*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 1 of 304

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL-XXXX-XX-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 [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 2 of 304

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, D.C. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 

Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 

566–1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca von dem Hagen, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460; telephone number 

(202) 343–9445; fax number (202) 343–2338, e-mail address: vondemhagen.rebecca@epa.gov.

Notices and rulemakings under EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program are 

available on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone website 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 3 of 304

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 MVACs?

a) SNAP interpretation

b) Narrowed use limit for MVACs

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 commonlyused refrigerants
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 4 of 304

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? 

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?
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 5 of 304

(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. Applicability to service of existing equipment

8. Energy efficiency consideration

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 6 of 304

4. The Climate Action Plan

D. Potential exemptions

E. Interactions with other rules

F. Other comments

VIII. 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)

IX. 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 7 of 304

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 (79 FR 46,126), the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) proposed to change the status of 

certain substitutes1that 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 

 

1

The terms “substitutes” and “alternatives” are used interchangeably.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 8 of 304

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) 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:

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 1, 2016, except for those uses 

specifically listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 9 of 304

 EPA is listing HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, as of July 1, 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 1, 2016, until

January 1, 2018, for the following specific uses: 

o 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

o products for smoke detector functionality testing.

 EPA is listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of July 1, 2016, for 

the following specific uses:

o cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical 

equipment or electronics;

o refrigerant flushes; 

o products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;

o sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of 

aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment;

o duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, 

semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron microscopes or for use on 

energized electrical equipment; 

o adhesives and sealants in large canisters;

o lubricants for electrical equipment or electronics;

o sprays for aircraft maintenance;
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 10 of 304

o 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;

o mold release agents;

o lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics;

o document preservation sprays;

o MDIs approved by the FDA for medical purposes;

o wound care sprays;

o topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and

o 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 11 of 304

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 January 1, 2016

 New supermarket systems: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, 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, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of January 1, 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: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), and SP34E as of January 1, 2016

 New vending machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON B, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), and SP34E as of January 1, 2018

 Retrofitted stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC134a, 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, R422B, 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, 2016
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 12 of 304

 New stand-alone medium-temperature units with a rated 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, R424A, 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 low-temperature units, stand-alone units with a rated capacity equal to 

or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and/or containing a flooded evaporator: FOR12A, FOR12B, 

HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/60 0a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R407A, 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, R507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03 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 enduse 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 we believe do not fall within the categories and end-uses covered by this 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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 13 of 304

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 or 2020) 

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, HFC365mfc, 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, HFC365mfc 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, 2020
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 14 of 304

 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, HFC365mfc, and blends thereof, as of January 1, 2017

 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 15 of 304

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

 

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 HighGWP 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 HighGWP Alternatives. June 2014.

9

ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 16 of 304

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 28 to 36 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020 and 53 to 69 

MMTCO2eq in 2025 (EPA, 2015b).

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES BY NORTH AMERICAN 

INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE

Category NAICS code Description of regulated entities

Industry 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors

Industry 324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing

Industry 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

Industry 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing

Industry 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing

Industry 325612 Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods

Industry 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing

Industry 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing

Industry 326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing

Industry 326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing

Industry 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing

Industry 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing

Industry 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing

Industry 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

 

Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry

10 ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives--Revised. April 2015.

11 EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, April 2015.

12 ICF, 2015c. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives. April 2015.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 17 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 18 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 19 of 304

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

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 20 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 21 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 22 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 23 of 304

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 13,044) 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; 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 24 of 304

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 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 

 

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 25 of 304

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

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 

 

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 26 of 304

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 

available17 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 13,044; 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 

 

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)
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 27 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 28 of 304

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

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 enduse, 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, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 29 of 304

we maintain lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our website, 

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 §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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 30 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 31 of 304

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. 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 32 of 304

SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater 

risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes, the SNAP criteria 

should be informed by our current overall understanding of environmental and human health 

impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially available 

substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same 

time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental 

and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies.

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP determinations. First, under 

section 612(d), the Agency must review and either grant or deny petitions to add or delete 

substances from the SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision allows 

any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to the list of acceptable or 

unacceptable substitutes or to remove a substance from either list. The second means is through 

the notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before introduction of a substitute into 

interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. 

These 90-day notifications are required by section 612(e) of the CAA for producers of substitutes

to class I substances for new uses and, in all other cases, by EPA regulations issued under 

sections 114 and 301 of the Act to implement section 612(c). 

Finally, 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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 33 of 304

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 13,044), 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 34 of 304

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 29

notices expanding 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 enduses. 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 30,275). Based on new 

information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals in the blend, EPA subsequently removed 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 35 of 304

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 3,861). 

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 14,432). 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 website at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the 

Agency’s process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, 

refer to the initial SNAP rule published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13,044), codified at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 36 of 304

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 66,496, the Administrator issued two distinct findings 

regarding GHGs18 under section 202(a) of the CAA:

 Endangerment Finding: the current and projected concentrations of the six key wellmixed 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 

 

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).
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 37 of 304

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

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 onefifth 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 

 

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 38 of 304

pathway.

25,26 Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific literature and 

emission scenarios is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

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 

 

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 39 of 304

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 HFC134a 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 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. 

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 

 

27 See, e.g., 60 FR at 31,097.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 40 of 304

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 highGWP 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 lowemissions 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 41 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 42 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 43 of 304

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;

 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 1, 

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 HFC227ea and HFC-134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of July

1, 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 1, 2016, until January 1, 2018, for the 

 

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 44 of 304

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 1, 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 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; 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; 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

End-use Substitutes Decision Uses that Are Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 45 of 304

Propellants HFC-125 Unacceptable 

as of January 

1, 2016

None

Propellants HFC-134a Unacceptable 

as of July 1, 

2016 except 

for uses listed 

as acceptable, 

subject to use 

conditions

From July 1, 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 1, 2016: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other 

soils from electrical equipment; refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity 

testing of smoke detectors; lubricants 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; 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 

of HFC227ea and 

HFC-134a

Unacceptable 

as of July 1, 

2016 except 

for uses listed 

as acceptable, 

subject to use 

conditions

As of July 1, 2016: FDA-approved MDIs for medical purposes

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-inkind alternatives such as finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes, and 

wipes. These alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 124 compared with HFC-134a’s 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 46 of 304

GWP of 1,430, HFC-227ea’s GWP of 3,220 and HFC-125’s GWP of 3,500.29 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, HFO1234ze(E), and CO2, compressed 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 

 

29 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 47 of 304

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 46,136 through 46,138 (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 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, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 48 of 304

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 (HFC227ea’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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 49 of 304

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 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 HFO1234ze(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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 50 of 304

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 46,137-46,138 and a technical support 

document (ICF, 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 1, 2016, aerosol products may not be manufactured with HFC-134a or HFC227ea, 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 1, 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 1, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 51 of 304

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?
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 52 of 304

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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 53 of 304

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 1, 2016–six 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 54 of 304

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 55 of 304

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 sellthrough 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 56 of 304

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 so for uses where nonflammability is 

critical, 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 HFO1234ze(E), can be used safely even 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 57 of 304

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 HFC227ea 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 58 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 59 of 304

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. HFO1234ze(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 HFO1234ze(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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 60 of 304

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 HFO1234ze(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 productspecific testing on HFO-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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 61 of 304

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 HFO1234ze(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 an additional six months 

beyond the date in the proposal to meet commenters’ general comments about requiring 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 62 of 304

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 HFO1234ze(E) already exist or are in development for these uses. EPA received no information 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 63 of 304

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 available propellant options that are not VOC or are exempted from the 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 64 of 304

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. HFO1234ze(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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 65 of 304

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 °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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 66 of 304

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 HFC134a as a refrigerant would be considered an aerosol, and use of HFC-134a as the propellant 

would not be allowed as of July 1, 2017, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 67 of 304

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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 68 of 304

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, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 69 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 70 of 304

alternatives for MVAC have been listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions,

30 including

HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744). Manufacturers are currently 

producing 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,

31 and the availability of credits under the Light-Duty 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 HFC134a 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.

 

30 Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

31 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 71 of 304

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 nine32 models in the United States produced by several manufacturers of lightduty 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 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 2021.33 According to comments submitted by Honeywell, there 

are approximately 28 different automobile brands selling around 60 different models designed to 

use HFO-1234yf globally.

34 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.

35

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 

 

32 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. 

