
has, since the inception of the program, made a distinction between new
equipment and retrofitted equipment. In some cases, a particular
refrigerant is acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions only
in new equipment, not in retrofits. In other cases, a particular
refrigerant is only acceptable in retrofits, not new equipment. In the
NPRM, EPA evaluated whether to change the status of refrigerant
substitutes for retrofits separate from its evaluation of whether to
change the status of refrigerant substitutes for new equipment in each
of the four end-uses and categories--supermarket systems, remote
condensing units, stand-alone equipment, and vending machines--
addressed. Since the inception of the SNAP program, EPA has made
separate determinations for refrigerants used in ``new'' equipment and
as a ``retrofit'' to existing equipment. We are likewise today making
separate decisions for new and retrofit equipment within the retail
food refrigeration and vending machines end-uses.
EPA uses the term ``retrofit'' to indicate the use of a refrigerant
in an appliance (such as a supermarket system) that was designed for
and originally operated using a different refrigerant \60\ and does not
use the term to apply to upgrades to existing equipment where the
refrigerant is not changed. For instance, we drew this distinction when
we found R-290 acceptable for use in retail food refrigerators and
freezers (stand-alone units) subject to use conditions (76 FR 78832;
December 20, 2011) stating ``none of these substitutes may be used as a
conversion or `retrofit' refrigerant for existing equipment designed
for other refrigerants'' (40 CFR part 82, subpart G, appendix R). Some
alternative refrigerant providers describe their retrofit products as
``drop-ins'' but EPA does not use that term interchangeably with
retrofit (see 79 FR 64270). We recognize that some changes typically
would be required for equipment to use a refrigerant other than the one
for which it was designed. In many cases, lubricants need to be changed
(for instance, changing from a mineral oil to a polyolester lubricant
when retrofitting from a CFC to an HFC). Due to different performance
characteristics, other changes may need to occur when retrofitting,
such as adjustments to or replacement of thermostatic expansion valves
(TXVs) and filter-driers. In addition, gaskets and other materials may
need to be replaced due to different compatibility properties of the
different refrigerants. Such changes could occur as part of maintenance
as well as during a retrofit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ A chemical or mixture that is not the same as that used
before the retrofit, typically denoted by different ``R'' numbers
under ASHRAE Standard 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to drawing a distinction between new and retrofit for
the SNAP program, EPA also included a distinction between new and
existing equipment in its regulations implementing the HCFC phaseout
and use restrictions in section 605 of the CAA. As of January 1, 2010,
use of HFC-22 and HFC-142b was largely restricted to use as a
refrigerant in equipment manufactured before that date (40 CFR
82.15(g)(2); 74 FR 66412). Similarly, as of January 1, 2015, use of
other HCFCs not previously controlled was largely restricted to use as
a refrigerant in equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020 (40 CFR
82.15(g)(4); 74 FR 66412). In that context, EPA defined
``manufactured,'' for an appliance, as ``the date upon which the
appliance's refrigerant circuit is complete, the appliance can
function, the appliance holds a full refrigerant charge, and the
appliance is ready for use for its intended purposes'' (40 CFR 82.3,
82.302). We provided further explanations and example scenarios of how
the HCFC phaseout and use restrictions apply to supermarkets in the
fact sheet Supermarket Industry Q & A on R-22 Use (www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/Supermarket_Q&A_for_R-22.html).
Under today's rule, existing systems may continue to be serviced
and maintained for the useful life of that equipment using the original
refrigerant, whereas new systems (including new supermarket systems)
manufactured after the change of status date will not be allowed to use
refrigerants for which the status has changed to unacceptable.
Consistent with the definition in subparts A and I of part 82, quoted
above, EPA will consider a system to be new for purposes of these SNAP
determinations as of the date upon which the refrigerant circuit is
complete, the system can function, the system holds a full refrigerant
charge, and the system is ready for use for its intended purposes. As
explained in the fact sheet referenced above, a supermarket may undergo
an expansion and continue to use the existing refrigerant ``if there is
sufficient cooling capacity within the system to support the
expansion'' as EPA would consider that in such a situation ``the store
is not changing the intended purpose of the system.'' As pointed out by
FMI, the replacement of existing display cases with ones that operate
at a higher evaporator temperature, but still provide the same purpose
of maintaining products at required temperatures, is one way in which a
system may be remodeled without changing the intended purpose of the
system. On the other hand, if a supermarket remodel or expansion
changes the intended purpose of the original equipment, for instance by
adding additional cases, compressors, and refrigerant that were not
supported by the original compressor system, EPA would consider the
expanded system a ``new'' system. In that situation, a supermarket
would not be allowed to use a refrigerant that was listed as
unacceptable as of the date that new system was expanded or remodeled,
even if the system had been using that refrigerant before the expansion
or remodel.
2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (supermarket
systems)?
The change of status determinations for retail food refrigeration
(supermarket systems) are summarized in the following table:
Table 4--Change of Status Decisions for Retail Food Refrigeration
(Supermarkets Systems)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration HFC-227ea, R-404A, R- Unacceptable as
(supermarket systems) (new). 407B, R-421B, R-422A, of January 1,
R-422C, R-422D, R- 2017.
428A, R-434A, R-507A.
[[Page 42904]]
Retail food refrigeration R-404A, R-407B, R- Unacceptable as
(supermarket systems) 421B, R-422A, R-422C, of July 20,
(retrofit). R-422D, R-428A, R- 2016.
434A, R-507A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) New Supermarket Systems
For new supermarket systems, EPA had proposed to change the status,
as of January 1, 2016, for nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea to
unacceptable: The HFC blends are R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-
422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. In today's final rule, we are
changing the status of these ten refrigerants to unacceptable in new
supermarkets as of January 1, 2017 (i.e., one year later than
proposed), based on information the Agency received concerning
timelines for planning new stores; this information implied that
contractual arrangements for specific equipment purchases could have
already been in place at the time the proposal was issued but that new
systems will not be completed by January 1, 2016. A January 1, 2017,
status change date will address this concern. We note that systems not
ready for use by January 1, 2017 would not be able to use a substitute
listed as unacceptable as of that date.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for new
supermarket systems: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A,
R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-448A,
R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.\61\ In addition, R-717 is
listed as acceptable in new supermarkets when used as the primary
refrigerant in a secondary loop system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ HFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several of these alternatives, such as R-407A, R-407F, and R-744,
are in widespread use today in supermarket systems in the United
States. EPA considers this widespread use as indicative of the
availability of these acceptable alternatives. HFC/HFO blends are also
entering the market. For instance, R-448A and R-449A are being used in
supermarkets in the United States and R-450A is in use in a supermarket
in Spain.\62\ The producer of R-450A, Honeywell, indicated in their
comments that supply of this acceptable alternative was ``soon to
become available.'' They indicated that they have invested in their
U.S. facility ``to ensure high-volume manufacturing capability for HFO-
1234ze(E),'' one component of R-450A. The other component, HFC-34a, is
widely available from multiple producers and refrigerant suppliers.
Honeywell noted that ``commercial quantities of HFO-1234yf and HFO-
1234ze [are] available today.'' Likewise, DuPont indicated an
increasing supply of HFO-1234yf, a component in a number of acceptable
refrigerants for new supermarket systems, specifically R-448A, R-449A
and R-513A, amongst other applications discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test new R404A
``drop-in.'' October 5, 2014. Available online at
www.coolingpost.com/world-news/spanish-store-first-to-test-new-r404a-drop-in/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preamble to the NPRM, 79 FR at 46144, EPA provided
information on the risk to human health and the environment presented
by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable as compared with
other available alternatives. In addition, EPA listed as acceptable R-
450A on October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) and included information on its
risk to human health and the environment. Concurrently with this rule,
EPA is also listing R-448A, R-449A and R-513A as acceptable in this
end-use category and is including information on their risk to human
health and the environment. A technical support document that provides
the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP
criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these
alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA,
2015d). In summary, the other available substitutes all have zero ODP
and have GWPs ranging from 0 to 2,630. The refrigerants we are finding
unacceptable through this action also have zero ODP, but they have GWPs
ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. With the exception of R-717, the other
available refrigerants have toxicity lower than or comparable to the
refrigerants whose listing status is changing from acceptable to
unacceptable. Also, with the exception of R-717, the other available
refrigerants, as well as those that we are finding unacceptable, are
not flammable. R-717 is classified as B2L (higher toxicity, lower
flammability, low flame speed) under the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34-2013.
However, since it is acceptable only for use as the primary refrigerant
(i.e., the one housed in the machine room and limited-access
condensers) in secondary loops systems, potential exposure is limited
to technicians and operators who are expected to have had training on
its safe use. Because of this limited access, the fact that R-717 has
been used successfully as a refrigerant for over 100 years, and because
building codes and OSHA regulations often apply specifically to the use
of R-717, EPA previously determined that in this end-use the risk posed
with regard to toxicity and flammability is not significantly greater
than for other available refrigerants or for the refrigerants we are
listing as unacceptable. Some of the refrigerant blends listed as
acceptable, as well as some of the substitutes that we are finding
unacceptable include small amounts (up to 3.4% by mass) of VOC such as
R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane). These amounts are small, and
EPA's analysis of hydrocarbon refrigerants show that even when used
neat (i.e., as the sole refrigerant, not as a component within a blend)
they are not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone
formation (ICF, 2014e). In the original actions listing these
refrigerants as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions, EPA
concluded none of these refrigerants pose significantly greater risk
than for the refrigerants that are not or do not contain VOC. Because
the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other
available alternatives than for those we proposed to list as
unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we proposed to
list as unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses
significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants
as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-
422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A.
[[Page 42905]]
(2) When will the status change?
As explained here and in our responses to comments, EPA is
finalizing a change of status date for new supermarket systems of
January 1, 2017.
EPA noted in the NPRM, and multiple commenters echoed, that
supermarket equipment using some of the acceptable alternatives,
notably HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F and R-744, is available today
and has been used in supermarkets for several years. While some, but
not all, manufacturers argued more time was warranted to develop
additional equipment and address performance issues, they did not
provide adequate justification or specificity on when such equipment
would be available or when such issues would be addressed.
A supermarket system manufacturer believed time was needed to
develop contractor training materials. While EPA agrees that training
is valuable, we note below that such training is already available and,
given that acceptable alternatives have already been implemented in new
supermarkets, we do not see the need to delay our proposed status
change date for new equipment in this end-use category more than one
year.
However, one system manufacturer noted that supermarket plans are
developed in time frames that could hinder the proposed status change
date of January 1, 2016. EPA understands that such planning is
necessary and we are establishing a status change date of January 1,
2017, to accommodate those end users who have already planned changes
to their systems or may have plans to manufacture a new system (e.g.,
for a new store) but that may not have such systems operational in the
period between the time this rule is issued and January 1, 2016. As
noted earlier, this change in the proposed status change date will
affect those end users who are currently in the midst of planning for a
new system or a change to their existing system. A new system not ready
for use by January 1, 2017, would not be able to use a refrigerant
listed as unacceptable as of that date.
(b) Retrofit Supermarket Systems
For retrofit supermarket systems, EPA proposed to list, as of
January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends as unacceptable: R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. In today's
final rule we are finding these refrigerants unacceptable in retrofit
supermarkets as of July 20, 2016.
Consistent with the proposal, this action does not apply to
servicing equipment designed to use these nine refrigerants or
servicing equipment that was retrofitted to use those refrigerants
before the July 20, 2016, status change date. For example, supermarket
systems designed for use with or retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior
to July 20, 2016, may continue to operate and to be serviced using
those refrigerants.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for
retrofit supermarket systems: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F,
R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-437A, R-438A,
R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.\63\ A technical support
document that provides the additional Federal Register citations
concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity,
flammability) for these alternatives may be found in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several of the alternatives that remain acceptable are in use today
in the United States for supermarket system retrofits. While blends
such as R-407A and R-407F have become the norm, GreenChill partners
also report use of other refrigerants as retrofits in supermarket
systems.\64\ Also, as noted earlier, R-450A was used to retrofit a
supermarket system in Spain (Cooling Post, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is a
voluntary program with food retailers to reduce refrigerant
emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer and climate
change. See
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk
to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable and those that remain acceptable. In
addition, EPA listed R-450A as acceptable on October 21, 2014 (79 FR
62863) and included information on its risk to human health and the
environment. Concurrently with this rule, EPA is also listing as
acceptable R-448A, R-449A and R-513A and including information on their
risk to human health and the environment. As discussed above, the
producers of the substitutes that will remain acceptable do not expect
supply problems. In summary, the refrigerants listed above that remain
acceptable have zero ODP as do those that we are finding unacceptable.
The refrigerants remaining acceptable have GWPs ranging from below 100
to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the nine blends we are finding
unacceptable, which have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. All of the
refrigerants remaining acceptable have toxicity lower than or
comparable to the refrigerants whose listing status is changing from
acceptable to unacceptable. None of the refrigerants that remain
acceptable or those that are being listed as unacceptable are
flammable. Some of the refrigerant blends that remain acceptable and
some of those that we are finding unacceptable include small amounts
(up to 3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R-600 (butane) and R-600a
(isobutane). Because these amounts are small, and EPA's analysis of
hydrocarbon refrigerants shows that even when used neat (100% by mass),
they are not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone
formation (ICF, 2014e), these blends would also not contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation. Because the risks other
than GWP are not significantly different for the other available
alternatives than for those we proposed to list as unacceptable, and
because the GWP for the refrigerants we proposed to list as
unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses significantly
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as
unacceptable: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A,
R-434A, and R-507A.
EPA regulations have eliminated or will eliminate by 2020 the
production and import of HCFC-22. These and other regulations also
affect end users who are using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-
containing blends such as R-401A, R-402A and R-408A. Therefore, we
believe that the impact of this action addressing retrofits will
primarily affect those owners who are faced with the choice of
continuing to operate systems with a refrigerant that has been phased
out of production and import or to switch to a refrigerant listed as
acceptable for retrofit at the time the retrofit occurs.
Many retail chains maintain their own stockpile of HCFC-22, for
instance by recovering from stores that are decommissioned or
retrofitted and using such supplies to service stores that continue to
operate with HCFC-22. In addition, over four millions pounds of HCFC-22
has been reclaimed every year since at least 2000 and over seven
[[Page 42906]]
million pounds every year since 2006.\65\ Equipment operating with ODS
refrigerants may continue to do so given the supply of such materials
in stockpiles and through the reclaim market. Thus, owners have the
option to continue to operate this equipment through its useful life
with the refrigerant they are using, such as HCFC-22. Regardless of the
continued supply of HCFC-22 and other ODS refrigerants, we believe that
the majority of retrofits are planned for reasons other than the supply
of the refrigerant currently in use; for instance, owners may decide to
retrofit when upgrading to more energy efficient equipment or during
planned maintenance overhauls of their stores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ EPA, 2012a. The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can
be found on EPA's Web site at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum_merged.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We see that many retrofits are already directed towards lower-GWP
blends such as R-407A and R-407F, which are widely available and remain
acceptable for such use under today's rule, and not those of the
refrigerants whose status will change to unacceptable under today's
rule. These two refrigerants (R-407A and R-407F), other available HFC
blends, the additional HFC/HFO options that EPA recently listed as
acceptable, and other HFC/HFO blends that are being evaluated by
chemical producers and equipment manufacturers, as well as the option
of continuing to operate with HCFC-22, are sufficient to meet the
various features--such as capacity, efficiency, materials
compatibility, cost and supply--that affect the choice of a retrofit
refrigerant.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ For example, see CCAC, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) When will the status change?
As explained here and in our responses to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for retrofit supermarkets of July
20, 2016.
In the NPRM and above, EPA pointed out that retrofits of
supermarkets using acceptable alternatives are already occurring.
Supermarket Company ABC indicated that their experience with the use of
R-407A in retrofits indicates the availability and viability of it and
other alternatives. FMI similarly indicated that many of its members
have already stopped performing retrofits with refrigerants we are
finding unacceptable. EPA considers these comments directly from the
supermarket retailer to indicate that adequate performance can be
achieved using refrigerants that will remain listed as acceptable.
As indicated in section V.C.1.c above, retrofits may require
various changes to the existing equipment, such as different
lubricants, new materials such as gaskets and filter driers, and
adjustments to expansion valves. These changes include readily
available materials and common refrigeration practices. Such retrofits
to acceptable alternatives are already occurring, and the option to
continue to operate and service existing systems remains; however, EPA
received comment that users may plan a ``new store layout'' in advance.
While not specifically referencing retrofits, a new layout of an
existing store may include the retrofitting of the existing supermarket
system. Therefore, EPA is modifying the change of status date to
provide a full year from publication of the final rule to ensure that
any supermarkets that may have retrofits underway using a refrigerant
that will no longer be acceptable will be able to complete those
retrofits ahead of the change of status date. While EPA did not receive
specific comments on the time to complete retrofits that are underway,
it is our understanding that any ongoing retrofits can be completed
within this timeframe .
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration
(supermarket systems)?
Comment: Several commenters commented on the proposed January 1,
2016 change of status date for new supermarket systems. One supermarket
owner, Supermarket Company ABC, specifically supported the proposed
2016 date for both new and retrofit systems. An industry organization
representing supermarkets, FMI, stated that ``a majority of our members
have already voluntarily and proactively discontinued the use of R-
404A, R-507 and R-422D for new systems and as a retrofit refrigerant.''
Two environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD, supported the proposed
2016 date for both new and retrofitted supermarket systems. One
manufacturer of supermarket systems, Hillphoenix, supported the change
of status date of January 1, 2016, for HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A and R-434A in new and retrofit supermarket
systems.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ They addressed the change of status date for R-404A and R-
507A with regard to stand-alone units but not supermarket systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several other manufacturers of supermarket equipment, including
Hussmann, Master-Bilt, Lennox, and Zero Zone, and an association
representing such manufacturers--AHRI--suggested later dates for the
change of status. Hussmann suggested a change of status date of 2018
for new equipment as store layouts of their customers are planned ``up
to three years in advance.'' Another manufacturer, Lennox, requested
three years from the date of any final rule, a position supported by
AHRI, which also noted ``alternatives are available and manufacturers
have started re-designing products to minimize or eliminate the use of
high GWP refrigerants.'' Master-Bilt indicated that under the proposed
January 1, 2016, change of status date for new supermarket systems,
they would convert to HFC-134a and R-407A, but would have to address
issues of energy efficiency and reliability. They believed ``these HFCs
will also be banned as soon as lower GWP alternatives are available''
and therefore did not offer a long-term solution. Instead, they stated
blends with even lower GWPs than the ones remaining acceptable would be
available in 1-3 years and requested a minimum of 3 years from then to
develop products. Zero Zone indicated that it has products available
for R-407A and R-407C, but needs time to address performance issues.
Response: Several commenters indicated that many stores were
already using alternatives other than the ones we proposed to list as
unacceptable. While two manufacturers of equipment, Zero Zone and
Lennox, and AHRI advocated for a later change of status date, they also
indicated that products using refrigerants that will remain acceptable
are already in use. Hillphoenix and Hussmann, both of whom offer
supermarket systems with such refrigerants, and Supermarket Company ABC
and FMI, who have used such products, did not indicate that there were
performance, efficiency or reliability issues when using R-407A, R-407C
or R-407F in supermarket systems.
We recognize the concern raised by Hussmann regarding store layout
plans for new systems. Store design plans are generally developed well
in advance of the physical change-over or construction, because of
several different factors related to construction and installation as
well as the need to address any commissioning, performance optimization
or start-up procedures. Hussmann suggested a change of status date of
2018 to allow up to three years for design. Hussmann did not indicate
if the ``up to three years in advance'' for planning a new design was a
typical planning cycle or a rare maximum, nor did they indicate that
any particular customer currently is in the planning stage but will not
have equipment designed to use a refrigerant
[[Page 42907]]
we are listing as unacceptable operational until 2018. We further note
that the NPRM was proposed on August 6, 2014, and thus supermarkets
were on notice at that time that the refrigerants currently listed as
acceptable would possibly be unacceptable for use as of January 2016.
In order to address concerns about those end users who began planning
prior to the proposal, we are establishing a change of status date one
year later than proposed for new supermarket systems and July 20, 2016
for retrofits. This will provide those end users who were in the
planning stage prior to the time of the proposal over two years after
issuance of the proposal to ensure new supermarket systems are in place
and operational and likewise approximately two years to complete any
retrofits.
Comment: Lennox noted that supermarket system designs exist for R-
407 series refrigerants, but stated that manufacturers ``need at least
3 years to develop complete product lines, technical literature and
contractor training materials.'' Lennox did not indicate specifically
how much time was needed to complete their equipment development. Zero
Zone Inc. comments that the industry needs at least six years to make a
smooth complete transition away from R-404A, R-507A, and HFC-134a; they
indicated this time was needed ``to eliminate the performance issues
and design product that uses these refrigerants in the most energy
efficiency manner.'' In its comments regarding supermarket systems,
AHRI indicated low-GWP alternatives are available and stated research
on other, lower-GWP refrigerants was underway but requested ``a minimum
of 3 years'' to transition. AHRI contended that ``manufacturers have
started re-designing products to minimize or eliminate the use of high
GWP refrigerants'' but that ``manufactures need more time'' on ``the
re-design effort that started [a] few years ago.'' In general comments
not specific to the three retail food refrigeration end-use categories
addressed in the proposal, AHRI also indicated that ``a typical design
cycle takes an average 7 years from start to finish'' for non-flammable
alternatives. Supermarket Company ABC referenced the NPRM discussion of
new supermarket systems (79 FR 46144) and stated that their ``own
experience and testing with R134a, CO2 and the R-407 series
of refrigerants have demonstrated to our satisfaction that
implementable alternatives to R-404A and R-507A are available to meet
that time frame'' of January 1, 2016.
Response: The commenters have not provided sufficient information
to support that alternatives will not be available for several years
because of technical constraints. As indicated in the comments from
AHRI, Lennox, and Zero Zone, manufacturers have been working for the
past several years to design systems using low GWP alternatives and as
FMI noted many supermarkets are already choosing to use them. EPA noted
in the proposal that R-407A systems have already become a norm for
supermarkets and Supermarket Company ABC indicated it was using R-407A
in its comments. In fact, EPA notes that the amount of R-404A in use
from partners participating in EPA's GreenChill partnership program
reporting in 2012 and 2013 increased only 1.3%, while the amount of R-
407A in use increased 24%. Hence, we do not agree that a several year
delay in the change of status date is needed to accommodate design of
systems.
With respect to contractor training, EPA agrees proper education
and training is important, and we note that there are already many
manufacturers and suppliers who have been conducting such training. For
example, Hillphoenix, a manufacturer of supermarket systems and other
equipment affected by this rule, operates a learning center with
courses available including several on R-744 equipment.\68\ Learning
material is also available from EPA's GreenChill program, including for
instance the GreenChill retrofit guidelines,\69\ which contain material
on refrigerants R-407A, R-407F and R-427A, all of which remain
acceptable in retrofit supermarket systems. For supermarket systems, we
note that alternatives such as R-407A have been in the market and have
been used successfully for many years. Other alternatives, such as R-
448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A, are nonflammable and operate with
similar characteristics to HFC-134a or R-404A, and hence should require
only minimal extra training. EPA believes the January 1, 2017, change
of status date for new supermarket systems, will allow technicians that
focus on particular end-uses or end-use categories to obtain the
training they need and likewise for those that cover all end-uses and
end-use categories to build their skills across those end-uses over
time. We disagree that a need to develop complete technical lines and
technical literature are technical challenges that limit the
availability of refrigerants for new supermarket systems beyond January
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See www.hillphoenixlc.com/course-curriculum/refrigeration-systems/.
\69\ EPA, 2011b. GreenChill Best Practices Guidelines,
Commercial Refrigeration Retrofits. August 2011. This document is
accessible at https://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (remote
condensing units)?
The change of status determinations for retail food refrigeration
(remote condensing units) is summarized in the following table:
Table 5--Change of Status Decisions for Retail Food Refrigeration
(Remote Condensing Units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration HFC-227ea, R-404A, R- Unacceptable as
(remote condensing units) 407B, R-421B, R-422A, of January 1,
(new). R-422C, R-422D, R- 2018.
428A, R-434A, R-507A.
Retail food refrigeration R-404A, R-407B, R- Unacceptable as
(remote condensing units) 421B, R-422A, R-422C, of July 20,
(retrofit). R-422D, R-428A, R- 2016.
434A, R-507A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) New Remote Condensing Units
For new remote condensing units, EPA proposed to list, as of
January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea as unacceptable. The HFC
blends are R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-
434A, and R-507A. In today's final rule, we are finding that same list
of nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea as unacceptable as of January 1, 2018.
The change from the proposal is in response to information provided by
commenters concerning technical challenges with meeting the January 1,
2016, proposed date.
[[Page 42908]]
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for new
remote condensing units: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A,
R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.\70\ R-717 is acceptable
in remote condensing units when used as the primary refrigerant in a
secondary loop system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of these acceptable alternatives are currently in use in
remote condensing unit systems in the United States, such as R-407C and
R-407F. Others, such as R-744 and hydrocarbons, while not indicated as
in use in the United States, are being used in limited demonstration
trials in Europe and elsewhere. In addition, commenters have pointed
out that testing of low-GWP HFC/HFO blends is underway; several of
these HFC/HFO blends have been submitted to EPA for SNAP review in this
end-use category and four are listed as acceptable.
See section V.C.2.a.1 above for a summary of our comparative
assessment of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable with the other
available refrigerants. The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable
for new remote condensing units are the same as those we are listing
unacceptable for new supermarket systems. Likewise, the other available
refrigerants are the same for new remote condensing units as for new
supermarket systems. For the same reasons as presented in section 2,
EPA concludes that there are other refrigerants for use in new remote
condensing units that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment than the alternatives we are listing as unacceptable.
(2) When will the status change?
As explained here and in our responses to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for new remote condensing units of
January 1, 2018.
Blends such as R-407A, R-407C and R-407F are technically viable
options. We did not receive any comments suggesting that these or other
alternatives that will remain acceptable could not be used in these
systems. In fact, information in the docket to this rule supports the
feasibility of these alternatives. For example, information in the
Agency's possession from a manufacturer of remote condensing units
provides an energy efficiency analysis for R-407A as compared with R-
404A in remote condensing units, with results ranging from 10% lower to
1% higher in low-temperature equipment and 0% to 6% higher in medium-
temperature equipment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0184). For unit coolers,
this information showed improved results of 4.3% to 13.3% in medium-
temperature applications. While the low-temperature applications showed
3.6% to 6.7% decreases, it was noted this came ``as the capacity
increased;'' hence, we expect adjustments to the equipment could
improve the efficiency while still meeting the original capacity
requirements. In addition, Honeywell indicated that R-448A and R-449A,
which have been submitted to SNAP for review in this end-use, are
undergoing extensive field trials and that R-448A is ``close to being
qualified with numerous manufacturers,'' indicating that manufacturers
are developing equipment to use this alternative. DuPont indicates that
R-449A (also referred to as DR-33 and XP40), which has been submitted
to SNAP for review in this end-use, works well in their tests of a
display case connected to a remote condensing unit. DuPont found that
the energy consumption for this refrigerant in a remote condensing unit
originally designed for R-404A was 3% to 4% less than R-404A in low-
temperature tests and 8% to 12% less in medium-temperature tests.
Although there are technically viable alternatives, we recognize
the testing and certification needs for this equipment. Compliance with
DOE energy conservation standards will be required on March 27, 2017
for commercial refrigeration equipment and on June 5, 2017 for walk-in
coolers and freezers (see also section V.C.1.b above and V.C.7 below).
Commenters noted the challenges with timing for designing products with
acceptable alternatives and testing these products to meet the 2017 DOE
energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment
and for walk-in coolers and freezers. EPA agrees with the commenters
that the challenge of meeting both this status change rule and the DOE
standards creates a significant technical hurdle that would be
difficult to overcome by a January 2016 change of status date. A
January 1, 2018, change of status date for remote condensing units
recognizes the time needed for redesign and testing to meet both
regulatory obligations.
(b) Retrofit Remote Condensing Units
For retrofit remote condensing units, EPA proposed to list, as of
January 1, 2016, nine HFC blends as unacceptable: R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. In today's
final rule, we are establishing a change of status date for these
refrigerants of July 20, 2016.
Consistent with the proposal, this action does not apply to
servicing equipment designed to use these nine refrigerants or
servicing equipment that was retrofitted to use those refrigerants
before the January 1, 2018 status change date. For example, remote
condensing units designed for use with or retrofitted to R-404A or R-
507A prior to July 20, 2016, are allowed to continue to operate and to
be serviced using those refrigerants.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for
retrofitting remote condensing units: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A,
IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C,
R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike retrofits of supermarket systems, which are common,
retrofits of remote condensing units are unusual. However, given that
the operating conditions and requirements between supermarket systems
and remote condensing units are generally similar, EPA believes blends
such as R-407A, R-407C and R-407F are available options.
See section V.C.2.b.1 above for a summary of our comparative
assessment of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable with the other
available refrigerants. The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable
for retrofit remote condensing units are the same as those we are
listing as unacceptable for retrofit supermarket systems. Likewise, the
available alternatives for retrofit
[[Page 42909]]
remote condensing units are the same as those for retrofit supermarket
systems. For the same reasons as presented in section V.C.2.b.1, EPA
concludes that there are other refrigerants for use in retrofit remote
condensing units that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment than the alternatives we are listing as unacceptable.
EPA regulations have eliminated or will eliminate by 2020 the
production and import of HCFC-22. These and other regulations also
affect end users who are using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-
containing blends such as R-401A, R-402A and R-408A. Therefore, we
believe that the impact of this action addressing retrofits will
primarily affect those owners who are faced with the choice of
continuing to operate systems with a refrigerant that has been phased
out of production and import or to switch to a refrigerant listed as
acceptable for retrofit at the time the retrofit occurs.
As noted in section V.2.b.1, millions of pounds of HCFC-22 are
reclaimed every year, and this supply is available to remote condensing
unit owners, operators and technicians, just as it is available for
supermarket owners, operators and technicians. We also noted that many
retail chains have maintained their own stockpile of HCFC-22, for
instance by recovering from stores that are decommissioned or
retrofitted and using such supplies to service stores that continue to
operate with HCFC-22. This same strategy is possible for those who own
or operate multiple facilities using remote condensing units. By
establishing a change of status date of July 20, 2016, we are providing
owners and operators of remote condensing units the opportunity to
begin to address any HCFC-22 supply concerns they may have. Thus,
owners have the option to continue to operate this equipment through
its useful life with the refrigerant they are using, such as HCFC-22.
Supermarket Company ABC indicated that they have used R-407A to
retrofit HCFC-22 systems and that their experience indicates the
availability and viability of this and other alternatives. The success
of R-407A as a retrofit refrigerant, the other available HFC blends,
the additional HFC/HFO options that EPA recently listed as acceptable,
and the other HFC/HFO blends that are being evaluated by chemical
producers and equipment manufacturers, as well as the option of
continuing to operate with HCFC-22, are sufficient to meet the various
features--such as capacity, efficiency, materials compatibility, cost
and supply--that affect the choice of a retrofit refrigerant.
(2) When will the status change?
As explained here and in our response to comments, EPA is
establishing a change of status date for retrofit remote condensing
units of July 20, 2016.
We did not receive any comments suggesting that alternatives that
remain acceptable could not be used in these systems. As noted above,
Supermarket Company ABC indicated that they have had success using R-
407A to retrofit HCFC-22 systems. Results from testing of remote
condensing units with R-407A and R-449A are presented above in section
V.C.3.a.2. Those results showed increased energy efficiency and/or
increased capacity with those refrigerants, indicating that they are
viable for both new and retrofit equipment. As indicated in section
V.C.1.c above, retrofits may require various changes to the existing
equipment, such as different lubricants, new materials such as gaskets
and filter driers, and adjustments to expansion valves. These changes
include readily available materials and common refrigeration practices.
Such retrofits to acceptable alternatives are already occurring, and
the option to continue to operate and service existing systems remains.
However, as discussed in Section V.C.2.b.2 above, comments indicate
that a ``new store layout'' could be planned or otherwise underway, and
that such layout may include the retrofitting of existing remote
condensing units to a refrigerant that will no longer be acceptable.
Therefore, by providing one full year from the final rule's
publication, EPA is providing sufficient time for any such retrofits in
this end-use category to occur as planned.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration
(remote condensing units)?
Comment: Two environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD, urged EPA
to maintain the proposed status change date of January 1, 2016, for new
remote condensing units. Supermarket Company ABC stated that they did
not oppose the January 1, 2016, change of status date for new remote
condensing units. FMI, an industry organization representing
supermarkets, a market segment that also utilizes remote condensing
units, pointed out that ``a majority of our members have already
voluntarily and proactively discontinued the use of R-404A, R-507, and
R-422D for new systems and as a retrofit refrigerant.''
Many equipment manufacturers including: Hussmann; Continental
Refrigerator; Nor-Lake; Master-Bilt Products; International Cold
Storage, Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite Walk-Ins; Lennox; and Manitowoc
requested later dates for the status change ranging from 2018 to 2025.
