Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 151 August 6, 2014 

Part VII 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 82 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; 

Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46126 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL–9910–19– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS18 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes Under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

program, this action proposes to change 

the status of a number of substitutes that 

were previously listed as acceptable, 

based on information showing that other 

substitutes are available for the same 

uses that pose lower risk overall to 

human health and/or the environment. 

Specifically, this action proposes to 

modify the listings for certain 

hydrofluorocarbons in various end-uses 

in the aerosols, refrigeration and air 

conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. 

This action also proposes use conditions 

that would restrict the use of 

hydrofluorocarbons to those uses where 

there are not substitutes available or 

potentially available that reduce overall 

risk to human health and/or the 

environment. This action also proposes 

to change the status from acceptable to 

unacceptable for certain 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased 

out of production under the Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer and Section 605(a) of the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 6, 2014. EPA is 

planning to hold a public hearing to 

take place on August 27, 2014, starting 

at 9 a.m. in Room 1153, EPA East 

(entrance from 1201 Constitution 

Avenue), Washington, DC and further 

information will be provided on EPA’s 

Stratospheric Ozone Web site at 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0198, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: A-And-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0198. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0198. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0198. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca von dem Hagen, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 

6205J, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9445; fax number 

(202) 343–2338, email address: 

vondemhagen.rebecca@epa.gov. Notices 

and rulemakings under EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program are available on EPA’s 

Stratospheric Ozone Web site at 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

D. What acronyms and abbreviations are 

used in the preamble? 

II. How does the SNAP program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements and 

authority for the SNAP program? 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

implementing CAA section 612? 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

D. What are the guiding principles of the 

SNAP program? 

E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating 

substitutes under the SNAP program? 

F. How are SNAP determinations updated? 

G. What does EPA consider in deciding 

whether to modify a determination? 

H. Where can I get additional information 

about the SNAP program? 

III. What actions and information related to 

greenhouse gases have bearing on this 

proposed decision to modify prior SNAP 

determinations? 

IV. What petitions has EPA received 

requesting a change in listing status for 

substitutes with a high global warming 

potential? 

A. Summary of Petitions 

B. How Today’s Action Relates to Petitions 

V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs? 

A. Aerosols 

1. Background 

2. Aerosols Today 

3. What is EPA proposing concerning 

aerosols? 

a. What other alternatives are available? 

i. Consumer Aerosols 

ii. Technical Aerosols 

iii. Medical Aerosols 

b. What other approaches is EPA 

considering? 

c. When would the modified listings 

apply? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46127 

1The terms ‘‘substitutes’’ and ‘‘alternatives’’ are 

used interchangeably. 

d. On which topics is EPA requesting 

comment? 

B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for 

Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

1. Background 

2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of 

HFC–134a and use of refrigerant blends 

in MVAC systems for newly 

manufactured light-duty motor vehicles? 

3. Would this action affect EPA’s light duty 

vehicle rule? 

C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending 

Machines 

1. Background 

2. What is EPA proposing for new and 

retrofit retail food refrigeration 

(condensing units and supermarket 

systems)? 

a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket 

Systems 

b. Retrofit Condensing Units and 

Supermarket Systems 

3. What is EPA proposing for new and 

retrofit stand-alone equipment? 

a. New Stand-alone Equipment 

b. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment 

4. What is EPA proposing for new and 

retrofit vending machines? 

a. New Vending Machines 

b. Retrofit Vending Machines 

5. When would the listings change? 

6. Applicability to Service of Existing 

Equipment 

7. Energy Efficiency Consideration 

8. What other options is EPA considering? 

a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and 

Supermarket Systems 

b. New Stand-alone Equipment and 

Vending Machines 

c. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment and 

Vending Machines 

d. Status of R–404A and R–507A in Other 

end-uses 

D. Foam Blowing Agents 

1. Background 

2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing 

agents? 

a. What other foam blowing agents are 

being used? 

b. What are the health and environmental 

impacts of the substitute foam blowing 

agents? 

i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents 

ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam 

iii. Flexible Polyurethane 

iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam 

v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial 

Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels 

vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other 

Foam 

vii. Rigid Polyurethane and 

Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock 

viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet 

ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and 

Billet 

x. Integral Skin Polyurethane 

xi. Polyolefin Foam 

xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and 

Bunstock 

c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams 

and products containing foams? 

d. When would the listings change? 

e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or 

Space- and Aeronautics-related 

Applications 

f. Summary 

VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs? 

A. What are the proposed modifications to 

the listings for the three HCFCs and in 

which end-uses? 

B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for 

HCFCs? 

1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the 

Three HCFCs With Regulations 

Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610 

2. Anticipated Effects 

VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports 

and imports? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

IX. References 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

would change the status of certain 

substitutes 1 previously found 

acceptable under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. 