33 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113

34 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0170

35 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0077
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 72 of 304

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.

36

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 HFC152a in secondary loop MVAC systems. 37

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 lowGWP 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 

 

36 Daimler, 2014.

37 Andersen et al., 2015. “Secondary Loop Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL---MACs). Using LowGlobal 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 73 of 304

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 HFO1234yf, 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 these uses. 

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 lightduty trucks only)

HFC-134a 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.

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new

equipment in passenger cars and lightduty 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 MY 2017

a) HFC-134a
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 74 of 304

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.

38 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 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. As

summarized above, 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 HFO1234yf, 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 for the full variety of light-duty vehicle models on the market. We proposed MY 2021 

 

38Because the MVAC system used is so closely related to vehicle design, we are using model years and not calendar 

years. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 75 of 304

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 lowerGWP 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, 2012.39 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. Redesign cycles vary by vehicle model and by 

manufacturer and average about five model years in duration.40 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

 

39 77 FR 62,624, 62,807-810 (October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR 25,325, 25,431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the 

same issue for MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles)

40 See 77 FR 62,712 and 75 FR 25,407, 25,451 for a more detailed discussion of this practice.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 76 of 304

changes to the system design that are needed to allow the safe use of these alternatives consistent 

with the regulatory use conditions.

41 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 2021.42 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 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

 

41 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 the flammability or exposure.

42 77 FR 62,720
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 77 of 304

MY 2018.

43 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 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 2021,44

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 by 

MY 2021. 

EPA also received comments on this rule requesting an earlier change of status date

based on the availability of alternative refrigerants and the fact that transition is already 

 

43 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

44 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.”
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 78 of 304

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 midcycle 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-
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 79 of 304

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 vehicle 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 80 of 304

existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC-134a or a refrigerant blend.45

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.46 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. 

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-

 

45 EPA is also clarifying that thermostatic expansion valves (TXVs) are not impacted by today’s action.

46 See also 77 FR 62,807.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 81 of 304

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. Thus, manufacturers can generate credits from use of lowerGWP 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. 47 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. 

 

47 See 77 FR 62,804-809.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 82 of 304

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 78,846, December 20, 2011 (“This 

definition applies to any appliances produced in the United States, including appliances that will 

be exported.”)

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 83 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 84 of 304

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 ‘nonconfidential’ blinded summary of individual manufacturer refrigerant changeover plans.”48 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 HFO1234yf 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 201449 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.

50 While adoption is occurring in the United States, most of the estimated 7 million 

 

48 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0207 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0113

49 Nelson, 2013 

50 77 FR 62,720
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 85 of 304

vehicles mentioned by DuPont are in Europe where the EU MAC Directive 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 

low-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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 86 of 304

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 (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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 87 of 304

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-
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 88 of 304

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 lowerGWP 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,

51 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, 2014a) 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 assume no regulatory action, and 

thus no benefits, under SNAP. However, our analysis of 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.

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-

 

51 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 89 of 304

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 lowerGWP 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 90 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 91 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 92 of 304

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 “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 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.”
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 93 of 304

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 94 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 95 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 96 of 304

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 HFO1234yf) 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 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 need by the EU. 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.52 For these reasons, EPA does not agree 

with commenters that there will be an insufficient supply of alternatives by MY 2021. Further, 

 

52 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 97 of 304

EPA is also aware of public announcements by Arkema indicating planned production in 2017 of 

HFO-1234yf.53

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 HFO1234yf. 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 

 

53 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-capacitiesfor-new-refrigerant-fluorinated-gas-1234yf/?back=true.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 98 of 304

those investigations are resolved, Honeywell and DuPont will control the manufacture of HFO1234yf 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 enduse 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 99 of 304

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 48,758, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 100 of 304

improvements in air conditioning ... systems, both for efficiency improvements...and for 

leakage or alternative, lower-GWP refrigerants used (reduces [HFC] emissions).” 76 FR at 

487,613. These credits remain available under the light-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 lowerGWP refrigerants by MY 2021. Indeed, the standards’ stringency was predicated on 100% 

substitution beginning in MY 2021.54

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 46,142)

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 

 

54 See id. at 62,779/2; see also id. at 62,778/2 and 62,805/3.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 101 of 304

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.55 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 the reduces the overall risks to human health 

and the environment for all MVAC systems manufactured in the United States, including those 

 

55 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 102 of 304

exported to other countries,56 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, 2014a; 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 

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 HFC134a 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 

 

56 Except consistent with the narrowed use limit.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 103 of 304

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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 104 of 304

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 and availability” of the substitute, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 105 of 304

considers as part of its SNAP review is the “cost and availability” of the substitute. 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, 2013), 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. 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 106 of 304

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 HFC134a 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 107 of 304

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 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 as of the effective date 

of the final rule.

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 108 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 109 of 304

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 equipment, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 110 of 304

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 low-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 HFC134a vehicles, which they believe currently should be all export markets except Canada and 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 111 of 304

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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 112 of 304

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 low-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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 113 of 304

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

low-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 website 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 114 of 304

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 commonlyused 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 115 of 304

tons) and are composed of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and one 

receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located external to the sales area. 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.

57 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 

 

57 www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigeration
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 116 of 304

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 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-HQOAR-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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 117 of 304

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 note 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 118 of 304

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, [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 end-use category as described, 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.” 

“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 13,070 

(March 18, 1994) where EPA clearly designated “commercial ice machines” as a separate enduse than “retail food refrigeration.” Thus, both self-contained ice makers, as well as ice-making 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 119 of 304

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.

Several commenters, including Master Bilt Products and ThermoFisher, 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 19,453)

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 120 of 304

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. 

c) The terms “new” and “retrofit” and how they apply to servicing

Several commenters, including the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), Supermarket 

Company ABC, and Hussmann sought clarification of the terms “new” and “retrofit” and how 

these terms might affect store remodels and the use of cases or other equipment that in the future 

are added to or replaced for existing cases or equipment.

For the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, the SNAP program has, since the 

inception of the program, made a distinction between new equipment and retrofitted equipment. 

In some cases, a particular refrigerant is acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions only

in new equipment, not in retrofits. In other cases, a particular refrigerant is only acceptable in 

retrofits, not new equipment. In the NPRM, EPA evaluated whether to change the status of 

refrigerant substitutes for retrofits separate from its evaluation of whether to change the status of 

refrigerant substitutes for new equipment in each of the four end-uses and categories addressed. 

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

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 78,832; 

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” 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 121 of 304

but EPA does not use that term interchangeably with retrofit (see 79 FR 64,270). 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. 

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 HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b was largely restricted to use as a refrigerant in 

equipment manufactured before that date (40 CFR 82.15(g)(2); 74 FR 66,412). 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 

66,412). 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 122 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 123 of 304

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

Retail food refrigeration (supermarket 

systems)(retrofit)

R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507AUnacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

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, R407B, 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, R424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03 [Others to be added, pending decisions in SNAP 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 124 of 304

Notice 30].

58 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. R-450A is in use in a supermarket 

in Spain.59 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-134a, is widely available from multiple 

producers and refrigerant suppliers. Honeywell noted that “commercial quantities of HFO1234yf and HFO-1234ze [are] available today.” [To be added, pending decisions in SNAP Notice 

30: Likewise, DuPont indicated an increasing supply of HFO-1234yf, a component in a number 

of acceptable refrigerants [to be specified] for new supermarket systems amongst other 

applications discussed below].

In the preamble to the NPRM, 79 FR at 46,144, 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 62,863) and included information on its risk to human 

health and the environment. [To be added, pending decisions in SNAP Notice 30: EPA also listed 

as acceptable [to be specified] on XXXXX, 2015 (80 FR XXXXX)) and included information on 

their risk to human health and the environment.] Data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, 

 

58 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by 

the phasedown in HCFC production.

59 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/
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 125 of 304

VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives may be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking (ICF, 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, and 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 126 of 304

to use conditions, EPA concluded none of these refrigerants pose significantly greater risk than 

for the refrigerants that are not or do not contain VOC. Because the risks other than GWP are not 

significantly different for the other available alternatives than for those we proposed to list as 

unacceptable and because the GWP for the refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable is 

significantly higher and thus poses significantly greater risk, we are listing the following 

refrigerants as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, 

R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A.

(2) When will the status change?

As explained here and in more detail 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 R744, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 127 of 304

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, we believe that 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 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, R434A, and R-507A. In today’s final rule we are finalizing as proposed.