In some cases the date requested applied to new equipment in other end-
use categories as well as new remote condensing units. AHRI suggested a
minimum of six years to transition. The North American Association of
Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) and Howe Corporation submitted
comments that were general rather than specific to any particular
refrigeration end-use. Based on NAFEM's membership and the products
Howe discussed, EPA believes these comments apply to remote condensing
units and stand-alone equipment. Howe proposed that the status of R-
404A and R-507A change ``no sooner than year 2024'' while NAFEM
suggested a ten-year delay for all of the refrigeration end-uses
addressed in the proposed rule and enumerated 14 tasks that they
indicate are ``necessary to safely introduce different/flammable
refrigerants into the manufacturing process.'' A separate comment from
NAFEM listed five phases, totaling 10 to 12 years, to adopt hydrocarbon
refrigerants but also stated that ``in no case should any manufacturer
be expected to transition prior to 2022.'' These manufacturers and
industry associations cited concerns over the availability of
alternatives, the need to design and test products using those
alternatives, as well as other concerns that we summarize and address
in the Response to Comments Document that has been placed in the
docket. Several manufacturers indicated that a January 1, 2016, change
of status date would create significant difficulties in designing
products with refrigerants that remain acceptable while also meeting
the DOE energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment and for walk-in coolers and freezers that are scheduled to
become effective in 2017 (see also section V.C.1.b above and V.C.7
below). In particular, the commenters claimed that additional
development of low-temperature products may be necessary to match
current efficiency levels.
Hussmann was concerned with the lead time of its customers in
planning store layouts with ``remote systems,'' which could include
remote condensing units as well as supermarket systems, and indicated
that a date of 2018 would allow its customers to better determine what
types of systems and refrigerants
[[Page 42910]]
to use. Lennox proposed a ``phased in implementation timing by
refrigerant equipment end-use category,'' suggesting five years from
publication of the final for remote condensing units compared to three
years for supermarkets and seven years for stand-alone units. AHRI
similarly suggested that the change of status date for remote
condensing units occur after that of supermarkets.
Regarding HFC/HFO blend alternatives, Honeywell, indicates that
supply of R-450A, an alternative listed as acceptable, will be
available soon and that R-448A and R-449A, which are currently under
SNAP review, are undergoing extensive field trials. Honeywell further
stated that R-448A is ``close to being qualified with numerous
manufacturers,'' indicating that manufacturers are developing equipment
to use this refrigerant. DuPont indicated that R-449A works well in
their tests of a display case connected to a remote condensing unit.
Response: Supermarket Company ABC and FMI as well as environmental
organizations supported or did not oppose the proposed status change
date of January 1, 2016. A number of other commenters supported a later
date ranging from 2017 to as late as 12 years after this action is
finalized. The comments requesting later status change dates either did
not address retrofits or did not provide adequate information
indicating why a date earlier than that for new remote condensing units
would be infeasible for retrofit equipment.
Although some use of alternatives is already occurring, we agree
with the commenters that certain technical challenges still exist that
support a change of status date later than we proposed for new and
retrofit equipment. However, we do not agree that significant
additional time is needed before alternatives listed as acceptable will
be available for new equipment.
There are alternatives that are not subject to a status change that
are used already in new and retrofit remote condensing units and others
are being developed and deployed. As supported by the comments from
FMI, many supermarkets have already transitioned away from the
refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable and are using refrigerants
that will remain acceptable after this final action. Supermarket
Company ABC stated that alternatives were available, pointing towards
their experience with R-407A in retrofits and HFC-134a, R-744 and the
R-407 series in new equipment. Information in the Agency's possession
from a manufacturer of such equipment, explained above, is indicative
that R-407A, among other available alternatives, can be readily
implemented now in new remote condensing units at medium-temperature
applications both during and after meeting DOE energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration equipment and for walk-in
coolers and freezers. However, the information showed efficiency losses
for this refrigerant in low-temperature applications. Although DuPont
points to positive results using R-449A in a display case connected to
a remote condensing unit, this refrigerant too showed lower energy
efficiency in low-temperature than medium-temperature conditions. Both
comments indicate that there is a more significant challenge for low-
temperature applications.
Thus, while there has been significant progress in transitioning to
alternatives that will remain acceptable in medium-temperature
applications, there has been less progress in doing so for low-
temperature applications. However, the information provided by
Honeywell and DuPont indicates that significant additional time will
not be needed before equipment is available. In recognition that new
remote-condensing unit equipment will need to meet DOE and National
Sanitation Foundation (NSF) standards, and some efficiency challenges
exist particularly with low-temperature equipment, we are establishing
a status change date of January 1, 2018, for new remote condensing
units and July 20, 2016 for retrofits.
Given that the low-temperature results with R-407A showed only 3.6%
to 6.7% efficiency declines along with capacity increases, and those
from DuPont with R-449A showed a slight improvement in efficiency, we
consider a status change date of January 1, 2018, to be adequate to
adopt these or other acceptable alternatives into new equipment and
perform any testing and certification necessary. A January 1, 2018,
change of status date for new remote condensing units will allow time
for manufacturers to redesign any products that require additional
engineering to meet both this rule and the DOE standards. In situations
where these refrigerants do not show energy efficiency improvements,
other design changes as described in the DOE rulemakings and in the
literature can be utilized to achieve required efficiencies. In
addition, as indicated above, current research and testing on some HFC/
HFO blends show similar or better energy efficiency for these products.
While we agree than a short additional amount of time is needed to
address these technical challenges and the testing and certification
requirements for new equipment, we disagree with commenters who suggest
that a lengthy period is needed prior to the change of status. NAFEM
estimated 10 to 12 years to adopt hydrocarbon refrigerants; however, as
hydrocarbons are not listed as acceptable for remote condensing units,
and no schedule was provided for nonflammable refrigerants, EPA views
this comment as pertaining to stand-alone equipment. (See section V.C.4
below). All of the refrigerant blends that remain acceptable are
nonflammable and some were designed to mimic HFC-134a and R-404A. EPA
believes that these can be adopted into manufacturers' products with
minor changes while still meeting the DOE requirements. The commenters
failed to identify specific technical challenges that would support a
more lengthy delay in the change of status date.
4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (stand-alone
equipment)?
The change of status determination for retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone equipment) is summarized in the following table:
Table 6--Change of Status Decisions for Stand-Alone Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as
(stand-alone medium- 134a, HFC-227ea, of January 1,
temperature units \72\ with a KDD6, R-125/290/134a/ 2019.
compressor capacity below 600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
2,200 Btu/hr and not 1.5), R-404A, R-407A,
containing a flooded R-407B, R-407C, R-
evaporator) (new). 407F, R-410A, R-410B,
R-417A, R-421A, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422B,
R-422C, R-422D, R-
424A, R-426A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-
438A, R-507A, RS-24
(2002 formulation),
RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E,
THR-03.
[[Page 42911]]
Retail food refrigeration FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as
(stand-alone medium- 134a, HFC-227ea, of January 1,
temperature units with a KDD6, R-125/290/134a/ 2020.
compressor capacity equal to 600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr 1.5), R-404A, R-407A,
and stand-alone medium- R-407B, R-407C, R-
temperature units containing 407F, R-410A, R-410B,
a flooded evaporator) (new). R-417A, R-421A, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422B,
R-422C, R-422D, R-
424A, R-426A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-
438A, R-507A, RS-24
(2002 formulation),
RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E,
THR-03.
Retail food refrigeration HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ Unacceptable as
(stand-alone low-temperature 290/134a/600a (55.0/ of January 1,
units \73\) (new). 1.0/42.5/1.5), R- 2020.
404A, R-407A, R-407B,
R-407C, R-407F, R-
410A, R-410B, R-417A,
R-421A, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-424A, R-
428A, R-434A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-44
(2003 formulation).
Retail food refrigeration R-404A and R-507A..... Unacceptable as
(stand-alone units only) of July 20,
(retrofit). 2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) New Stand-Alone Equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ ``Medium-temperature'' refers to equipment that maintains
food or beverages at temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C).
\73\ ``Low-temperature'' refers to equipment that maintains food
or beverages at temperatures at or below 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new stand-alone equipment, EPA proposed to list HFC-134a and 31
other refrigerants for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration
equipment unacceptable, as of January 1, 2016. In today's final rule,
EPA is subdividing the new retail food refrigeration (stand-alone
equipment) end-use category. For new stand-alone medium-temperature
units with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing
a flooded evaporator, EPA is changing the listing for HFC-134a and 30
other refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1,
2019. These 30 other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS-24
(2002 formulation), SP34E, THR-03 and 24 additional refrigerants,
listed below, for which EPA is changing the status in all types of
stand-alone equipment. For new stand-alone medium-temperature units
with a compressor capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and
all stand-alone medium-temperature units containing a flooded
evaporator, EPA is changing the listing of HFC-134a and the same 30
other refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1,
2020. For new stand-alone low-temperature units, EPA is changing the
status from acceptable to unacceptable of 24 refrigerants as of January
1, 2020. The 24 refrigerants are: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-
410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 formulation).
While EPA proposed to change the status from acceptable to unacceptable
for FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E,
and THR-03 in all new stand-alone equipment, EPA is not changing the
status for these refrigerants in this final rule in stand-alone low-
temperature equipment, or for IKON B for any stand-alone equipment, for
the reasons provided below. EPA clarifies below how the compressor
capacity is to be determined as well as how to distinguish medium-
temperature and low-temperature stand-alone equipment.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
EPA has listed R-290, R-600a and R-441A acceptable subject to use
conditions in new stand-alone equipment. R-290 is already in use
globally, including in the United States, and R-600a is in use outside
of the United States as well as in test market trials in the United
States. For instance, at a recent exposition, stand-alone equipment
using R-290 was displayed by multiple companies and component suppliers
exhibited compressors, filter driers, controls and expansion valves
that are designed to use R-290 or R-600a.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See ``New regulations inspire hydrocarbon displays at U.S.
NAFEM Show,'' www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/view/6143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-450A, R-513A, R-744, IKON A, IKON B and THR-02 are listed as
acceptable substitutes in new stand-alone equipment without use
conditions.\75\ In addition, HFC-134a, FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS-24
(2002 formulation), SP34E and THR-03 remain acceptable without use
conditions and are not subject to a change of status date in new stand-
alone low-temperature equipment. Also, concurrently with this rule, EPA
is listing R-448A and R-449A acceptable without use conditions for new
stand-alone low-temperature equipment. EPA is aware of equipment
deployment using R-744 and HFC-134a. We are not aware of such
deployment with respect to any other of these substitutes, although we
are aware that several are undergoing research and testing. The
producer of R-450A, Honeywell, stated that the supply of R-450A is
``soon to be available.'' Although we did not see evidence that
products were produced with the HFC/HFO blends that are listed as
acceptable, publicly-available literature indicates that R-448A, R-
449A, R-450A, R-513A and others are under investigation. For example,
R-513A (trade name XP10) was tested in commercial bottle cooler/freezer
under test 008 of AHRI's Low-GWP Alternative Refrigerants Evaluation
Program research.\76\ The Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine
quoted Emerson, a major supplier of compressors for this industry, as
saying it is ``prepared to support customers and devote more resources
to qualifying lower-GWP A1 refrigerant alternatives such as R448A,
R449A, R-450A and
[[Page 42912]]
R513A.'' \77\ EPA addressed the supply of these HFC/HFO blends, and
specifically the production of HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E), which are
components of these blends, above in section V.C.2.a.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Shecco, 2015. ``New Regulations Inspire Hydrocarbon
Displays at U.S. NAFEM Show, February 24, 2015. This document is
accessible at https://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/6143.''
\76\ Shapiro, Doron. ``System Drop-In Tests of R-134a, R-1234yf,
OpteonTM XP10, R-1234ze(E), and N13a in a Commercial
Bottle Cooler/Freezer'', January 25, 2013. This document is
accessible at https://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI%20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt-008.pdf.
\77\ Gaved, 2015. ``Emerson Climate Technologies offers to help
supply chain move to lower-GWP refrigerants,'' www.racplus.com/news/-emerson-climate-technologies-offers-to-help-supply-chain-move-to-lower-gwp-refrigerants/8677708.article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk
to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable compared with other alternatives,
including several refrigerants listed as acceptable (October 21, 2014,
79 FR 62863) or acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015;
80 FR 19453) after the NPRM was issued. A technical support document
that provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data
on the environmental and health properties (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC,
toxicity, flammability) for the acceptable alternatives as well as
those we are finding unacceptable may be found in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA, 2015d).
In summary, for stand-alone medium-temperature refrigeration
equipment, the substitutes listed above that remain acceptable have
zero ODP and GWPs ranging from 1 to about 630. In contrast, the
alternatives that we are listing as unacceptable for stand-alone
medium-temperature equipment also have zero ODP and they have GWPs
ranging from approximately 900 to 3,985. Three of the substitutes that
remain acceptable, R-290, R-600a, and R-441A, are or are composed
primarily of VOC. EPA's analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use are not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). These three
substitutes are also flammable; however, the use conditions specified
ensure that they do not pose greater overall risk than any of the
substitutes currently listed as acceptable in new stand-alone medium-
temperature equipment.\78\ None of the refrigerants currently listed as
acceptable present significant human health toxicity concerns or other
ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the refrigerants we are finding
unacceptable are similar in ODP (zero ODP), flammability (low risks of
flammability), toxicity (low toxicity), and VOC (non-VOC or not
expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone formation).
Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for
the other available alternatives than for those we are listing as
unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses significantly
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable
for new stand-alone medium-temperature refrigeration equipment: FOR12A,
FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A,
R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in
this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rules finding them acceptable
subject to use conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832 and April
10, 2015; 80 FR 19453). Refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For stand-alone low-temperature refrigeration equipment, the
substitutes that remain acceptable have zero-ODP and GWPs ranging from
1 to about 1,500. The alternatives we are listing as unacceptable have
GWPs ranging from approximately 1,800 to 3,985. For the other risk
criteria we review, the analysis provided above for stand-alone medium-
temperature refrigeration equipment applies also to for the
alternatives that remain acceptable and those we are listing as
unacceptable. Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly
different for the other available alternatives than for those we
proposed to list as unacceptable and because the GWP for the
refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable is significantly
higher and thus poses significantly greater risk, we are listing the
following refrigerants as unacceptable for new stand-alone low-
temperature refrigeration equipment: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/
600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-
410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003
formulation).
(2) When will the status change?
We are establishing a status change date of January 1, 2019, for
new stand-alone medium-temperature equipment with a compressor capacity
below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded evaporator, and a
status change date of January 1, 2020, for all other types of new
stand-alone equipment. For this equipment, there are several
alternatives that can meet the technological needs of the market. EIA
states that ``R-744, R-290, R-441A, and isobutene (`R-600a') can
satisfy the vast majority of the current market for refrigerants in
stand-alone equipment.'' We are aware of products using R-290, R-600a
and R-744 that are already on the market. According to Shecco, based on
its October 2014 survey, the manufacturers of stand-alone equipment
they surveyed ``are already today able to produce sufficient amount of
such [R-290, R-600a and R-744] equipment to cover the needs of the
entire market. All of the interviewed manufacturers confirmed that they
plan to covert [sic] their whole manufacturing facilities to
hydrocarbons and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.'' While the alternatives
that remain acceptable will be able to meet the technical constraints
for this equipment, time will be needed for the transition to occur. On
the aspect of timing, Shecco, Supermarket Company ABC, Hatco, and H&K
International suggested a 2018 change of status date, while DuPont and
Honeywell suggested 2017. NRDC and IGSD believed EPA should maintain
the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date. In contrast,
numerous other manufacturers of stand-alone equipment indicated
concerns with hydrocarbons and R-744, and some referenced HFC/HFO
blends as a potential solution. They recommended change of status dates
ranging from 2020 to 20 years after the rule becomes final. While we
agree that manufacturers will be able to produce equipment using lower-
GWP refrigerants addressing a large portion of the market in the period
of 2016-2018, we also agree that there are some technical challenges
that support a change of status date of 2019 or 2020 for this end-use
category.
Manufacturers indicated several necessary steps that will need to
occur, including development and testing of components, such as
compressors and condensing units, for the full range of stand-alone
products. In addition, engineering, development, and testing to meet
standards, such as those from UL, DOE and NSF, of the products would
start as components became available. Modifications to the factory
could be required, ranging from a simpler change of the refrigerant
storage area to reconfiguration of the factory to address concerns such
as ventilation or other safety measures. Information submitted by the
commenters supported that these actions could take a few months or up
to a couple of years. However, it is likely that these actions could
occur simultaneously with other steps such as equipment design and
testing.
Manufacturers identified three distinct refrigerant types. For
hydrocarbons, including R-290, we do
[[Page 42913]]
not see any question regarding chemical supply. NAMA and True
Manufacturing indicated that components have already been designed
globally, including in the United States, using both R-290 and R-600a.
Danfoss, Manitowoc and Unified Brands indicated that 1-2 years are
needed to develop air-cooled condensing units for R-290. Components
using other hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as R-441A have not been
developed, but these refrigerants are offered for sale in the U.S. and
are in ample supply.
EPA believes that much of the component and equipment development
can occur at the same time; in other words, as certain components
become available, appropriate units could be redesigned using those
components, prototypes could be built and tested, and final designs
could be produced, while additional components are released. Indeed, it
appears that many manufacturers have already identified a portion of
their products that they could redesign using R-290, as discussed
below. Once product models are designed, testing and certification
could take place.
In summary, to use hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as R-290, the
comments support that approximately three and a half years is needed
for equipment to become fully available. This includes one to two years
to develop additional components beyond those that are currently
available and to test the current and newly developed components in
models. Equipment development and testing would occur in series, with
the final units being developed and ready for testing approximately one
year after the components for that unit were available. Testing and
certification would likewise occur as products were developed and would
span two to three years, much of which while other actions are
occurring. We estimate the final units might take an additional six
months to a year to test and certify once developed. As discussed
above, any required modifications to the factory line and facilities
would occur concurrently if a manufacturer chose to use R-290 or
another acceptable hydrocarbon refrigerant. Hence, EPA believes that
new stand-alone equipment for medium-temperature applications with a
compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded
evaporator could be available and in compliance with a status change
date of January 1, 2019.
The steps in developing products for R-744 would be similar and on
a similar time frame as those for hydrocarbons. However, although R-744
is in wide supply, as supported by commenters such as Hillphoenix,
Coca-Cola, Parker-Hannifin, and HC Duke & Son/Electro-Freeze, there has
been limited development of components and development of necessary
components in a variety of sizes could take two to three years.
Designing stand-alone equipment with R-744 presents challenges such
as the need for a complete system redesign due to higher pressures and
the different thermodynamic and transport properties. Additionally, as
supported by commenters such as HC Duke & Son/Electro-Freeze, while
CO2 system efficiency is good at lower ambient temperatures,
CO2 system efficiency suffers at higher temperatures. Thus,
it may take additional time to develop components and equipment for
both medium and low-temperature applications.
Although it may not be feasible to develop R-744 equipment for the
full spectrum of stand-alone equipment by a status change date of
January 1, 2019, other alternatives, such as the hydrocarbons and HFC/
HFO blends would be available for those uses by the January 1, 2019,
status change date.
The third group of alternatives is the HFC/HFO blends. Refrigerant
producers DuPont and Honeywell provided detailed comments on the
development of specific HFC/HFO blends and EPA listed one of these, R-
450A, as acceptable in October 2014. Concurrently with this rule, EPA
is also listing R-513A as acceptable in all stand-alone equipment and
two additional HFC/HFO blends, R-448A and R-449A, acceptable in stand-
alone low-temperature equipment.
Some samples of these refrigerants are available today and are
being tested, as supported by comments from AHRI. However, supplies of
some of these blends are limited at this time because of limits on some
of the HFO components, HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E). However, as
discussed above in section V.C.2.a.1, production facilities for these
refrigerants have commenced operation and thus, as supported by
Honeywell and DuPont, we expect adequate supplies to be available by
January 2017 if not before. Unified Brands and Structural Concepts
indicated that components for HFC/HFO equipment are being tested and
developed today and Unified Brands further projected that it would be
three years for a full line of production-ready components.
HFC/HFO blends found acceptable to date or submitted to the SNAP
program are nonflammable, acceptable without use conditions, and
designed to mimic the performance of either HFC-134a or R-404A,
refrigerants in predominant use currently. Thus, as compared with
hydrocarbons and R-744, there should be fewer technical challenges in
developing equipment using these alternatives. Several commenters,
including Master-Bilt, Structural Concepts, and Hoshizaki America,
supported that transition to these alternatives would be simpler and
quicker once components have been developed and there are adequate
supplies.
In summary, should manufacturers choose to pursue HFC/HFO blends,
EPA expects such equipment would be widely available in about four
years and that R-450A could be available earlier as it was the first
such blend found acceptable under SNAP. This includes one to two years
for supplies to become widely available, approximately one year for
development and testing of components, and approximately one year for
equipment development. The short time for development of components and
equipment is due to the fact that the properties of the blends are
similar to the refrigerants most manufacturers are currently using.
Similarly, we expect that there would be limited factory modifications,
if any, and that these could occur concurrently with the design work.
As with other refrigerants, EPA would expect equipment testing and
certification to be rolled out as equipment models are redesigned, with
the last units being available approximately six to twelve months after
designs are developed.
We are finalizing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for
stand-alone low-temperature retail food refrigeration units; stand-
alone medium-temperature retail food refrigeration units with a
compressor capacity equal to or exceeding 2,200 Btu/hr; and stand-alone
retail food refrigeration units employing a flooded evaporator.
For these three types of stand-alone equipment, we find that an
additional year beyond January 1, 2019, is needed for the change of
status. For equipment using a flooded evaporator, Emerson indicated the
lower-GWP refrigerants are all ``high glide'' often in the range of 7
[deg]F to 10 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C to 5.6 [deg]C), and that such a
characteristic presents unique redesign and performance challenges.
Because of this unique design challenge that will require additional
time to address, we are establishing a January 1, 2020, change of
status date for new stand-alone equipment that utilizes a flooded
evaporator.
The second segment of the stand-alone equipment end-use category
that we found faced particular technical
[[Page 42914]]
challenges was equipment designed to hold products at low temperatures.
The choice of refrigerant is in part determined by the desired
temperature that food or beverage will be stored. As with ``large''
equipment, discussed below, commenters, including Hussmann and
Hillphoenix, indicated that the charge size limits that apply to the
hydrocarbon refrigerants could limit their use in low-temperature
equipment, although for some equipment, it may be possible to redesign
equipment to use multiple circuits. In addition, these commenters
further note that HFC-134a was not a workable refrigerant for low-
temperature applications, and thus some of the HFC/HFO alternatives,
specifically R-450A and R-513A, which were designed to perform
similarly to HFC-134a, would likewise not be workable in these
applications. However, other HFC/HFO alternatives, such as R-448A and
R-449A, designed to perform similarly to R-404A could be available for
low-temperature uses.
We believe that these technical challenges for stand-alone low-
temperature equipment will mean the date upon which technically
feasible solutions are available will be later than small, medium-
temperature equipment. For this reason, we are finalizing a change of
status date of January 1, 2020, for stand-alone low-temperature
equipment.
EPA points to the 2014 ASHRAE Handbook on Refrigeration, Chapter
15, which reads ``medium-temperature refrigeration equipment maintains
an evaporator temperature between 0 and 40 [deg]F [-18 and 4.4 [deg]C]
and product temperatures above freezing; low-temperature refrigeration
equipment maintains an evaporator temperature between -40 and 0 [deg]F
[-40 and -18 [deg]C] and product temperatures below freezing.'' We
believe the product temperature is a more widely understood criteria,
especially amongst equipment owners and users and for purposes of
compliance, and therefore clarify here that for purposes of this rule
``stand-alone medium-temperature equipment'' is defined as that which
is designed to maintain product temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C)
and ``stand-alone low-temperature equipment'' is defined as that which
is designed to maintain product temperatures at or below 32 [deg]F (0
[deg]C).
For large stand-alone equipment with additional cooling capacity
requirements, there are challenges with using a number of the lower-GWP
refrigerants because the refrigerants are subject to use conditions,
including a restriction limiting the charge size to 150 grams per
circuit. The charge size use condition applies to the alternative
refrigerants that are the farthest along in design and testing for this
end-use category, specifically, R-290 and R-600a. Because larger
equipment often needs refrigerant charges that are larger than those
provided in the use conditions, we sought comment on possible technical
challenges in transitioning to another alternative and asked how charge
size limits for these flammable refrigerants might affect our
determination of whether and when alternatives that pose lower risk are
available for larger equipment. In the NPRM, we sought comment on the
possibility of establishing a use restriction that would allow
continued use of some refrigerants for which we would otherwise change
the status in ``large'' stand-alone equipment. We sought comment on how
we could define ``large'' and ``small'' stand-alone units in particular
considering charge size.
Several commenters addressed these issues during the comment
period. Lennox said that over 98% of its ``basic, self-contained
refrigeration models exceed 500 grams of refrigerant charge,''
precluding the use of flammable refrigerants in just one circuit.
Manitowoc and Nor-Lake indicated that if they were to use R-290,
multiple refrigeration circuits would be required considering the 150
gram use condition that applies to that refrigerant. Some manufacturers
discussed the technical difficulties with using multiple circuits.
Hillphoenix noted that the use of multiple compressors, each tied to an
individual condensing unit, would require ``more complex control
synchronization that customers must be willing to master'' and raised a
concern about whether customers would do so. For some equipment, space
constraints would limit the practicality of using multiple, separate
refrigeration circuits. Minus Forty indicated that ``A significant
number of our models cannot be or would be very impractical to
transition to R-290 due to their size, shape, and custom uniqueness.''
Nor-Lake stated that multiple circuit equipment would use more energy
and believed that the ``energy efficiency of a dual system may also
create issues with meeting DOE energy requirements.''
EPA agrees that there are additional technical challenges faced in
converting this equipment that use large charge sizes. In some
instances, the challenge may be in developing multi-circuit systems
that use refrigerants subject to the charge-size use limits. In other
cases, where multiple circuits are not an option, these manufacturers
will need additional time to evaluate refrigerants R-744 or the newly
listed HFC/HFO blends R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A. Therefore, we
have established a later status change date of January 1, 2020, for
``large'' stand-alone equipment.
A few commenters addressed how EPA could distinguish ``small'' from
``large'' stand-alone equipment. Nor-Lake suggested a dividing line and
recommended that it could be set based on compressor capacity, pointing
to 2,400 Btu/hr and 2,200 Btu/hr for medium and low-temperature freezer
systems, respectively. Hillphoenix also recommended looking at
refrigerant capacity and performed an analysis that, under specific
design prescriptions, indicated the maximum capacity achievable using
150 grams of R-290 would be 4,800 Btu/hr and 1,600 Btu/hr for medium-
and low-temperature applications, respectively. Supermarket Company ABC
suggested making a distinction based on interior volume and
refrigeration requirements, but did not offer specifics. Southern Case
Art indicated difficulty with using R-290 in its products that are
open-display units reaching capacities up to 25,000 Btu/hr. Unified
Brands indicated R-290 compressors are available to provide cooling
capacity up to 5,000 Btu/hr for medium-temperature and 2,000 Btu/hr in
low-temperature applications. Traulsen requested a narrowed use
exemption for ``large stand-alone units requiring 2 or more systems to
operate within the 150 gram limit.''
We believe that the compressor capacity limits are a reasonable,
easily-understood and easily-enforceable method to distinguish between
products that may be unable to rely on flammable refrigerants or that
will face greater challenges in doing so, and those that are more
easily able to use flammable refrigerants consistent with the 150-gram
charge size limits established in the use conditions. We considered
separate capacity limits for medium and low-temperature systems as
suggested by Nor-Lake and analyzed by Hillphoenix, but determined that
establishing just one value would provide more clarity and ease of
implementation. We chose the lower of Nor-Lake's capacity of 2,200 Btu/
hr as a dividing line and explain how this applies further below. In
setting one value, however, we considered the similarity of the
capacities suggested by Nor-Lake, and the fact that these came within
the range of sizes analyzed by Hillphoenix.
Although the 2,200 Btu/hr compressor capacity delineation was based
on the particular comment from Nor-Lake, neither that commenter nor
others
[[Page 42915]]
indicated how that capacity would be determined. EPA believes consensus
standards from AHRI, an association representing manufacturers of such
equipment, may be used for this purpose. In today's final rule, we are
indicating that the capacity for a stand-alone unit is to be calculated
based on the compressor ratings as determined under AHRI 540-2004,
Performance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and
Compressor Units. Although ``capacity'' is not a rating specifically to
be listed under that standard, we note that ``Compressor or Compressor
Unit Efficiency'' and the ``Power Input,'' which are defined in that
standard under clauses 3.1 and 3.4, respectively, are required data for
the compressor to be listed, per clause 6.2. The compressor capacity is
the product of those two items, with adjustment to ensure the result is
in the correct units (i.e., Btu/hr). Although a range of capacities may
be calculated, EPA is clarifying that to determine whether the
compressor capacity is equal to or above 2,200 Btu/hr, we expect the
manufacturer to use Table 1 of the standard and choose the ``Standard
Rating Condition'' (defined in clause 3.6.1) most appropriate for the
design and intended use of the product. EPA notes that five standard
rating conditions are listed in the standard, for instance at Suction
Dew Point Temperatures--which is related to the designed food or
beverage temperature within the equipment--of 45 [deg]F (7.2 [deg]C),
20 [deg]F (-6.7 [deg]C), -10 [deg]F (-23 [deg]C), -25 [deg]F (-32
[deg]C), and -40 [deg]F (-40 [deg]C). By referring to this table EPA
believes the dividing line between ``small'' and ``large'' condensing
units also considers the product application (e.g., ``low'' or
``medium'' temperature), as suggested by Nor-Lake and analyzed by
Hillphoenix, and as discussed above.
(b) Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
For retrofit stand-alone equipment, EPA proposed to change the
listing for R-404A and R-507A from acceptable to unacceptable as of
January 1, 2016. In today's final rule, we are establishing the change
of status date of July 20, 2016.
This action does not apply to servicing existing equipment designed
for those two refrigerants or servicing equipment that was retrofitted
to use those refrigerants before the January 1, 2016, status change
date. For instance, equipment designed for use with or retrofitted to
R-404A prior to July 20, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate
using and could be serviced with R-404A.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
While we do not believe retrofits are common in stand-alone retail
food refrigeration equipment, a number of refrigerants are listed as
acceptable for this purpose: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407B, R-407C,
R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, R-513A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and
THR-03.\79\ R-448A and R-449A are also listed acceptable for
retrofitting stand-alone low-temperature units. We also note that many
of the refrigerants remaining acceptable are blends with small amounts
of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content allows the possibility of
retrofitting equipment from an ODS (which would have used alkylbenzene
or a mineral oil) without changing the lubricant, whereas usually a
polyolester is required when retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend. Thus
we believe these refrigerants are designed for and would prove
successful in retrofits of stand-alone equipment, should such a
retrofit be desired by the owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk
to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable compared with other available
alternatives. A technical support document that provides the additional
Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g.,
ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives may be
found in the docket to this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, the
other available alternatives have zero ODP as do those that we are
finding unacceptable. However, the refrigerants remaining acceptable
have GWPs ranging from below 100 to 3,607, lower than the GWPs of the
two blends we are finding unacceptable, which have GWPs of 3,922 and
3,985. All of the refrigerants remaining acceptable have toxicity lower
than or comparable to the refrigerants whose listing status is changing
from acceptable to unacceptable. The other available refrigerants, as
well as those we are finding unacceptable, are not flammable. None of
the alternatives is considered a VOC; however, some of the other
available refrigerant blends include small amounts (up to 3.4% by mass)
of VOC such as R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane). However, these
amounts are small, and EPA's analysis of hydrocarbon refrigerants shows
that even when used neat, they are not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). Because the
risks other than GWP are not significantly different for the other
available alternatives than those we are listing as unacceptable and
because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable is
significantly higher and thus poses significantly greater risk, we are
listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable for retrofit stand-
alone refrigeration equipment: R-404A and R-507A.
(2) When will the status change?
Commenters did not indicate any technical challenges in
retrofitting stand-alone equipment with the refrigerants that remain
acceptable. In fact, EIA felt ``The poor energy efficiency performance
of R-404A is another compelling reason to delist this refrigerant and
replace it with R-134a for retrofits, which by comparison, has shown a
10 percent efficiency gain.'' EPA does not believe retrofits are nearly
as common for stand-alone equipment as for other retail food
refrigeration uses considered in this final rule, particularly
supermarket systems. However, similar to the other types of retail food
refrigeration addressed today, EPA is providing one year to ensure that
any retrofits that are already underway will have sufficient time to be
completed. Therefore, we are establishing a change of status date of
July 20, 2016.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration
(stand-alone equipment)?
Comment: One commenter, Honeywell, addressed the status change date
for retrofits and supported the proposed date of January 2016.
Commenters suggested a wide-range of dates for the status change
for new equipment. NRDC and IGSD urged EPA to maintain the proposed
status change date of January 1, 2016 for new stand-alone units. These
commenters pointed out that coolers using transcritical R-744 have
already been developed. Unified Brands stated ``it will be impossible
to convert all our equipment from R134a and R404A to R290 by 2016.''
A number of commenters supported a change of status a year or two
later than that proposed. Two refrigerant
[[Page 42916]]
producers, Honeywell and DuPont suggested a change of status date of
2017 for new equipment to allow fuller development of HFC/HFO blends
that require minimal design changes and offer similar or better
performance than current refrigerants. Shecco indicated that a date of
January 1, 2018, was needed for ``smaller'' manufacturers to meet the
requirements. Supermarket Company ABC also supported a 2018 change of
status date for new stand-alone equipment. H&K International indicated
R-290 is very energy efficient and that 2018 would provide enough time
to transition. Another manufacturer, Hatco, also believed a ``January
1, 2018 implementation date would provide the needed time to do the
necessary testing and certification for a safe and effective
conversion.''