EPA is proposing to modify the listings 

from acceptable to unacceptable for 

certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and 

HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, 

and air conditioning and refrigerant 

end-uses where other alternatives are 

available or potentially available that 

pose overall lower risk. Per the guiding 

principle stated above, EPA is 

considering the intersection between the 

specific HFC or HFC blend and the 

particular end-use. This action does not 

propose that any specific HFCs be 

unacceptable across all sectors and enduses. EPA is also not proposing that, for 

any specific sector, the only acceptable 

substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes 

that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, 

hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and nonfluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), 

carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes are 

potentially acceptable. Instead, 

consistent with SNAP’s history and 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA 

is proposing these modifications based 

on the substitutes being considered, the 

SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the 

current suite of other available and 

potentially available substitutes. 

EPA is proposing to modify the 

following listings by end-use: 

(1) For aerosol propellants, we are 

proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 

• HFC–125 as unacceptable; 

• HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, allowing its use only in 

specific types of technical and medical 

aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) 

(and prohibiting its use in consumer 

aerosols); and 

• HFC–227ea as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, allowing its use only in 

metered dose inhalers. 

(2) For motor vehicle air conditioning 

systems in newly manufactured lightduty vehicles, we are proposing to list 

• HFC–134a as unacceptable starting 

with model year (MY) 2021; and 

• The refrigerant blends SP34E, R– 

426A (also known as RS–24), R–416A 

(also known as HCFC Blend Beta or 

FRIGC FR12), R–406A, R–414A (also 

known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), 

R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend 

Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also 

known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG– 

X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also 

known as GHG–HP) as unacceptable 

starting with MY 2017. 

(3) For new and retrofit retail food 

refrigeration (including stand-alone 

equipment, condensing units, direct 

supermarket systems, and indirect 

supermarket systems) and new and 

retrofit vending machines, we are 

proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 

• The HFC blends R–507A and R– 

404A as unacceptable. 

(4) For new and retrofit retail food 

refrigeration (including direct 

supermarket systems and indirect 

supermarket systems), we are proposing 

to list, as of January 1, 2016 

• HFC–227ea, R–407B, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, and 

R–434A as unacceptable. 

(5) For new stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration and new vending 

machines, we are proposing to list, as of 

January 1, 2016 

• HFC–134a and certain other HFC 

refrigerant blends as unacceptable. 

(6) For foam blowing agents, we are 

proposing to list, as of January 1, 2017, 

except where allowed under a narrowed 

use limit, 

• HFC–134a and blends thereof as 

unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses; 

• HFC–143a, HFC–245fa and HFC– 

365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC 

blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6 as 

unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where they are currently listed as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46128 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2 ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. 

Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. 

3 ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. 

Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. 

4 ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S 

Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. 

5 ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. Prepared 

for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 

2014. 

6 ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis 

for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of 

High-GWP Alternatives. April, 2014. 

7EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. 

8 ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis 

for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of 

High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014. 

acceptable, except for spray foam 

applications; and 

• The HFC blend Formacel TI as 

unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where it is currently listed as 

acceptable. 

In general, EPA is proposing 

modifications to the listings based on 

the SNAP program’s comparative risk 

framework. The sections that follow 

provide the analyses supporting the 

proposed listing modifications and the 

dates when the modified listings would 

apply to users of these substitutes. In 

addition, EPA has prepared supporting 

documentation on this rule including 

market characterizations, analyses of 

costs associated with sector transitions, 

estimated benefits associated with the 

transition to alternatives, and potential 

small business impacts.2345678 The 

emissions reductions from this 

proposed rule are estimated to be 31 to 

42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020. These 

documents are available in the docket 

for commenters to review. EPA is 

planning to prepare a consolidated 

analysis document. 

EPA is also proposing to modify the 

listings for hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

(HCFC)–141b, HCFC–142b, and HCFC– 

22, as well as blends that contain these 

substances, from acceptable to 

unacceptable in aerosols, foam blowing 

agents, fire suppression and explosion 

protection agents, sterilants, and 

adhesives, coatings and inks. These 

modifications reflect the existing 

regulations promulgated under CAA 

sections 605(a) and 610(d) codified at 40 

CFR part 82 subparts A and C. The 

modified listings would take effect 60 

days following issuance of a final rule 

promulgating this proposal. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Potential entities that may be affected 

by this proposed rule include: 

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE

Category NAICS Code Description of regulated entities 

Industry .......................... 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors 

Industry .......................... 324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 325612 Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods 

Industry .......................... 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing 

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

Industry .......................... 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 

Industry .......................... 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing 

Retail .............................. 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers 

Retail .............................. 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 

Retail .............................. 44511 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores 

Retail .............................. 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores 

Retail .............................. 445120 Convenience Stores 

Retail .............................. 44521 Meat Markets 

Retail .............................. 44522 Fish and Seafood Markets 

Retail .............................. 44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets 