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, 2016, status change date. For example, supermarket systems designed for 

use with or retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to January 1, 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, R426A, R-427A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 128 of 304

formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03 [Others to be added, pending decisions in SNAP 

Notice 30].

60 Data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for 

these alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (ICF, 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.61

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 

62,863) and included information on its risk to human health and the environment. [To be added, 

pending decisions in SNAP Notice 30: EPA also listed as acceptable [to be specified] on 

XXXXX, 2015 (80 FR XXXXX)) and included 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 

 

60 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by 

the phasedown in HCFC production.

61 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 129 of 304

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, R434A, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 130 of 304

reclaimed every year since at least 2000 and over seven million pounds every year since 2006.62

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 R407A 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 option[s] 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.63

(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 January 1, 2016.

 

62 The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can be found on EPA’s website at: 

www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum_merged.pdf

63 For example, see CCAC, 2012.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 131 of 304

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 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. Again, as such retrofits to acceptable alternatives are already occurring, 

and the option to continue to operate and service existing systems remains, EPA does not see any

reason to alter the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date for retrofits in this end-use 

category. 

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 132 of 304

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 R434A in new and retrofit supermarket systems.64

Several other manufacturers of supermarket equipment, including Hussmann, MasterBilt, 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 

 

64 They addressed the change of status date for R-404A and R-507A with regard to stand-alone units but not 

supermarket systems.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 133 of 304

Hussmann, both of whom offer supermarket systems with such refrigerants, and Supermarket 

Company ABC and FMI, who have used such products, did not indicate that there were 

performance, efficiency or reliability issues when using R-407A, R-407C or R-407F in 

supermarket systems. 

We recognize the concern raised by Hussmann regarding store layout plans for new 

systems. Store design plans are generally developed well in advance of the physical change-over 

or construction, because of several different factors related to construction and installation as 

well as the need to address any commissioning, performance optimization or start-up procedures. 

Hussmann suggested a change of status date of 2018 to allow up to three years for design.

Hussmann did not indicate if the “up to three years in advance” for planning a new design was a 

typical planning cycle or a rare maximum, nor did they indicate that any particular customer 

currently is in the planning stage but will not have equipment designed to use a refrigerant we 

are listing as unacceptable operational until 2018. We further note that the NPRM was proposed 

on August 6, 2014, and thus supermarkets were on notice at that time that the refrigerants we are 

listing as acceptable in this action 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. 

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 systems are in place and operational.

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 134 of 304

that the industry needs at least six years to make a smooth complete transition away from R404A, 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 46,144) 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 135 of 304

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 (www.hillphoenixlc.com/course-curriculum/refrigeration-systems/). 

Learning material is also available from EPA’s GreenChill program, including for instance the 

GreenChill Retrofit Guidelines, which contain material on refrigerants R-407A, R-407F and R427A, all of which remain acceptable in retrofit supermarket systems 

(www2.epa.gov/greenchill/greenchill-resources-and-reports). 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-450A [Others to be added, pending decisions in SNAP 

Notice 30], 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 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.

3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (remote condensing 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 136 of 304

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)

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, 2018

Retail food refrigeration (remote 

condensing units)(retrofit)

R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, R-507AUnacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

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, R422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. In today’s final rule, we are finding that 

same list of nine HFC blends and HFC-227ea as unacceptable as of January 1, 2018. The change 

from the proposal is in response to information provided by commenters concerning technical 

challenges with meeting the January 1, 2016, proposed date.

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment?

A number of other refrigerants are listed as acceptable for new remote condensing units: 

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03 [Others to be added, pending decisions in SNAP 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 137 of 304

Notice 30].

65 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 [one is][some are] listed as 

acceptable.

See section 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.

 

65 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by 

the phasedown in HCFC production.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 138 of 304

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, several commenters provided information supporting 

the feasibility of these alternatives. For example, Rheem provided 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 mediumtemperature equipment. For unit coolers, Rheem 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, they 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 2% to 3% 

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. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) energy conservation 

standards for commercial refrigeration equipment will be required on March 27, 2017 (see also 

section C.10 below). Commenters noted the challenges with timing for designing products with

acceptable alternatives and testing these products to meet the 2017 DOE energy conservation 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 139 of 304

standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. 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, R434A, and R-507A. In today’s final rule, we are finalizing as we proposed. 

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 January 1, 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, R426A, R-427A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03 [Others to be added, pending decisions in SNAP 

Notice 30].

66

 

66 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 140 of 304

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 C.2(b)(1) above for a summary of our comparative assessment of the SNAP 

criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for the refrigerants we are listing as 

unacceptable with the other available refrigerants. The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable 

for retrofit remote condensing units are the same as those we are listing as unacceptable for 

retrofit supermarket systems. Likewise, the available alternatives for retrofit remote condensing 

units are the same as those for retrofit supermarket systems. For the same reasons as presented in 

section 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 2b(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 

 

the phasedown in HCFC production.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 141 of 304

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 as proposed a change of status date of 

January 1, 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 option[s] 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 January 1, 2016, as proposed.

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 142 of 304

remote condensing units with R-407A and R-449A are presented above in section 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 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. 

Again, as such retrofits to acceptable alternatives are already occurring, and the option to 

continue to operate and service existing systems remains, EPA does not see any reason to alter 

the proposed January 1, 2016, change of status date for retrofits in this end-use category. 

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 R404A, R-507, and R-422D for new systems and as a retrofit refrigerant.”

Many equipment manufacturers including: Hussmann; Continental Refrigerator;

Rheem/HTPG; 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 2020 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 143 of 304

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 that are scheduled to become effective in 

2017 (see also section C.10). In particular, the commenters claimed that additional development 

of low-temperature products may be necessary to match current efficiency levels.

Hussmann was concerned with the lead time of its customers in planning store layouts

with “remote systems,” which could include remote condensing units as well as supermarket 

systems, and indicated that a date of 2018 would allow its customers to better determine what 

types of systems and refrigerants to use. Lennox proposed a “phased in implementation timing 

by refrigerant equipment end-use category,” suggesting five years from publication of the final 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 144 of 304

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, 

which is currently under review by the SNAP program in this end-use, 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 January 1, 2016, date was 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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 145 of 304

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 submitted by Rheem 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. However, the information submitted by Rheem showed efficiency losses for this 

refrigerant in low-temperature applications. Although DuPont points to positive results using R449A 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. 

Given that the low-temperature results from Rheem 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 146 of 304

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 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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 147 of 304

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone 

medium-temperature units67 with a 

rated 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, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, 

THR-03. 

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2019

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone 

low-temperature units,

68 stand-alone 

units with a rated capacity equal to or 

greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and standalone 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, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, 

THR-03. 

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2020

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone 

units only) (retrofit)

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, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, 

THR-03. 

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

a) New 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 (stand-alone 

equipment) end-use category. For 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, THR-03 and 27 others, listed below, for 

which EPA is changing the status in other types of stand-alone equipment.] For all other new 

 

67 Medium-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C).

68 Low-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or below 32°F (0 °C).
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 148 of 304

stand-alone applications, EPA is changing the status from acceptable to unacceptable of 27 

refrigerants in addition to HFC-134a as of January 1, 2020. The 27 other refrigerants are: 

[FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R422B, 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]. 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 in 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 R600a 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.69

R-450A, R-744, IKON A, IKON B and THR-02 [Others to be added, pending decisions 

in SNAP Notice 30] are listed as acceptable substitutes in new stand-alone equipment without use 

 

69 See “New regulations inspire hydrocarbon displays at U.S. NAFEM Show,” 

www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/view/6143.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 149 of 304

conditions. 70 EPA is aware of equipment deployment using R-744. 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 

displayed with the HFC/HFO blends that are listed as acceptable, publicly-available literature 

indicates that 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 (see 

www.ahrinet.org/site/514/Resources/Research/AHRI-Low-GWP-Alternative-RefrigerantsEvaluation). The Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine quoted Emerson, a major 

supplier of compressors for this industry, as saying it is “prepared to support customers and 

devote more resources to qualifying lower GWP A1 refrigerant alternatives such as R448A, 

R449A, R-450A and R513A.”

71 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 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 

62,863) or acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19,453) after the NPRM 

was issued. Data on the environmental and health properties (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, 

 

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.

71 See “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-gwprefrigerants/8677708.article
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 150 of 304

flammability) for the acceptable alternatives as well as those we are finding unacceptable may be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking (ICF, 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 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.72 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 

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 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-

 

72 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 78,832 and April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19,453). 