Other commenters supported a much later change of status date for
new equipment. Approximately 30 manufacturers, two industry
associations representing equipment manufacturers (AHRI and NAFEM), an
association representing supermarkets (FMI), and a beverage supplier
(Coca-Cola) suggested dates ranging from 2020 to 2025. True
Manufacturing, indicated they have been shipping products using
hydrocarbons and R-744 for several years. Hillphoenix provided a
refrigerant change schedule that discussed the development of R-744,
hydrocarbons and HFO blends; this schedule suggested various dates for
different tasks for these three refrigerant types. Based on the
timeframes associated with these tasks, they suggested a change of
status date of January 1, 2022, for stand-alone equipment. Lennox
believed the NPRM ``generally contemplates a wholesale switch to
hydrocarbon refrigerants'' in stand-alone equipment. NAFEM indicated it
would ``take ten to twelve years for manufacturers to convert their
product lines to use isobutene or propane.''
Response: As provided above in our discussion of the status change
dates we are finalizing, we agree with the commenters who suggest a few
additional years are needed for the status change. However, we do not
agree that commenters advocating a lengthy delay in the change of
status provided support for such a delay. As an initial matter, to the
extent that these commenters identified concerns with alternatives,
their concerns were focused on one refrigerant or class of refrigerants
and the commenters did not consider the full range of available or
potentially available refrigerants. Specifically, those comments
appeared to have focused on alternatives for which the most significant
amount of design changes would be necessary and did not appear to
consider the range of available refrigerants, many of which could be
used with less significant changes to designs. Manufacturers will
likely select different refrigerants for different products. Those
manufacturers that are not interested in designing equipment that uses
hydrocarbon refrigerants, given some of their stated concerns with
overcoming challenges with safety and VOC issues, could select a
nonflammable fluorinated refrigerant such as an HFC/HFO blend designed
to mimic many of the characteristics of the refrigerants they are using
today. EPA believes such HFC/HFO blends will become available by the
status change dates established in this rule and note that R-448A, R-
449A, R-450A and R-513A are listed as acceptable in this end-use
category, with the latter two being acceptable in stand-alone medium-
temperature equipment and all four being acceptable in stand-alone low-
temperature equipment. Furthermore, EPA points to the fact that new
HFC/HFO blends have been listed as acceptable and that such blends
perform similarly to traditional refrigerants and have proved to be as
efficient or even offer an efficiency advantage. As discussed above,
the supply of these refrigerants is increasing and the components to
use them are in development. EPA believes that by finalizing a status
change date for new stand-alone equipment several years later than
proposed, manufacturers will have the ability to choose such HFC/HFO
blends for their equipment, as well as the other alternatives,
including R-290, R-441A, R-600a and R-744, which have already been
listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions. There is
ample supply of R-290 and R-744; however, the technical difficulties
discussed with R-290 (particularly in ``large'' units) and R-744
suggest that not all manufacturers will be able to convert their
products and undergo the testing and certification necessary before
that equipment can be sold. Because the HFC/HFO blends are designed to
mimic the performance of the refrigerants they replace, the adoption of
those is expected to take less time; however, there is only limited
supply of those refrigerants now. Given the limited current supply, the
initiation of the product conversion, testing and certification would
not start until approximately 2016-2017, and hence manufacturers would
not be able to provide products using these alternatives until
approximately 2019-2020.
As pointed out by Honeywell and DuPont, some of the HFC/HFO blend
alternatives, such as R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A, can be used
with little adjustment to existing designs, show energy efficiencies
equal to or better than current refrigerants. While there is not
currently sufficient supply of these refrigerants, Honeywell and DuPont
have indicated that production facilities for the components are on-
line (see V.C.2.a.1 above) and that the blends will be made available
after listed acceptable with SNAP. As noted previously, Honeywell has
stated that R-450A supplies will be ``available soon'' and multiple
component manufacturers are developing equipment that uses these
alternatives. Hillphoenix's refrigerant change schedule indicates that
``Lab/User Testing'' and ``Test & Verification'' is already underway
with such blends. These blends offer equipment manufacturers additional
energy efficient options to rapidly transition out of refrigerants
listed as unacceptable while also avoiding some of the concerns (e.g.,
flammability, charge size limits, operation in hot temperatures)
manufacturers indicated exist with other alternatives such as R-290 and
R-744.
Several commenters pointed out that at least some part of their
product line can be converted to R-290 and some manufacturers are
already offering products to the market using these options. For
instance, Hillphoenix's refrigerant change schedule indicates that the
step of ``Convert Products'' for ``Hydrocarbons (on applicable
systems)'' can begin in 2015 and continue after that until 2020. They
did not provide a full explanation of why the process would continue
until 2020; however, EPA sees from commenters that there will be time
necessary to develop products and have them undergo the testing and
certification necessary to sell such products. EPA believes that by our
status change dates of 2019 and 2020, and not before, manufacturers
will be able to complete the development of products using R-290 or
other hydrocarbons. EPA also believes that testing and certification
resources are available to meet this deadline, and that more can be
created if there is a demand for them.
As many commenters pointed out, compliance with new DOE energy
conservation standards for certain commercial refrigeration equipment
is required on March 27, 2017 and for stand-alone walk-in coolers and
freezers is required on June 5, 2017 (see also sections V.C.1.b and
V.C.7). EPA is establishing change of status dates of
[[Page 42917]]
January 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, for stand-alone units. This allows
additional time after compliance is required with the DOE standards for
manufacturers to potentially redesign any products that require
additional engineering to meet both this rule and the DOE standards.
With 2019 and 2020 change of status dates, manufacturers have the
opportunity to integrate low-GWP refrigerants in their models now as
they prepare for the DOE requirements for some or all of their
products. Other products already meeting those DOE standards but
utilizing refrigerants that we are listing as unacceptable may be
redesigned after the DOE deadline to ensure compliance with both EPA
and DOE requirements. Given that some HFC/HFO blends, such as R-450A
and R-513A, were designed to mimic HFC-134a in medium-temperature
refrigeration, and others, such as R-448A and R-449A, were designed to
mimic R-404A in low-temperature refrigeration, EPA believes that these
can be adopted into manufacturers' products with minor changes while
still meeting the DOE requirements, once supplies of those refrigerants
are made available to the manufacturers.
5. What is EPA finalizing for vending machines?
The change of status determination for vending machines is
summarized in the following table:
Table 7--Change of Status Decisions for Vending Machines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vending machines (new only)... FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as
134a, KDD6, R-125/290/ of January 1,
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ 2019.
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-410B,
R-417A, R-421A, R-
422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-426A, R-437A, R-
438A, R-507A, RS-24
(2002 formulation),
SP34E.
Vending machines (retrofit R-404A, R-507A........ Unacceptable as
only). of July 20,
2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) New Vending Machines
EPA proposed to change the listing for HFC-134a and 20 other
refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable
as of January 1, 2016. In today's final rule, EPA is changing the
listing for HFC-134a and 19 other refrigerants for new vending machines
from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2019. While EPA
proposed to change the status from acceptable to unacceptable for IKON
B, EPA is not changing the status for this refrigerant in this final
rule for the reasons provided below.
The 19 other refrigerants in addition to HFC-134a are: FOR12A,
FOR12B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
A number of other refrigerants are acceptable or acceptable subject
to use conditions for new vending machines: IKON A, IKON B, R-290, R-
441A, R-450A, R-513A, R-600a, R-744, and THR-02.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ HCFC-22 and some blends containing HCFCs are also listed as
acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in
HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk to human health
and the environment presented by the alternatives that are being found
unacceptable and those that remain acceptable. Subsequent to the
issuance of the proposal, EPA listed R-290, R-441A and R-600a, as
acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015, 80 FR 19453). In
addition, concurrently with this rule, EPA is listing R-450A and R-513A
acceptable in new vending machines. A technical support document that
provides the additional Federal Register citations concerning data on
the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
these alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA,
2015d). In summary, the other available refrigerants for new vending
machines have zero ODP and GWPs ranging from 1 to about 630. In
contrast, those we are finding unacceptable have GWPs ranging from
approximately 1,100 to 3,985. IKON B, which we proposed but are not
finalizing to be unacceptable, has a GWP around 600. R-290, R-600a, and
R-441A are or are composed primarily of VOCs. We have exempted R-290,
R-600a and R-441A used in vending machines from the venting prohibition
(80 FR 19453). EPA's analysis indicates that their use as refrigerants
in this end-use are not expected to contribute significantly to ground
level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e). These three substitutes are also
flammable; however, the use conditions specified ensure that they do
not pose greater overall risk than any of the substitutes currently
listed as acceptable in new vending machines.\81\ None of the
refrigerants currently listed as acceptable present significant human
health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the
refrigerants we are finding unacceptable are similar in ODP (zero ODP),
toxicity (low toxicity), and VOC (non-VOC or not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation). When the three
hydrocarbon substitutes are used in accordance with the use conditions,
their flammability risks are not significantly greater than those of
the unacceptable alternatives. Because the risks other than GWP are not
significantly different for the other available alternatives than those
we are listing as unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants
we are listing as unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses
significantly greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants
as unacceptable for new vending machines: HFC-134a, FOR12A, FOR12B,
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A,
R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A,
R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in
this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rule finding them acceptable,
subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453). Refer to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) When will the status change?
EPA is establishing a change of status date for the specified HFC
refrigerants in new vending machines of January 1, 2019.
For new vending machines, there are several alternatives that can
meet the technological needs of the market. EIA states that ``R-744, R-
290, R-441A, and isobutene (`R-600a') can satisfy the vast majority of
the current market for refrigerants in . . . vending machines.'' We are
aware of products using R-290 and R-744 that are already in use.
According to Shecco, based on its October 2014 survey, the
manufacturers
[[Page 42918]]
of vending machines they surveyed ``are already today able to produce
sufficient amount of such equipment [R-290 and R-744] to cover the
needs of the entire market. All of the interviewed manufacturers
confirmed that they plan to covert [sic] their whole manufacturing
facilities to hydrocarbons and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.''
While the alternatives that remain acceptable will be able to meet the
technical constraints for this equipment, time will be needed for the
transition to occur. On the aspect of timing, Shecco supported a status
change date of January 1, 2018, although their survey suggested some
manufacturers might not convert until 2019. Shecco indicated that the
supply of HFC-free vending machines has been increasing over the last
two years. Other commenters suggested that four to five years would be
required, mentioning in particular the supply of components as a major
obstacle in achieving the proposed January 1, 2016, status change date.
While we agree that manufacturers will be able to produce equipment
using lower-GWP refrigerants addressing a large portion of the market
in the period of 2016-2017, we also agree that there are some technical
challenges that support a change of status date of 2019 for this end-
use.
Commenters indicated several necessary steps that will need to
occur, including development and testing of components, such as
compressors, for the full range of vending machines. In addition,
engineering, development, and testing to meet standards, such as those
from DOE, of the products would start as components became available.
Modifications to the factory could be required, ranging from a simpler
change of the refrigerant storage area to reconfiguration of the
factory to address concerns such as ventilation or other safety
measures. Information submitted by the commenters supported that for
the portion of the vending machines that have not already transitioned
to a lower-GWP refrigerant, these actions could take a few months or up
to a couple of years. However, it is likely that these actions could
occur simultaneous with other steps such as equipment design and
testing.
One manufacturer identified two refrigerant types: R-744 and
hydrocarbons. Refrigerant producers also pointed towards HFC/HFO blends
as a third group. For R-744, we do not see any question regarding
refrigerant supply. Information submitted by the commenters support
that some components are already available. Coca-Cola indicated time
was needed for testing and certifying new models of vending machines;
however, additional information indicated that various types of R-744
vending machines are already available or are expected to be available
by January 1, 2016. Pepsi has test-marketed R-744 vending machines in
the United States as early as 2009.\82\ The Automated Merchandising
Systems (AMS) however stated that R-744 was unlikely as a viable
substitute for its equipment, especially for the perishable food
vending machines it offers. Although EPA did not see the technical
detail to allow us to conclude that R-744 would not be a viable choice
for such equipment, we agree that additional time beyond our proposed
status change date is needed to explore that and other acceptable
substitutes for this equipment. The comments support that equipment can
be designed, tested and certified using R-744 by January 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ PepsiCo, 2009. ``PepsiCo Brings First Climate-Friendly
Vending Machines to the U.S.,'' March 30, 2009, this document is
accessible at www.pepsico.com/live/pressrelease/pepsico-brings-first-climate-friendly-vending-machines-to-the-us03302009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments also supported that some components and equipment using
hydrocarbons are available. AMS stated that one hurdle for using R-290
is finding 120-volt, 60-hertz components for the U.S. and Canadian
markets. AMS also echoed the concern of Coca-Cola that more time is
needed for testing and certifying new models of vending machines. EPA
agrees time beyond the originally proposed January 1, 2016, status
change date is necessary for further development of R-290 components
and for necessary testing and certification of R-290 vending machines.
Information in the comments indicate that some R-290 components are
available from multiple suppliers and we believe that these components
could be employed in vending machines.
In summary, to use hydrocarbons refrigerants, comments support that
approximately three and a half years are needed for equipment to become
fully available. This includes six months to test and design products
using the available R-290 components and an additional year to two
years for development of other components and equipment designs.
Equipment development and testing would occur in series, with the final
units being developed and ready for testing approximately six months
after the components for that unit were available. Testing and
certification would likewise occur as products were developed and would
span up to three years, much of which while other actions are
occurring. We estimate the final units might take an additional six
months to test and certify once developed. As discussed above, any
required modifications to the factory line and facilities would occur
concurrently if a manufacturer chose to use R-290 or another acceptable
hydrocarbon refrigerant. Hence, EPA believes that new vending machines
could be available and in compliance with a status change date of
January 1, 2019.
Comments also support that other options besides R-744 and
hydrocarbons may be explored for those products that have not yet
transitioned. Concurrently with this rule, EPA is listing two HFC/HFO
blends, R-450A and R-513A, as acceptable for new vending machines.
Although commenters did not indicate a current supply of components for
these refrigerants, information indicates that component suppliers are
committing additional resources to develop them. EPA believes their
adoption can happen quickly as they are both nonflammable blends and
are designed to mimic the performance of HFC-134a, the only refrigerant
indicated by a manufacturer as used in its vending machines. As noted
earlier, Honeywell, the producer of R-450A, indicated that it will be
supplying that refrigerant soon. We expect that the refrigerant
producers will be able to fully supply these blends in a year or two.
EPA expects that components designed for the vending machine market
using one or both of these blends could be developed within the next
year to eighteen months as more refrigerant supplies become available.
As components become available, additional design and testing in
vending machines could begin. Because the comments indicated only one
refrigerant to be replaced, and because the HFC/HFO blends are designed
to mimic that refrigerant, equipment development time for vending
machines is expected to be shorter than other end-uses, perhaps adding
only six months. Limited factory modifications, if any, could happen
concurrently with the design work. As with other refrigerants, EPA
would expect equipment testing and certification to be rolled out as
equipment models are redesigned, with the last units being available
approximately six months after designs are developed.
In summary, we find that HFC/HFO blends could be implemented to
meet the January 1, 2019, status change date for new vending machines.
(b) Retrofit Vending Machines
For retrofit vending machines, EPA proposed to change the listing
for R-
[[Page 42919]]
404A and R-507A from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.
In today's final rule, we are finalizing a change of status of July 20,
2016 similar to the retail food end-uses considered in this final
action. EPA does not believe retrofits are nearly as common in vending
machines as for some of the retail food refrigeration uses,
particularly supermarket systems. However, similar to the retail food
refrigeration addressed today, EPA is providing one year to ensure that
any retrofits that are already underway, will have sufficient time to
be completed.
This action does not apply to servicing existing equipment designed
for those two refrigerants or servicing equipment that was retrofitted
to use those refrigerants before the January 1, 2016, status change
date. For instance, vending machines designed for use with or
retrofitted to use R-404A or R507A prior to July 20, 2016, would be
allowed to continue to operate using and could be serviced with that
refrigerant.
(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
A number of refrigerants are acceptable for retrofitting vending
machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407C, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B,
R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-513A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-02.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed
as available but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not believe retrofits are common in vending machines. Many of
the refrigerants remaining acceptable are blends with small amounts of
hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content allows the possibility of
retrofitting equipment from an ODS (which would have used alkylbenzene
or a mineral oil) without changing the lubricant, whereas usually a
polyolester is required when retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend. Thus
we believe these refrigerants would prove successful in retrofits of
vending machines, should such a retrofit be desired by the owner.
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA provided information on the risk
to human health and the environment presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable and those that remain acceptable. A
technical support document that provides the additional Federal
Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP,
GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives may be found
in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, other
alternatives have zero ODP and have GWPs ranging from below 100 to
3,085, lower than the GWPs of the two blends we are finding
unacceptable, which have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985. All of the
refrigerants remaining acceptable have toxicity lower than or
comparable to the refrigerants whose listing status is changing from
acceptable to unacceptable. None of the refrigerants that remain
acceptable or those that are being listed as unacceptable is flammable.
None of the alternatives is considered a VOC; however, some of the
refrigerant blends that remain acceptable include small amounts (up to
3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R-600 (butane) and R-600a (isobutane).
However, these amounts are small, and EPA's analysis of hydrocarbon
refrigerants show even when used neat they are not expected to
contribute significantly to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 2014e).
Because the risks other than GWP are not significantly different for
the other available alternatives than those we are listing as
unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable is significantly higher and thus poses significantly
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as unacceptable
for retrofit vending machines: R-404A and R-507A.
(2) When will the status change?
Commenters did not indicate any technical challenges in
retrofitting vending machines with the refrigerants that remain
acceptable. In fact, EIA felt ``The poor energy efficiency performance
of R-404A is another compelling reason to delist this refrigerant and
replace it with R-134a for retrofits, which by comparison, has shown a
10 percent efficiency gain.'' As discussed above, however, commenters
indicated that plans may be underway and that adequate time should be
given to allow for those plans to be implemented or changed. Therefore,
we are establishing a change of status date of July 20, 2016.
(c) How is EPA responding to comments on vending machines?
Comment: Honeywell supported the proposed date for retrofit vending
machines. Regarding new vending machines, NRDC and IGSD believed the
proposed status change date of January 1, 2016, was feasible and stated
that the Consumer Goods Forum has pledged to transition completely out
of HFC equipment by the end of 2015. Honeywell and DuPont, suggested a
change of status date of 2017 for new vending machines to allow fuller
development of additional alternatives that would require minimal
design changes and offer similar or better performance than current
refrigerants. Shecco felt that while the large manufacturers could meet
the proposed date, a date of January 1, 2018, would allow for smaller
manufacturers to meet the requirements. The Coca-Cola Company claimed
the change of status date for new vending machines should be no earlier
than January 1, 2020, to allow time for the development of additional
compressor models of its preferred alternative to cover a full range of
required capacities. AMS, a vending machine manufacturer, believes that
one option that is being pursued on the beverage side, R-744, is not a
viable solution for perishable food vending equipment. This
manufacturer recommends a January 1, 2020, change of status date to
allow for development of additional alternatives. The National
Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) indicated that the
conversion timeline is likely to be four or five years, although some
of its members estimate the timeline to be as much as eight years,
based on the experience of the mid-1990s when companies phased out the
use of CFC-12.
Response: We acknowledge the comment supporting the proposed date
of January 1, 2016 for retrofit vending machines and note that we are
finalizing that change of status date as proposed.
We do not agree with NAMA that the switch away from CFC-12 in the
mid-1990s supports a four, five or even eight year period. The phaseout
of CFC-12 consumption was January 1, 1996, less than two years after
the initial SNAP listings were issued. Regardless, each transition is
unique and the timing for transitions can vary end-use by end-use and
even for the same end-uses depending on a number of factors, such as
whether alternatives that perform similarly to the current refrigerant
can be used or whether significant design changes may need to occur.
Regarding this current action for vending machines, the transition
away from the substitutes we are listing as unacceptable is already
underway based on public commitments made by some of the largest
purchasers of vending machines. Shecco conducted a survey of vending
machine manufacturers in October 2014 and found that all were planning
to convert to hydrocarbons and/or R-744 in the 2018/2019 timeframe at
the latest. Many companies have already made significant progress. For
example, the Coca-Cola Company has placed over 1.4 million HFC-free
[[Page 42920]]
units globally and EIA indicates that ``Pepsi is approaching 1 million
hydrocarbon vending machines which use 20 percent less energy than
Energy Star requirements.'' There has been success developing and
deploying vending machines with R-744, including the manufacture of
components for those machines. EIA enumerated four manufacturers
offering hydrocarbon compressors and components for light commercial
uses, including vending machines. Although Coca-Cola requested a 2020
change of status date, other information listing commercialization
plans for low-GWP stand-alone equipment and vending machines indicated
that by January 1, 2016, all of the vending machines in that list were
expected to be available with low-GWP refrigerants. However, other
commenters indicated that more components need to be developed for
different types of vending machines to support a complete transition.
AMS stated that more components for R-290 suitable for the U.S. and
Canadian power supply (e.g., 60 Hz) were needed. We agree that the
choice of components to-date has been limited but we see that it is
growing and expect it to continue to grow, especially considering that
two large U.S. purchasers of vending machines have committed to move to
non-HFC technologies. R-744, R-290 and R-600a components used in other
products, like stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment, may
also be adaptable for vending machines.
Thus, although significant progress has been made, in particular
with the use of R-744 in vending machines that dispense canned
beverages, it is necessary to provide some additional time beyond the
proposed date of January 1, 2016 to allow further development of
components for different types of vending machines and also to allow
further development of components using other alternative refrigerants.
6. General Comments on the Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending
Machine End-Uses
(a) Specific Numerical Limits for GWP
Comment: Unisom Comfort Technologies requested that EPA consider
banning all refrigerants with GWP greater than 10, as there are very
many existing alternatives. DuPont recommended that EPA change the
status to unacceptable for all alternatives which generally have GWPs
above 1,500, such as the R-407 series refrigerants. They suggested this
limit ``for new and retrofit refrigeration and vending applications.''
DuPont indicated that by January 1, 2017, there will be multiple low-
GWP alternatives commercially available. Another refrigerant producer,
Honeywell, recommended a GWP limit for new supermarket systems and
remote condensing units of 1,500 and a GWP limit of 2,000 for
retrofitted equipment, based on the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5). For new stand-alone equipment and vending machines, Honeywell
recommended a GWP limit of 600 (using AR5 GWPs) for HFC-134a
replacements and 1,500 for R-404A replacements. CARB suggested adding
an additional restriction for all commercial refrigeration to find
unacceptable all HFCs with a GWP greater than 1,500 starting in 2018
and all those with a GWP greater than 150 in 2023. Unison Comfort
Technologies implored us to ``seriously consider banning all
refrigerants with GWP>10.''
Response: EPA's proposal was limited to determinations for the
specific refrigerants proposed which pose significantly greater risk
than other available refrigerants, and we cannot take final action
changing the status of additional refrigerants without first providing
notice and an opportunity for comment. EPA may consider whether to
include additional refrigerants in a future proposed status change rule
in which EPA would provide the necessary analysis of the SNAP criteria
and an opportunity for public comment.
Regarding the suggestion that we establish a specific numerical
limit for GWP, as noted in Section IV.B, the structure of the SNAP
program, which is based on a comparative framework of available
substitutes at the time a decision is being made, does not support the
use of such limits. We note that in making our decision for new and
retrofit supermarket systems and remote condensing units, EPA pointed
to the multi-year history of the successful use of some blends that
remain acceptable to support the ``availability'' of alternatives that
pose less risk than those we are listing as unacceptable. Many of these
blends have GWPs higher than the limits recommended by the commenters.
Thus, at this time, we do not believe an analysis of refrigerants below
those limits recommended by the commenters with those above the limit
and which remain acceptable would support a conclusion that the lower-
GWP refrigerants are available for use, as many have not been
demonstrated to be technically feasible for products and systems in
these specific end-use categories. As noted previously, there are a
number of technical challenges that must be addressed in selecting a
refrigerant for use in a specific system and we do not have information
supporting use of these lower-GWP refrigerants. However, as we see from
the current action, the refrigeration industry has made great progress
in the last five to ten years in moving toward lower-GWP alternatives
and we see that momentum continuing. Therefore, it is possible that at
some future date, we could determine to list additional alternatives as
unacceptable based on a determination that there are lower-GWP
alternatives available that, based on consideration of the SNAP review
criteria, pose lower overall risk.
(b) Comments and Responses Concerning Small Businesses
Comment: Commercial Food Equipment Service Association (CFESA), an
organization representing service companies and technicians, suggested
a timeline ``ideally extended to 10 years for small businesses'' and
``no less than 5 years'' for large companies. Shecco believed that many
of the smaller manufacturers lag behind the larger companies in the
switch away from HFC-134a in stand-alone equipment and vending
machines. They suggested a January 1, 2018, change of status date would
provide sufficient time for these smaller companies, ``enabling them to
remain in the marketplace and ensuring healthy competition in this
area.''
Response: EPA does not agree that a different change of status date
should apply to large companies as compared to small companies. The
available alternatives that pose lower risk than those subject to the
status change are equally available to businesses of all sizes. Under
SNAP, EPA has not used the ``size'' of the user as a basis for its
listing decisions and the commenter provides no basis related to the
scope and purpose of the SNAP program to do so in this instance. EPA's
decision regarding the status change dates for new retail food
refrigeration equipment and new vending machines was based on the
technical challenges faced by businesses of all sizes in adopting new
refrigerants successfully in these products.
Comment: Some commenters indicated that they believe additional
time is needed for smaller companies, especially businesses in the
stand-alone/self-contained retail food refrigeration end-use that
manufacture custom-built equipment and produce hundreds of models. The
commenters also indicated particular challenges and disadvantages for
small businesses as compared to larger businesses.
Response: We note that transition timelines in the NPRM were based
on
[[Page 42921]]
the Agency's information concerning the availability of alternatives
for businesses of all sizes and we did not provide separate change of
status dates for different size businesses. We address these concerns
further in the previous comment and response.
(c) Suggestion Regarding Education and Training
Comment: CFESA points to the need for ``proper education and safety
training for a successful and safe transition away from current
refrigerants to the flammable or scarce refrigerants EPA deems
acceptable.'' Other commenters likewise stated training of factory
employees and service technicians would be required, especially if
hydrocarbon refrigerants were employed.
Response: Because CFESA and others reference flammable
refrigerants, EPA believes this comment is particular to stand-alone
equipment and vending machines, where certain flammable refrigerants
are currently acceptable subject to use conditions. However, for these
two end-uses, not all refrigerants listed as acceptable are flammable.
Acceptable alternatives for stand-alone equipment and vending machines,
such as R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A, are nonflammable and operate
at similar characteristics to R-404A and HFC-134a. CFESA does not
specify which refrigerants it considers scarce. Nonflammable R-744
refrigerant, for example, is in ample supply. While some other
refrigerants have not been produced in large quantities to date,
production is increasing as demand increases, including R-448A, R-449A,
R-450A and R-513A. Honeywell indicates that R-450A is soon to be
produced in commercial quantities, and EPA expects it, along with other
HFC/HFO blends, will be available by the change of status dates of 2019
and 2020 for vending machines and stand-alone equipment. With respect
to technician training, EPA agrees proper education and training is
valuable, and we note that there are already many manufacturers and
suppliers who have been conducting such training. For example, Shecco
notes that ``The GUIDE North America 2013 \84\ report has identified at
least 165 [Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration]
HVAC&R System & Component Manufacturers, and Engineering Contractors in
the United States working with natural refrigerants already today. In
reality we have a reason to believe that this number is much higher.''
Coke noted that it has developed and trained a servicing network as it
introduced R-744 equipment. Included in the docket to this rule is
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants--A Study Guide for Service Technicians,
published by the Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES), that
could be used for those wishing to service new stand-alone units and
new vending machines using R-290, R-441A or R-600a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Shecco, 2013a: GUIDE 2013: Natural Refrigerants--Market
Growth for North America, publication.shecco.com/publications/view/6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HFC/HFO blend alternatives, identified above, are nonflammable
and operate at similar characteristics to those subject to the status
change and therefore technicians should require only minimal extra
training to use them. Because different change of status dates apply
for the different refrigeration end-uses technicians will have an
opportunity to stagger training relevant for the different end-uses and
they can build their skills across those end-uses over time.
7. Energy Efficiency Considerations
DOE has promulgated, in separate rulemakings and under separate
authority, energy conservation standards for several types of
equipment, including products that are affected by this rule. See
section V.C.1.b for information regarding DOE energy conservation
standards that are applicable to the equipment addressed in this rule.
New equipment subject to this rule would need to meet the DOE
requirements and the requirements of the status change by the dates
established in these rules.\85\ We note that for each of these end-
uses, there are many compliant models already commercially available
that do not use the refrigerants subject to a change of status.
Furthermore, for all the equipment subject to today's rule, there are
examples, highlighted below, that show the energy efficiency using
alternative refrigerants not subject to a change in status can be at
least as good as, and often better than, the energy efficiency of
equipment using refrigerants whose status will change to unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that we do not have a practice in the SNAP program of
including energy efficiency in the overall risk analysis. We do,
however, consider issues such as technical needs for energy efficiency
(e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether alternatives are
``available.'' EPA recognizes that the energy efficiency of particular
models of equipment is a significant factor when choosing 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. Although we cannot know what energy efficiency will be
achieved in future products using a specific acceptable refrigerant, we
can point to both actual equipment and testing results that show
promise and often better results than the equipment using the
refrigerants that we are finding unacceptable. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-
0134, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0184, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077). We
recognize that, while theoretical efficiency of any given Rankine cycle
is not dependent on the refrigerant used, the refrigerant, the design
of the equipment, and other factors will affect the actual energy
efficiency achieved.
The efficiency can change based on the refrigerant chosen and there
are various metrics, such as Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) and
Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP), that account for climate effects
of both emissions of the refrigerant and the possible emissions of
greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, from the source of power to
operate equipment. Quantification of the portions of TEWI/LCCP from the
refrigerant and energy use can only be done using broad assumptions
that would not be applicable to all users of the myriad equipment
models that are affected by today's rule. As noted in section V.C.1.b,
energy conservation standards set by the DOE apply to some of the
equipment covered by today's rule (e.g., stand-alone equipment, vending
machines). If manufacturers were to offer equipment that meets, but
does not exceed, that standard (or any other standard, such as ENERGY
STAR[supreg]), then the indirect emissions from energy use would be the
same regardless of which refrigerant were used. In that case, the
refrigerant emissions would be the only factor that would decide which
system has a lower TEWI or LCCP. Manufacturers that wish to exceed
[[Page 42922]]
energy efficiency requirements may do so with any acceptable
refrigerant they choose. Although some refrigerants will in the future
be listed as unacceptable as determined in this final action, that does
not directly affect the theoretical energy efficiency possible. As
noted below, the results to date for actual equipment using acceptable
alternatives do not show any significant decline in energy efficiency
and often show the reverse. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0134, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0198-0184, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077). While various sources of
data on energy efficiency results from testing acceptable refrigerants
show varying results, we believe that with new designs to use these
refrigerants, any lower energy efficiency results can be overcome and
likewise existing energy efficiency levels can be improved.
Throughout the history of the SNAP program, 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 many cases,
technological improvement and optimization of equipment designs and
controls has increased energy efficiency. Although today's rule lists
some refrigerants as unacceptable, we do not believe it will 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, which remains acceptable for the refrigeration end-uses
addressed in this rule, and R-290 and R-600a, which remain acceptable
subject to use conditions for new stand-alone equipment and new vending
machines. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0134, Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Magazine, 2015).\86\ As part of our review of whether
alternatives are ``available,'' we determined that equipment has been
designed for and is capable of meeting existing requirements such as
the DOE energy conservation standards. Below we highlight the energy
efficiency gains that have been reported for the commercial
refrigeration end-uses and end-use categories affected by today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015. ``Coca
Cola to narrowly miss HFC-free global refrigeration target''
(www.racplus.com/news/coca-cola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global-refrigeration-target/8680290.article).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theoretical and prototype testing show similarly good energy
efficiency results. For instance, in supermarket refrigeration, a
theoretical analysis (Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014) examined the
energy use of R-407A and R-410A, both of which are on the list of
acceptable substitutes, against that of R-404A, which is listed as
unacceptable in new supermarket systems as of January 1, 2017. 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
equipment using those alternatives to use less energy than equipment
currently designed to use R-404A. We have pointed out in Section V.C.2
above that R-407A in particular is widely used and we might expect it
to be used in a large share of supermarkets after the change of status
date. This analysis showed similar increases in energy efficiency of
new supermarket and stand-alone equipment using a variety of low-GWP
refrigerants as compared with equipment currently using R-404A.
The analysis also showed a slightly higher energy consumption by
stand-alone equipment designed to use other alternatives as compared
with one designed to use R-404A. One user of stand-alone equipment did
not provide any specific results, but stated that ``HC freezers are
significantly more energy-efficient.'' (Ben and Jerry's, 2014). True
recently displayed several stand-alone units using R-290 refrigerant
that were reported to be 15% more efficient than similar equipment
using HFC-134a and R-404A.\87\ Similar results were seen by DuPont, who
found that R-449A reduced energy usage when used in a display case
connected to a remote condensing unit. They found that the energy
consumption using this refrigerant was 2% to 3% less than R-404A in
low-temperature tests and 8% to 12% less in medium-temperature tests.
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Shecco, 2013b. ``HCs gaining market prominence in US--view
from The NAFE Show--Part 1'' February 18, 2013. This document is
accessible at www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/3891.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar results are being seen with vending machines. As noted in
the NPRM, one purchaser of vending machines 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, at
which time such equipment was exclusively using HFC-134a (Coca-Cola,
2014). More recently, it was reported that 78% of Coca Cola's models
(vending machines and stand-alone cases) perform more efficiently than
HFC units. (Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015).
Furthermore, it has been reported that PepsiCo has placed nearly one
million hydrocarbon vending machines on the market and that these use
20% less energy than ENERGY STAR requirements.