Refer to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 151 of 304

421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation) and 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 1,397. The alternatives we are listing as 

unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 1,413 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 stand-alone 

low-temperature refrigeration equipment: 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, R421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation) and SP34E.

(2) When will the status change?

We are establishing a status date of January 1, 2019, for stand-alone medium-temperature

applications with a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded 

evaporator. 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 152 of 304

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 R744] 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 we believe 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 153 of 304

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 R290, we do not see any question regarding chemical supply. NAMA and True Manufacturing 

indicated that components have already been designed globally, including in the United States, 

using both R-290 and R-600a. Danfoss, Manitowoc and Unified Brands indicated that 1-2 years

are needed to develop air-cooled condensing units for R-290. Components using other 

hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as R-441A have not been developed, but these refrigerants are 

offered for sale in the U.S. and are in ample supply. 

EPA believes that much of the equipment development can occur in series; 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. 

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 154 of 304

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/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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 155 of 304

and EPA listed one of these, R-450A, as acceptable in October 2014 [Others to be added, 

pending decisions in Notice 30].

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 

slightly earlier as it was the first such blend found acceptable under SNAP. This includes one to 

two years for supplies to become widely available, ([Others to be added, pending decisions on 

Notice 30]) approximately one year for development and testing of components, and 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 156 of 304

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 concurrent 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 standalone retail food refrigeration units employing a flooded evaporator.

For these three types of stand-alone equipment, we believe 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 70F to 

100F” (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 stand-alone equipment end-use category that we found faced 

particular technical challenges was equipment designed to hold products at low temperatures. 

The choice of refrigerant is in part determined by the desired temperature that food or beverage 

will be stored. As with “large” equipment, discussed below, commenters, including Hussman 

and Hillphoenix, indicated that the charge size limits that apply to the hydrocarbon refrigerants 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 157 of 304

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, [To be added, pending decisions on Notice 30] which were 

designed to perform similarly to HFC-134a, would likewise not be workable in these 

applications. However, other HFC/HFO alternatives 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°F [-18 and 4.4°C] and product temperatures above freezing; low-temperature 

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 mediumtemperature 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 158 of 304

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, Nor-Lake, 

and Rheem/HTPG 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 R290 due to their size, shape, and custom uniqueness.” Nor-Lake stated that multiple circuit 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 159 of 304

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. [To be added, pending 

decisions on Notice 30].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” standalone 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 lowtemperature 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 mediumtemperature 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.”
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 160 of 304

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 lowtemperature systems as suggested by Nor-Lake and analyzed by Hillphoenix, but determined that 

establishing just one value would provide more clarity and ease of implementation. We chose the 

lower of Nor-Lake’s capacity of 2,200 Btu/hr, as a dividing line and explain how this applies 

further below. In setting one value, however, we considered the similarity of the capacities 

suggested by Nor-Lake, and the fact that these came within the range of sizes analyzed by

Hillphoenix.

Although the 2,200 Btu/hr compressor capacity delineation was based on the particular 

comment from Nor-Lake, neither that commenter nor others indicated how that capacity would 

be determined. EPA believes consensus standards from AHRI, an association representing 

manufacturers of such equipment, may be used for this purpose. In today’s final rule, we are 

indicating that the capacity for a stand-alone unit is to be calculated based on the compressor 

ratings as determined under ANSI/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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 161 of 304

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 below. 

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 as proposed. 

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 January 1, 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-
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 162 of 304

407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03.

73. 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. Data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., (ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, 

flammability) for these alternatives may be found in the docket to this rulemaking (ICF, 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 

 

73 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by 

the phasedown in HCFC production.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 163 of 304

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 R507A.

(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.” Therefore, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2016, as proposed.

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 164 of 304

proposed. Two refrigerant producers, Honeywell and DuPont suggested a change of status date 

of 2017 for new equipment to allow fuller development of HFC/HFO blends that require 

minimal design changes and offer similar or better performance than current refrigerants. Shecco

indicated that a date of January 1, 2018, was needed for “smaller” manufacturers to meet the 

requirements. Supermarket Company ABC also supported a 2018 change of status date for new 

stand-alone equipment. H&K International indicated R-290 is very energy efficient and that 

2018 would provide enough time to transition. Another manufacturer, Hatco, also believed a 

“January 1, 2018 implementation date would provide the needed time to do the necessary testing 

and certification for a safe and effective conversion.”

Other commenters supported a much later change of status date for new equipment. 

Approximately 30 manufacturers, listed in C.4(a)(2) above, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 165 of 304

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-450A [Others to be added, pending decisions in SNAP Notice 30] are 

listed as acceptable in this end-use category. 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 standalone 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, R441A, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 166 of 304

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-450A [Others to be added, pending decisions in SNAP Notice 30], 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 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-450 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 167 of 304

these options. For instance, Hillphoenix’s refrigerant change schedule indicates that the step of 

“Convert Products” for “Hydrocarbons (on applicable system)” 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 products is required on March 27, 2017 (see also 

section V.C.7). EPA is establishing change of status dates of January 1, 2019, or January 1,

2020, for stand-alone units. This allows additional time after compliance is required with the 

DOE standards for manufacturers to potentially redesign any products that require additional 

engineering to meet both this rule and the DOE standards. With 2019 and 2020 change of status 

dates, manufacturers have the opportunity to integrate low-GWP refrigerants in their models now 

as they prepare for the DOE requirements for some or all of their products. Other products 

already meeting those DOE standards but utilizing refrigerants that we are listing as 

unacceptable may be redesigned after the DOE deadline to ensure compliance with both EPA 

and DOE requirements. Given that some HFC/HFO blends, such as R-450A and [Others to be 

added, pending decisions in Notice 30], were designed to mimic HFC-134a in mediumtemperature refrigeration, and others, such as R-448A and R-449A were designed to mimic R404A in low-temperature refrigeration, EPA believes that these can be adopted into 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 168 of 304

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-134a, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, 

R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), 

SP34E.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2018

Vending machines (retrofit only) R-404A, R-507A. Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 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, 2018. 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, R125/290/134a/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?
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 169 of 304

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-600a, R-744, and THR-02 

[Others to be added, pending decisions on Notice 30].74

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 R600a, as acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 2015, 80 FR 19,453). [In addition, EPA 

listed [To be added, based upon decisions in Notice 30] as acceptable on XXXXX, 2015 (80 FR 

XXXXX). Data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these 

alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (ICF, 2015d). In summary, the other 

available refrigerants for new vending machines have zero ODP and GWPs ranging from 1 to 

about [less than 650]. 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 19,453). 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.75 None of the refrigerants currently listed as 

 

74 HCFC-22 and some blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by 

the phasedown in HCFC production.

75 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 19,453). Refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0748.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 170 of 304

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, R407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R438A, 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, 2018.

For new vending machines, there are several alternatives that can meet the technological 

needs of the market. EIA states that “R-744, R-290, R-441A, and isobutene (‘R-600a’) can 

satisfy the vast majority of the current market for refrigerants in ... vending machines.” We are 

aware of products using R-290 and R-744 that are already in use. According to Shecco, based on 

its October 2014 survey, the manufacturers of vending machines they surveyed “are already

today able to produce sufficient amount of such equipment [R-290 and R-744] to cover the needs 

of the entire market. All of the interviewed manufacturers confirmed that they plan to covert [sic] 

their whole manufacturing facilities to hydrocarbons and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.” While we 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 171 of 304

believe 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, and 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 2018 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 172 of 304

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 2009.76 The American Merchandizing 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 R744 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 R744 by January 1, 2018.

Comments also supported that 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 two 

and a half years is 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 for 

development of other components and equipment designs. Equipment development and testing 

 

76 See “PepsiCo Brings First Climate-Friendly Vending Machines to the U.S.,” March 30, 2009, 

www.pepsico.com/live/pressrelease/pepsico-brings-first-climate-friendly-vending-machines-to-the-us03302009.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 173 of 304

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 two 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, 2018.

Comments also support that other options besides R-744 and hydrocarbons may be 

explored for those products that have not yet transitioned. [More to be added, pending decisions 

in Notice 30] Multiple HFC/HFO blends [were recently listed as acceptable for new vending 

machines (XXXXXXX, 2015; 80 FR XXXXX)]. 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 as used in 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 there is only one refrigerant to be replaced, 

and because the HFC/HFO blends are designed to mimic that refrigerant, equipment 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 174 of 304

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 believe that HFC/HFO blends could be implemented on a relatively 

aggressive schedule to meet the January 1, 2018, status change date for new vending machines. 