As new products are designed to use 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. These opportunities
and the examples provided are indicative that when redesigning
equipment for a new refrigerant, energy efficiency is often improved.
Multiple companies have reported such gains in the equipment covered by
today's rule, for instance with R-407A or R-744 in supermarket systems,
with HFC/HFO blends in remote condensing units, and with hydrocarbons
and R-744 in stand-alone equipment and vending machines
D. Foam Blowing Agents
1. Background
Foams are plastics (such as PU 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.
A variety of foam blowing agents have been used for these
applications. Historically, CFCs and HCFCs were typically used to blow
foam given their favorable chemical properties. CFCs and HCFCs are
controlled substances under
[[Page 42923]]
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.
HCFCs, which have a longer phase-out period than CFCs since they
are less potent ozone-depleting substances, have continued to be used
to some extent as foam blowing agents. In addition, 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, methylal, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-
1336mzz(Z), 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:
Rigid PU (appliance foam) includes insulation foam in
domestic refrigerators and freezers.
Rigid PU (spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich
panels) includes buoyancy foams, insulation for roofing, wall, pipes,
metal doors, vending machines, coolers, and refrigerated transport
vehicles.
Rigid PU (slabstock and other) includes insulation for
panels and pipes.
Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock
includes insulation for roofing and walls.
Flexible PU includes foam in furniture, bedding, chair
cushions, and shoe soles.
Integral skin PU includes car steering wheels, dashboards,
and shoe soles.
Polystyrene (extruded sheet) includes foam for packaging
and buoyancy or flotation.
Polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet) includes
insulation for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes.
Polyolefin includes foam sheets and tubes.
Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation
for roofing and walls.
2. What is EPA finalizing for foam blowing agents?
For foam blowing end-uses, EPA proposed to change the status for
several substitutes, as of January 1, 2017, as follows:
HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable for all 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 were on the list of acceptable substitutes
at the time of proposal, except for rigid PU spray foam; and
The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where it was on the list of acceptable substitutes at
the time of proposal.
After considering the comments received on the proposed rule, EPA
is making several changes to what it proposed in this final action.
First, EPA is creating narrowed use limits for HFC-134a and blends
thereof, for HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and HFC-245fa and blends
thereof for all foam blowing end-uses except rigid PU spray foam. EPA
is also creating narrowed use limits for certain HFC blends, including
Formacel TI, Formacel Z-6, and Formacel B, for those end-uses that were
on the list of acceptable substitutes at the time of proposal. For all
these substitutes, the narrowed use limits would be for 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. For all other uses
in these identified end-uses, the status would change to unacceptable,
with the exception of rigid PU spray foam, for which we are not taking
final action in this rule. Second, we are establishing change of status
dates that range from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2021. And,
further, for the uses subject to the narrowed use limits, the status
would change to unacceptable as of January 1, 2022. The change of
status determination for each end-use is summarized in the following
table:
Table 8--Change of Status Decisions for Foam Blowing Agents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
HFC-365mfc and blends subject to
thereof; Formacel TI, narrowed use
and Formacel Z-6. limits for
military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2020.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
Refrigeration and Sandwich HFC-365mfc, and subject to
Panels. blends thereof; narrowed use
Formacel TI, and limits for
Formacel Z-6. military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2020.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
Flotation Foam. HFC-365mfc and blends subject to
thereof; Formacel TI, narrowed use
and Formacel Z-6. limits for
military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2020.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
and Other. HFC-365mfc and blends subject to
thereof; Formacel TI, narrowed use
and Formacel Z-6. limits for
military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2019.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
[[Page 42924]]
Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
Polyisocyanurate Laminated HFC-365mfc and blends subject to
Boardstock. thereof. narrowed use
limits for
military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2017.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Flexible Polyurethane......... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
HFC-365mfc, and subject to
blends thereof. narrowed use
limits for
military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2017.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Integral Skin Polyurethane.... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
HFC-365mfc, and subject to
blends thereof; narrowed use
Formacel TI, and limits for
Formacel Z-6. military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2017.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
HFC-365mfc, and subject to
blends thereof; narrowed use
Formacel TI, and limits for
Formacel Z-6. military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2017.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Polystyrene: Extruded HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
Boardstock and Billet (XPS). HFC-365mfc, and subject to
blends thereof; narrowed use
Formacel TI, Formacel limits for
B, and Formacel Z-6. military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2021.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Polyolefin.................... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable
HFC-365mfc, and subject to
blends thereof; narrowed use
Formacel TI, and limits for
Formacel Z-6. military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2020.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
Phenolic Insulation Board and HFC-143a, HFC-134a, Acceptable
Bunstock. HFC-245fa, HFC- subject to
365mfc, and blends narrowed use
thereof. limits for
military or
space- and
aeronautics-
related
applications *
and
unacceptable
for all other
uses as of
January 1,
2017.
Unacceptable
for all uses as
of January 1,
2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Under the narrowed use limit, use is limited to 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.
(a) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment?
In the NPRM, EPA included a comparative analysis, end-use by end-
use, of the substitutes for which EPA proposed to change the status and
the other available alternatives. 79 FR at 46151 to 46154. Most of the
other alternatives that EPA identified as having lower risk than those
for which we proposed to change the status have zero ODP or have
negligible impact on stratospheric ozone. One alternative that contains
chlorine, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene
(SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)), has an ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 and
estimates of its maximum potential impact on the ozone layer indicate a
statistically insignificant impact, comparable to that of other
substitutes in the same end-uses that are considered to be non-ozone-
depleting.88 89 For the uses on which we are taking final
action, the substitutes remaining acceptable have significantly lower
GWP than the substitutes for which we are changing the status, with
GWPs ranging from zero (water, vacuum panels) to 124 (HFC-152a) as
compared with GWPs ranging from 725 to approximately 1,500. The
substitutes changing status and the substitutes remaining acceptable
all can be used such that the recommended workplace exposure limit for
the substitute is not exceeded in the end-uses where they are listed as
acceptable, and thus, toxicity risks are comparable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 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.
\89\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the substitutes that remain acceptable are not VOC (e.g.,
water) or are exempt from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations
(see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and
maintain the national ambient air quality standards. Examples of VOC-
exempt blowing agents include acetone, CO2, ecomate, HFC-
152a, HFO-1234ze(E), methyl formate, and Solstice 1233zd(E). Other
acceptable foam blowing agents are VOC, including saturated light HCs,
Exxsol blowing agents, and methylal. In the risk screens that EPA
performs when we review a substitute, we consider VOC emissions
impacts, taking into account the rate of blowing agent
[[Page 42925]]
emissions of particular foam end-uses, estimated market size, and the
presence of emission controls in manufacturing for different end-uses.
Estimated emissions for these three substitutes is sufficiently low
that we do not expect significant air quality impacts (ICF, 2014h). The
manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) claims that this substitute has low
photochemical reactivity and has petitioned EPA to exempt it from the
definition of VOC for purposes of the development of SIPs to attain and
maintain the national ambient air quality standards, but EPA has not
yet acted on that petition. Given the large variety of alternatives
that do not increase VOC emissions, and the estimated low impacts from
those alternatives that are VOC, we believe that changing the status of
certain HFC foam blowing agents through this action will not
significantly increase environmental or health risks.
Some of the substitutes that remain acceptable are flammable, but
the hazards of these flammable compounds can be adequately addressed in
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes in all end-uses
except certain rigid PU spray foam applications. Examples of acceptable
flammable blowing agents are HFC-152a, ecomate, Exxsol blowing agents,
methylal, methyl formate, and saturated light hydrocarbons.
Although EPA has listed a number of flammable alternatives as
acceptable for most foam end-uses, that is not the case for rigid PU
spray foams. Some of the lower-GWP, flammable alternatives that are
listed as acceptable in other foam blowing end-uses, such as C3-C6
hydrocarbons and methylal, are not acceptable for use in rigid PU spray
foam. For rigid PU spray foam applications, flammability risks are of
particular concern, because they are applied onsite, sometimes in
proximity to hot, flammable substances such as tar. Flammability risks
are more difficult to mitigate in rigid PU spray foam than in most
other foam end-uses because, unlike in a factory setting, in many cases
ventilation cannot 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
rigid PU spray foam in a residential building. There are three main
types of rigid PU spray foam: High-pressure two-part spray foam
systems, low-pressure two-part spray foam systems, and one-component
foam sealants.
For rigid PU spray foam, we are not taking final action in this
rule. We intend to conduct a more extensive comparative risk analysis
of the substitutes available before taking final action. Thus, the
substitutes currently listed as acceptable for spray foam are not
affected by this rule but may be the subject of future rulemaking.
For more information on the environmental and health properties of
the different foam blowing agents, please see the proposed rule at 79
FR 46151 to 46154 and a technical support document that provides
additional Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d) in the docket.
(b) When will the status change?
For foam blowing agents, the time at which the status will change
varies by end-use.
For the flexible PU, polystyrene extruded sheet, and phenolic
insulation board and bunstock end-uses, many users have already
transitioned from the foam blowing agents subject to the status change.
No commenters suggested that, or provided information that would
suggest, a later change of status date is necessary for these end-uses.
Therefore, as proposed, we are establishing January 1, 2017 as the date
of the status change for those end-uses.
For PU integral skin, the systems house BASF stated that they have
had limited success thus far with HFO blowing agents in this end-use
and would require at least two years to formulate and test a system and
another six months for the new system to be commercialized and accepted
by their customers in this end-use. However, this commenter did not
provide specific details of the technical challenges they face nor why
they believe two years, rather than a shorter time, is required for
formulation and testing. Nor did the commenter explain why customer
acceptance of the new system was related to technical feasibility that
would require an additional six months beyond the time needed for
formulation and testing. A period of two and a half years after
issuance of the NPRM would be January 2017, rather than the July 1,
2017 suggested by the commenter. There are alternative foam blowing
agents in addition to HFOs in this end-use that pose less risk overall
to human health and the environment, such as HFC-152a and light
saturated hydrocarbons. Therefore, as proposed, we are establishing
January 1, 2017, as the date of the status change for PU integral skin
foam.
For the rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock end-use,
we did not receive any specific technical information nor any comments
stating that a change of status date later than the proposed date of
January 1, 2017, was warranted. We received a general comment from EIA
that the change of status date should be January 1, 2016, but they
provided no information supporting this earlier date. We received a
comment from one systems house, Huntsman, that provided specific
technical information supporting a later change of status date for
other PU end-uses, but not PU and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock. Another systems house, Dow Chemical, specifically mentioned
that polyisocyanurate boardstock has previously safely transitioned to
use of hydrocarbons. Therefore, as proposed, we are establishing
January 1, 2017 as the date of the status change for PU and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
For all other foam blowing end-uses for which we are taking final
action, we received comments identifying technical challenges that mean
other alternatives would not be available until a later date than
January 1, 2017. Systems houses and appliance manufacturers also
mentioned the need for third-party testing for end-uses such as
extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet, rigid PU appliance, and
rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels. Systems houses
and DuPont, a manufacturer of foam blowing agents, also were concerned
with the supply of lower-GWP foam blowing agents, especially supply of
HFOs (HFO-1234ze(E) and HFO-1336mzz(Z)) and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene, and indicated this was a constraint that prevents
transitioning away from higher GWP HFCs by January 1, 2017. EPA agrees
that there is validity to these concerns, as discussed further below
for each end-use.
For rigid PU slabstock, a systems house (Huntsman) commented they
need additional time for testing and suggested a change of status date
of January 1, 2019. Huntsman gave three specific reasons for why there
should be a later change of status date than January 1, 2017 for this
end-use: They believe it will take more than two years to develop
products with alternatives, including third-party certification; they
believe the long-term performance of HFO foams is not widely proven;
and they believe there is insufficient supply and competition in the
market for HFOs. Huntsman mentioned specific technical challenges, such
as testing the compatibility and stability of the blowing agents with
the polyol blends (i.e., other components needed in the foam
formulation) and difficulties with stability of the catalysts when used
with HFO blowing agents. They also stated that extended testing of more
than six months was required to test strength,
[[Page 42926]]
thermal insulation capability and dimensional stability of the foam,
including aging testing. Huntsman also mentioned testing the fire
properties of the foams with different foam blowing agents as well as
optimization of the blends. Huntsman stated that these steps required
one to one and a half years initial development by the systems house
that would then be followed by trials and custom modification at their
customers' facilities using their specific equipment and claimed that
would require one to two years in addition. Considering the technical
constraints described by the systems house such as the need to research
different catalysts and the lower stability of some alternative foam
blowing agents, we agree that it is reasonable to expect it would take
three and a half years after this rule is final for alternatives to be
available for this end-use. Therefore, we are establishing a change of
status date of January 1, 2019, for rigid PU slabstock.
For rigid PU appliance foam, one systems house, BASF, commented
that it took five years for them to assist the appliance manufacturer
Whirlpool in its conversion from an HFC-blown foam to an HFO-blown
foam, excluding flammability certification testing. While the Agency
recognizes that as industry builds experience with new blowing agents,
future transitions may be quicker because of the knowledge gained from
earlier transitions, the Agency also understands that it may not be
possible by 2017 to complete a full transition to alternative blowing
agents for all appliance manufacturers, particularly if appliance
manufacturers are maintaining or improving the thermal insulating value
of the foam to meet DOE energy conservation standards. Appliance
manufacturers and BASF have described the difficulty and time needed to
overcome technical difficulties when using alternative blowing agents,
particularly olefins such as trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene
or HFOs, that result in cracking, thinning of the foam, and irreparable
field failures of the equipment. Appliance manufacturers and systems
house Huntsman also mentioned the need for energy efficiency testing
and third-party certification of equipment and claimed that would
require at least one and a half to two years after the system house's
development of foam formulations. However, the time required for
ensuring adequate performance and third-party testing warrants a date
as late as January 1, 2020. In addition to technical constraints, we
also considered that there is unlikely to be a sufficient supply of
alternatives before January 1, 2017, for appliance foam; the supply is
likely to increase once a commercial plant for HFO-1336mzz(Z) opens
(currently scheduled to open in 2017). We considered the supply
constraints mentioned by both systems houses and chemical producers
(until 2017), technical constraints with alternative foam blowing
agents that could result in failed appliances with insufficient
research (requiring one to two years), and the need for third-party
certification of each model (requiring one and a half to two years),
and we agree that it is reasonable to expect it would take until 2020
for alternatives to be available for this end-use. We are establishing
a change of status date of January 1, 2020, for appliance foam which
allows sufficient time to work out these technical issues and to ensure
a sufficient supply of various alternatives.
For rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels,
equipment manufacturers and systems houses such as Huntsman, Dow and
BASF mentioned similar issues to those raised for appliance foam.
Huntsman mentioned technical challenges in developing new formulations
for PU insulation foam, such as testing the compatibility and stability
of the blowing agents with the polyol blends (i.e., other components
needed in the foam formulation) and difficulties with stability of the
catalysts when used with HFO blowing agents. They also stated that
extended testing of more than six months was required to test strength,
thermal insulation capability and dimensional stability of the foam,
including aging testing. Huntsman also mentioned the need for testing
fire properties of foams with different foam blowing agents and
optimization of the blends. Huntsman stated that these steps required
one to one and a half years initial development by the systems house in
a process involving iterative testing. Huntsman specifically mentioned
steps such as developing new foam formulations (one to one and a half
years), trials at the customers' plants (half to one year), third-party
certification by UL, Intertek or Factory Mutual (one to one and a half
years), and implementation of engineering changes at the customers'
facilities (half to one year). We also considered that based on the
information and comments we have received, there is unlikely to be a
sufficient supply of alternatives for this end-use before January 1,
2017, as discussed above for appliance foam. The Laboratory Products
Association, whose members manufacture very low temperature freezers
such as those used in the pharmaceutical industry, mentioned that some
laboratory products using alternative foam blowing agents are medical
devices listed by FDA, which would require re-approval after changing
the blowing agent. Representatives of this application suggested
coordinating with timelines of EU regulations (2022), without
describing specifically why more time might be required for very low
temperature freezers than for foam blowing agents in other commercial
refrigeration equipment which also require third-party review. It is
reasonable to expect that the timeframe required for commercial
refrigeration foam and sandwich panels is comparable to that for
appliance foam, requiring until 2017 for sufficient supply, and then
another three years for development and testing of formulations and
third-party testing of the resulting equipment or panels. We are
establishing a status change date of January 1, 2020, for commercial
refrigeration and sandwich panel foams, based on the time needed to
resolve technical issues and on supply of alternative foam blowing
agents.
For PU marine flotation foam, we received a comment from BASF
indicating that systems houses will require at least a year for
technical development, a year for certification testing to U.S. Coast
Guard standards, a year for testing of the stability of the foam
product, as well as one to two years for customer approval, given the
large number of customers for this type of foam. BASF expected issues
similar to those for appliance foam, such as dimensional stability and
cracking, because injecting flotation foam is a similar process and
uses similar polymers in the foam formulation. BASF asked that EPA
clarify whether marine flotation foam fits under spray foam and whether
this application is ``exempted'' or instead must transition to
alternatives. EPA consulted with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding their
certification process and the necessary time for manufacturers to test
and certify that they meet the requirements at 33 CFR part 183 (Boats
and Associated Equipment), Subparts F (Flotation Requirements for
Inboard Boats, Inboard/Outdrive Boats, and Airboats), G (Flotation
Requirements for Outboard Boats Rated for Engines of More than 2
Horsepower), and H (Flotation Requirements for Outboard Boats Rated for
Engines of 2 Horsepower or Less), which require all manufacturers of
monohull recreational boats less than twenty feet in length
[[Page 42927]]
(except sailboats, canoes, kayaks, inflatable boats, submersibles,
surface effect vessels, amphibious vessels, and race boats) to provide
sufficient flotation foam within the boat to ensure that the boat will
not sink if the boat swamps or capsizes. This requirement allows the
occupants to hold onto the boat until they can be rescued. We also met
with representatives from the marine industry and heard directly from
them about the necessary steps for transition. After considering the
various steps needed to complete the transition, we conclude that the
need for the systems houses to perfect formulations that perform
similar or better than what is being used today will take additional
time beyond what the Agency considered. In particular, in order to
research and test foam formulations sufficiently to avoid issues with
dimensional stability and field failures, and to ensure safety of the
flotation foam and boats built with it, we expect it would take at
least another two and a half to three years beyond the proposed date of
January 1, 2017. Thus, we are establishing January 1, 2020 as the
change of status date for marine flotation foam. We do not believe
there is sufficient information at this time to support a change of
status date later than January 1, 2020. However, given the concern for
safety associated with marine floatation foam, we will monitor the
situation carefully and consult with the U.S. Coast Guard. Given that
under 33 CFR 183 manufacturers are required to certify to the U.S.
Coast Guard that their boats have sufficient flotation to meet the
regulations, EPA recognizes that the U.S. Coast Guard may be able to
provide information concerning certification with the alternatives. As
January 2020 approaches, we will continue to consult with the U.S.
Coast Guard and consider whether it is appropriate to adjust the change
in status date or to otherwise modify the SNAP listing to address any
uses for which there may be technical challenges beyond January 1,
2020. We are listing this use separately from spray foam due to
differences in the manner in which the foam is dispensed which make
this use more similar to appliance foam and commercial refrigeration
foam than spray foam. Our understanding is that flotation foam is
typically injected rather than sprayed.
For polyolefin, there are niche applications and specialized plants
that may have particular difficulty in transitioning away from HFC-134a
because of the time required to build a pilot plant to work with
products using a new gaseous blowing agent and to retrofit current
facilities to work with an alternative blowing agent. One manufacturer,
Pregis, stated that they must upgrade facilities if they are to safely
adopt flammable blowing agents when they have been using a nonflammable
agent in the past. EPA recognizes that such changes to a facility may
take several years. Considering the heightened challenges with these
specialized facilities, we are establishing a change of status date of
January 1, 2020, for polyolefin.
For XPS, manufacturers of XPS raised concerns about the energy
efficiency of the foam using alternative agents, the extensive testing
required, third-party certification, and the lack of alternatives and
recommended that the status of HFC-134a change on January 1, 2021.
Owens Corning mentioned specific steps such as laboratory studies to
develop or test an alternative blowing agent, pilot tests, conversion
of pilot testing to line production, quality assurance and quality
control testing of the final product, and product certification. Dow
and Owens Corning estimated it would take at least six years to convert
multiple lines and multiple facilities from HFC-134a to an alternative.
Owens Corning and Dow also cited an EPA memorandum supporting a
transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as foam blowing agents,
which found that four years was necessary. Owens Corning raised
concerns about the viability of CO2 based on its impact on
energy efficiency; the safety of hydrocarbons because of their
flammability and the need to consider impacts of additional flame
retardants on the foam; and the commercial availability of HFO-
1234ze(E) and its technical viability. Dow stated that of the
acceptable alternatives that EPA mentioned in the NPRM, only HFO-
1234ze(E) has sufficiently low thermal conductivity and low
permeability to meet industry standards (e.g., ASTM C 578). We agree
that additional time is required to test and improve the quality of XPS
manufactured using alternative foam blowing agents to ensure that it
meets or improves upon thermal insulation requirements and passes
third-party certification testing; it is reasonable to expect that at
least five years is likely to be required for all steps to transition
away from HFC-134a, given the status of current efforts to adopt lower-
GWP alternatives for XPS. Members of the Extruded Polystyrene
Association (XPSA) have stated that with XPS, it is not always possible
to increase the thickness of the foam to maintain thermal insulation
requirements, because other construction materials (e.g., boards) may
limit the thickness of boardstock foam. Thus, if alternative foam
blowing agents did not produce foam meeting thermal insulation
requirements, the transition in this end-use might not reduce climate
effects as intended. Given the technical constraints, the need for
third-party certification testing, and building code requirements for
energy efficiency that may limit the available blowing agents, we are
establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2021, for XPS. EPA
notes that there is now a plant producing HFO-1234ze(E) in commercial
quantities (Honeywell, 2015) and thus we do not believe that supply
will limit the availability of alternatives.
(c) Military and Space- and Aeronautics-Related Applications
We proposed to create a narrowed use limit exception to the
unacceptable listing for military and space, and aeronautics uses that
would allow continued use of HFC and HFC blend foam blowing agents
through December 31, 2021. These blowing agents were proposed to be
unacceptable for military or space- and aeronautics-related
applications as of January 1, 2022. For the reasons discussed in the
proposed rule, we are finalizing these provisions as proposed.
EPA received comments from DoD and NASA supporting EPA's proposed
narrowed use limit, and suggesting that this additional time is needed
to identify, test and qualify substitutes for certain specialty
applications. Boeing commented that the DoD and NASA need adequate time
to develop, test and qualify an acceptable substitute for HFC-245fa,
which is used in many foams they rely on for density foam insulation
for a number of space and defense applications (e.g., rockets). Boeing
did not identify any specific technical challenges but raised a general
concern that, based on its experience with developing substitutes for
foam blowing agents and the normal course of time to develop and
qualify a substitute, it will take until 2027 to fully test and qualify
a substitute. We do not believe there is sufficient information at this
time to support a change of status date later than January 1, 2022;
however, as January 2022 approaches, we can consider whether it is
appropriate to adjust the change in status date or to otherwise modify
the SNAP listing to address any uses for which there may be technical
challenges beyond January 1, 2022.
Users that wish to use one of the substitutes listed as acceptable,
subject
[[Page 42928]]
to narrowed use limits, in a military or space- and aeronautics-related
application must make a reasonable effort to ascertain whether other
substitutes or alternatives are technically feasible and, if not, to
document such results. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Users are not required
to report the results of their investigations to EPA, but must retain
the documentation in their files for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance.
Documentation should include descriptions of:
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.
(d) How will the requirements apply to exports and imports?
Since regulations establishing the SNAP program were promulgated in
1994, we have interpreted the unacceptability determinations in this
sector to apply to blowing foam with the foam blowing agent and not to
products made with foam (e.g., 65 FR 42653, 42656; July 11, 2000). That
is, an unacceptable foam blowing agent may not be used in, imported
into, or exported from the United States. However, products made
overseas with unacceptable foam blowing agents may be imported. For
example, commercial refrigerators containing appliance foam blown with
an unacceptable blowing agent may be imported into the United States,
though appliances manufactured in the United States may not be
manufactured with foam blown by that same agent.
In the proposal, EPA took comment on a different interpretation of
our regulations under which the unacceptability determination would
apply to imported products containing closed cell foam that contain any
of the blowing agents listed as unacceptable, as well as applying to
the blowing agent itself. Public commenters stated that this was a
significant departure from the Agency's previous interpretation and
suggested that EPA needed to explain the basis for such a change. In
addition, some commenters pointed out that the proposal only allowed 60
days before this change in interpretation would apply to HCFC-141b,
which they viewed as insufficient time to adjust. EPA is not finalizing
this change in its interpretation in this action; however, we plan to
continue assessing the merits of this change and may provide further
explanation and opportunity for comment in a subsequent rulemaking.
3. How is EPA responding to comments concerning foam blowing end-uses?
(a) Timeline
Comment: EPA received comments from more than 500 commenters
concerning the proposal of January 1, 2017, as the status change date
for the foam blowing agents addressed in the proposed rule. EIA and
Honeywell suggested an earlier date of January 1, 2016, for all or most
foam end-uses. Most other commenters suggested later dates, varying
from July 1, 2017, to January 1, 2025. Some commenters indicated that
they are small companies and they believe additional time is needed
beyond that in the NPRM to reduce cost pressures. Some commenters
suggested different dates for specific uses and gave a number of
reasons for which dates would be appropriate for those uses. General
reasons given for the need for additional time include: Time needed for
capital investments, for employee training, for re-formulating systems;
for designing, purchasing, awaiting receipt of and converting
equipment; for obtaining local permits for VOC emissions; for meeting
company and external testing requirements (e.g., UL/Factory Mutual (FM)
fire safety requirements, DOE energy conservation standards, building
codes, R-value testing for aged foam), and if switching to a flammable
foam blowing agent, facility engineering design and refurbishment.
Several commenters stated that there are no ``drop in'' replacements,
and that product research and development is an iterative process.
Owens Corning cited EPA's previous recognition of time limitations in
the conversion away from HCFC-142b to HFC-134a, including an EPA staff
memorandum that estimated a four-year transition time period in the
foam sector. Some commenters also suggested that EPA adopt the same
dates for transition for foams as in the European Union's ``F-gas''
rule: 2020 for XPS and 2023 for other foam types. In addition, some
commenters suggested that there is an insufficient supply of low-GWP
foam blowing agents that will maintain energy efficiency and insulation
value of foam. Huntsman stated that there will not be enough capacity
and competition in the HFO foam blowing market by January 1, 2017, to
meet the needs of the PU foam industry. DuPont commented that while
multiple low GWP alternatives will be available for foam, they will not
be broadly available in the proposed timeframe.
Response: EPA notes that in a number of foam blowing end-uses, the
industry has already effectively transitioned away from HFCs and any
additional transitions for these end-uses can be made by January 1,
2017. Further, we received no comments suggesting a later transition
date is necessary specifically for these end-uses. We received comments
suggesting that this change of status could be made by January 1, 2016,
but in the unlikely event that there are any end users that have not
already transitioned, we are concerned that this date may be too soon
to finish adopting an alternative. Therefore, the final rule retains
the proposed change of status date of January 1, 2017, for those uses
(polystyrene extruded sheet, flexible polyurethane, and phenolic
insulation board and bunstock). In addition, we received no comments
specific to rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock that
indicated there were challenges for this end-use that would prevent a
transition to alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health
and the environment by January 1, 2017. EIA suggested that we set a
status change date of January 1, 2016, for this end-use, but did not
provide information supporting an earlier transition for this end-use.
Therefore, we are retaining this date in the final rule for rigid PU
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock.
EPA agrees that additional time is needed for other specific foam
types and addresses the basis for establishing later change of status
dates in the discussion of each end-use above. We appreciate and agree
with commenters that note the importance of maintaining energy
efficiency for appliances and buildings by ensuring there is adequate
time to develop and deploy new formulations that meet or exceed
existing thermal insulating values. Further, we recognize that third-
party testing or witness testing will require additional time that may
be outside the control of the companies manufacturing the foam. Some of
this testing, such as fire safety testing for construction foams, could
help reduce any potential flammability risks associated with the use of
flammable foam blowing agents. Businesses of all sizes will be able to
benefit from the later change of status dates in this final rule. We
discuss comments specific to each end-use below in this section.
Comment: Huntsman, a systems house, commented they need additional
time for testing alternatives in the PU slabstock end-use and suggested
a change of status date of January 1, 2019. Huntsman mentioned specific
technical challenges with reformulating these
[[Page 42929]]
foam products, such as testing the compatibility and stability of the
blowing agents with the polyol blends (i.e., other components needed in
the foam formulation). They also stated that extended testing of more
than six months was required to test strength, thermal insulation
capability and dimensional stability of the foam, including aging
testing. Huntsman also mentioned testing the fire properties of the
foams with different foam blowing agents as well as optimization of the
blends. Huntsman stated that these steps required one to one and a half
years initial development by the systems house, to be followed by
trials and custom modification at their customers' facilities using
their specific equipment that would require another one to two years.
The commenter also raised concerns about whether sufficient supply of
alternative foam blowing agents would be available by January 1, 2017,
and mentioned that there is currently a single supplier of a key low
GWP foam blowing agent, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene.
Response: Considering the technical constraints raised by the
systems house, such as the need to research different catalysts and
fire retardants and the lower stability of some alternative foam
blowing agents, we agree that safer alternatives will not be available
for this end-use for three to three and a half years. Therefore, we are
establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2019 for PU
slabstock foams.
Comment: Commenters suggested change of status dates for rigid PU
appliance foam, ranging from July 1, 2017 to January 1, 2020. BASF
suggested a transition date of July 1, 2017 for foam used in domestic
refrigerators. In support of a July 1, 2017, change of status date,
BASF indicated that HFO-containing foams are incompatible with common
polymers used in household refrigerators and that it will take a
minimum of six months to perform durability and field testing and
possibly to change construction materials to resolve this known
problem, as well as at least six months for testing for compliance with
federal energy conservation standards and 12 more months for conversion
at each customer's facility. BASF also stated that they had already
developed commercially available systems using cyclopentane and HFOs,
so they expected this transition to take less time than the five years
that it took to assist the appliance manufacturer Whirlpool in its
conversion from an HFC-blown foam to an HFO-blown foam, excluding
flammability certification testing. Solvay commented that technical
questions about alternatives still remain, such as whether substitutes
other than HFCs attack panel walls or appliance walls, which could
compromise product integrity and safety, and whether other alternatives
adhere properly to appliance and panel walls, or to walls and roofs,
which is necessary to satisfy energy efficiency mandates. Huntsman
mentioned the need for energy efficiency testing and third-party
certification of equipment that would require at least one and a half
to two years after the system house's development of foam formulations,
which it estimated to take one to one and a half years. Huntsman
suggested a change of status date of 2019 for PU appliance foam. The
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) raised concerns
about the potential adverse impacts on appliance quality, performance,
and longevity, as well as costs, of a transition by January 1, 2017,
and stated that the easiest and cheapest transitions have been done,
and will be done, first. AHAM suggested a change of status date of 2020
for appliance foam to allow for coordination with DOE energy
conservation standards that could take effect in 2020 for household
refrigerators and freezers. In addition, AHAM claimed a 2020 change of
status date was necessary because of the extensive time required for
testing and third-party certification of multiple models, and
additional time needed to ensure proper development of new alternatives
to avoid field failures of the equipment.
Response: We agree that it is important that appliance
manufacturers are able to ensure the quality, performance, and useful
lifetime of their equipment. Multiple commenters provided information
and photographs demonstrating that improperly implemented alternative
foam blowing agents can create defects in the appliances, such as
cracking or improper adhesion to the appliance cabinet. BASF suggested
that it would take closer to two and a half to three years to work out
the technical issues since they have already developed commercially
available systems using HFOs and hydrocarbons for other appliance
manufacturers. Because of the time required for ensuring adequate
performance and third-party testing, we believe that other alternatives
will not be available for an industry-wide transition until January 1,
2020. In addition to technical constraints, we also considered that
there is unlikely to be a sufficient supply of alternatives before the
change of status date we proposed--January 1, 2017 for appliance foam.
The supply is likely to increase once a commercial plant for HFO-
1336mzz(Z) opens (currently scheduled to open in 2017) and thus supply
would not be a concern for a change of status date of January 1, 2020.
Comment: For rigid PU commercial refrigeration foams and sandwich
panels, commenters suggested change of status dates ranging from July
1, 2018, to ten years after the rule is final. The majority of
commenters suggested status change dates ranging from July 2018 to
January 1, 2020. NAFEM and manufacturers of commercial refrigeration
equipment such as Traulsen suggested a much later date of 2025 for all
modifications required for commercial refrigeration equipment,
including both foam blowing agents and refrigerant.
As an initial matter, Huntsman and DuPont mentioned the lack of
sufficient supply of alternatives to allow all foam users to convert in
2017. In support of a later change of status date, equipment
manufacturers and systems houses such as Huntsman, Dow and BASF
mentioned similar technical issues to those for appliance foam, such as
the compatibility and stability of the blowing agents with the polyol
blends and dimensional stability of the blown foam. BASF specifically
mentioned reactions between the new blowing agents and the catalysts in
the foam that could cause the finished foam to shrink, as well as the
need to develop a new set of flame retardants. Commenters also stated
that extended testing of more than six months was required to test
strength, thermal insulation capability and dimensional stability of
the foam, including aging testing. Huntsman specifically mentioned
steps such as developing new foam formulations (one to one and a half
years), trials at the customers' plants (half to one year), third-party
certification by UL, Intertek or Factory Mutual (one to one and a half
years), and implantation of engineering changes at the customers'
facilities (half to one year), with iterative testing often required.