To the extent that an aggressive schedule is not achievable for manufacturers’ full product lines, 

they have the option of pursuing R-744 or hydrocarbons such as R-290 for any remaining 

products.

b) Retrofit vending machines

For retrofit vending machines, EPA proposed to change the listing for R-404A and R507A from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. In today’s final rule, we are 

finalizing as proposed. 

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 January 1, 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-
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 175 of 304

407C, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R450A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-02 [Others to be added, pending decisions in 

SNAP Notice 30].

77

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. Data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) 

for these alternatives may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (ICF, 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 

 

77 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as available but their use is severely restricted by 

the phasedown in HCFC production.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 176 of 304

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.” Therefore, 

we are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2016, as proposed.

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 177 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 178 of 304

million HFC-free 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 todate 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 nonHFC technologies. R-744, R-290 and R-600a components used in other products, like standalone 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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 179 of 304

a) Specific numerical limits for GWP

Comment: 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 180 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 181 of 304

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 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.”

Response: Because CFESA references flammable refrigerants, EPA believes this 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 182 of 304

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-450A [More to be added, pending decisions on

Notice 30] 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-450A [More to be 

added, pending decisions on Notice 30]. Honeywell indicates that this refrigerant is soon to be 

produced in commercial quantities, and EPA expects it will be available by the change of status 

dates of 2018 for vending machines and 2019 and 2020 for stand-alone equipment [More to be 

added, pending decisions on Notice 30]. 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 201378 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 

was 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.

 

78 Shecco, 2013: GUIDE 2013: Natural Refrigerants - Market Growth for North America,

publication.shecco.com/publications/view/6
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 183 of 304

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 commercial refrigeration equipment, including 

products that are affected by 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.79 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 commercial refrigeration 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.

Energy efficiency has not historically been a separate criterion by which a refrigerant is 

analyzed under the SNAP program. EPA recognizes that the energy efficiency of particular 

models of equipment is a significant factor when choosing commercial refrigeration equipment. 

 

79 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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 184 of 304

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. As relevant to our review of alternatives, a more energy efficient appliance 

will have a less significant impact on the environment from the emission of carbon dioxide and 

other pollutants from the generation and use of the power required to operate commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 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-OAR2014-0198-0184, 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, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 185 of 304

refrigerant emissions would be the only factor that would decide which system has a lower 

TEWI or LCCP. Manufacturers that wish to exceed 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-HQOAR-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, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 186 of 304

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 201580). 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 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 

 

80 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).
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 187 of 304

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.81 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 R744, 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

 

81 See “HCs gaining market prominence in US – view from The NAFE Show – Part 1” 

(www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/viewprintable/3891).
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 188 of 304

cases) and sealing (for products with doors), more efficient lighting, etc.

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 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, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 189 of 304

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:
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 190 of 304

 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, 2020. 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*
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 191 of 304

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Appliance

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.

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 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: 

Marine Flotation 

Foam

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.

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, 2019. Unacceptable for all 

uses as of January 1, 2022.

Rigid Polyurethane 

and Polyisocyanurate 

Laminated 

Boardstock

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc and blends 

thereof 

Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or 

space- and aeronautics-related application*s 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, 

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.

Integral Skin 

Polyurethane

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, 2017. Unacceptable for all 

uses as of January 1, 2022.

Polystyrene: 

Extruded Sheet

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, 2017. Unacceptable for all 

uses as of January 1, 2022.

Polystyrene: 

Extruded Boardstock 

and Billet (XPS)

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, and blends 

thereof, Formacel TI, 

Formacel B, 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.

Polyolefin 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.

Phenolic Insulation 

Board and Bunstock

HFC-143a, HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, HFC365mfc, 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.

* 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 192 of 304

substitutes for which EPA proposed to change the status and the other available alternatives. 79 

FR at 46,151 to 46,154. 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-trifluoroprop1-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.82,83

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. 

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 

 

82 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. 

83 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 193 of 304

performs when we review a substitute, we consider VOC emissions impacts, taking into account 

the rate of blowing agent 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 194 of 304

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, lowpressure 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 46,151 to 46,154 and a technical support 

document (ICF, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 195 of 304

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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 196 of 304

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, 

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 197 of 304

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 HFCblown 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 198 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 199 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 200 of 304

time for manufacturers to test and certify that they meet the requirements at 33 CFR part 183, 

subpart F, G and H. 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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 201 of 304

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 four years is likely to be required for all steps to transition away from HFC-134a as in 

EPA’s earlier analysis for transition away from HCFCs, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 202 of 304

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, 2020, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 203 of 304

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 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 42,653, 42,656; 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 204 of 304

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 enduses?

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: 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 205 of 304

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, Rvalue 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 lowGWP 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 enduses 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 206 of 304

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 foam 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 207 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 208 of 304

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 thirdparty 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 209 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 210 of 304

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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 211 of 304

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. Ninetyfour 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”
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 212 of 304

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 213 of 304

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 HFC134a; 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 214 of 304

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 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 website, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 215 of 304

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 two 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 potential overlap with the pilot testing 

period), and a year for certification testing. The total time needed is four and a half to five years, 

similar to the time period in the earlier EPA memo cited by Owens Corning. Therefore, we are 

establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2020, 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 website 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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 216 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 217 of 304

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 HFC245fa 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 highpressure 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 218 of 304

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 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-
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 219 of 304

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. We have considered this issue and we believe that other alternatives, 

such as olefin foam blowing agents, could improve energy efficiency even more than HFC-134a 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 220 of 304

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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 221 of 304

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-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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 222 of 304

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 foamblowing 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 HFO1234ze(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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 223 of 304

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 HFC134a 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 224 of 304

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 and availability” of the substitute (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 46,155). As 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 225 of 304

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:

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 thereof Unacceptable effective [DATE 60

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE]

Foams – All end-uses HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, HCFC-22, and 

blends thereof

Unacceptable effective [DATE 60

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE]

Fire suppression – Total 

flooding

HCFC-22 Unacceptable effective [DATE 60

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE]

Sterilants Blends containing HCFC-22 Unacceptable effective [DATE 60

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE]
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 226 of 304

Adhesives, coatings, and 

inks—All end-uses

HCFC-141b and blends thereof Unacceptable 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 unacceptable84 in non-refrigerant 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 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. 

 

84 These three HCFCs have previously been listed as unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 227 of 304

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 58,269). 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 228 of 304

the CAA. 

If the commenter is referring to applying the unacceptability determination for HCFC141b 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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 229 of 304

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 13,044, 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”85 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. 

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

 

85 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/riskscreenfire.pdf
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 230 of 304

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 13,044, 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 13,044, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 231 of 304

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 13,044, 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-HQOAR-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 13,272, 67 FR 

77,927, 68 FR 50,533, 69 FR 58,903, 71 FR 15,589, 71 FR 55,140, 71 FR 56,359, 74 FR 21, 

74 FR 50,129, 75 FR 34,017, 76 FR 17,488, 76 FR 61,269, 76 FR 78,832, 77 FR 47,768, 77 

FR 58,035, 78 FR 29,034, 79 FR 62,863). 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, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 232 of 304

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 13,044, 13,047). We interpret section 612 as allowing both addition of new, safer alternatives 

to the listings and removal from the listings of substitutes found to pose more risk overall than 

other available alternatives.

With regard to additional data on substitutes already covered by the program, the Agency

has previously responded to the evolution of scientific and technical information by revisiting the 

listing status of a substitute. For example, on the basis of new information on toxicity, EPA took 

action in January of 2002 to change the listing for HBFC-22B1 from acceptable, subject to use 

conditions to unacceptable (67 FR 4,185, 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 78,832, December 20, 2011; 40 CFR 82 subpart G appendix R; 80 FR 19,453, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 233 of 304

indication of that change can be seen in EPA’s December 7, 2009, Endangerment Finding (74 

FR 66,496, 66,517, 66,539) 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 HFC134a. 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.

86 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, 2013 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 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 13,044, 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 

 

86 Climate Change and President Obama’s Action Plan. June, 2013. Available in the docket and online at 

www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 234 of 304

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 13,044, 13,052). 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 response87 as stating that EPA does not review 

substitutes for non-ozone-depleting substances such as HFC-134a. Arkema also quoted the 

SNAP Instruction Manual88 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 replacements in 

the common-sense meaning of those words. 