Unified Brands and NAFEM suggested that there are limitations to using
methyl formate in commercial refrigeration foam that would not allow a
transition by January 1, 2017, stating: ``Methyl Formate is also
environmentally friendly, but has had significant shrinkage issues once
units have been placed in the field. This agent requires very specific
foaming processes to be developed to ensure proper stability of the
foam over time.''
Response: We agree that there are a number of technical challenges
that will
[[Page 42930]]
require approximately four to five years for the industry as a whole to
transition to alternatives, including stability of new formulations and
difficulty with using existing catalysts with alternative foam blowing
agents. We agree that there is unlikely to be a sufficient supply of
alternatives for this end-use before the proposed change in status date
January 1, 2017. However as discussed above for appliance foam,
additional supply should be available in 2017 when a new manufacturing
plant is scheduled to open and there should be a more than sufficient
supply to meet a status change date of January 1, 2020.
The later dates of ten years after finalization of the rule or 2025
suggested by NAFEM and other OEMs, appear to be based on the assumption
that stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment would need to use
propane or other flammable refrigerants and that changes would need to
be made to building codes to support the adoption of these flammable
refrigerants. However, as discussed above in section V.C on commercial
refrigeration, there are other available refrigerants that are
nonflammable. Moreover, the commenters did not make clear why, even
assuming that alternative refrigerants would not be available until
2025, the insulation foam for such equipment cannot be made using safer
alternatives well before 2025. Thus we do not believe that safe
alternative foam blowing agents will not be available before 2025.
Comment: Honeywell stated that ``the technical requirements [for
flotation foam in boats] may be much simpler than other industries in
which customers are already transitioning'' and suggested that a
transition date of January 1, 2016 might be achievable for this
application. BASF commented that systems houses will require at least a
year for technical development, a year for certification testing to
U.S. Coast Guard standards, a year for testing of the stability of the
foam product, as well as one to two years for customer approval, given
the large number of customers for this type of foam. This commenter
recommended that EPA set a change of status date no earlier than July
1, 2019. BASF expected issues seen with appliance foam also to exist
with marine flotation foam, such as dimensional stability and cracking,
because injecting flotation foam is a similar process and uses similar
polymers in the foam formulation. Ninety-four letters from the marine
industry comment that, according to their suppliers in the boating
industry, a drop-in replacement for HFC-134a currently does not exist,
and will not be readily available by 2017. EPA received comments from
436 boat manufacturers to the effect that the continued introduction of
regulations on the boating industry disproportionately affects their
small businesses because the cost of compliance with these standards is
relatively equal across production scales. According to these comments,
EPA's proposed timeline for ``phasing out'' HFC-134a will have highly
negative consequences for all facets of the marine industry, but it
will have the greatest impact on their small boats, small businesses,
and middle class customers. EPA received 93 letters from the marine
industry stating that the boating industry consists primarily of small
businesses that would face severe impacts as a result of their limited
financial resources and limited influence on markets and supply chains.
The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) also commented
that the NPRM date would present a financial and logistical hardship
for many small boat builders. NMMA urged the EPA to provide an
extension of the proposed timeline. Commenters from the marine industry
suggested 2022 as a transition date and mentioned the lack of
availability of feasible options and marine application's dependency
upon chemical availability from the larger industry (e.g., HFC-134a for
use in MVAC). These commenters also mentioned the need for testing to
meet Coast Guard requirements at 33 CFR part 183.
Response: Regarding the supply of alternatives, we recognize that a
plant that would produce HFO-1234ze(E) in commercial quantities has
recently been built (Honeywell, 2015). Additionally, supply of HFC-134a
should not be an issue as many other uses of that substitute will be
ending in the next several years. We do not agree that the
certification processes will require additional time beyond EPA's
understanding at the time of the proposal. It is our understanding that
HFOs can be used in this type of foam. However, as with appliance
foams, we agree that systems houses will need time to perfect
formulations that perform similar or better than what is being used
today. In particular, issues with stability of the blown foam likely
will require several years to work out, as discussed above for
appliance foam. Considering this information, we are establishing
January 1, 2020, as the change of status date for marine flotation
foam.
Comment: DuPont stated that polyolefin plants typically are
specialized plants for niche applications and that this end-use may
have particular difficulty in transitioning away from HFC-134a; DuPont
suggested that EPA consult with manufacturers in this end-use on
appropriate transition timing. One manufacturer, Pregis, stated that
they must upgrade facilities if they are to safely adopt flammable
blowing agents when they have been using a nonflammable agent in the
past. They also suggested that EPA consider a change of status date of
2022 because of the time required to build a pilot plant to work with
products using a new gaseous blowing agent (two years)--which has yet
to begin--and the time to retrofit current facilities to work with an
alternative blowing agent (another two years).
Response: EPA recognizes that construction of a pilot plant and
making the necessary changes to an existing facility could take
approximately four years after this rule is final; however, it is not
clear from Pregis's description that they will require six years or
more. Considering the heightened challenges with these specialized
facilities, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1,
2020, for polyolefin.
Comment: Manufacturers of XPS raised the energy efficiency of the
foam using alternative agents as an issue, the extensive testing
required, third-party certification, and the lack of alternatives as
reasons for allowing until January 1, 2021 for a change of status.
Owens Corning mentioned specific steps such as laboratory studies to
develop or test an alternative blowing agent, pilot tests, conversion
of pilot testing to line production, quality assurance and quality
control testing of the final product, and product certification. Dow
and Owens Corning estimated it would take at least six years to convert
multiple lines and multiple facilities from HFC-134a to an alternative.
Owens Corning and Dow also cited an EPA memorandum supporting a
transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as foam blowing agents,
which found that four years was necessary. Owens Corning and XPSA
commented that a more realistic status change date of 2021 would also
be consistent with the proposed status change date for MVAC.
IP Moulding commented that it had tried to use CO2 and
water in its extruded polystyrene molding process in the past and found
it did not create sufficient internal pressure for their product; they
are further investigating this option with their polystyrene supplier.
Mexichem commented that carbon dioxide may not be suitable for the XPS
industry because of its high thermal conductivity (low insulation
value) and processing difficulties. Owens Corning raised concerns about
[[Page 42931]]
the viability of CO2 based on its impact on energy
efficiency; the safety of hydrocarbons because of their flammability
and the need also to consider impacts of additional flame retardants on
the foam; and the commercial availability of HFO-1234ze(E) and its
technical viability. Honeywell commented that CO2 is an
option for XPS, and that Dow has commercialized other solutions to
improve energy efficiency with CO2 such as Dow's XENERGY
technology, which, according to Dow's Web site, has up to 20% higher
insulating properties than its STYROFOAMTM polystyrene
product that uses HFC-134a. XPSA commented that one of the alternatives
in the proposed regulations (HFO-1234ze(E)) is commercially sub-
optimized, and thus, XPSA's members have not conducted testing to
confirm that they can be used to produce products that provide
comparable thermal efficiency or if there are any other issues that
would make them an unacceptable alternative to HFC-134a. Dow stated
that of the acceptable alternatives that EPA mentioned in the NPRM,
only HFO-1234ze(E) has sufficiently low thermal conductivity and low
permeability to meet industry standards (e.g., ASTM C 578).
Response: Regarding concerns about the supply of HFO-1234ze(E), EPA
notes that since the third quarter of 2014, there has been a plant
producing HFO-1234ze(E) in commercial quantities (Honeywell, 2015), and
a smaller plant was providing lots upon request before this. Based on
the information we received, we agree that additional time is required
to test and improve the quality of XPS produced using alternative foam
blowing agents and for third-party certification testing. Thus, it is
reasonable to expect up to three years to complete formulation
development and to conduct pilot testing, an additional two years to
convert the existing plant and test the quality of the final product
(with some overlap with the pilot testing period), and a year for
certification testing. The total time needed is five and a half to six
years. Therefore, we are establishing a change of status date of
January 1, 2021, for the XPS end-use.
EPA agrees that additional work with CO2 as the blowing
agent for XPS may be required to provide a better performing foam.
Available information indicates CO2 has a higher thermal
conductivity than HFC-134a or HFO-1234ze(E), and thus, would be
expected to provide lower insulation value in the absence of major
changes to the foam formulation. The information on Dow's Web site that
Honeywell references, although encouraging, is not sufficient to
determine if CO2 is the sole blowing agent and if the
XENERGY technology that Honeywell mentions may be used in all the
applications where XPS blown with HFC-134a is currently used. The
information provided by Honeywell implies that with additional work,
XPS blown with CO2 could be more broadly available and could
result in XPS with better foam insulation properties than current XPS
foam using HFC-134a. Regarding comments suggesting that a status change
date of January 2021 is appropriate because it would be consistent with
the status change date of MY 2021 for MVAC, we first note that the
transition for MVAC is required as of MY 2021, which will be completed
in calendar year 2020. More importantly, the change of status date for
each end-use is based on an evaluation of when alternatives will be
available within that specific end-use. The change of status date for
MVAC is not relevant for purposes of determining when safer
alternatives will be available for the XPS foam blowing end-use.
(b) Foam Blowing Agents Changing Status and Other Alternatives
Comment: Some commenters, including commercial refrigeration
equipment manufacturers and environmental groups, support EPA's
proposal to find higher GWP HFCs unacceptable in all foam blowing end-
uses. Others, including manufacturers of household appliances and AHAM,
advised EPA to reconsider the proposal, stating that it unnecessarily
accelerates the transition away from widely used chemicals that still
have ``significant beneficial uses'' in the United States (e.g., HFC-
245fa in appliance foam). Solvay stated that the entire foam blowing
sector should have been excluded from the proposal to change the status
of certain HFCs.
Response: We disagree that this action ``unnecessarily
accelerates'' the transition away from chemicals that have significant
beneficial use. EPA applied the SNAP criteria when making
determinations on what to include in the proposed rule. For the reasons
provided above and in the proposed rule, we have determined in most
foam blowing end-uses that there are other alternatives that pose less
risk than those for which we are changing the status.
Comment: DuPont commented that the category of Rigid Spray
Polyurethane foam incorporates several product sub-categories,
including high pressure spray foam and low pressure spray foam, each
requiring different foam expansion agent characteristics and therefore
different alternatives and different testing requirements. DuPont and
the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry recommended that EPA create
separate SNAP categories for high-pressure spray foam systems, low-
pressure foam systems, and one component spray foam sealants to allow
appropriate change of status dates for each. DuPont suggested that EPA
not change the status of HFC-134a in low-pressure two-part spray foam
and in one-component foam sealants, because these applications require
a gaseous foam blowing agent, and not a liquid agent such as HFC-245fa
or HFC-365mfc.
Response: EPA recognizes that a gaseous foam blowing agent is
required for these uses, unlike for high-pressure two-part spray foam
systems, and thus, there is reason to differentiate between low-
pressure two-part spray foam systems, one-component foam sealants, and
high-pressure two-part spray foam. We intend to conduct a more
extensive comparative risk analysis of the substitutes available in
each of these spray foam categories before taking final action. Thus,
the substitutes currently listed as acceptable for spray foam are not
affected by this rule but may be the subject of future rulemaking.
Comment: Unified Brands and NAFEM commented that water-based
blowing agents are environmentally friendly, but suffer from poorer
insulation performance and vulnerability towards processing
temperatures that would consequently require improved control of
fixture temperatures. Thermo Fisher commented that water-blown foam
could lead to equipment with reduced energy efficiency and negative
environmental impact because of its poor insulating properties.
Response: It is EPA's understanding that water-blown foams offer
lower energy efficiency than foams blown with a number of other blowing
agents. This is not a barrier to use for foam applications that do not
require thermal insulation or for which increased thickness of the foam
is not an issue. However, thickness of the foam is likely to be an
issue for foams where the dimensions cannot be increased, such as foams
used in refrigerated transport or sometimes in construction foams such
as XPS or PU spray foam.
Comment: Mexichem commented that using hydrocarbons as a blowing
agent may result in less thermally efficient XPS (as compared to use of
HFC-134a). Unified Brands and NAFEM suggested there are complications
with use of hydrocarbons in commercial refrigeration foam, and that
``Pentane
[[Page 42932]]
based blowing agents are strong candidates due to their insulation
performance, but require all foam fixtures and processes to be
redeveloped'' due to flammability. Dow stated that that HC technology
is well understood, and it has been broadly deemed inappropriate for
use as a blowing agent for XPS and SPF building and construction
products in the United States. Dow also stated that HCs have been
proactively adopted for use with polyisocyanurate foams, where they may
be used safely. EIA commented that hydrocarbons have been used as
blowing agents in Europe since 1992, including in insulation foams.
Response: It is EPA's understanding that hydrocarbons such as
pentane and isopentane have better thermal conductivity than
CO2, but not as good as that of HFCs or HFOs. This is not a
barrier to use for foam applications that do not require thermal
insulation or where increased thickness of the foam is acceptable. We
also recognize that additional safeguards must be taken when using
hydrocarbon foam blowing agents, such as improving ventilation,
training staff, and explosion-proofing electrical fixtures. These steps
can reasonably be taken in a manufacturing facility but are more
difficult for installation in place, as with PU spray foam.
Comment: Honeywell commented that in many instances, customers are
seeing benefits such as better performance, energy efficiency,
nonflammability, and better product yields (less foam for the same
performance) when using 1233zd(E) (trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1-ene). This commenter claimed that this foam blowing agent has been
commercial in the United States in spray foam applications for more
than a year, and in Japan, EU and China for a variety of foam
applications, including appliance, panel and spray foam. Several users
of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene mentioned its properties,
such as improved compressive strength, lower density, better
dimensional stability, and higher R-value (All-Weather Insulated
Panels, West Development Group for spray foam, UTMC for commercial
refrigeration foam in refrigerated transport).
Response: Available information indicates that trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has many performance characteristics,
including improved insulation value, that should allow its adoption as
a foam blowing agent in appliance foam, sandwich panels, and some spray
foam applications.
(c) Environmental and Energy Impacts of Foam Blowing Agents
Comment: A number of commenters provided comments on the potential
impact of the proposal on greenhouse gas emissions. AHAM state that
they believe the proposed rule is unnecessary to protect the
environment, because the use and potential emissions of high GWP HFC
blowing agents for household refrigerators sold in the U.S. market are
far less than what EPA estimated. DuPont comments that given that HFCs
remain in these closed cell foams and provide valuable insulating
properties, emissions of HFCs from foam production are roughly one-
third of total HFC use in foams, or about 5% of total HFC emissions on
a CO2 equivalent basis. Two commenters in the foam blowing
industry comment that EPA should consider the greenhouse gas emissions
and energy savings over the lifetime of a product.
Response: Some commenters have suggested that because current HFC
blowing agents, including HFC-134a in XPS, result in foams with energy
efficiency that reduce overall GHG emissions, EPA should not change the
status of HFC-134a, or at least should consider overall lifecycle
climate impacts. While we do not consider energy efficiency as part of
our overall risk analysis, we believe that other alternatives, such as
olefin foam blowing agents, could improve energy efficiency even more
than HFC-134a and other high GWP HFC blowing agents. Further, as
explained below in our discussion of energy efficiency, listing higher
GWP HFCs unacceptable likely would improve, rather than worsen, overall
lifecycle GHG emissions. EPA recognizes that additional time is needed
to ensure that the formulations provide equal or better thermal
insulating value given the iterative process that can involve chemical
manufacturers, system houses and end users. The change of status dates
reflect the need to ensure that these technical challenges can be
addressed.
Comment: Imperial Brown comments they cannot know if what is
developed as an alternative will enable the resulting foam panels to
meet DOE thickness requirements, because there is not a Class 1
polyurethane foam system on the market that utilizes a new blowing
agent. Thermo-Kool comments that new foam formulations are not
guaranteed to have insulating capabilities comparable to what is
available today to satisfy DOE requirements. American Panel Corporation
does not intend to use pentanes in its foam blowing application,
because the U.S. DOE has established new requirements that do not
permit pentanes for walk-in panel manufacturers, as they would increase
the panel thickness size. International Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, and
ThermalRite Walk-Ins stated that lower R-Values will require additional
insulation thickness to meet the energy regulation, thereby requiring
expensive, complex, and costly modifications to new walk-in coolers and
freezers that may sit side-by-side with identical existing equipment
that offers the same degree of performance and protection.
Response: EPA recognizes that different foam blowing agents result
in different insulation values. We note that some of the acceptable
alternative foam blowing agents, such as HFO-1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and HFO-1336mzz(Z), are expected to provide
better insulation value than the HFC blowing agents listed as
unacceptable in this action. EPA is not specifically aware of which, if
any, of these alternatives has been tested by Factory Mutual (FM) and
already qualifies as a ``Class 1 polyurethane system.'' Other foam
blowing agents are expected to have comparable or lower insulation
value, such as CO2, ecomate and hydrocarbons. Given the
variety of foam blowing agents available, we expect that foam products
that need higher energy efficiency will have foam blowing agents
available that will result in lowering the GHG emissions and energy
savings over the lifetime of a product.
Comment: A number of commenters stated that they believed the
proposed rule will result in increased energy consumption, potentially
negating the overall net GHG emission reductions. One commenter, AMS,
believes the effect of the proposed rule on energy consumption is a big
unknown at this time. Structural Composites and Compsys, Inc., stated
that the efficiency and reduced manufacturing impact of their PRISMA
technology offsets the climate impacts from the small amount of HFC-
134a used in their foam. ACMA stated that composite panels made using
foam blown with HFC-134a for refrigerated transport dramatically reduce
fuel usage, and therefore, exhaust emissions, because the panels are so
lightweight. They suggested, therefore, that the environmental benefits
of a transition away from HFC-134a are outweighed by emissions
reductions achieved through lighter, HFC-134a blown panels. Honeywell
provided information on the relative energy efficiency, in terms of
lambda values, for CO2, HFC-134a and HFO-
[[Page 42933]]
1234ze(E), and stated that HFO-1234ze(E)'s energy efficiency properties
are comparable and in some instances better than HFC-134a for XPS.
Mexichem claimed that HFO-1234ze(E) is not nearly as energy efficient
as HFC-134a and stated that it is not clear that XPS produced with HFO-
1234ze(E) will provide the same thermal efficiency as achieved with
HFC-134a, because HFO-1234ze(E) is not available for the industry to
begin product testing. DuPont comments that the emerging low GWP HFO
foam alternatives can deliver marked energy efficiency improvements
over current alternatives when they become commercially available.
Response: EPA notes that some of the acceptable alternative foam
blowing agents, such as HFO-1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-
trifluoroprop-1-ene, and HFO-1336mzz(Z), can provide better insulation
value than the HFC blowing agents we are listing as unacceptable.
Contrary to Mexichem's unsupported assertion that HFO-1234ze(E) is not
nearly as energy efficient as HFC-134a, another commenter provided
information showing that HFC-134a has a lambda (thermal conductivity)
value of 29 to 30, while HFO-1234ze(E) has a lambda value of 27 to 30
that shows better insulation (Honeywell, 2014b). Other foam blowing
agents have comparable or lower insulation value, such as
CO2, ecomate and hydrocarbons. Given that there are multiple
foam blowing agents available that have lower thermal conductivity and
better insulation value in each of the end-uses where we are changing
the status of one or more foam-blowing agent, we expect that foam
products that require higher energy efficiency will be able to use foam
blowing agents that will result in lowering the GHG emissions and
energy savings over the lifetime of a product, rather than raising it.
For example, home appliances that currently use HFC-245fa could use
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene or HFO-1336mzz(Z) and thereby
ensure they meet DOE energy conservation standards. Similarly,
information from the supplier of HFO-1234ze(E) indicates that XPS would
maintain or improve its energy efficiency if HFO-1234ze(E) were used
instead of HFC-134a as the blowing agent. Manufacturers of alternative
panels or composite materials have not provided information showing
that use of an alternative blowing agent would adversely affect the
weight of foam formulations and thereby reduce fuel efficiency.
(d) Cost Impacts
Comment: Commenters express concern about the costs of the
transition required by the proposal, including:
capital costs;
research, reformulation, and testing;
technology and equipment;
conversion, system re-design, and retrofit;
certification;
costs for the recreational boating industry;
increasing cost of HFC-134a;
increases in costs to consumers;
market competitiveness impacts;
reduction in new product development;
retesting required due to lack of coordination with timing
of requirements for DOE energy conservation standards;
economic impacts on branding;
cost savings; and
other general economic concerns.
Some commenters, such as Mexichem, Solvay, and AHAM, suggested that
it was not necessary to change the status of HFC-134a and other HFC
foam blowing agents or to require industry to incur the costs that
these changes require. Other commenters, such as NMMA, NAFEM, XPSA, and
their members, requested additional time for the change of status of
HFC-134a and other HFC foam blowing agents in order to allow them to
spread costs out over time and thus make costs of the transition more
manageable. Imperial Brown suggested a later status change date to
allow foam manufacturers to create sufficient supply, thereby
alleviating a potential cost premium associated with scarcity of newer
alternatives.
Response: EPA recognizes that transitioning to new foam blowing
agents is likely to require capital costs and investments in research,
updated equipment, and related financial impacts. However, as explained
in more detail in another response to comment, under the SNAP criteria
for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only cost information that EPA
considers as part of its SNAP review is the cost of the substitute
under review (and not the cost of transition when a substitute is found
unacceptable).
Although cost is not a consideration in our decision to change the
status of certain substitutes, we note that based on technical
concerns, the final rule establishes a later change of status date in a
number of end-uses, which will allow manufacturers to spread costs over
time. Regarding whether there will be a sufficient supply of
alternatives, we considered this issue in establishing the change of
status dates and believe that there will be more than adequate supplies
of alternatives. This will also contribute to lower costs. We have
addressed elsewhere why it is necessary to change the status of
substitutes for the various end-uses based on whether alternatives that
pose lower risk are available. Where we concluded that safer
alternatives were available, we determined it was necessary to change
the status. Thus, we disagree with the commenters who suggest that it
is not necessary to change the status of various HFC foam blowing
agents.
VI. What is EPA finalizing for the HCFCs addressed in this rule?
A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs and what is being finalized in this
rule?
In the August 6, 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to change the listings
from acceptable to unacceptable for three HCFCs: HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b,
and HCFC-22 (79 FR 46155). As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA
proposed to modify the listings for these three HCFCs and blends
containing these HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with other parts of
the stratospheric protection program, 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. HCFCs are
subject to the use restrictions in CAA section 605(a) and these
specific HCFCs have been restricted under EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A since January 1, 2010.
Additionally, the nonessential products ban under CAA section 610
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 aligning the requirements. The HCFCs addressed in this rule were
previously listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions
in the aerosols, foam blowing, fire suppression and explosion
protection, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks sectors. For
more information, please refer to the relevant section of the proposed
rule as noted above. The change of status determinations for the HCFCs
addressed in this rule are summarized in the following table:
[[Page 42934]]
Table 9--Change of Status Decisions for HCFCs Addressed in This Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector and end-use Substitutes Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols--Propellants......... HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Unacceptable
effective [DATE
60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE]
Aerosols--Solvents............ HCFC-141b and blends Unacceptable
thereof. effective [DATE
60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE]
Foams--All end-uses........... HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, Unacceptable
HCFC-22, and blends effective [DATE
thereof 60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE]
Fire suppression--Total HCFC-22............... Unacceptable
flooding. effective [DATE
60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE]
Sterilants.................... Blends containing HCFC- Unacceptable
22. effective [DATE
60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE]
Adhesives, coatings, and inks-- HCFC-141b and blends Unacceptable
All end-uses. thereof. effective [DATE
60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the proposal, in today's final rule, EPA is
modifying the listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well
as blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to
unacceptable \90\ in non-refrigerant sectors--specifically, aerosols,
foam blowing agents, fire suppressants, cleaning solvents, sterilants,
and adhesives, coatings and inks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ These three HCFCs have previously been listed as
unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As provided in the proposal, EPA is not addressing HCFC use for
refrigeration and air conditioning in this rulemaking because CAA
section 605(a) and our implementing regulations allow for continuing
use of HCFCs to service equipment. Recognizing that other HCFCs became
subject to the use and interstate commerce prohibitions in 40 CFR
82.15(g) after issuance of the proposed rule, and that limited
exemptions are available in section 82.15(g) for certain of those
HCFCs, EPA is not modifying 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. We are finalizing the proposal that the
listings be modified 60 days following issuance of a final rule.
B. How is EPA responding to public comments concerning HCFCs?
Comment: EPA received a few comments on the proposed modifications
affecting HCFCs, primarily on whether the unacceptability determination
should apply to imported products containing closed cell foam that
contain any of the blowing agents listed as unacceptable, as well as
applying to the blowing agent itself.
Response: As explained in section V.D.2.c, above, EPA is not
finalizing the proposed change to the import of closed cell foam
products blown with an agent listed as unacceptable. We also explained
that we plan to continue assessing the merits of this change and may
provide further explanation and opportunity for comment in a subsequent
rulemaking. Thus, as of the time of the status change, foam blowing
agents containing HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 and blends are prohibited
from being used or imported into the United States, but foam products
or products containing foam made with these agents, such as appliances
or furniture, may still be imported.
Comment: Hussmann Corporation asked for four years from the
issuance of the final rule to make any changes to the acceptability of
HCFC-141b in foam blowing applications, stating that considerable time
is needed to review what impact new foam has to structural integrity
and product efficiency. The commenter stated that this timing would
would allow manufacturers to make a transition to new products while
remaining within the EPA's new HCFC allocation rule (which will
completely phase out HCFC refrigerants in five years).
Response: EPA would like to clarify that anyone still using HCFC-
141b to blow foam in the United States is likely out of compliance with
longstanding regulations promulgated under the SNAP program (CAA
section 612), as well as the HCFC phaseout (CAA section 605). Under
SNAP, HCFC-141b was listed as unacceptable effective on November 29,
2004, for all foam uses, with a limited exemption for use in space
vehicle, nuclear, and defense applications, as well as for research and
development for foreign customers (see 69 FR 58269). Under the HCFC
phaseout program, EPA stopped the production and import of HCFC-141b
for use in foams in 2003 (40 CFR 82.16(b)) and prohibited its use as of
January 1, 2010, with limited exceptions (40 CFR 82.15(g)). All
remaining exemptions for the use of HCFC-141b ended on January 1, 2015.
Therefore, this current rule does not affect the use of HCFC-141b to
blow foam in the United States; it only ensures the SNAP list is
aligned with other existing regulations under Title VI of the CAA.
If the commenter is referring to applying the unacceptability
determination for HCFC-141b to products containing HCFC-141b, as
discussed above in this section, EPA is not finalizing the proposed
change to the import of closed cell foam products blown with an agent
listed as unacceptable.
VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
A. Authority
1. General Authority
Comment: The Agency received several comments, including those from
Solvay, Arkema, AHAM, BASF, Mexichem, NRDC and IGSD, Whirlpool, and
Bally Refrigerated Boxes on its authority to change the status of HFC-
134a and other substitutes that were addressed in the proposed rule.
NRDC and IGSD asserted that under section 612 of the CAA ((42 U.S.C.
7671k), EPA has the authority--if not the affirmative mandate--to
remove the proposed substances from the SNAP list of
[[Page 42935]]
acceptable substitutes. They quoted from section 612(a), emphasizing
that replacement of ODS with substitutes that reduce overall risk is to
occur ``to the maximum extent practicable'' (42 U.S.C. 7671k(a)). They
stated that under section 612(c)(2), EPA has authority to decide which
substances may and may not be used in the SNAP sectors. Finally, they
asserted that in speaking of both alternatives ``currently'' available,
and those that are ``potentially'' available, Congress recognized that
the universe of alternatives will evolve over time, so that as
additional alternatives become available, EPA has an obligation to
revise the SNAP list to ensure that the substances included will
minimize ``overall risks to human health and the environment'' (42
U.S.C. 7671k(c)).
In contrast, Mexichem, Solvay, AHAM/Electrolux and Arkema asserted
that the proposed actions were outside the scope of Title VI, section
612 of the CAA, and EPA's SNAP regulations. Specifically, these
commenters asserted that Congress and EPA designed the SNAP program to
safeguard stratospheric ozone, and not to address climate change and
greenhouse gases. AHAM stated that Title VI of the CAA does not provide
EPA broad authority to regulate refrigerants, foams and chemicals in
circumstances unrelated to ozone depletion. Mexichem stated that the
repeated references in section 612 to class I and class II substances
demonstrate that Congress was concerned with ODS.
Several commenters emphasized evaluation of a substitute in
relation to ODS. Mexichem asserted that EPA recognized ``the limited
nature of the statute'' in 1994 when it promulgated the statement of
purpose and scope for the SNAP program (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40
CFR 82.170). In its comment, Mexichem provided a quotation from the
statement of purpose and scope, suggesting that substitutes are to be
compared only to ODS. Arkema quoted an EPA ``Guide to Completing a Risk
Screen'' \91\ for the fire suppression sector as explaining that
environmental effects would be evaluated by comparing the substitute's
GWP to the GWP of the ODS it replaces. Solvay contended that changing
the listing status of a previously approved substitute would eliminate
the user's ability to use a substance that met the statutory objective
of providing better overall health and safety in comparison to the use
of an ODS in a specific end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ https://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/riskscreenfire.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters also asserted that nothing has happened with
respect to any attribute or impact of the HFCs addressed in this
rulemaking that would warrant a change in the initial decisions to list
HFCs as acceptable.
Response: EPA agrees with NRDC and IGSD's conclusion that the
Agency has authority to take the change of status actions included in
the proposed rulemaking and disagrees with comments suggesting that the
sole purpose of section 612 and the SNAP program is to safeguard the
ozone layer. Section 612(c) requires EPA to take action when the Agency
(1) determines that a substitute may present adverse effects to human
health and the environment, and (2) identifies an alternative that
reduces overall risk to human health and the environment and is
currently or potentially available. That provision makes clear that the
mandate of section 612 is to reduce overall risk; it does not limit the
risks of concern to those associated with ozone depletion. In addition,
while section 612 refers repeatedly to class I and class II substances,
it also refers repeatedly to substitutes or alternatives, requiring
specific actions with regard to such substances.
EPA cannot fulfill its section 612(c) mandate to compare
alternatives with a view to reducing overall risk without considering
impacts related to issues other than ozone depletion. Toward that end,
the SNAP regulations require submitters to include information on a
wide range of factors in addition to ODP, including GWP, toxicity,
flammability, and the potential for human exposure (59 FR 13044, Mar.
18, 1994 and codified at 40 CFR 82.178). Further, the SNAP regulations
state that EPA will consider atmospheric effects (including GWP),
exposure assessments, toxicity data, flammability, and other
environmental impacts such as ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts
(59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.180).
In addition, while section 612(a) states the Congressional policy
of reducing overall risk in broad terms, section 612(c) specifically
requires EPA to compare the risk of the substitute under review to
other substitutes or alternatives. In that regard, Mexichem's comment
omits a crucial phrase in the statement of ``purpose and scope'' in the
SNAP regulations. The complete statement reads: ``The objectives of
this program are . . . to promote the use of those substitutes believed
to present lower overall risks to human health and the environment,
relative to the class I and class II compounds being replaced, as well
as to other substitutes for the same end-use, and to prohibit the use
of those substitutes found, based on the same comparisons, to increase
overall risks [emphasis added]'' (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR
82.170). In addition, Arkema's reference to a single document
containing language mentioning a substitute-to-ODS comparison ignores
the large number of risk screens that EPA has prepared over the years
that compare the ODP and GWP, and other environmental and health
attributes, of substitutes to those of other substitutes, as well to
those of ODS (e.g., risk screens in the following dockets: EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0798 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118.) Further, EPA's listings over the
years have included comparisons of substitutes to other available
alternatives in the same end-uses (e.g., 67 FR 13272, 67 FR 77927, 68
FR 50533, 69 FR 58903, 71 FR 15589, 71 FR 55140, 71 FR 56359, 74 FR 21,
74 FR 50129, 75 FR 34017, 76 FR 17488, 76 FR 61269, 76 FR 78832, 77 FR
47768, 77 FR 58035, 78 FR 29034, 79 FR 62863). The substitute-to-
substitute comparison is essential to fulfilling EPA's obligation under
section 612(c) to determine whether there are alternatives that reduce
overall risk as compared with the substitute under review.
To the extent possible, the Agency has always sought to ensure that
our SNAP decisions are informed by the most current overall
understanding of environmental and human health impacts associated with
available and potentially available alternatives. In that regard, the
Agency has, since the inception of the SNAP program, asserted its
authority, consistent with the language of section 612(c) and the
section's statement of congressional policy, to review substitutes
listed as acceptable and to take action with respect to those
substitutes on the basis either of new information generally, including
that related to overall risk, or of the availability of new
alternatives that pose less overall risk. Specifically, in the preamble
to the initial SNAP rule, EPA made clear that ``the Agency may revise
these [listing] decisions in the future as it reviews additional
substitutes and receives more data on substitutes already covered by
the program'' (59 FR 13044, 13047). We interpret section 612 as
allowing both addition of new, safer alternatives to the listings and
removal from the listings of substitutes found to pose more risk
overall than other available alternatives.
With regard to additional data on substitutes already covered by
the program, the Agency has previously responded to the evolution of
scientific and technical information by revisiting the listing status
of a substitute. For
[[Page 42936]]
example, on the basis of new information on toxicity, EPA took action
in January of 2002 to change the listing for HBFC-22B1 from acceptable,
subject to use conditions to unacceptable (67 FR 4185, January 29,
2002; 40 CFR 82 subpart G, appendix J).