Arkema further stated that EPA should be precluded from comparing non-ODS firstgeneration 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 

 

87 Response to Oz Technology’s Petition (Aug 30, 1996).

88 www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/submit/appguide.pdf
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 235 of 304

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 13,044, March 18, 1994; 64 FR 30,410, 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 “secondgeneration 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”89 “to take the 

place of,”90 and “to provide a substitute or equivalent for.”91 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 13,044, 13,047). We noted that 

“[u]nder any other interpretation, EPA could never effectively prohibit the use of any 

substitute, as some user could always start to use it prior to EPA’s completion of the 

rulemaking required to list it as unacceptable” (Id.). Thus, the fact that HFC-134a is already in 

 

89 Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replace

90 Collins, www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/replace

91 Id.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 236 of 304

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.92

Similarly, the Agency views transition as occurring on an end-use by end-use or sector-by-sector 

 

92 This is reflected in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 237 of 304

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. 

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)93 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, 

 

93 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 or acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 

2015, 80 FR 19,453). [Add cite to Notice 30 when published.]
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 238 of 304

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 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 239 of 304

noted that while CAA section 612 does require an assessment of risk, it does not explain how 

that assessment should be done. BASF added that whatever that assessment should involve, it is 

possible that Congress did not intend GWP to be part of that assessment. 

Response: As noted by some commenters, section 602 of the CAA calls on EPA to

publish the GWP for each class I or class II substance, but goes on to say that this mandate “shall 

not be construed to be the basis of any additional regulation under this chapter.” Consistent with 

this provision, we are not relying on section 602 as authority for the action being taken in this 

rulemaking. Rather, we are relying on section 612, which specifically provides that EPA is 

required to list a substance as unacceptable if it “may present adverse effects to human health or 

the environment” where EPA has identified alternatives that are currently or potentially available 

and that “reduce the overall risk to human health and the environment.”

Considerations of atmospheric effects and related health and environmental impacts have 

always been a part of SNAP’s comparative review process, and the provision of GWP-related 

information is required by the SNAP regulations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and 82.180). The issue of 

EPA’s authority to consider GWP in its SNAP listing decisions was raised in the initial rule 

establishing the SNAP program. In the preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule, EPA stated: “The 

Agency believes that the Congressional mandate to evaluate substitutes based on reducing 

overall risk to human health and the environment authorizes use of global warming as one of the 

SNAP evaluation criteria. Public comment failed to identify any definition of overall risk that 

warranted excluding global warming” (59 FR 13,044, 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 13,044, March 18, 1994; 40 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 240 of 304

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 nonozone-depleting substitutes in heat transfer uses, such as HFE-7100 with GWP of 297, HFC245fa with a GWP of 1030, and CO2 with a GWP of 1” (77 FR 47,768, 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 78,832, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 241 of 304

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 discussed this issue, albeit qualitatively, in the NPRM, as well as in this 

rule. We believe that there is a sufficient range of alternatives available that end users will be 

able to maintain energy efficiency levels, and 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 equipment 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)). 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 242 of 304

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 US 

74, 83 (1980). 

Here, the change in the listing status of certain HFCs for specified end-uses is designed to 

“promote the common good” (see Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 

104, 124 (1978)). The alternatives to which EPA compared these HFCs in this action were found 

to pose less overall risk to human health and the environment in the specified end-uses. Thus, 

removing these HFCs from the list of acceptable substitutes for these end-uses provides a public 

benefit. Regarding the economic impact of this action, EPA recognizes that the impact will vary
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 243 of 304

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 13,044, 13,047). 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-theboard 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 244 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 245 of 304

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 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 13,044, 13,047). 

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 246 of 304

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 3,861, Jan. 26, 1999;40 CFR 82 subpart G appendix E) and HBFC-22B1 (67 FR 

4,185, Jan. 29, 2002; 40 CFR 82 subpart G appendix J).

While EPA has the right to act in the absence of a petition, as described above, EPA did 

receive three petitions filed under section 612(d) that are relevant to this rulemaking.

Specifically, NRDC filed a petition on May 7, 2010. On February 14, 2011, EPA found that 

petition complete for MVAC in new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it 

was incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. This rule responds to the aspect of that petition that 

we found complete. In addition, EIA filed a petition on April 26, 2012, and NRDC, EIA, and 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 247 of 304

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 248 of 304

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 249 of 304

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,
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 250 of 304

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 13,044, March 18, 1994). Our subsequent experience with the 

SNAP program has given us no reason to revisit this approach. 

While EPA prepared a variety of documents in association with the proposed rule, the 

bulk of the comparison of human health and environmental impacts of alternatives appeared in 

the preamble to the NPRM.94 For this final rule, we have added a technical support document to 

the docket entitled, “Summary information on environmental and health characteristics of 

substitutes,” which summarizes 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 (ICF, 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 

46,126). 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 

 

94 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.”
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 251 of 304

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 46,126, 46,173). 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 252 of 304

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 shelflife, 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 46,143) and energy efficiency and requested 

comment on “the effect, if any, [the] proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE 

standards.” (id. at 46,147). 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 46,141)

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 253 of 304

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 standalone 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 254 of 304

words, it is not necessary for EPA to evaluate whether other alternatives perform as well as 

HFC-134a (or other HFCs) in the specific end–use in order to determine that overall risks to 

human health and the environment would be reduced through use of those alternatives. 

We have considered whether other alternatives will be available in sufficient quantities

as part of our analysis of the availability of alternatives. As discussed in the NPRM, we set 

dates for the proposed status changes that reflect when there will be a sufficient supply of the 

alternatives. (id. at 46,141) In some instances, we have revised those dates in this final action 

after taking into account information on supply of alternatives submitted by commenters. 

One of the regulatory criteria for review of a substitute is the “cost and availability of the 

substitute” (59 FR 13,044, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 255 of 304

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 256 of 304

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 enduses 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 257 of 304

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 and availability of the substitute.” The transition timelines in this final 

rule are based on information concerning the availability of alternatives.

Comment: Arkema commented that EPA underestimated the costs of the NPRM. Arkema 

believes EPA’s cost estimates are unduly optimistic given all that must be done to redesign 

equipment. Arkema further commented on three areas of economic analysis that they state need 

to be addressed. First, Arkema stated that EPA does not include the “wasted costs” incurred by 

those manufacturers that have actually changed designs of their equipment to meet DOE 

standards, based on the continued availability of existing SNAP substitutes, but that now may

need to change their designs again. Second, Arkema suggested that EPA should account for 

“economic effects” on U.S. plants that produce HFC-134a and the other HFCs and HFC blends 

whose listing the Agency proposed to change. Third, Arkema suggested that the economic 

analyses should disclose how EPA expects prices and availability to change once it eliminates 

competing products, including stimulation of short-term demand for the HFCs and HFC blends 

whose listing the Agency proposed to change, longer term increases in prices for the HFCs and 

HFC blends, and increased demand for next-generation fluorinated products. Solvay commented

that given the cumulative regulatory burden, EPA has dramatically underestimated the costs of 

the NPRM. As an example, Solvay pointed to the DOE energy conservation standards.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 258 of 304

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, 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, 2018, which is before compliance would be required with any new or amended DOE 

refrigerated beverage vending machine standards, as compliance with such standards would be 

required 3 years after the publication of a final rule. 

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 259 of 304

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 HFC134a 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 lowGWP 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 62,863. 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 260 of 304

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 261 of 304

2. EPA’s cost analysis and small business impacts screening analysis

Comment: EPA received a number of comments indicating that small businesses bear a 

disproportionate share of the regulatory burden and that the NPRM represents a “significant 

regulatory action,” NAFEM comments that EPA must conduct a complete analysis of the 

impacts on small entities before any final regulation can be promulgated. NAFEM comments 

that EPA’s analysis is too narrow, is incomplete, and that its conclusions are unsupported. 

NAFEM further comments that the NPRM disproportionately affects small entities. NAFEM 

comments that the NPRM represents a major rule and will have a $100 million effect on the 

economy and a major impact on the commercial refrigeration industry and its consumers. 

NAFEM commented that the docket lacks a robust industry analysis of the effects on small 

business manufacturers and customers, or reasonable support for EPA’s Regulatory Flexibility

Act conclusions. NAFEM recommends that EPA initiate a Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Small Entity Representative review panel to help inform 

final rulemaking, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Solvay also commented that 

EPA should convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under the SBREFA.