With regard to additional alternatives, the suite of available or
potentially available alternatives changes over time. For example, over
the past several years, and as standards and familiarity with the safe
use of various alternatives has developed, EPA has listed several
specific flammable refrigerants as acceptable for some end-uses subject
to use conditions (e.g., 76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 40 CFR 82
subpart G appendix R; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015). Most of these
refrigerants (e.g., ethane, propane, isobutane, HFC-32) are not new
molecules; rather, their recent listing as acceptable subject to use
conditions is based on an increased understanding of their ability to
be used in a manner that would reduce overall risk. The availability of
those alternatives enables a broader review of comparative risk under
section 612(c).
Further, we disagree with the notion that our understanding of the
impact of HFCs has remained static. Our understanding of the impact
that HFCs have on climate has evolved and become much deeper over the
years. As mentioned elsewhere in this rulemaking, a significant
indication of that change can be seen in EPA's December 7, 2009,
Endangerment Finding (74 FR 66496, 66517, 66539) which makes clear that
like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs. In addition, HFCs are
now in widespread usage. The most commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-
134a is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate system than carbon
dioxide (see Table A-1 to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98). Further, HFC
emissions are projected to accelerate over the next several decades; if
left unregulated, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple
by 2030.\92\ Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed
scientific literature and emission scenarios related to HFCs is
available in the docket for this rulemaking (e.g., Akerman, 2013; EPA,
2013b and 2014; IPCC, 2007 and 2013; IPCC/TEAP 2005; Montzka, 2012;
Velders et al., 2009). This information was taken into account in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Climate Change and President Obama's Action Plan. June,
2013. Available in the docket and online at www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Second Generation Substitutes
Comment: Several comments focused on the term ``replace'' in
section 612(c), suggesting that once a company has switched to a non-
ODS alternative, it is no longer ``replacing'' a Class I or Class II
ODS in its products, and that it is unsupportable to read
``replacement'' as a continuous process rather than as a single event.
Solvay stated that the proposed rule would require users that have
already ``replaced'' ODS with non-ODS to make a second replacement, and
that EPA lacks authority to require this second replacement. Arkema
stated that the statutory terms ``replace'' and ``replacement'' must be
given their ordinary meanings, and that to replace an ODS means to take
the place of an ODS. Arkema further noted that EPA defines a
``substitute or alternative'' in its SNAP regulations as something
``intended for use as a replacement for'' an ODS (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18,
1994 and 40 CFR 82.172). Arkema concluded that Congress and EPA
designed the SNAP program to regulate things taking the place of ODS,
not to replace substances with no ozone depletion potential. Arkema
contended that EPA has interpreted the statute and regulations as
excluding non-ODS. In support of this argument, Arkema quoted the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule as saying that ``a key issue'' was
``whether there exists a point at which an alternative should no longer
be considered a class I or class II substitute as defined by 612'' (59
FR 13044, 13052). The commenter further quoted the preamble to that
rule as saying that ``if a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is introduced as a
first-generation refrigerant substitute for [an ODS], it is subject to
review and listing under section 612. Future substitutions to replace
the HFC would then be exempt from reporting under section 612 . . . .''
(id.). In addition, Arkema quoted a 1996 petition response \93\ as
stating that EPA does not review substitutes for non-ozone-depleting
substances such as HFC-134a. Arkema also quoted the SNAP Instruction
Manual \94\ as instructing applicants to specify the ODS being
replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Response to Oz Technology's Petition (Aug 30, 1996).
\94\ www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/submit/appguide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM commented that the appliance industry no longer intends HFCs
as a substitute or replacement for ODS. The commenter stated that there
are very few remaining models that ever used ODS, and that the
substances used in today's models are not substitutes or replacements
in the common-sense meaning of those words.
Arkema further stated that EPA should be precluded from comparing
non-ODS first-generation alternatives (such as HFC-134a) to second-
generation non-ODS alternatives (such as HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-
744). Arkema contended that none of these second-generation compounds
is a ``substitute'' for SNAP purposes.
Response: In this rulemaking, the Agency is revising the listing
status of substitutes that are direct replacements for ODS. Arkema
admits as much on p. 8 of their comment letter, where they describe
HFC-134a as a ``first generation refrigerant substitute.'' While we are
not exploring the full scope of the ``first generation'' concept in
this action, there is no question that HFC-134a directly replaced ODS
in the relevant sectors. For example, with respect to foam blowing,
when HFC-134a was listed as acceptable in foam blowing applications,
foam was still being blown with HCFCs (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994; 64
FR 30410, June 8, 1999). In this action, we are not addressing the
extent of EPA's authority to revise the listings of alternatives that
are arguably indirect replacements for ODS, sometimes termed ``second-
generation alternatives.''
EPA does not agree with the commenters who suggest that while HFC-
134a may have replaced ODS at one point in time, it no longer does so.
The term ``replace'' is not defined in section 612, EPA therefore
interprets this term as it is commonly used. Dictionary definitions can
provide insight into how a reasonable or ordinary person would
interpret the term. Dictionary definitions of ``replace'' include the
following: ``to be used instead of'' \95\ ``to take the place of,''
\96\ and ``to provide a substitute or equivalent for.'' \97\ None of
these definitions suggests that something used ``instead of'' or ``to
take the place'' of something else ceases to ``replace'' it simply due
to the passage of time. Nor does the Agency view the replacement of a
ODS with a substitute (e.g., HFC-134a) as limited to the first time a
product manufacturer uses the substitute. Indeed, in the preamble to
the initial SNAP rule, we interpreted the term ``replace'' to apply
``each time a substitute is used.'' (59 FR 13044, 13047). We noted that
``[u]nder any other interpretation, EPA could never
[[Page 42937]]
effectively prohibit the use of any substitute, as some user could
always start to use it prior to EPA's completion of the rulemaking
required to list it as unacceptable'' (Id.). Thus, the fact that HFC-
134a is already in use as a replacement for ODS does not mean that its
future use is any less of a replacement. In context, the language that
Arkema quotes (``whether there exists a point at which an alternative
should no longer be considered a class I or II substitute'') does not
suggest that a substance that directly replaces the ODS might somehow
cease to qualify as an ODS substitute. Rather, it raises the question
of whether a substance that indirectly replaces the ODS might fail to
qualify. That question is not addressed in this rulemaking because this
rulemaking addresses only substances that are direct replacements for
ODS in the relevant sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replace.
\96\ Collins, www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/replace.
\97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the mere passage of time does not mean that the
substances addressed in this rulemaking have somehow ceased to be
``substitutes or alternatives'' under the regulatory definition at 40
CFR 82.172. No commenter suggests that at the time of their initial
SNAP listing these substances were anything other than ``chemicals . .
. intended for use as a replacement for a class I or II compound.''
Rather, commenters assert that these substances are no longer intended
for use as an ODS replacement. However, introducing a temporal aspect
into this definition would mean that a product manufacturer could make
an initial substitution for a class I or II substance 90 days after
providing the required notification to EPA and thereafter continue to
use the substitute while disclaiming any intent to replace the ODS.
This is not a supportable interpretation because it would allow the
manufacturer to circumvent SNAP requirements simply by beginning to use
a substitute prior to its SNAP listing.
In addition, EPA implements the section 612(c) mandate to list
substances as acceptable or unacceptable ``for specific uses'' by
listing substitutes on an end-use or sector basis.\98\ Similarly, the
Agency views transition as occurring on an end-use by end-use or
sector-by-sector basis, not--as one commenter suggests--on a model-by-
model basis. Thus, the act of ``replacing'' is not limited to the
redesign of a particular model, or the introduction of a new model, but
instead occurs repeatedly within a given end-use or sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ This is reflected in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to Solvay's comment, EPA has authority to regulate the
continuing replacement of ODS with HFC-134a and the other substitutes
whose listing status is addressed in this action. In this rulemaking,
EPA considered whether such replacement should continue to occur given
the expanded suite of other alternatives to ODS in the relevant end-
uses and our evolving understanding of risks to the environment and
public health. The commenter's line of reasoning would undermine EPA's
ability to comply with the statutory scheme reflected in section
612(c), under which EPA's authority to prohibit use of a substitute is
tied to information on overall risk and the availability of
substitutes.
Regarding Arkema's suggestion that HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744
are not ``substitutes'' for SNAP purposes and thus they cannot be used
as part of a review of whether EPA should change the status of HFC-
134a, we disagree. HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a and R-744 (as well as the other
substances we used for comparison purposes in this rulemaking) \99\ are
currently listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to use conditions
under SNAP. Thus, we have separately taken action to treat these
substances as substitutes for the purposes of section 612(c) and the
corresponding regulatory provisions. We are not re-examining in this
rulemaking whether the substances used for comparison purposes in this
action qualify as substitutes. Rather, in this rule, we are making
listing determinations for substances that are direct substitutes for
ODS based on their overall risk compared to these other alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ We note that the requirement under section 612 does not
limit our analysis of whether there are ``safer'' alternatives only
to ``substitutes'' listed under the SNAP program. Rather section
612(c) refers to ``alternatives'' that are currently or potentially
available. Thus, in instances where we are aware of other
alternatives that may not have completed SNAP review and we have
sufficient information for those alternatives relative to the SNAP
review criteria, we may include those alternatives in our
comparative analysis. In this action, for purposes of the
refrigeration end-uses, we included in our comparative analysis
several substances we were concurrently reviewing under SNAP and
which we have taken action to list as acceptable, subject to use
conditions (April 10, 2015, 80 FR 19453) and for which we are taking
action concurrently with this rule to list as acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. GWP Considerations
Comment: The Agency received several comments relating to EPA's
authority to consider GWP in its comparative risk evaluation, and to
take action on the basis of GWP. Specifically, Solvay and Mexichem
stated that while section 602 of the CAA requires EPA to publish the
GWP of each listed class I and class II substance, the Agency's
authority is limited by the language stating that it ``shall not be
construed to be the basis of any additional regulation under this
chapter.'' Solvay stated that this language expresses Congress's intent
that no provision of Title VI--including, but not limited to, Sec.
602, Sec. 608, Sec. 612, and Sec. 615--provides statutory authority
for the Agency to implement an overarching program under which it can
force users to cease using substances with global warming, but not
ozone-depleting, potentials. Mexichem commented that if GWPs of listed
compounds cannot be the basis of further regulation under Title VI, it
follows that regulation based on comparisons of GWPs of both listed
substances and unlisted alternatives was intended by Congress equally
to be foreclosed. Commenters asserted that EPA inappropriately used the
physical characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for risk; failed to
assess the significance to climate change of the emissions reductions
estimated to be brought about by the action as they relate to risk for
each substance in each sector covered; failed to assess and account for
indirect climate impacts; and failed to apply its customary tests for
consideration of atmospheric effects.
BASF commented that EPA proposed to find HFCs unacceptable because
they have ``high GWPs as compared with other available or potentially
available substitutes in those end-uses and pose significantly greater
overall risk to human health and the environment.'' BASF noted that
while CAA section 612 does require an assessment of risk, it does not
explain how that assessment should be done. BASF added that whatever
that assessment should involve, it is possible that Congress did not
intend GWP to be part of that assessment.
Response: As noted by some commenters, section 602 of the CAA calls
on EPA to publish the GWP for each class I or class II substance, but
goes on to say that this mandate ``shall not be construed to be the
basis of any additional regulation under this chapter.'' Consistent
with this provision, we are not relying on section 602 as authority for
the action being taken in this rulemaking. Rather, we are relying on
section 612, which specifically provides that EPA is required to list a
substance as unacceptable if it ``may present adverse effects to human
health or the environment'' where EPA has identified
[[Page 42938]]
alternatives that are currently or potentially available and that
``reduce the overall risk to human health and the environment.''
Considerations of atmospheric effects and related health and
environmental impacts have always been a part of SNAP's comparative
review process, and the provision of GWP-related information is
required by the SNAP regulations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and 82.180). The
issue of EPA's authority to consider GWP in its SNAP listing decisions
was raised in the initial rule establishing the SNAP program. In the
preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule, EPA stated: ``The Agency believes
that the Congressional mandate to evaluate substitutes based on
reducing overall risk to human health and the environment authorizes
use of global warming as one of the SNAP evaluation criteria. Public
comment failed to identify any definition of overall risk that
warranted excluding global warming'' (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994).
Consistent with that understanding, the 1994 SNAP rule specifically
included ``atmospheric effects and related health and environmental
impacts'' as evaluation criteria the Agency uses in undertaking
comparative risk assessments (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994; 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7)(i)). That rule also established the requirement that
anyone submitting a notice of intent to introduce a substitute into
interstate commerce provide the substitute's GWP (see 40 CFR
82.178(a)(6)). Accordingly, we have considered the relative GWP of
alternatives in many SNAP listing decisions. For example, in the
decision to list C7-Fluoroketone as acceptable we noted that ``C7
Fluoroketone's GWP of about 1 is lower than or comparable to that of
other non-ozone-depleting substitutes in heat transfer uses, such as
HFE-7100 with GWP of 297, HFC-245fa with a GWP of 1030, and
CO2 with a GWP of 1'' (77 FR 47768, August 10, 2012). In
that same action, EPA also considered ODP, VOC status, flammability,
toxicity and exposure, concluding that ``EPA finds C7 Fluoroketone
acceptable in the end-use listed above because the overall
environmental and human health risk posed by C7 Fluoroketone is lower
than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found
acceptable in the same end-use'' (id). Similarly, in finding the use of
isobutane and R-441 acceptable subject to use conditions in household
refrigeration, we included an-in depth discussion of the relative GWP
of these and other alternatives listed for household refrigeration (76
FR 78832, December 20, 2011).
In response to comments that EPA inappropriately used the physical
characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for risk and that EPA failed to
assess the significance to climate change of the emissions reductions
estimated to be brought about by the action, as they relate to risk for
each substance in each sector covered, we note that GWP is a relative
measure and that if comparable amounts of two substitutes are used,
then the relative climate effects of resultant emissions will be higher
for the substitute with higher GWP. EPA considers factors such as
charge size of refrigeration equipment and total estimates of
production in its assessment of environmental and health risks of new
alternatives, so we can consider if there would be substantial
differences that might affect total atmospheric emissions. We believe
that we have appropriately considered GWP as a metric for comparing
climate effects of substitutes.
In response to comments that EPA failed to assess and account for
indirect climate impacts, we note that we do not have a practice in the
SNAP program of including indirect climate impacts in the overall risk
analysis. We do consider issues such as technical needs for energy
efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether
alternatives are ``available,'' and have followed that practice in this
rulemaking. We believe that there is a sufficient range of acceptable
alternatives that end users will be able to maintain energy efficiency
levels We also note that federal energy conservation standards will
continue to ensure that equipment regulated by this rule will not
increase its indirect climate impacts. See in particular section V.C.7
for a discussion on energy efficiency for commercial refrigeration
products and section V.D.3.c for a response to comments on energy
efficiency of foams.
In this action, EPA used the same comparative risk approach it has
used in the past, including the consideration of GWP.
4. Takings
Comment: Solvay asserted that the delisting of already approved
alternatives constitutes a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. Solvay commented that the delisting would
effectuate a regulatory taking for which the United States would owe
``just compensation'' to regulated parties, including Solvay, that have
made significant investments in furtherance of U.S. policies under the
CAA and the Montreal Protocol. Solvay quoted the Supreme Court case
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council as saying that ``any limitation
[that prohibits all economically beneficial uses of real property] . .
. cannot be newly legislated or decreed (without compensation), but
must inhere in the title itself, in the restriction that background
principles of the State's law of property and nuisance already place
upon land ownership'' (505 U.S. 1003, 1029 (1992)).
Response: The first question in a takings analysis is whether there
is a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment. The commenter
does not identify the property interest that is the subject of the
alleged ``taking.'' While the commenter cites a case involving real
property, no real property is at stake here. To the extent the
commenter has a property interest in the HFCs it imports or produces,
such interest would be limited to quantities already in existence, and
not those that might be produced or imported in the future. In any
event, EPA's change in the listing status of HFCs does not effectuate a
taking. First, EPA's action does not ``completely deprive'' the
commenter of ``all economically beneficial us[e]'' of the HFCs it
produces or imports. See Lingle v. Chevron, 544 U.S. 528, 538 (2005),
quoting Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019
(1992). EPA is not listing all HFCs as unacceptable in all end-uses;
rather, EPA is listing certain HFCs as unacceptable in specified end-
uses. In addition, EPA is adopting change of status dates that provide
ample time for HFCs already in existence to be sold. Thus, some
``economically beneficial use'' of the HFCs remains. In such
situations, courts typically consider several factors in determining
whether a regulatory taking has occurred. Those factors include ``the
character of the governmental action, its economic impact, and its
interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations.''
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74, 83 (1980).
Here, the change in the listing status of certain HFCs for
specified end-uses is designed to ``promote the common good'' (see Penn
Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978)).
The alternatives to which EPA compared these HFCs in this action were
found to pose less overall risk to human health and the environment in
the specified end-uses. Thus, removing these HFCs from the list of
acceptable substitutes for these end-uses provides a public benefit.
Regarding the economic impact of this action, EPA recognizes
[[Page 42939]]
that the impact will vary for the different end-uses. For example, for
some foam blowing agent end-uses, transitioning to other alternatives
is likely to require capital costs and investments in research, updated
equipment, and their related financial impacts. In comparison, for some
aerosol propellant uses and some refrigeration end-uses, depending on
the alternative selected, there may be little or no need for capital
costs or research. However, EPA notes that chemical producers have been
investing in low-GWP alternatives for years, and many have either
submitted SNAP notifications or expressed interest in submitting SNAP
notifications concerning new molecules and blends of existing
molecules.
The commenter could not have had a reasonable investment-backed
expectation that these HFCs would continue to be listed as acceptable
indefinitely in all end-uses, or in any specific end-use, because EPA
expressly stated in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule that ``the
Agency may revise these [listing] decisions in the future as it reviews
additional substitutes and receives more data on substitutes already
covered by the program'' (59 FR 13044, 13047). In addition, EPA also
noted the ``significant global warming potentials'' of some HFCs and
stated ``EPA is concerned that rapid expansion of the use of some HFCs
could contribute to global warming'' (id. at 13,071). EPA characterized
HFCs as a ``near-term option for moving away from CFCs,'' not as a
long-term solution.
5. Montreal Protocol/International
Comment: Solvay comments that HFCs are not regulated under the
Montreal Protocol and are not Class I or Class II substances under
Title VI. Mexichem states that the United States, Canada, and Mexico
have proposed to amend the Montreal Protocol to provide an across-the-
board phase down of HFCs, but until then, EPA's regulatory authority
under Title VI is limited to ODS. AHAM adds that if at some point EPA
is authorized to phase out HFCs consistent with future international
obligations that may constitute a more appropriate avenue for phase-
down measures. AHAM believes there is minimal purpose in promoting an
international regulatory regime if EPA is going to apply what it
considers to be a ``blunt and inappropriate'' regulatory instrument
domestically, regardless of the shape of a future international scheme.
AHAM comments that the appliance industry's transition from HFCs is
well underway, and EPA's proposal should reflect and support this
progress, rather than impede it. Five commenters commented on the
perceived inconsistency of the proposed timeline and the proposed
amendments to the Montreal Protocol to adopt a gradual phase down of
HFCs.
Response: EPA agrees that the Montreal Protocol does not currently
regulate HFCs. Nevertheless, several sections of Title VI call on EPA
to take measures that are not required by the Montreal Protocol but are
complementary to the ODS phaseout. These sections include, in addition
to section 612, sections 608 (national emissions reduction program),
610 (nonessential products), and 611 (labeling). In addition, while
HFCs are not a Class I or Class II substance under the Clean Air Act,
HFCs are substitutes for Class I and Class II ODS, and section 612 and
its implementing regulations specifically call on the agency to
restrict substitutes for ODS where the Agency has identified other
available or potentially available alternatives that reduce overall
risk to human health and the environment.
The CAP considers both domestic and multilateral action to address
HFCs. The United States co-proposed and is strongly advocating for an
amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down production and
consumption of HFCs. EPA sees no conflict between the United States'
strong support for a global phase-down and this domestic action. The
amendment proposal calls for a phase-down of production and consumption
of a group of HFCs, including HFC-134a as well as HFC-125 and HFC-143a
(components of R-404A, R-507A and other blends), on a total
CO2-equivalent basis. It applies phase-down steps to this
group of HFCs as a basket and does not assign individual deadlines to
specific HFCs or address specific uses.
6. Absence of Petitions
Comment: Solvay questioned whether the Agency has the authority to
issue this proposed rule in the absence of one or more petitions that
fully satisfy the requirements of Sec. 612(d). Solvay commented that
while Congress granted EPA the authority to create an initial list of
approved substitutes for ODS under Sec. 612(c), Sec. 612(d) specifies
that additions or deletions to the SNAP list must be proposed via
petition, and that petitions ``shall include a showing by the
petitioner that there are data on the substance adequate to support the
petition.'' Solvay stated that the CAA puts the burden on a petitioner
to demonstrate that the substance it proposes to list satisfies all of
the SNAP criteria. Solvay contended that EPA should not attempt to
delist any substances on its own initiative. Solvay commented that to
the extent it does, EPA has the burden, standing in the shoes of a
petitioner, to demonstrate that it has data adequate to support the
petition.
Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter regarding EPA's
authority to independently review and, where appropriate, change the
status of substitutes under the SNAP program. In the preamble to the
initial SNAP rule, the Agency stated that ``section 612 authorizes it
to initiate changes to the SNAP determinations independent of any
petitions or notifications received. These amendments can be based on
new data on either additional substitutes or on characteristics of
substitutes previously reviewed'' (59 FR 13044, 13047). Nothing in
section 612(c) contravenes this interpretation. The existence of
section 612(d), which provides a right for persons to petition the
Agency to revise a listing, does not address in any manner whether EPA
has authority to change a listing on its own. Furthermore, section
612(c) requires EPA to take action when the Agency (1) determines that
a substitute may present adverse effects to human health and the
environment, and (2) identifies an alternative that reduces overall
risk to human health and the environment and is currently or
potentially available. Section 612(c) does not limit such EPA
determinations to initial review of substitutes.
For petitions under section 612(d), the petition must ``include a
showing . . . that there are data on the substance adequate to support
the petition.'' The Agency disagrees that EPA stands in the shoes of a
petitioner under 612(d) when it proposes to change the listing status
of an alternative. Rather, EPA's action is governed by section 612(c),
and EPA considers the criteria used in reviewing substitutes as
provided in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). Regardless, we note that we also
review section 612(d) petitions based on the same SNAP criteria and
thus the ``data on the substance adequate to support the petition''
necessarily are the data required for review under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
EPA has changed the listing status of substitutes in the past
without having received a petition under section 612(d), as, for
example, when we changed the listing status of MT-31 (64 FR 3861, Jan.
26, 1999; 40 CFR part 82 subpart G appendix E) and HBFC-22B1 (67 FR
4185, Jan. 29, 2002; 40 CFR part 82 subpart G appendix J).
While EPA has the right to act in the absence of a petition, as
described above, EPA did receive three petitions filed under section
612(d) that are
[[Page 42940]]
relevant to this rulemaking. Specifically, NRDC filed a petition on May
7, 2010. On February 14, 2011, EPA found that petition complete for
MVAC in new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it
was incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. This rule responds to the
aspect of that petition that we found complete. In addition, EIA filed
a petition on April 26, 2012, and NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a petition
on April 27, 2012. Although EPA found both of these petitions
incomplete, our action in this final rule may be considered responsive
to certain aspects of the petitions, given that we are changing the
listing of certain HFCs used in sectors noted in those petitions from
acceptable to unacceptable for most uses, and placing use conditions or
narrowed use limits on some of the remaining uses. A more detailed
discussion of the petitions can be found in section IV of this rule.
7. Application of Criteria for Review of Alternatives
Comment: Solvay commented that EPA has failed to properly apply the
SNAP factors to a delisting situation, has given undue weight to GWP in
its analysis, and has based its decision on comparative GWPs of various
non-ODS options to the exclusion of all other factors. Solvay commented
that the proposal was deficient in that EPA failed to consider many
relevant codes, standards and regulations, including parallel energy
efficiency regulations issued by the DOE; building code standards; fire
code requirements; and Coast Guard regulations. Solvay also stated that
EPA should have considered technical concerns like solubility,
compatibility, and shelf stability; equipment limits; supply chain
considerations; and safety concerns that affect many end-use products.
Solvay further commented that in making a determination whether to
list a substance as an approved substitute to replace an ODS, the
Agency must conduct a comprehensive analysis of each alternative in
each end-use, including considerations of the cost of the alternative,
availability, and the overall practicability of effectuating a
replacement. Solvay focused on the phrase ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' in section 612(a) of the CAA, stating that Congress
deliberately chose the term ``practicable'' to mandate an orderly
transition from ODS. Solvay stated that the term ``practicable''
ordinarily includes consideration of cost and availability. Solvay
further argued that EPA had acknowledged and agreed with this
understanding of the term by including cost and availability in its
list of criteria. Solvay referred to dictum in Honeywell v. EPA, 374
F.3d 1363, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 2004) stating that ``it is at least facially
plausible to read the term `available' in section 612(c) as permitting
consideration of `economic or practicality' concerns.''
Mexichem commented that the text of the proposed rule and the
underlying docket, including the SNAP program's comparative risk
framework, are vague on how EPA reached the required section 612(c)
conclusion that the alternatives reduce overall risks to human health
and the environment, leaving the impression that it considered only
GWP. Specifically, they state that out of the seven documents that may
be relevant to the comparative risk framework analysis, only the
``Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule'' report
refers to human health and the environment, with a focus on climate
benefits, but that the report itself is silent on estimated reduction
of ``overall risks to human health.'' Mexichem also noted that EPA
promised to prepare a consolidated analysis document in the proposed
rule, but no such document was available at the time the comments were
drafted. Mexichem further stated that an assessment of HFC-134a and
related alternatives is missing, and that such an assessment should
have included several specific questions related to the following
factors: Performance, availability, hazard, exposure, and cost of the
alternatives. These questions include whether the other alternatives
perform as well as HFC-134a in the specific end-use; whether the other
alternatives will be available in the necessary quantities; whether the
other alternatives present a better overall hazard profile; whether the
other alternatives present a better overall exposure profile; whether
use of the other alternatives involves an equivalent cost; and whether
use of the other alternatives represents a cost-effective mitigation of
CO2 emissions in each end-use.
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc. questioned whether the CAA
authorizes EPA to delist non-ODS solely on the basis of GWP. Arkema
commented that EPA is focusing on the potential hazard of GWP alone and
stated that EPA is not evaluating HFC-134a within a comparative risk
framework. Arkema stated that if the CAA were to authorize the SNAP
program to ``delist'' previously approved non-ozone depleting
substances based on climate, then EPA would need to develop an
objective measure for deciding which substitute poses a greater risk
and communicate that standard to the regulated community. Arkema
claimed that any such measure would need to include methods for
weighing different types of risks against one another (such as
flammability versus climate) and for including mitigation, as the
existing SNAP program, which did not originally provide for
quantitative indexing of risks, does not convey sufficient information
to the Agency or the regulated community regarding risk management
decisions.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' views regarding the
Agency's consideration of overall risk. In this rule, we applied the
same comparative risk framework that was established for the SNAP
program in 1994 and that has been used successfully for over 20 years.
When we issued the proposal, we did not re-open fundamental parts of
the SNAP program, such as the factors we evaluate and the manner in
which we weigh them. Under the SNAP regulations, proponents of a
substitute are required to submit a wide array of information,
including information on ODP, GWP, toxicity, environmental fate and
transport, flammability, exposure data and the cost and availability of
the substitute under review (see 40 CFR 82.178 for a full list of the
information required with SNAP submissions). EPA reviews these data and
applies the regulatory criteria adopted in 1994, which include, in
addition to atmospheric effects, general population risks from ambient
exposure to compounds with direct toxicity and to increased ground-
level ozone, ecosystem risks, occupational risks, consumer risks,
flammability, and cost and availability of the substitute under review
(see 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7)). As regards specific quantification of
reductions in overall risk to human health and the environment, in the
1994 rulemaking, we considered and rejected comments suggesting that we
develop an index to rank all substitutes based on risk. In the preamble
to the rule, we specifically noted that ``a strict quantitative index
would not allow for sufficient flexibility in making appropriate risk
management decisions'' (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). Our subsequent
experience with the SNAP program has given us no reason to revisit this
approach.
While EPA prepared a variety of documents in association with the
proposed rule, the bulk of the comparison of human health and
environmental impacts of alternatives appeared in the preamble to the
[[Page 42941]]
NPRM.\100\ For this final rule, we have added a technical support
document to the docket which provides the Federal Register citations
for information such as ODP, GWP, VOC status, flammability, and
workplace exposure limits both for the substitutes remaining acceptable
and for those with a changed status (EPA, 2015d). This information was
discussed in the preambles to both the NRPM and the final rule and is
provided in tabular format in the technical support document for easier
comparison and consistency of presentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ EPA also placed in the docket a document on exposure
limits for alternatives in the foam blowing sector, titled,
``Information on workplace exposure limits for foam blowing
agents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the NPRM, the documentation associated with the
proposed rule includes ``market characterizations, analyses of costs
associated with sector transitions, estimated benefits associated with
the transition to alternatives, and potential small business impacts''
(79 FR 46126). These documents provide information to the public about
estimated environmental benefits, the affected markets, and potential
cost impacts, as well as provide EPA's screening analyses to determine
whether this rule may have significant economic impacts or significant
impacts on a substantial number of small businesses; they are not part
of EPA's comparison of human health and environmental effects of
alternatives.
Mexichem noted in its comments that EPA had included these
documents in the docket for the proposed rule, but raised a concern
about the availability of the consolidated analysis document
anticipated in the NPRM. The consolidated analysis is included in the
docket for the final rule, but was not available during the public
comment period (ICF, 2015a). This document is a consolidated sector-by-
sector market characterization for those sectors addressed in this
action. While it incorporates some suggestions and information provided
by commenters, it otherwise does not add new substantive information
other than that provided in the individual market characterizations at
the time of the proposed rulemaking. It merely consolidates the
information for ease of reference.
We disagree with the comments suggesting that EPA did not consider
factors other than GWP. In the NPRM, for each end-use or sector, EPA
provided information comparing the alternatives and applying the full
set of regulatory criteria, not solely GWPs, in deciding whether to
change the status of a listed substitute, consistent with SNAP's past
practices. As one example, in discussing the change in status for HFC-
227ea in the aerosol propellant end-use, the Agency explained in the
preamble that other available substitutes have zero ODP, are relatively
low in toxicity, are capable of remaining below their respective
exposure limits, and are expected to have negligible impact on ground-
level ozone levels (79 FR 46126, 46173). In each case, consistent with
the decision criteria listed at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), EPA has considered
environmental impacts, flammability, toxicity, and exposure. In the
context of this review, we considered a large amount of information
including, among other things: Scientific findings, information
provided by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) that
supports the Montreal Protocol, journal articles, submissions to the
SNAP program, dockets for other EPA rulemakings, presentations and
reports presented at domestic and international conferences, and
materials from trade associations and professional organizations.
References cited in the NPRM were listed in section IX of that document
and the references cited in this final action are listed in section IX
of this document.
Solvay suggested a number of considerations they believe should
have been included as part of EPA's decision-making criteria, such as
various standards and codes, product shelf-life, and equipment limits.
Solvay does not discuss how the various considerations mentioned relate
to the existing SNAP review process. In general, we took such
considerations into account to the extent relevant to the criteria for
review of a substitute or to the availability of other alternatives.
For example, we considered such issues as the supply and
characteristics of alternatives as well as the status of various
regulations and codes and standards as they relate to the availability
of the alternatives and thus the appropriate time for the change of
status. EPA specifically mentioned building codes (id. at 46143) and
energy efficiency and requested comment on ``the effect, if any, [the]
proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE standards.'' (id. at
46147). We also noted that plans for the production of an alternative
to HFC-134a in the MVAC end-use ``are in place to make it available in
volumes that meet current and projected domestic auto industry
demand.'' (id. at 46141)
We also addressed certain of these issues in the context of the
potential mitigation of risks both for those substitutes subject to the
status change and those that remain available. For example, we noted in
the preamble to the NPRM, in the context of alternatives in several of
the foams end-uses, that flammability issues would be addressed in the
process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes (id. at 46,152,
46,153); and in the context of the retail food refrigeration and
vending machine end-uses, that exposure limits for the alternatives,
including workplace exposure limits of the AIHA and from OSHA and
NIOSH, would be met. (id. at 46,144). Concerning other technical
concerns such as solubility, compatibility, and shelf stability, this
is not information that the SNAP program has routinely requested or
received, either for the substitutes used for comparison purposes or
for those being evaluated for listing. We have recognized, and when
warranted, made changes responding to such technical considerations in
this final rule where commenters provided information relevant to the
availability of alternatives: For example, in establishing the change
of status date for stand-alone refrigeration equipment, we took into
consideration that certain larger capacity commercial stand-alone
refrigeration equipment requires charge sizes larger than those
established in the use conditions for most flammable refrigerants.
Similarly, Mexichem suggested that EPA was required to evaluate
specific questions regarding performance, availability, hazard,
exposure, and cost. Again, this ignores the established criteria that
EPA uses in determining whether a substitute is acceptable or
unacceptable in a specified end-use. In the NPRM, in determining
whether other substitutes were available that posed lower risk than
those for which we proposed to change the status, EPA evaluated the
ozone-depletion, climate, local air quality, toxicity and flammability
risks of the substitutes undergoing a change of status as well as of
other alternatives, thereby addressing hazard and exposure concerns. We
note that the statute refers to overall risk to human health and the
environment, and does not require that the substitutes be better in
terms of each potential human health and environmental concern. EPA
does not typically compare the performance or efficacy of substitutes
except in considering whether a substitute is technically feasible (see
definition of ``potentially available'' at 40 CFR 82.172). In other
words, it is not necessary for EPA to evaluate whether other
alternatives perform as well as HFC-134a (or other HFCs) in the
specific end-use in order to determine that overall risks to human
health and
[[Page 42942]]
the environment would be reduced through use of those alternatives.
We have considered whether other alternatives will be available in
sufficient quantities as part of our analysis of the availability of
alternatives. As discussed in the NPRM, we set dates for the proposed
status changes that reflect when there will be a sufficient supply of
the alternatives. (id. at 46,141) In some instances, we have revised
those dates in this final action after taking into account information
on supply of alternatives submitted by commenters.
One of the regulatory criteria for review of a substitute is the
``cost and availability of the substitute'' (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18,
1994; 40 CFR 82.180(7)(vii)). The consideration of cost under this
criterion is limited to the cost of the substitute under review; it is
distinct from consideration of costs associated with the use of other
alternatives to which the substitute is being compared. See Honeywell,
374 F.3d at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in part and dissenting in
part) (``While the SNAP regulations make the `cost and availability of
the substitute' an element of acceptability . . . that concern is
limited to whether EPA `has . . . reason to prohibit its use,' not to
whether cleaner alternatives for the substance are already `currently
or potentially available'. . . . Consideration of transition costs is
thus precluded by the SNAP regulations as currently written,
irrespective of whether it might be permitted under CAA Sec. 612(c). .
. .'') Contrary to Solvay's contention, including the cost of the
substitute in the list of review criteria does not amount to an
acknowledgment that the term ``practicable'' as used in section 612(a)
necessarily involves consideration of the costs associated with using
other alternatives. EPA has not determined whether the term
``practicable,'' the term ``available,'' or other terms in section 612
provide discretion to consider such costs. Similarly, our existing
regulations do not direct us to consider whether use of the other
alternatives involves an equivalent cost to that of HFC-134a or a cost-
effective mitigation of CO2 emissions. We are not addressing
in this rulemaking whether to revise the regulatory criteria to include
an expanded role for the consideration of costs in SNAP listing
decisions. We have simply applied the existing regulatory criteria in
determining whether to change the listing status of the substitutes
addressed in this action. Thus, we have not considered the costs of
transition to other alternatives.
Several commenters suggested or implied that EPA's action was based
``excessively'' or solely on GWP. As discussed above, we performed a
full comparative risk analysis for each of the substitutes and for each
end-use for which we are changing the status. However, as noted in the
preamble to the NPRM, EPA issued this proposal in response to the CAP.
As such, in determining which substitutes and end-uses to address in
the proposed rule, we evaluated the existing listing decisions in the
eight sectors covered by the SNAP program. In three of the sectors, we
identified a subset of substitutes that have a high GWP relative to
other listed alternatives and for which we also had reason to believe
other alternatives were ``available'' for the end-use. For those
substitutes included in the proposed rule on the basis of having a
relatively higher GWP, in most cases, EPA did not find significant
potential differences in risk with respect to the other criteria, with
the exceptions of flammability and local air quality impacts. However,
where flammability risk was a potential concern, we concluded that such
risk is mitigated by the existing use conditions or through other
existing regulations (e.g., OSHA). In the case of spray foam, we
proposed to change the status of fewer HFCs than in other foam blowing
end-uses in consideration of greater flammability risks in that end-
use. Regarding VOC emissions and potential impacts on local air
quality, for the aerosol propellant end-use, we did not propose to
change the status of HFC-152a, a VOC-exempt aerosol propellant.
B. Cost and Economic Impacts of Proposed Status Changes
EPA received a number of comments on the cost and economic impacts
of the proposed rule. Some of these comments are summarized in the
response to comments sections for the end-uses addressed in this final
rule. We summarize and respond to the more general cost comments below.
1. Costs of Proposed Rule
Comment: EPA received several comments indicating that the
commenters believe EPA should provide more time in order to avoid undue
burden on the U.S. economy. NAFEM comments that if this rule is
finalized as proposed, the change from using R-404A will be very
costly. NAFEM stated that compliance cost estimates range from $500,000
to several million dollars depending on the number and variety of
custom products the manufacturer offers. They further comment that
testing costs are routinely several hundred thousand dollars and
increase with the variety and level of customization. NAFEM comments
that in addition, manufacturers will lose revenues waiting for the
limited number of testing facilities able to accommodate the industry's
products. The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the
Alliance) requests that greater weight be given to economic
considerations where the Agency is determining dates for availability
of new alternatives, or changing the listing status, which unlike SNAP
listing, may require businesses to alter practices and business models.
The Alliance also requests that these economic considerations also be
undertaken cognizant of competing regulatory initiatives. The Alliance
also comments that the SNAP change of status process should be used
sparingly, since its economic implications should require a higher
scrutiny in considering transition dates and market assumptions than is
needed for the SNAP listing approval process. DuPont comments that it
is important to reduce emissions in a way that does not slow down
global trade, and to achieve emissions reductions in a cost-effective
manner. Arkema comments that no SNAP rule should impose unreasonable
burdens on the U.S. economy. Arkema believes that EPA must allow more
time for transitions to avoid that outcome. Mexichem believes EPA
failed to take into account the economic implications of the proposed
rule.
Response: As discussed more fully in section VII.A.7, under the
SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only cost
information that EPA considers as part of its SNAP review of
substitutes is the cost of the substitute under review. The transition
timelines in this final rule are based on information concerning the
availability of alternatives.
Comment: Arkema commented that EPA underestimated the costs of the
NPRM. Arkema believes EPA's cost estimates are unduly optimistic given
all that must be done to redesign equipment. Arkema further commented
on three areas of economic analysis that they state need to be
addressed. First, Arkema stated that EPA does not include the ``wasted
costs'' incurred by those manufacturers that have actually changed
designs of their equipment to meet DOE standards, based on the
continued availability of existing SNAP substitutes, but that now may
need to change their designs again. Second, Arkema suggested that EPA
should account for ``economic effects'' on U.S. plants that produce
HFC-134a and the other HFCs and HFC blends whose listing the Agency
proposed to change. Third, Arkema suggested that the
[[Page 42943]]
economic analyses should disclose how EPA expects prices and
availability to change once it eliminates competing products, including
stimulation of short-term demand for the HFCs and HFC blends whose
listing the Agency proposed to change, longer term increases in prices
for the HFCs and HFC blends, and increased demand for next-generation
fluorinated products. Solvay commented that given the cumulative
regulatory burden, EPA has dramatically underestimated the costs of the
NPRM. As an example, Solvay pointed to the DOE energy conservation
standards.
Response: Although EPA did not consider the costs of transitioning
to other alternatives in making the listing decisions in this
rulemaking, we did prepare a cost analysis and a small business impacts
analysis for this rule for businesses that are directly regulated.
We do not typically analyze cumulative regulatory burden in our
cost analyses. Nonetheless, EPA notes that to the extent that affected
entities recently incurred costs to comply with DOE rulemakings, the
change of status dates in the final rule for the foam blowing sector
and for some of the refrigeration end-uses (e.g., vending machines) may
reduce the potential for additional costs due to complying with both
rules compared to the change of status dates in the NPRM, since
equipment manufacturers should better be able to coordinate DOE's
requirements and these SNAP requirements. For example, the change of
status date for rigid PU appliance foam is January 1, 2020, while based
on the 2014 compliance date of the most recent DOE standards, the
compliance date for any revised energy conservation standard for
household refrigerators and freezers would be no earlier than 2020. For
vending machines, the final change of status date is January 1, 2019,
which will likely coincide with compliance requirements for any new or
amended DOE refrigerated beverage vending machine standards, as
compliance with such standards would be required three years after the
publication of a final rule. Material in the docket for that action
indicate DOE's plans for a final rule with a compliance date three
years later (see EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022).
Second, EPA has analyzed the costs of users that are directly
regulated and has not analyzed the impacts on chemical producers, which
are indirectly affected by the regulation. The commenters did not
provide specific cost or supply information regarding redesigning
equipment or specific information on operating costs for chemical
plants that would have allowed us to analyze the impacts as requested
by Arkema. We disagree with Arkema that it is necessary or appropriate
to analyze the indirect impacts upon chemical plants and producers.
Such analysis would be highly speculative about the degree of cost
pass-through from producers to consumers of these chemicals. The total
cost estimates would be unchanged; rather such an analysis would relate
to transfers between producers of the substitutes undergoing a change
of status, producers of the acceptable alternatives for the same uses,
and consumers of these products rather than losses to the economy or to
a market sector as a whole. We note that the transition affecting the
majority of HFC-134a production, the transition away from HFC-134a in
MVAC, is already occurring because of other regulations, and therefore
changes to production and cost of HFC-134a cannot easily be attributed
to this action.
EPA recognizes that transitioning to other alternatives is likely
to require capital costs and investments in research, updated
equipment, and their related financial impacts. Many chemical producers
have either submitted SNAP notifications or expressed interest in
submitting SNAP notifications concerning new molecules and blends of
existing molecules. EPA agrees with Arkema that this rule is likely to
stimulate demand in next-generation alternatives further.
EPA also notes that, for example, HFC-134a likely will be a
component of many low-GWP blends that are being developed specifically
to replace HFC-134a. EPA listed as acceptable one of those blends, R-
450A, on October 21, 2014 at 79 FR 62863. The Agency is aware of
additional blends that multiple chemical producers are developing. As
noted throughout this document, the range of alternatives includes new
molecules and existing compounds, encompassing fluorinated, non-
fluorinated and in some cases not-in-kind alternatives.
Third, we question Arkema's assumption that competition will
decrease and thus cost for low-GWP alternatives will rise. For each of
the status changes in this final action, more than one other
alternative is currently listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject to
use conditions, for the relevant end-use. Moreover, we expect new SNAP
submissions that would result in the introduction of further
alternatives to increase, rather than reduce, competition. Further,
because this rule does not regulate production of individual chemicals
directly and allows servicing of existing refrigeration and AC
equipment with the refrigerants for which they are designed, we expect
there will continue to be a market for HFC-134a and other HFC
refrigerants for years to come.
In those cases where commenters provided specific, detailed cost
information, we used that information to revise the cost assumptions in
our updated cost analysis for this final rule. For additional
information on economic analysis conducted for this rule, see the
supporting document ``Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives'' (ICF, 2015c).
Comment: NRDC and IGSD commented that the rule is important because
it provides a needed signal to various industrial sectors that as safer
alternatives are brought to market, substitutes with high GWPs will be
removed from the SNAP list. NRDC and IGSD commented that this provides
American companies with an opportunity to become industry leaders as
the global market moves away from high-GWP substances, by developing
new chemicals and processes to transition the refrigeration, cooling,
aerosol and foams markets as quickly as possible. NRDC further
commented that this rule will establish U.S. industry as a leader in
safer chemicals, helping pave the way for global action under the
Montreal Protocol. NRDC noted that when EPA previously proposed phasing
down CFCs and ODS, there were warnings about dire impacts on industry
that did not come to pass, and NRDC expects this will be true for this
rule as well. NRDC commented that 25 years of experience with the
Montreal Protocol and the CAA has shown us that transitioning to safer
chemicals works smoothly.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment and agrees that there are
many innovative U.S. companies bringing new low-GWP, energy-efficient
products to market.
2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening Analysis
Comment: EPA received a number of comments indicating that small
businesses bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden and
that the NPRM represents a ``significant regulatory action,'' NAFEM
comments that EPA must conduct a complete analysis of the impacts on
small entities before any final regulation can be promulgated. NAFEM
comments that EPA's analysis is too narrow, is incomplete, and that its
conclusions are unsupported. NAFEM further comments that the NPRM
disproportionately affects small entities. NAFEM comments
[[Page 42944]]
that the NPRM represents a major rule and will have a $100 million
effect on the economy and a major impact on the commercial
refrigeration industry and its consumers. NAFEM commented that the
docket lacks a robust industry analysis of the effects on small
business manufacturers and customers, or reasonable support for EPA's
Regulatory Flexibility Act conclusions. NAFEM recommends that EPA
initiate a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
Small Entity Representative review panel to help inform final
rulemaking, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Solvay also
commented that EPA should convene a Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel under the SBREFA.
Response: E.O. 12866 states that rules that have an impact on the
economy of $100 million per year qualify as significant regulatory
actions. EPA disagrees that this rule would have an impact on the
economy of $100 million more per year. We performed an analysis of the
costs of the proposed rule on businesses and estimated the total
annualized upfront compliance costs to range from $8.9 million to $41.6
million; total annual savings are estimated to be about $25.1 million
(ICF, 2014g). This cost analysis did not evaluate the share of costs
likely to be borne by consumers, since it is not clear what proportion
of cost impacts may be carried on to consumers, and further, such
economic analyses typically look at costs to the regulated community
rather than indirect impacts on consumers. We updated this analysis
based upon the regulatory options and change of status dates in the
final rule, and using cost information provided by commenters. The
changes in the final rule--especially with respect to compliance
dates--reduce the cost impacts on small businesses, while the updated
cost information resulted in higher cost estimates. In this updated
analysis, we estimated the total annualized upfront compliance costs to
range from $28.0 million to $50.6 million, using a 7% discount rate,
and from $19.5 million to $37.8 million, using a 3% discount rate.
Total annual savings are estimated to be about $19.3 million (ICF,
2015c). In either case, this is well below the $100 million per year
threshold to consider this an economically significant rule on economic
grounds.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the ``docket lacks a robust
industry analysis on the effects on small business manufacturers and
customers, or reasonable support for EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Act
conclusions.'' The Agency's screening analysis at proposal stage is
included in the docket (ICF, 2014f). The commenters do not point to any
specific aspect of that analysis that they believe are deficient. A
Small Business Advocacy Panel is convened when a proposed rulemaking is
expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities, or ``SISNOSE.'' We have updated our small business impacts
screening analysis using the change of status decisions and dates in
the final rule, adding boat manufacturers as affected entities, and
using detailed cost information provided by commenters (ICF, 2015b).
EPA's preliminary and final screening analyses concluded that this
rulemaking would not pose a SISNOSE. In the analyses, EPA recognized
that some small businesses may experience significant costs, but
concluded that the number of small businesses that would experience
significant costs was not substantial.
Both the screening analysis for purposes of determining whether
there was a SISNOSE and the analysis to determine whether the rule was
significant based upon economic grounds were conducted based on the
best market and cost information available to the Agency. Where
commenters provided specific market or cost information, the Agency
used that information to update these analyses. The updated analyses
came to the same conclusions: That the final rule would not pose a
SISNOSE and that it is not an economically significant rule (ICF,
2015b,c).
C. Environmental Effects of Proposed Status Changes
EPA received submissions from 42 commenters related to the
environmental impacts of the proposed status changes. Additionally, EPA
received 7,022 mass mailing letters commenting on the importance of
transitioning away from HFCs to more climate-friendly alternatives. Ten
commenters referred to the CAP.
1. General Comments
Comment: EPA received over 7,000 substantially identical comments
regarding the climate impacts of HFCs and supporting action to address
the growth in usage of these potent greenhouse gases. The commenters
also stated that that the rest of the world, including Europe and
Japan, is taking action to reduce HFC emissions, so the United States
should also transition away from HFCs to protect the planet from the
catastrophic impacts of climate change. They also stated that it is of
the utmost importance to limit ``super-potent'' greenhouse gases from
use in refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosols and foams and
substitute them with safer, more climate-friendly alternatives. They
also noted that some HFCs remain in the atmosphere for decades or even
centuries after they are released, so that they have a strong
cumulative effect. NRDC stated that if EPA were only considering human
health risks, HFCs should be banned immediately given the climate
risks. NRDC commented that we know these chemicals are extremely potent
agents of climate change, and we know that continuing to use them only
exacerbates the climate problem. EIA requested that EPA continue to
remove high GWP HFCs from the lists of acceptable substitutes, given
that HFC emissions are set to double by 2020 and triple by 2030, and
given that this rule has the potential to reduce 42 MMTCO2eq
by 2020. EIA urged EPA to address all sectors covered in the SNAP
program, given the needs of climate and the existence of climate-
friendly alternatives. DuPont commented that they acknowledge the
environmental need to avoid future growth in GHG emissions, and have
thus developed low-GWP, energy efficient products.
Response: The Agency appreciates the support of actions to list
change the status of certain HFCs. Other actions urged by the
commenters are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
2. EPA's Benefits Analysis
Comment: EPA received a number of comments regarding the
importance, significance, and magnitude of the environmental benefits
of avoided HFC emissions that would result based on the proposed rule.
CARB comments the current regulations and the SNAP proposal meet
only half of the 80% reduction necessary for the HFC sector if
California is to meet its overall GHG reduction goal contained in
California Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 (2005). Therefore, CARB believes
additional HFC reductions are required to reduce this fastest-growing
source of GHGs.
NRDC and IGSD comment that even though HFCs may currently make up a
small piece of global climate emissions, their projected rapid growth
underscores the urgent need to replace these chemicals with lower-GWP
alternatives. Further, NRDC and IGSD comment that without stringent
rules in place, HFC emissions increases could counteract the progress
EPA is striving to make in other sectors to reduce carbon pollution.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for reducing GHG emissions,
and appreciates the estimates of the benefits in terms of
MMTCO2eq that the
[[Page 42945]]
commenters provide. CARB's comment concerning meeting GHG reduction
goals in a California EO are beyond the scope of this rule; we may
consider additional status changes in a future rule. We agree with NRDC
and IGSD that HFC emissions are growing rapidly and that it is timely
to act now to encourage use of lower-GWP alternatives and ensure
continuing progress. The Agency notes that both EPA's estimates cited
in the NPRM and the estimates the commenters provide are based on the
provisions of the proposed rule, and that the benefits from this final
rule differ. For further information, see EPA, 2014 and EPA, 2015b.
Comment: Arkema comments that at this time, it is not possible to
provide a more detailed critique of the Vintaging Model's assumptions
and the levels of sector emissions given the lack of meaningful
information in the docket. Arkema comments that the docket does not
provide all the model inputs, nor does EPA disclose the specific
emission factors that it used to derive its estimates, how recent those
estimates are, and how they are expected to change over time. Arkema
comments that EPA's benefits analysis nowhere details the extent of the
uncertainties in its emissions estimates, even though the record
elsewhere acknowledges that such emissions estimates may be unreliable.
Response: As an initial matter, EPA did not rely on the Vintaging
Model in reaching decisions about whether other alternatives present
lower overall risk. Nor did EPA otherwise rely on the benefits analysis
that accompanied the proposed rule. We estimated emissions reductions
resulting from this rulemaking in order to provide information to the
public. Consistent with section 612(c) of the CAA, EPA relied on the
criteria for review specified in the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR
82.180(a)(7) in determining whether the substitutes for which we
proposed to change the status presented greater risk to human health
and the environment than other available alternatives.
As part of the process for listing alternatives, EPA evaluates
information concerning a substitute according to the criteria in EPA's
regulations at 82.180(a)(7) (e.g., atmospheric effects, ecosystem
risks, occupational and consumer risks, availability) in comparison
with other available substitutes for the same end-uses. At the time of
review, we prepare a risk screen and place it in the relevant public
docket for our listing decisions. It is rare for risk screens to
include information from the Vintaging Model, although such information
may be used in some cases to estimate emissions (e.g., VOC emissions
from an end-use where the submitter has provided insufficient
information). The preambles to this final rule and the NPRM include
information summarizing the comparisons to other alternatives. In
addition, we also have docketed a document which provides the Federal
Register citations for the information on the health and environmental
characteristics of various alternatives in the end-uses covered in this
final rule (EPA, 2015d).
See the next response for further information about where one can
find information on the modeling assumptions and methodology.
Comment: Arkema commented that in order to calculate HFC sector
emission savings, the Vintaging Model needs to be revised since it is
over-estimating chemical demand. Arkema also commented that the basis
and methodology for the Vintaging Model's emissions estimates are
unclear, but a comparison to publicly available information should have
raised red flags because a steady growth rate of HFC emissions in the
U.S. is extremely unlikely for at least three of the four covered
sectors (i.e., MVAC, aerosols, and foams). For MVAC, Arkema comments
that refrigerant charge sizes have been dropping, and new cars will be
transitioning to low-GWP alternatives over time. Arkema notes that for
aerosols, a significant portion of the aerosol product manufacturing
industry has already transitioned out of the HFCs proposed for
regulation. In addition, Arkema points out that UNEP's 2014 TEAP report
shows that hydrocarbon technologies already dominate the foam sector.
Response: EPA's Vintaging Model has been explained annually in the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks \101\ report and other
places. For example, the 2015 annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks report, EPA Report 430-R-15-004 (EPA, 2015c),
covers emissions, including emissions of HFCs used as ODS alternatives,
for the years 1990 through 2013 and provides in detail the basis and
methodologies used. The commenter is misinformed with respect to the
assumptions used in the model. Specifically, the model does assume that
MVAC refrigerant charge sizes have dropped over time, and it utilizes
detailed sector information to calculate such changes. In addition, it
does assume that a significant portion of the aerosol product
manufacturing industry has transitioned out of HFCs. Although the cited
2014 TEAP report--which the commenter states indicates hydrocarbon
technologies dominate the foam sector--applies globally rather than
specifically to the United States, EPA notes that its Vintaging Model
does specifically assume that significant transition in the foam
industry to non-ozone-depleting, low-GWP substances, including
hydrocarbons, has occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Available online at www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/2014.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Arkema comments that as far as they are aware, EPA has
never submitted its Vintaging Model for external peer review. Arkema
comments that the Vintaging Model qualifies under the Agency's Peer
Review Handbook as ``influential scientific information'' for which
external peer review is warranted. Arkema believes that the underlying
data has been kept a secret. Arkema comments that EPA's NPRM is not
consistent with Administrator McCarthy's three pillars of EPA's
scientific conclusions: Transparency, rigorous peer review, and robust,
meaningful public comment. Arkema comments that EPA cannot obtain
robust, meaningful comments if the Vintaging Model is not subject to
peer review and if underlying data is kept secret.
Response: As explained above, EPA used its Vintaging Model to
provide information to the public, but does not rely on that
information to support today's rule. Thus, the issue of whether the
Vintaging Model should be subject to a peer review process is outside
the scope of this rulemaking action.
3. Energy Efficiency
Comment: EPA received a number of comments regarding energy
efficiency and LCCP of refrigeration equipment. NAFEM commented that
the life-cycle climate performances of manufacturers show that only
about 10% of the environmental impact is due to a combination of
refrigerant leak, charge amount and GWP of the refrigerant; the rest
relates to energy efficiency. NAFEM asserted that the proposed SNAP
rule does not account for nor can EPA claim any significant
environmental benefits to offset significant costs. The Alliance noted
that given the important energy efficiency consequences of this
proposed rule, it is unclear how this action will meet the statutory
standard of no greater risk to human health and the environment. The
Alliance commented that by taking previously acceptable substitutes off
the market, these proposals could result in less efficiency in the near
term. The Alliance further comments as EPA evaluates the
[[Page 42946]]
timing of transitions in various end-use segments, it is important that
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, including those associated with
energy use, are given proper consideration as part of ensuring the
alternative presents ``no greater risk to human health and the
environment.''
Response: EPA provided estimates of the climate benefits associated
with the NPRM, and we have also estimated the climate benefits
associated with this final rule (EPA, 2014; EPA, 2015b). These
estimates are based on avoided direct HFC emissions. They are distinct
from our evaluation of whether other alternatives are currently or
potentially available that present less overall risk to human health
and the environment. EPA does not have a practice in the SNAP program
of including indirect climate impacts or energy efficiency in the
overall risk analysis. We do consider issues such as technical needs
for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining
whether alternatives are ``available.'' Elsewhere in this final action,
EPA addressed and responded to comments concerning energy efficiency
(see in particular sections V.C.3.c, V.C.4.c, V.C.7 and V.D.3.c). EPA
notes that the refrigerant is only one of many factors affecting energy
efficiency. Moreover, even as refrigerant transitions have taken place
over past decades, we have seen improved energy efficiency. This is
often due to equipment redesigns and technology advancements that
include factors besides the choice of refrigerant. EPA notes that a
number of models are already commercially available that do not use the
refrigerants subject to a change of status in this final rule and also
meet or exceed the relevant energy conservation standards and thus
reduce both direct and indirect climate impacts.
4. The Climate Action Plan
Comment: EPA received six comments commending the EPA for quickly
proposing a rule to achieve the goals in the President's CAP.
Response: EPA appreciates the support from this wide variety of
interested stakeholders on addressing the goals in the President's CAP.
Comment: EPA received two comments questioning whether the
President's CAP provides authority to regulate HFCs.
Response: Section 612 of the CAA, not the CAP, provides the
authority for this action. CAA section 612(c) requires EPA to list a
substitute as unacceptable if other available alternatives pose lower
risk to human health and the environment.
Comment: Two comments stated that EPA's response to the President's
CAP in the NPRM did not consider full ramifications of the challenges
to industry.
Response: The NPRM proposed changes to listings based on the
information the Agency had at the time of the proposal. We requested
comments to further our understanding of any potential challenges
relating to technical feasibility or supply. We considered that
additional information as we developed the final rule.
D. Potential Exemptions
Comment: EIA commented on potential exemptions, specifically the
need for a mechanism to petition for an essential use exemption or for
more time with a valid basis. The commenter recognized that the
potential for the misuse of such a mechanism could overwhelm the
resources of the EPA available for this transition. As a result, EIA
recommended that EPA grant no blanket exemptions or delays due to the
needs of one or a few sectors but that EPA establish an exemption
mechanism with a penalty clause to avoid misuse.
Response: The SNAP regulations do not currently contain an across-
the-board mechanism for petitioning for an exemption, and EPA did not
propose such a mechanism in the NPRM. To make such a change in our
regulations, we would first need to provide an opportunity for public
comments. In some instances in the final rule EPA has changed a listing
to acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits. The narrowed use limits
identify a narrow part of the end-use in which an end user could use an
otherwise unacceptable substitute if they can support that no other
acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application.
E. Interactions With Other Rules
Comment: The Alliance, AHAM, AHRI, and a number of other commenters
in the commercial refrigeration and home appliance industries expressed
concern about the feasibility of using other alternatives to meet DOE
energy conservation standards. AHRI and Coca-Cola stated that DOE's
federal minimum energy conservation standards are based on refrigerants
and foam blowing agents that EPA is now proposing to list as
unacceptable. NAFEM comments that manufacturers are now finding that
developing a product to meet both the energy conservation standards and
also utilizes acceptable alternative refrigerants and blowing agents is
daunting if not impossible. Commenters pointed out that they have
redesigned products to meet DOE energy conservation standards due to
take effect in 2017. See section V.C.1.b for a discussion of DOE energy
conservation standards that apply to the equipment affected by this
rule.
Response: Given that today's rule contains later deadlines than
proposed, as well as a phased-in approach with different status change
dates for different kinds of equipment as suggested by many commenters,
this should address commenters' concern about meeting both sets of
requirements.\102\ EPA continues to coordinate with DOE as EPA reviews
alternative refrigerants and foam blowing agents, DOE tests energy
efficiency of certain alternative refrigerants, and the two agencies
discuss each other's rulemakings in development. EPA sees the redesign
of products as an integral part of business operations, and believes
redesigning equipment to use refrigerants that pose a lower overall
risk to human health and the environment is in many ways similar to
past redesigns. We believe that manufacturers can incorporate lower-GWP
refrigerants in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and
remote condensing units while designing for DOE energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigeration equipment and for walk-in
coolers and freezers, both of which have compliance dates in 2017, and
can incorporate lower-GWP foam blowing agents while designing for DOE
standards for household refrigerators/freezers. Based on the 2014
compliance date of the most recent DOE standards for residential
refrigerators and freezers, the compliance date for any revised energy
conservation standard for household refrigerators and freezers would be
no earlier than 2020. As discussed in the previous and following
responses and in sections V.C.7 and V.D.3.c) as well as other sections
of this preamble, there are both refrigerants and foam blowing agents
with lower GWPs available that allow for improved energy efficiency
compared to the substitutes we are finding unacceptable in this rule.
EPA anticipates that innovative companies
[[Page 42947]]
will seize this opportunity to develop more efficient and profitable
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to
undue hardship by DOE's regulations, the manufacturer may petition
DOE's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or
exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA's authority under
section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as
implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority
to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a
manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause
hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: A number of manufacturers of commercial refrigeration
products commented on the relative energy efficiency of alternative
refrigerants, compared to the refrigerants proposed to be unacceptable.
Lennox commented that the substitution of R-407 family refrigerants in
place of R-404A and R-507A will negatively affect the efficiency
performance of refrigeration equipment for walk-in coolers and
freezers. Structural Concepts stated that switching from R-404A to R-
744, and consequently switching to thicker piping and new compressors,
would increase energy usage overall by 45%, which would cause the unit
to exceed the allowable energy level determined by the DOE. AMS
commented that after studying the suitability of the acceptable (R-744)
and proposed acceptable (R-290, R-600a and R-441A) alternatives
extensively, it concluded that only R-290 will allow it to meet DOE
energy conservation mandates. NAMA stated that because of DOE
requirements, CO2's use would be limited to indoor self-
contained units, limiting locations of refrigerated vending machines,
reducing revenues for the entire supply chain and reducing consumer
choice. Information in the Agency's possession describes a
manufacturer's testing of the energy efficiency of condensing units
with R-404A compared to R-407A, finding that the energy efficiency was
typically higher with R-407A in medium-temperature equipment but was
typically lower with R-407A in low-temperature equipment (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-1098-0184). Structural Concepts comments that R-744 is not
flammable, but it is less energy efficient than the acceptable,
flammable refrigerant propane, and to meet the EPA proposed regulation
would likely mean they fail to meet DOE regulations or go out of
business trying to meet them.
Response: EPA expects that no single refrigerant will improve
energy efficiency compared to the unacceptable refrigerants in every
type of equipment or in every situation. For example, the information
regarding a manufacturer's test results indicates that R-407A may
provide improved energy efficiency compared to R-404A for medium-
temperature refrigeration equipment (refrigerators), but not
necessarily for low-temperature refrigeration equipment (freezers);
this information indicates that Lenox's comment about lower energy
efficiency of R-407A compared to R-404A or R-507A may be correct for
low-temperature equipment and incorrect for medium-temperature
equipment. We agree with the commenters who noted that R-744 may be
more energy efficient in locations with lower ambient temperatures and
thus may be more suitable for use indoors than outdoors. R-290 may
provide better energy efficiency than HFC refrigerants in many
situations, but not necessarily all, and not all end users will want to
use a flammable refrigerant. In response to the comment from Structural
Concepts expressing concern about the ability to meeting energy
conservation standards using CO2 and the cost of using
propane, we note that there are additional refrigerant choices
available for stand-alone refrigeration equipment and vending machines
besides CO2 and hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as the
nonflammable refrigerants R-448A, R-449A, R-450A and R-513A. As
discussed in section V.C.7, these blends may show improved energy
efficiency over HFC-134a and R-404A. In addition, design and operation
of refrigeration equipment affects energy efficiency and not just the
refrigerant used. Given the variety of currently or potentially
available alternatives, EPA believes it is unlikely that manufacturers
will have to use refrigerants that will result in reduced energy
efficiency compared to the refrigerants being listed as unacceptable or
otherwise restricted in this final rule, and we expect that
manufacturers will be able to meet DOE energy conservation standards
with the remaining available alternatives.
Comment: Some manufacturers of commercial refrigeration products
commented on how design changes needed to accommodate alternative
refrigerants may negatively affect energy efficiency. Parker Hannifin
stated that most of the alternatives result in higher discharge
temperatures and that some of the discharge temperature control methods
employed negatively affect system efficiency. Nor-Lake and Structural
Concepts indicated that they expected to need dual compressor systems,
and stated that the increased energy usage of the dual system may
outweigh the environmental gains of using the alternate lower-GWP
refrigerant.
Response: EPA agrees that some design changes could have negative
impacts on energy efficiency if they were done without broader
considerations for the overall performance of the appliance. As stated
elsewhere, many models that comply with DOE energy conservation
standards are already commercially available that do not use the
refrigerants subject to a change of status in this final rule. We agree
with Nor-Lake and Structural Concepts that dual compressor systems are
more likely needed for larger equipment, particularly larger equipment
using hydrocarbon refrigerants which have use limits restricting the
refrigerant charge in a single refrigeration circuit. Recent listings
of additional nonflammable refrigerants (e.g., R-450A) allow for
additional options that would not require dual compressors. In response
to Parker Hannifin's comment about discharge temperatures, we note that
producers of some alternative refrigerant blends under review by the
SNAP program claim that these new blends have operating properties
similar to those of HFC refrigerants, such as similar operating
pressures and discharge temperatures.
Given the variety of currently or potentially available
alternatives, EPA believes it is unlikely that manufacturers will have
to use refrigerants that will result in reduced energy efficiency
compared to the refrigerants being listed unacceptable in this final
rule.
Comment: The Alliance, AHAM, AHRI, and a number of other commenters
in the commercial refrigeration and home appliance industries suggested
that the SNAP rulemaking schedule should be better coordinated with the
ongoing DOE energy conservation standard rulemaking schedules. AHAM
comments that firms have invested millions of dollars to meet new DOE
conservation standards that were based on the assumption of the
availability of HFCs, and have diverted the scarce capital that is
available for regulation-driven investment. The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM) requested that the EPA harmonize the rule with the
DOE rule in order to ease the capital- and design-intensive
manufacturer transition. Scotsman Ice Systems and Whirlpool Corporation
stated that as a result of the potential regulatory measures, their
ability to develop any customer focused products or new product
features during this time will be constrained. GE Appliances notes that
the burden of overlapping regulatory requirements between SNAP and the
DOE require consideration and review under the executive orders issued
by President Obama and his predecessors that require consideration of
cumulative regulatory burden.