Response: E.O. 12866 states that rules that have an impact on the economy of $100 

million per year qualify as significant regulatory actions. EPA disagrees that this rule would have 

an impact on the economy of $100 million more per year. We performed an analysis of the costs 

of the proposed rule on businesses and estimated the gross annualized compliance costs to range 

from $8.9 million to $41.6 million; net annualized costs were estimated to range from -$1.4

million to $16.4 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 262 of 304

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 gross annualized 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. Net annualized costs are estimated to range 

from $8.7 million to $42.7 million, using a 7% discount rate, and from $0.2 million to $31.9

million, using a 3% discount rate (ICF, 2015c). In either case, this is well below the $100 million 

per year threshold to consider this a 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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 263 of 304

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 climatefriendly 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 264 of 304

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 265 of 304

Response: EPA appreciates the support for reducing GHG emissions, and appreciates the 

estimates of the benefits in terms of MMTCO2eq that the commenters provide. CARB’s 

comment concerning meeting GHG reduction goals in a California EO are beyond the scope of 

this rule; we may consider additional status changes in a future rule. We agree with NRDC and 

IGSD that HFC emissions are growing rapidly and that it is timely to act now to encourage use 

of lower-GWP alternatives and ensure continuing progress. The Agency notes that both EPA’s

estimates cited in the NPRM and the estimates the commenters provide are based on the 

provisions of the proposed rule, and that the benefits from this final rule differ. For further 

information, see EPA, 2014a 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 266 of 304

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 summarizing the information on the health and environmental characteristics of 

various alternatives in the end-uses covered in this final rule (ICF, 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 267 of 304

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 Sinks95 report and other places. For example, the 2014 annual Inventory 

of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks report, EPA Report 430-R-14-003 (EPA, 2014b), covers 

emissions, including emissions of HFCs used as ODS alternatives, for the years 1990 through 

2012 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 nonozone-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, 

 

95 Available online at www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/2014.html
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 268 of 304

meaningful public comment. Arkema comments that EPA cannot obtain robust, meaningful 

comments if the Vintaging Model is not subject to peer review and if underlying data is kept 

secret. 

Response: As explained above, EPA used its Vintaging Model to provide information to 

the public, but does not rely on that information to support today’s rule. Thus, the issue of 

whether the Vintaging Model should be subject to a peer review process is outside the scope of 

this rulemaking action.

3. Energy efficiency

Comment: EPA received a number of comments regarding energy efficiency and LCCP

of refrigeration equipment. NAFEM commented that the life-cycle climate performances of 

manufacturers show that only about 10% of the environmental impact is due to a combination of 

refrigerant leak, charge amount and GWP of the refrigerant; the rest relates to energy efficiency. 

NAFEM asserted that the proposed SNAP rule does not account for nor can EPA claim any

significant environmental benefits to offset significant costs. The Alliance noted that given the 

important energy efficiency consequences of this proposed rule, it is unclear how this action will 

meet the statutory standard of no greater risk to human health and the environment. The Alliance 

commented that by taking previously acceptable substitutes off the market, these proposals could 

result in less efficiency in the near term. The Alliance further comments as EPA evaluates the 

timing of transitions in various end-use segments, it is important that life cycle greenhouse gas 

emissions, including those associated with energy use, are given proper consideration as part of 

ensuring the alternative presents “no greater risk to human health and the environment.” 

Response: EPA provided estimates of the climate benefits associated with the NPRM,

and we have also estimated the climate benefits associated with this final rule (EPA, 2014a; 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 269 of 304

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. 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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 270 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 271 of 304

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.

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.96 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 lowerGWP refrigerants while designing for DOE energy conservation standards that take effect in 

2017 for stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and remote condensing units 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, 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 

 

96 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 272 of 304

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 GWP available that allow for improved energy

efficiency compared to the substitutes we are finding unacceptable in this rule. EPA anticipates 

that innovative companies will seize this opportunity to develop more efficient and profitable 

designs.

Comment: A number of manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment

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. Rheem/HTPG 

provided information on their testing of the energy efficiency of condensing units with R-404A 

compared to R-407A, and found 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. 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 273 of 304

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 provided by Rheem 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 mediumtemperature 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 refrigerant R-450A. R-450A [insert others after Notice 30 publishes] and some 

alternative refrigerant blends under review by the SNAP program claim 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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 274 of 304

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 equipment 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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 275 of 304

Given the variety of currently or potentially available alternatives, EPA believes it is 

unlikely that manufacturers will have to use refrigerants that will result in reduced energy

efficiency compared to the refrigerants being listed unacceptable in this final rule. 

Comment: The Alliance, AHAM, AHRI, and a number of other commenters in the 

commercial refrigeration and home appliance industries suggested that the SNAP rulemaking 

schedule should be better coordinated with the ongoing DOE energy conservation standard

rulemaking schedules. AHAM comments that firms have invested millions of dollars to meet

new DOE conservation standards that were based on the assumption of the availability of HFCs, 

and have diverted the scarce capital that is available for regulation-driven investment. The 

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) requested that the EPA harmonize the rule with 

the DOE rule in order to ease the capital- and design-intensive manufacturer transition. Scotsman 

Ice Systems and Whirlpool Corporation stated that as a result of the potential regulatory

measures, their ability to develop any customer focused products or new product features during 

this time will be constrained. GE Appliances notes that the burden of overlapping regulatory

requirements between SNAP and the DOE require consideration and review under the executive

orders issued by President Obama and his predecessors that require consideration of cumulative 

regulatory burden.

Response: EPA’s timeframes are based upon our understanding of the availability of 

alternatives, considering technical challenges and supply. The timeframes in this final rule take 

into account additional information on availability provided to the Agency during the comment 

period. These timeframes account for the time needed to meet the technical challenge of 

designing equipment using alternative refrigerants that can meet the DOE requirements. We note 

that EPA and DOE coordinate to the extent possible. For example, each agency has reviewed the 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 276 of 304

other’s rules. The list of acceptable SNAP alternatives is evolving and in the most recent energy

efficiency standard rulemaking, DOE did not consider refrigerants and blowing agents that had 

not yet been listed as acceptable or that were still relatively uncommon in the industry. EPA is 

also coordinating with DOE by ensuring that 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 277 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 278 of 304

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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 279 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 280 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 281 of 304

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 19,885, 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 28,355 (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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 282 of 304

in this action; many of the alternatives are as energy-efficient or more energy-efficient than the 

substitutes being listed as unacceptable. As described in more detail in this document, energy

efficiency is influenced, but not determined, by the refrigerant. Similarly, although foam blowing 

agents influence the insulation properties of rigid cell foams, this also can vary due to other 

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

have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This action does not involve technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

including any minority or low-income population. This action would prohibit a number of 

substances with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and GWP emissions would assist in 

restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and provide climate benefits.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

IX. References

This preamble references the following documents, which are also in the Air Docket at 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 283 of 304

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-constructionof-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. 8 December 2012.

Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible at:
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 284 of 304

assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-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.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionthhfc-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-testnew-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=dennotallissu

es&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, 2011. Greenchill. “Advanced Refrigeration”. This document is accessible at: 

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gc_storecertprogram08232011.pdf

EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 285 of 304

section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act. Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009. 

EPA, 2012. Factsheet: Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation 2000-2012. This document is 

accessible at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf

EPA, 2013. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013.

EPA, 2014a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014.

EPA, 2014b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2013, EPA Report 430-R-14-

003. April 2014. This document is accessible at:

www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/2014.html

EPA, 2015a. Response to Comments on the SNAP Status Change Rule. April 2015.

EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, April 2015.

FTOC, 2010. 2010 Report of the Foams Technical Option Committee. 

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® 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-GlobalWarming-Propellant-Insulating-Agent-And-Refrige.aspx

ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 286 of 304

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared 

for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. 

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.

ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014.

ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost-Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014.

ICF, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam; Rigid 

Polyurethane Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels; Rigid Polyurethane & 

Polyisocyanurate Laminate Boardstock; Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock; Flexible 

Polyurethane; Integral Skin Polyurethane Substitute: Methylal October, 2014.

ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, 

U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration 

Industry. March, 2015.

ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status 

of High-GWP Alternatives--Revised. April 2015.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 287 of 304

ICF, 2015c. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status 

of High-GWP Alternatives. April 2015.

ICF, 2015d. Summary of substitutes listed in the proposed rule, Protection of Stratospheric 

Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program. February, 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.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html. 

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at:

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.

IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. 

Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate 

Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 

Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 288 of 304

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.

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/cocacola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global-refrigeration-target/8680290.article).

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 289 of 304

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.montrealprotocol.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. 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for

Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

Final Rule

Page 290 of 304

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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 290 of 304

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:

__________________________________________

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 291 of 304

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

PART 82 - PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

Subpart G – Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

2. Appendix B to subpart G of part 82 is amended as follows:

a. By revising the entry for the substitutes HFC-134a, HCFC Blend Beta, and R-401C 

and adding three new rows immediately after this row in the table titled

“Refrigerants—Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions”.

b. By adding a new row at the bottom of the table “Refrigerants—Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits”.

c. By adding three new rows 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
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 292 of 304

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

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.

CFC-12 Automobile 

Motor Vehicle Air 

Conditioning (New 

Equipment/NIKs only)

HCFC Blend 

Beta (R416A)

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

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.

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

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.

CFC-12 Automobile 

Motor Vehicle Air 

Conditioning (Retrofit 

Equipment only)

HFC-134a, R401C, 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.

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.

* * * * * * *
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 293 of 304

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

* * * * * * *

Motor vehicle air 

conditioning 

(new equipment 

in passenger cars 

and light-duty 

trucks only)

HFC-134a Acceptable for use in Model Year 

(MY) 2021 through MY 2025 

passenger cars and light-duty

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.

REFRIGERANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

* * * * * * *

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

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.

Motor vehicle air 

conditioning (new 

equipment in 

passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only)

R-406A, R-414A (HCFC 

Blend Xi, GHG-X4), R414B (HCFC Blend 

Omicron), HCFC Blend 

Delta (Free Zone), Freeze 

12, GHG-X5, HCFC Blend 

Lambda (GHG-HP), R416A (FRIGC FR-12,

HCFC Blend Beta)

Unacceptable as of 

Model Year 2017

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 294 of 304

Motor vehicle air 

conditioning (new 

equipment in 

passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only)

SP34E, R-426A (RS-24, 

new formulation)

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.

3. Appendix D to subpart G of part 82 is amended by revising the introductory portion of the 

third paragraph to read as follows:

* * * * *

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) * * *.

* * * * *

4. Subpart G of part 82 is amended by adding Appendix U to read as follows:

Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82- Unacceptable Substitutes and Substitutes Subject to 

Use Restrictions Listed in the [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Final Rule, Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

AEROSOLS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

Propellants HFC-125 Unacceptable as of January 1, 

2016. 

HFC-125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 354-33-6 and 

it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,2-

pentafluoropropane. HFC-125 has a 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 295 of 304

Propellants HFC-134a Unacceptable as of July 1, 2016, 

except uses listed as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions.

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.

Products using this propellant that are 

manufactured prior to July 1, 2016 may be sold, 

imported, exported, distributed and used after that 

date.

Propellants HFC-227ea 

and blends of 

HFC-134a 

and HFC227ea

Unacceptable as of July 1, 2016, 

except uses listed as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions.

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.

Products using these propellants that are 

manufactured prior to July 1, 2016 may be sold, 

imported, exported, distributed and used after that 

date.

Propellants HCFC-22 and 

HCFC-142b

Unacceptable effective

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE]

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. 

Solvents HCFC-141b 

and blends 

thereof

Unacceptable effective

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE]

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 296 of 304

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 1, 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 

The classes of products listed below are 

acceptable for use and other uses are 

unacceptable as of July 1, 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 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 

 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

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. 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 1, 2016, may be 

sold, imported, 

exported, distributed 

and used after that date.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 297 of 304

Propellants HFC-227ea

and blends 

of HFC227ea and 

HFC-134a

Acceptable

subject to 

use 

conditions

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 1, 

2016.

HFC-227ea has a 

Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry 

Number (CAS Reg. 

No.) of 431-89-0 and it 

is also known by the 

name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoropropane. 

HFC-227ea has a GWP 

of 3,220. 

Aerosol products using 

this propellant that are 

manufactured prior to 

July 1, 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 

(supermarket 

systems)(new)

HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R428A, R-434A, R-507AUnacceptable 

as of January 

1, 2017

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.

Retail food 

refrigeration 

(supermarket 

systems)(retrofit)

R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, 

R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, 

R-507A

Unacceptable 

as of January 

1, 2016

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.

Retail food 

refrigeration (remote 

condensing 

units)(new)

HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R428A, R-434A, R-507AUnacceptable 

as of January 

1, 2018

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.

Retail food 

refrigeration (remote 

condensing units)

(retrofit)

R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, 

R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, 

R-507A

Unacceptable 

as of January 

1, 2016

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 298 of 304

Retail food 

refrigeration (standalone mediumtemperature units 

with a rated capacity 

below 2,200 Btu/hr 

and not containing a 

flooded evaporator) 

(new)

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, 

HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/290/134a/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

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).

Retail food 

refrigeration (standalone lowtemperature units, 

stand-alone units 

with a rated capacity 

equal to or greater 

than 2,200 Btu/hr and 

stand-alone units 

containing a flooded 

evaporator) (new)

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, 

HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/290/134a/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, 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. “Low-temperature” refers to 

equipment that maintains food or 

beverages at temperatures at or 

below 32°F (0 °C).

Retail food 

refrigeration (standalone units only) 

(retrofit)

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, 

HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/290/134a/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, 2016

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.

Vending machines 

(new only)

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, 

IKON B, KDD6, R125/290/134a/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.

Unacceptable 

as of January 

1, 2018

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.

Vending machines 

(retrofit 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.

Unacceptable 

as of January 

1, 2016

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 299 of 304

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use 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 spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.

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 spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.

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 spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 300 of 304

Rigid 

Polyurethane: 

Slabstock and 

Other

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, 

and Formacel 

Z-6

Acceptable 

Subject to 

Narrowed Use 

Limits 

.

Acceptable from 

January 1, 2019, 

until January 1, 

2022, only in 

military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.

Rigid 

Polyurethane and 

Polyisocyanurate 

Laminated 

Boardstock

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 spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.

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 spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 301 of 304

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 spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.

Polystyrene: 

Extruded 

Boardstock and 

Billet

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof, 

Formacel B, 

and Formacel 

Z-6

Acceptable 

Subject to 

Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable from 

January 1, 2020, 

until January 1, 

2022, only in 

military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.

Integral Skin 

Polyurethane

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends

thereof;

Formacel TI, 

and Formacel 

Z-6

Acceptable 

Subject to 

Narrowed Use 

Limits 

.

Acceptable from 

January 1, 2017, 

until January 1, 

2022, only in 

military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 302 of 304

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 spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.

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 spaceand aeronauticsrelated 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.

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

All Foam

Blowing End-uses

HCFC-141b and 

blends thereof

Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

HCFC-141b has an ozone depletion potential of 

0.11 under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously 

found HCFC-141b unacceptable in all foam 

blowing 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, HCFC142b, and blends 

thereof

Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

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. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 303 of 304

Flexible 

Polyurethane

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, 

and blends thereof

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

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.

Polystyrene: 

Extruded Sheet

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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.

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.

Phenolic 

Insulation Board 

and Bunstock

HFC-143a, HFC134a, HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, and 

blends thereof

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit. 

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.

Integral Skin 

Polyurethane

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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.

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.

Rigid 

Polyurethane: 

Slabstock and 

Other

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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.

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.

Rigid 

Polyurethane and 

Polyisocyanurate 

Laminated 

Boardstock

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc 

and blends thereof 

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

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.

Rigid 

Polyurethane: 

Marine Flotation 

Foam

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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.

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.

Rigid 

Polyurethane: 

Commercial 

Refrigeration and 

Sandwich Panels

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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.

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.

Rigid 

Polyurethane: 

Appliance

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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. 

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.

Polystyrene: 

Extruded 

Boardstock and 

Billet

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, 

and blends thereof;

Formacel TI, 

Formacel B, and 

Formacel Z-6

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2020

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to 

Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

Page 304 of 304

Polyolefin HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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.

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 Further Information

Total Flooding HCFC-22 Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-22 for total flooding fire suppression 

and explosion protection is prohibited as of January 

1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion 

potential of 0.055. 

STERILANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

Sterilants Blends containing 

HCFC-22

Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-22 for sterilants is prohibited as of 

January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

part 82 subpart A. 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 thereof

Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-141b for adhesives, coatings and inks is 

prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This 

chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11.