Response: EPA's timeframes are based upon our understanding of the
availability of alternatives, considering technical challenges and
supply. The timeframes in this final rule take into account additional
information on availability provided to the Agency
[[Page 42948]]
during the comment period. These timeframes account for the time needed
to meet the technical challenge of designing equipment using
alternative refrigerants that can meet the DOE requirements. We note
that EPA and DOE coordinate to the extent possible. For example, each
agency has reviewed the other's rules. The list of acceptable SNAP
alternatives is evolving. EPA is also coordinating with DOE to ensure
more alternative refrigerants are being tested for energy efficiency.
We recognize that as manufacturers focus on designing equipment to meet
the DOE standards and to use refrigerants acceptable under the SNAP
program, they may need to divert design resources from other projects
for that period of time. However, as provided in section VII.A.7, this
type of transition cost is not a part of the SNAP review criteria. As
explained in the Statutory and Executive Order sections at the end of
the NPRM and of this final rule, EPA has complied with those
requirements.
Comment: The National Restaurant Association (NRA) comments that
the food industry is already being affected by the EPA's rule Listing
of Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of
the Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes. NRA
believes the EPA should consider the impacts of the cumulative
regulatory burden of rulemakings and standards imposed nearly
simultaneously on manufacturers of this equipment in the final
rulemaking.
Response: The rule entitled ``Listing of Substitutes for
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting
Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes'' lists additional
substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions. It does not
mandate use of the newly listed substitutes. Thus, it is unclear how it
might result in cumulative regulatory burden together with this rule.
Equipment designed using the refrigerants in that rule is not affected
by this rule, which concerns different refrigerants. Finally, that rule
also has an exemption from requirements under section 608 of the CAA
that will reduce regulatory burden.
Comment: Danfoss commented that several of the refrigerants listed
as acceptable in the rule titled Listing of Substitutes for
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting
Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes are severely restricted
by building codes and would not be acceptable for use in most areas of
the U.S, mainly due to their flammability. Danfoss stated they believe
that the proposed replacement refrigerants are not able to be used as
short term alternatives to those being found unacceptable because
changes to model building codes and subsequent adoption by states and
localities will likely be much later than 2020.
Response: EPA acknowledges that some building codes may currently
restrict or prohibit use of flammable refrigerants. We note that other
available or potentially available refrigerants that are not flammable
and have relatively low GWP (roughly 600 or less), including R-744 and
R-450A, are listed as acceptable for use in retail food refrigeration
and in vending machines.
Comment: A number of manufacturers of laboratory refrigeration
equipment and several foam manufacturers suggested that EPA align the
timelines for transition of foam blowing agents and refrigerants with
the requirements of the EU F-Gas regulations. The commenters summarized
the deadlines for foams as: 2008 for one-component foams, January 1,
2020, for XPS, January 1, 2023, for other foams, and provisions for a
four-year extension of time where (1) ``alternatives are not available
or cannot be used for technical or safety reasons'' or (2) ``the use of
technically feasible and safe alternatives would entail
disproportionate costs.'' Commenters summarized the deadlines for
refrigerants in commercial refrigerators and freezers as being January
1, 2020, for HFCs with GWP of 2,500 and January 1, 2022, for HFCs with
GWP of 150 or more.
Reasons given for this coordination of timeline with EU regulations
include: Many companies are trans-national and had already been
planning on a transition in line with the EU regulatory deadlines; the
SNAP program has deferred to other regulations in the past; and the
later deadlines will allow for redesign of refrigeration equipment for
both alternative, flammable refrigerants and for new foam blowing
agents and for needed third-party testing. Commenters stated that the
proposed deadlines would create an extreme burden, particularly on
small businesses; that part supplies needed for compliance are not
offered in the United States; and that the transition is a complicated
undertaking that cannot be performed in 18 months.
Response: EPA disagrees that it should align the timelines in this
rule with the EU timelines. The EU regulations are based upon different
authority from the SNAP program and we must decide upon timelines based
upon the availability of alternatives in the United States. Concerning
the suggestion that EPA has deferred to other regulations, we note that
there are several key differences. As an initial matter, we have
deferred to U.S. regulations. More importantly, we have not deferred to
other regulations in a manner that overrides the statutory mandate
governing the SNAP program. Rather, in the context evaluating risks of
alternatives under our comparative risk framework we have looked to
regulations in effect, such as workplace regulations from OSHA or the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, to determine
whether a specific alternative may be used as safely as other available
alternatives. This is different from aligning with a timeline in
another nation's regulations that are not effective within the United
States or deferring to considerations in those regulations, such as
transition costs, that are not part of the SNAP decision criteria.
F. Other Comments
Additional public comments not already discussed above along with
EPA's responses are available in the Response to Comments document
which accompanies this action (EPA, 2015a).
VIII. Additional Analyses
EPA does not consider the cost of transition to other alternatives
in making listing decisions because under the SNAP criteria for review
in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the
substitute under review. However, EPA has prepared technical support
documents including analyses of costs associated with sector
transitions, estimated avoided GHG emissions associated with the
transition to alternatives, and potential small business
impacts.103 104 105
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ ICF, 2015a. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes
to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. July 2015.
\104\ ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--
Revised. July 2015.
\105\ EPA, 2015. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status
Change Rule, July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transition scenarios analyzed possible ways to comply with the
final rule. The transition scenario in the cost analysis reflects a
direct compliance cost method and does not assume the regulated
community chooses higher-cost solutions where known less costly
solutions exist. The scenarios analyzed in the avoided GHG emissions
analysis reflect possible transitions for compliance based on
considerations of the market and activity towards lower-GWP solutions.
While the emission reductions have been quantified, they have not been
monetized. Thus, higher or lower GHG emission reductions do
[[Page 42949]]
not necessarily correlate to higher or lower costs due to the different
assumptions and methodologies used in the different analyses. However,
the transitions assumed in the lower, less aggressive scenario here are
similar to the transitions assumed in the cost analysis.
To extend the assessment to all-sized businesses potentially
affected by the rulemaking, EPA conducted an analysis on costs to all-
sized businesses building on the approach taken to estimate potential
economic impacts on small businesses. Using a 7% discount rate, total
annualized compliance costs across affected businesses are estimated to
range from $28.0 million to $50.6 million; total annual savings are
estimated to be about $19.3 million. Using a 3% discount rate, total
annualized compliance costs across affected businesses are estimated to
range from $19.5 million to $37.8 million, total annual savings are
estimated be about $19.3 million.
EPA conducted an analysis on the potential avoided GHG emissions
associated with implementation of this final rule. The emissions
avoided from this final rule are estimated to be 26 to 31
MMTCO2eq in 2020. The avoided emissions are estimated to be
54 to 64 MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 78 to 101 MMTCO2eq in 2030
(EPA, 2015b) .
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control
number 2060-0226. This final rule contains no new requirements for
reporting or recordkeeping.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The requirements of
this final rule with respect to HFCs, will impact manufacturers of some
consumer and technical aerosol products, retail food refrigeration
equipment, vending machines, motor vehicles, and products containing
phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, PU, and polystyrene foams. The
requirements of this final rule with respect to HCFCs could
theoretically affect manufacturers of aerosols, foams, industrial
cleaning solvents, fire suppressants, and adhesives, coatings, and
inks; however, due to existing regulations that restrict the use of
HCFCs in these products, no actual impact is expected. In some uses,
there is no significant impact of the final rule because the
substitutes proposed to be prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use of
HFC-134a as a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC-134a
as a foam blowing agent in various polyurethane foams). A significant
portion of the businesses regulated under this rule are not small
businesses (e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers). About
500,000 small businesses could be subject to the rule, although more
than 99% of those businesses are expected to experience zero compliance
costs because other available substitutes for supermarket refrigeration
systems and condensing units have costs similar to those of the
refrigerants listed as unacceptable. For those small businesses with
compliance costs, impacts are estimated to range from 0% to 48% of
annual sales, with approximately 57 businesses expected to experience
an impact of 3.0% of annual sales or more. Details of this analysis are
presented in the document, Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--
Revised (ICF, 2015b). In our analysis, we found that while some small
businesses may experience significant costs, the number of small
businesses that would experience significant costs is not substantial.
We have therefore concluded that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in EO 12866, and because the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action restricts the use of certain substitutes that
have greater overall risks for human health and the environment,
primarily due to their high global warming potential. The reduction in
GHG emissions would provide climate benefits for all people, including
benefits for children and future generations.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol uses are not related to the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. For the end-uses that are
related to energy effects, including refrigeration and air conditioning
and some rigid cell PU and polystyrene insulation foams, a number of
alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants and foam
blowing agents that are listed as unacceptable in this action; many of
the alternatives are as energy-efficient or more energy-efficient than
the substitutes being listed as unacceptable. As described in more
detail in this document, energy efficiency is influenced, but not
determined, by the refrigerant. Similarly, although foam blowing agents
influence the insulation properties of rigid cell foams, this also can
vary due
[[Page 42950]]
to other properties of the foam (e.g., thickness). Thus, we have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This action would prohibit a number of substances
with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and GWP emissions would
assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and provide climate
benefits.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
X. References
This preamble references the following documents, which are also in
the Air Docket at the address listed in section I.B.1. Unless specified
otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the
Federal Docket Management System, Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198.
AGC, 2014. AGC to Supply Honeywell with HFO-1234yf--New-generation
Automobile Refrigerant, 23 January 2014. This document is accessible
at: https://www.agc.com/english/news/2014/0123e.pdf.
Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries
of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
Andersen, S.O., Sherman, N.J., Craig, T., Baker, J., ``Secondary
Loop Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL-MACs). Using Low-
Global Warming Potential (GWP) Refrigerants.'' In Leak-Tight Systems
in Climates with High Fuel Prices and Long, Hot and Humid Cooling
Seasons. Building on the Previous Success of Delphi, Fiat, General
Motors, Volvo, Red Dot, SAE Cooperative Research Projects, and Other
Engineering Groups.'' MACS Briefing, 2015.
Arkema, 2013. Arkema is announcing the construction of production
capacities for new refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf, September 4,
2013. This document is accessible at: www.arkema.com/en/media/news/news-details/Arkema-is-announcing-the-construction-of-production-capacities-for-new-refrigerant-fluorinated-gas-1234yf/?back=true.
Ben and Jerry's, 2014. Cleaner, Greener Freezers. This document is
accessible at www.benjerry.com/values/how-we-do-business/cleaner-greener-freezers.
CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on Climate-Friendly Alternatives in
Commercial Refrigeration. Meeting Summary, December 8, 2012.
Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible
at: assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-gri-report.pdf.
Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 Millionth HFC-Free Cooler
Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, January
22, 2014. This document is accessible at: www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing-525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2.
Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol
Pressurized Products Survey--61st Annual Products Survey. April 15,
2012.
Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test new R404A ``drop-
in.'' October 5, 2014. This document is accessible at:
www.coolingpost.com/world-news/spanish-store-first-to-test-new-r404a-drop-in/.
Daimler, 2014. ``Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler's Safety
Concerns About New Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,'' Stephen
Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily Environment Report, March 11, 2014. This
document is accessible at: news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=0.
Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is accessible at:
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTM.
Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 13, 2014.
EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act.
Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009.
EPA, 2011a. Greenchill. ``Advanced Refrigeration''. This document is
accessible at: www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gc_storecertprogram08232011.pdf.
EPA, 2011b. GreenChill. ``Best Practices Guidelines: Commercial
Refrigeration Retrofits''. August 2011. This document is accessible
at https://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pdf.
EPA, 2012a. Factsheet: Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation 2000-2013.
This document is accessible at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum_merged.pdf.
EPA, 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-
2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-12-016, August
2012.
EPA, 2013a. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-
2030, September 2013.
EPA, 2013b. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol,
June, 2013.
EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule,
June 2014.
EPA, 2015a. Response to Comments on the SNAP Status Change Rule.
July 2015.
EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule,
July 2015.
EPA, 2015c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2013, EPA Report 430-R-15-004. April 15, 2015. This document is
accessible at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.
EPA, 2015d. Table of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered in the
Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing
Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. February, 2015.
FTOC, 2010. 2010 Report of the Foams Technical Option Committee.
Gaved, 2015. Emerson Climate Technologies Offers to Help Supply
Chain Move to Lower-GWP Refrigerants. January 28, 2015. This
document is accessible at: https://www.racplus.com/news/-emerson-climate-technologies-offers-to-help-supply-chain-move-to-lower-gwp-refrigerants/8677708.article.
GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, October 2008.
Honeywell, 2014a. Aerosols Overview-Honeywell Solstice[supreg]
Propellant. EPA meeting. February 27, 2014.
Honeywell, 2014b. Honeywell International Comments on Proposed Rule:
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for
Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program. October 20, 2014.
Honeywell, 2015. Honeywell Starts Full-Scale Production of Low-
Global-Warming Propellant, Insulating Agent, and Refrigerant.
January 6, 2015. This document is accessible at: honeywell.com/News/Pages/Honeywell-Starts-Full-Scale-Production-Of-Low-Global-Warming-Propellant-Insulating-Agent-And-Refrige.aspx.
ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry.
Prepared for the
[[Page 42951]]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.
ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory
Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June
2014.
ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost-Analysis for Regulatory Options
to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014.
ICF, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Rigid Polyurethane
Appliance Foam; Rigid Polyurethane Commercial Refrigeration and
Sandwich Panels; Rigid Polyurethane & Polyisocyanurate Laminate
Boardstock; Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock; Flexible Polyurethane;
Integral Skin Polyurethane Substitute: Methylal October, 2014.
ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry,
and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015.
ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory
Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--Revised.
July, 2015.
ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. July, 2015.
IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe
K. (eds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
(IGES), Japan. This document is accessible at: www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L.
Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at: www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M.,
G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and
P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and
the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and
Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
ITW Polymers Sealants, 2014. Comments of ITW Polymers Sealants North
America on Proposed SNAP Status Change Rule. October 15, 2014.
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0071.
Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and
Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
Nelson, 2013. Nelson, Gabe ``Automakers' switch to new refrigerant
will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate'' Automobile
News, December 30, 2013. This document is accessible at:
www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea.
NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone
Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.'' Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
PepsiCo, 2009. PepsiCo Brings First Climate-Friendly Vending
Machines to the U.S., March 30, 2009. This document is accessible at
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pepsico-brings-first-climate-friendly-vending-machines-to-the-us-61975262.html.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015. ``Coca Cola to
narrowly miss HFC-free global refrigeration target.'' This document
is accessible at: www.racplus.com/news/coca-cola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global-refrigeration-target/8680290.article).
Shapiro, Doron. ``System Drop-In Tests of R-134a, R-1234yf,
OpteonTM XP10, R-1234ze(E), and N13a in a Commercial
Bottle Cooler/Freezer'', January 25, 2013. This document is
accessible at https://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI%20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt-008.pdf.
Shecco, 2013a. Guide 2013: Natural Refrigerants--Market Growth for
North America. This document is accessible at
publication.shecco.com/publications/view/6.
Shecco, 2013b. HCs Gaining Market Prominence in US--View from the
NAFEM Show--Part 1, February 18, 2013. This document is accessible
at https://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/3891.
Shecco, 2015. New Regulations Inspire Hydrocarbon Displays at U.S.
NAFEM Show, February 24, 2015. This document is accessible at https://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/6143.
UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options
Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at:
ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the
Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document
is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information
on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. This document is accessible
at: conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/cop10-mop26/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20o1/Corrigendum_TEAP_TaskForce%20XXIV-7-September2013.pdf.
UNEP, 2014. Summary of the Information Submitted By Parties on Their
Implementation of Paragraph 9 of Decision XIX/6 to Promote a
Transition from Ozone-Depleting Substances That Minimizes
Environmental Impact (Decision XXV/5, Paragraph 3). November, 2014.
This document is accessible at: conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/cop10-mop26/presession/PreSession%20Documents/MOP-26-9E.pdf.
Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O.
Andersen (2009). ``The large contribution of projected HFC emissions
to future climate forcing.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report: Analyses
of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.'' Department of
Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September
26, 2011.
Weissler, Paul, ``A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R-
1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,'' Automotive Engineering
International, April 2, 2013.
WMO, 2010. World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project--Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland,
2011.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
Dated: July 2, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended
as follows:
[[Page 42952]]
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
0
2. Appendix B to subpart G of part 82 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the first entry and adding four entries in its place in
the table titled ``Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions''.
0
b. By adding a new entry at the bottom of the table ``Refrigerants--
Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits''.
0
c. By adding three new entries at the end of the table titled
``Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes
Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle HFC-134a.......... Acceptable subject --must be used EPA is concerned
Air Conditioning (New Equipment/ to use with unique that the
NIKs only). conditions, for fittings. existence of
passenger cars --must be used several
and light-duty with detailed substitutes in
trucks labels. this end-use may
manufactured for increase the
Model Year 2020 likelihood of
or earlier, and significant
for vehicles refrigerant cross-
other than contamination and
passenger cars or potential failure
light-duty trucks. of both air
conditioning
systems and
recovery/
recycling
equipment.
CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle HCFC Blend Beta (R- Acceptable subject --must be used EPA is concerned
Air Conditioning (New Equipment/ 416A). to use with unique that the
NIKs only). conditions, for fittings. existence of
passenger cars --must be used several
and light-duty with detailed substitutes in
trucks labels. this end-use may
manufactured for increase the
Model Year 2016 likelihood of
or earlier, and significant
for vehicles refrigerant cross-
other than contamination and
passenger cars or potential failure
light-duty trucks. of both air
conditioning
systems and
recovery/
recycling
equipment.
CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle R-401C............ Acceptable subject --must be used EPA is concerned
Air Conditioning (New Equipment/ to use conditions. with unique that the
NIKs only). fittings. existence of
--must be used several
with detailed substitutes in
labels. this end-use may
increase the
likelihood of
significant
refrigerant cross-
contamination and
potential failure
of both air
conditioning
systems and
recovery/
recycling
equipment.
CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle HFC-134a, R-401C, Acceptable subject --must be used EPA is concerned
Air Conditioning (Retrofit HCFC Blend Beta to use conditions. with unique that the
Equipment only). (R-416A). fittings. existence of
--must be used several
with detailed substitutes in
labels. this end-use may
--all CFC-12 must increase the
be removed from likelihood of
the system prior significant
to retrofitting. refrigerant cross-
Refer to the text contamination and
for a full potential failure
description. of both air
conditioning
systems and
recovery/
recycling
equipment. No
distinction is
made between
``retrofit'' and
``drop-in''
refrigerants;
retrofitting a
car to use a new
refrigerant
includes all
procedures that
result in the air
conditioning
system using a
new refrigerant.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new HFC-134a.............. Acceptable for use in Vehicle manufacturers must
equipment in passenger cars and Model Year (MY) 2021 document their
light-duty trucks only). through MY 2025 determination that the
passenger cars and infrastructure is not in
light-duty trucks place for each country to
destined for export, which they plan to export
where reasonable vehicles and must retain
efforts have been the documentation in their
made to ascertain files for at least five
that other years after date of its
alternatives are not creation for the purpose
technically feasible of demonstrating
because of lack of compliance.
infrastructure for Documentation is to include
servicing with descriptions of:
alternative Products in which
refrigerants in the the substitute is needed;
destination country. Substitutes
examined and rejected for
the destination country;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives; and
Anticipated date
other substitutes will be
available and projected
date of transition in the
destination country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42953]]
Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new HFC-134a.............. Unacceptable as of HFC-134a has a Chemical
equipment in passenger cars and Model Year 2021 Abstracts Service Registry
light-duty trucks only). except where allowed Number (CAS Reg. No.) of
under narrowed use 811-97-2 and it is also
limit. known by the name 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoropropane. HFC-
134a has a GWP of 1,430.
Other substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
This listing does not
prohibit the servicing or
replacement of motor
vehicle air conditioning
systems manufactured to
use HFC-134a.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new R-406A, R-414A (HCFC Unacceptable as of These refrigerants all
equipment in passenger cars and Blend Xi, GHG-X4), R- Model Year 2017. contain HCFCs. They have
light-duty trucks only). 414B (HCFC Blend GWPs ranging from 1,080 to
Omicron), HCFC Blend 2,340 and ODPs ranging
Delta (Free Zone), from 0.008 to 0.056. Other
Freeze 12, GHG-X5, substitutes will be
HCFC Blend Lambda available for this end-use
(GHG-HP), R-416A with lower overall risk to
(FRIGC FR-12, HCFC human health and the
Blend Beta). environment by the status
change date.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new SP34E, R-426A (RS-24, Unacceptable as of These blends have GWPs
equipment in passenger cars and new formulation). Model Year 2017. ranging from approximately
light-duty trucks only). 1,410 to 1,510. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Appendix D to subpart G of part 82 is amended by revising the third
paragraph to read as follows:
Appendix D to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes
Summary of Decisions
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions
* * * * *
In addition, the use of a) R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``HCFC Blend
Lambda''/``GHG-HP'', R-414A/``HCFC Blend Xi''/``GHG-X4/``Autofrost''/
``Chill-It'', R-414B/``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'', and R-416A/``HCFC Blend
Beta''/``FREEZE 12'' as CFC-12 substitutes in retrofitted MVACs, and b)
all refrigerants submitted for, and listed in, subsequent Notices of
Acceptability as substitutes for CFC-12 in MVACs, must meet the
following conditions.
* * * * *
0
4. Appendix U to subpart G of part 82 is added to read as follows:
Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82--Unacceptable Substitutes and
Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions Listed in the July 20, 2015
Final Rule, Effective August 19, 2015
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 GWP of 3,500. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Products using this
propellant that are
manufactured prior to
January 1, 2016 may be sold,
imported, exported,
distributed and used after
that date.
Propellants................. HFC-134a................. Unacceptable as of July HFC-134a has a Chemical
20, 2016, except uses Abstracts Service Registry
listed as acceptable, Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811-
subject to use 97-2 and it is also known by
conditions. the name 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoropropane. HFC-134a
has a GWP of 1,430. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Products using this
propellant that are
manufactured prior to July
20, 2016 may be sold,
imported, exported,
distributed and used after
that date.
Propellants................. HFC-227ea and blends of Unacceptable as of July HFC-227ea has a Chemical
HFC-134a and HFC-227ea. 20, 2016, except uses Abstracts Service Registry
listed as acceptable, Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 431-
subject to use 89-0 and it is also known by
conditions. the name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropane. 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-227ea and HFC-134a have
GWPs of 3,220 and 1,430,
respectively. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
[[Page 42954]]
Products using these
propellants that are
manufactured prior to July
20, 2016 may be sold,
imported, exported,
distributed and used after
that date.
Propellants................. HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b.... Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
September 18, 2015. 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.
Solvents.................... HCFC-141b and blends Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
thereof. September 18, 2015. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitutes Acceptable Subject To Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further
End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propellants.......... HFC-134a............. Acceptable The classes of products HFC-134a has a
subject to use listed below are acceptable Chemical
conditions. for use from July 20, 2016 Abstracts
through December 31, 2017 Service Registry
and are unacceptable Number (CAS Reg.
thereafter. No.) of 811-97-2
products for and it is also
functional testing of smoke known by the
detectors. name 1,1,1,2-
products for which tetrafluoropropa
new formulations require ne. HFC-134a has
governmental review, a GWP of 1,430.
including: EPA pesticide Use is allowed
registration, approval for for the
conformance with military specified uses
or space agency because of the
specifications, or FDA technical and
approval (other than MDIs). safety demands
The classes of products in these
listed below are acceptable applications.
for use and other uses are Aerosol products
unacceptable as of July 20, using this
2016:. propellant that
metered dose are manufactured
inhalers approved by the prior to July
U.S. Food and Drug 20, 2016, may be
Administration for medical sold, imported,
purposes. exported,
cleaning products distributed and
for removal of grease, flux used after that
and other soils from date.
electrical equipment or
electronics.
refrigerant flushes
products for
sensitivity testing of
smoke detectors.
lubricants and
freeze sprays for
electrical equipment or
electronics.
sprays for aircraft
maintenance.
sprays containing
corrosion preventive
compounds used in the
maintenance of aircraft,
electrical equipment or
electronics, or military
equipment..
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
propellants..
mold release agents
and mold cleaners..
lubricants and
cleaners for spinnerettes
for synthetic fabrics..
duster sprays
specifically for removal of
dust from photographic
negatives, semiconductor
chips, specimens under
electron microscopes, and
energized electrical
equipment..
adhesives and
sealants in large
canisters..
document
preservation sprays..
wound care sprays..
topical coolant
sprays for pain relief..
products for
removing bandage adhesives
from skin..
Propellants.......... HFC-227ea and blends Acceptable Acceptable for use in HFC-227ea has a
of HFC-227ea and HFC- subject to use metered dose inhalers Chemical
134a. conditions. approved by the U.S. Food Abstracts
and Drug Administration for Service Registry
medical purposes and Number (CAS Reg.
unacceptable for all other No.) of 431-89-0
uses as of July 20, 2016. and it is also
known by the
name
1,1,1,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropa
ne. HFC-227ea
has a GWP of
3,220.
[[Page 42955]]
Aerosol products
using this
propellant that
are manufactured
prior to July
20, 2016 may be
sold, imported,
exported,
distributed and
used after that
date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
(supermarket systems) (new). R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R- January 1, 2017. GWPs ranging from 2,729
422D, R-428A, R-434A, R- to 3,985. Other
507A. substitutes will be
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment by the
status change date.
Retail food refrigeration R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R- Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
(supermarket systems) (retrofit). 422A, R-422C, R-422D, R- July 20, 2016. GWPs ranging from 2,729
428A, R-434A, R-507A. to 3,985. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment by the
status change date.
Retail food refrigeration (remote HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
condensing units) (new). R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R- January 1, 2018. GWPs ranging from 2,729
422D, R-428A, R-434A, R- to 3,985. Other
507A. substitutes will be
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment by the
status change date.
Retail food refrigeration (remote R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R- Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
condensing units) (retrofit). 422A, R-422C, R-422D, R- July 20, 2016. GWPs ranging from 2,729
428A, R-434A, R-507A. to 3,985. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment by the
status change date.
Retail food refrigeration (stand- FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
alone medium-temperature units HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ January 1, 2019. GWPs ranging from
with a compressor capacity below 290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ approximately 900 to
2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- 3,985. Other substitutes
flooded evaporator) (new). 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R- will be available for
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R- this end-use with lower
417A, R-421A, R-421B, R- overall risk to human
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- health and the
422D, R-424A, R-426A, R- environment by the
428A, R-434A, R-437A, R- status change date.
438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 ``Medium-temperature''
formulation), RS-44 (2003 refers to equipment that
formulation), SP34E, THR- maintains food or
03. beverages at
temperatures above
32[deg]F (0 [deg]C).
Retail food refrigeration (stand- FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
alone medium-temperature units HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ January 1, 2020. GWPs ranging from
with a compressor capacity below 290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ approximately 900 to
2,200 Btu/hr and containing a 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- 3,985. Other substitutes
flooded evaporator) (new). 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R- will be available for
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R- this end-use with lower
417A, R-421A, R-421B, R- overall risk to human
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- health and the
422D, R-424A, R-426A, R- environment by the
428A, R-434A, R-437A, R- status change date.
438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 ``Medium-temperature''
formulation), RS-44 (2003 refers to equipment that
formulation), SP34E, THR- maintains food or
03. beverages at
temperatures above
32[deg]F (0 [deg]C).
Retail food refrigeration (stand- FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
alone medium-temperature units HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ January 1, 2020. GWPs ranging from
with a compressor capacity equal 290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ approximately 900 to
to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr) 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- 3,985. Other substitutes
(new). 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R- will be available for
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R- this end-use with lower
417A, R-421A, R-421B, R- overall risk to human
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- health and the
422D, R-424A, R-426A, R- environment by the
428A, R-434A, R-437A, R- status change date.
438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 ``Medium-temperature''
formulation), RS-44 (2003 refers to equipment that
formulation), SP34E, THR- maintains food or
03. beverages at
temperatures above
32[deg]F (0 [deg]C).
Retail food refrigeration (stand- HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/ Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
alone low-temperature units) 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/ January 1, 2020. GWPs ranging from
(new). 1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R- approximately 1,800 to
407B, R-407C, R-407F, R- 3,985. Other substitutes
410A, R-410B, R-417A, R- will be available for
421A, R-421B, R-422A, R- this end-use with lower
422B, R-422C, R-422D, R- overall risk to human
424A, R-428A, R-434A, R- health and the
437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS- environment by the
44 (2003 formulation). status change date.
``Low-temperature''
refers to equipment that
maintains food or
beverages at
temperatures at or below
32[deg]F (0 [deg]C).
[[Page 42956]]
Retail food refrigeration (stand- R-404A, R-507A............ Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
alone units only) (retrofit). July 20, 2016. GWPs of approximately
3,922 and 3,985. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment by the
status change date.
Vending machines (new only)....... FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a January 1, 2019. GWPs ranging from
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R- approximately 1,100 to
404A, R-407C, R-410A, R- 3,985. Other substitutes
410B, R-417A, R-421A, R- will be available for
422B, R-422C, R-422D, R- this end-use with lower
426A, R-437A, R-438A, R- overall risk to human
507A, RS-24 (2002 health and the
formulation), SP34E. environment by the
status change date.
Vending machines (retrofit only).. R-404A, R-507A............ Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
July 20, 2016. GWPs of approximately
3,922 and 3,985. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment by the
status change date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narrowed use
End-use Substitute Decision limits Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance.. HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
365mfc and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, only in technical
Formacel TI, and military or investigation of
Formacel Z-6. space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 Acceptable from Users are required to
Refrigeration and Sandwich 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
Panels. 365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, only in technical
Formacel TI, and military or investigation of
Formacel Z-6. space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof. Limits. 2022, only in technical
military or investigation of
space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 Acceptable from Users are required to
and Other. 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2019, document and retain
365mfc and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, only in technical
Formacel TI, and military or investigation of
Formacel Z-6. space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 42957]]
Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
Polyisocyanurate Laminated 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
Boardstock. 365mfc and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof. Limits. 2022, only in technical
military or investigation of
space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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: Marine HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
Flotation Foam. 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
365mfc and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, only in technical
Formacel TI, and military or investigation of
Formacel Z-6. space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 Sheet.... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, only in technical
Formacel TI, and military or investigation of
Formacel Z-6. space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
Boardstock and Billet. 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2021, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, only in technical
Formacel TI, military or investigation of
Formacel B, and space- and alternatives for the
Formacel Z-6. aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, only in technical
Formacel TI, and military or investigation of
Formacel Z-6. space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 42958]]
Polyolefin..................... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, only in technical
Formacel TI, and military or investigation of
Formacel Z-6. space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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 Acceptable from Users are required to
Bunstock. 134a, HFC-245fa, Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
HFC-365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof. Limits. 2022, only in technical
military or investigation of
space- and alternatives for the
aeronautics- purpose of
related demonstrating
applications compliance.
where reasonable Information should
efforts have include descriptions
been made to of:
ascertain that Process or
other product in which the
alternatives are substitute is needed;
not technically Substitutes
feasible due to examined and
performance or rejected;
safety Reason for
requirements. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Foam Blowing End-uses.......... HCFC-141b and blends Unacceptable effective HCFC-141b has an ozone
thereof. September 18, 2015. depletion potential of
0.11 under the Montreal
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
ozone depletion potential
(ODP) of 0.11.
All Foam Blowing end-uses.......... HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
and blends thereof. September 18, 2015. 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 ODPs
of 0.055 and 0.065,
respectively.
Flexible Polyurethane.............. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 have global warming
blends thereof. except where allowed potentials (GWPs) ranging
under a narrowed use from 725 to 1,430. Other
limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet........ HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 have GWPs ranging from
blends thereof; except where allowed higher than 370 to
Formacel TI, and under a narrowed use approximately 1,500. Other
Formacel Z-6. limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Phenolic Insulation Board and HFC-143a, HFC-134a, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
Bunstock. HFC-245fa, HFC- January 1, 2017 have GWPs ranging from 725
365mfc, and blends except where allowed to 4,470. Other
thereof. under a narrowed use substitutes will be
limit. available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Integral Skin Polyurethane......... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 have GWPs ranging from
blends thereof; except where allowed higher than 370 to
Formacel TI, and under a narrowed use approximately 1,500. Other
Formacel Z-6. limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
Other. HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2019 have GWPs ranging from
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed higher than 370 to
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use approximately 1,500. Other
limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
Polyisocyanurate Laminated HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2017 have GWPs ranging from 725
Boardstock. thereof. except where allowed to 1,430. Other
under a narrowed use substitutes will be
limit. available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
[[Page 42959]]
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
Flotation Foam. HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2020 have GWPs ranging from
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed higher than 370 to
and Formacel Z-6;. under a narrowed use approximately 1,500. Other
limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels. HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2020 have GWPs ranging from
blends thereof; except where allowed higher than 370 to
Formacel TI, and under a narrowed use approximately 1,500. Other
Formacel Z-6. limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance...... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2020 have GWPs ranging from
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed higher than 370 to
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use approximately 1,500. Other
limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
and Billet. HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2021 have GWPs ranging from
blends thereof; except where allowed higher than 140 to
Formacel TI, Formacel under a narrowed use approximately 1,500. Other
B, and Formacel Z-6. limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
Polyolefin......................... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing agents
HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2020 have GWPs ranging from
blends thereof; except where allowed higher than 370 to
Formacel TI, and under a narrowed use approximately 1,500. Other
Formacel Z-6. limit. substitutes will be
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment by the status
change date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Agents--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Flooding..................... HCFC-22............... Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
September 18, 2015. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sterilants--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sterilants......................... Blends containing HCFC- Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
22. September 18, 2015. 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.
This chemical has an ozone
depletion potential of
0.055.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. September 18, 2015. 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. 2015-17066 Filed 7-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