Retail .............................. 445291 Baked Goods Stores 

Retail .............................. 445292 Confectionary and Nut Stores 

Retail .............................. 445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores 

Retail .............................. 4453 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores 

Retail .............................. 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores 

Retail .............................. 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores 

Retail .............................. 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 

Retail .............................. 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores 

Services ......................... 72111 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels 

Services ......................... 72112 Casino Hotels 

Retail .............................. 72241 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) 

Retail .............................. 722513 Limited-Service Restaurants 

Retail .............................. 722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets 

Retail .............................. 722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding 

entities likely to use the substitute 

whose use is regulated by this action. If 

you have any questions about whether 

this action applies to a particular entity, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46129 

consult the person listed in the above 

section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

Do not submit confidential 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information marked as 

CBI will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• Follow directions–The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

CFR part or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline. 

D. What acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in the preamble? 

Below is a list of acronyms and 

abbreviations used in the preamble of 

this document: 

ACGIH—American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene 

Association 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Identification Number 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CH 4—Methane 

CO2—Carbon dioxide 

CO2eq—Carbon dioxide equivalent 

DOE—United States Department of Energy 

EIA—Environmental Investigation AgencyUS 

EO—Executive Order 

EPA—United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EU—European Union 

FDA—United States Food and Drug 

Administration 

FR—Federal Register 

GHG—Greenhouse gas 

Gt—Gigaton 

GWP—Global warming potential 

HC—Hydrocarbon 

HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon 

HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin 

ICF—ICF International, Inc. 

ICR—Information collection request 

IGSD—Institute for Governance and 

Sustainable Development 

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

MDI—metered dose inhaler 

MVAC—Motor vehicle air conditioning 

N2—Nitrogen 

NAICS—North American Industrial 

Classification System 

NIOSH—United States National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OEM—Original equipment manufacturer 

ODP—Ozone depletion potential 

ODS—Ozone-depleting substance 

OMB—United States Office of Management 

and Budget 

OSHA—United States Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration 

PEL—Permissible exposure limit 

PFC—Perfluorocarbons 

ppm—Parts per million 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act 

REL—Recommended exposure limit 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SF 6— Sulfur hexafluoride 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

SRES—Special Report on Emissions 

Scenarios 

TLV—Threshold limit value 

TWA—Time-weighted average 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

VOC—Volatile organic compounds 

WEEL—Workplace Environmental Exposure 

Limit 

II. How does the SNAP program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

and authority for the SNAP program? 

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (hereafter referred to 

as EPA or the Agency) to develop a 

program for evaluating alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances. This 

program is known as the Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

program. The major provisions of 

section 612 are: 

1. Rulemaking 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

promulgate rules making it unlawful to 

replace any class I (e.g., 

chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, 

methyl bromide, and 

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II 

(e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) 

substance with any substitute that the 

Administrator determines may present 

adverse effects to human health or the 

environment where the Administrator 

has identified an alternative that (1) 

reduces the overall risk to human health 

and the environment and (2) is currently 

or potentially available. 

2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable 

Substitutes 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

publish a list of the substitutes that it 

finds to be unacceptable for specific 

uses and to publish a corresponding list 

of acceptable alternatives for specific 

uses. The list of ‘‘acceptable’’ substitutes 

is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/

lists and the lists of ‘‘unacceptable,’’ 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions,’’ 

and ‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits’’ substitutes are found in the 

appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. 

3. Petition Process 

Section 612(d) grants the right to any 

person to petition EPA to add a 

substance to, or delete a substance from, 

the lists published in accordance with 

section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days 

to grant or deny a petition. Where the 

Agency grants the petition, EPA must 

publish the revised lists within an 

additional six months. 

4. 90-day Notification 

Section 612(e) directs EPA to require 

any person who produces a chemical 

substitute for a class I substance to 

notify the Agency not less than 90 days 

before new or existing chemicals are 

introduced into interstate commerce for 

significant new uses as substitutes for a 

class I substance. The producer must 

also provide the Agency with the 

producer’s unpublished health and 

safety studies on such substitutes. 

5. Outreach 

Section 612(b)(1) states that the 

Administrator shall seek to maximize 

the use of federal research facilities and 

resources to assist users of class I and 

II substances in identifying and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46130 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9As 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. 

10As 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. 

11The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’ 

referring to submissions for which EPA has not 

reached a determination, under this provision. 

12As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ‘‘use’’ means any 

use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozonedepleting compound, including but not limited to 

use in a manufacturing process or product, in 

consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate 

uses, such as formulation or packaging for other 

subsequent uses. This definition of use 

encompasses manufacturing process of products 

both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes 

manufactured within the United States exclusively 

for export are subject to SNAP requirements since 

the definition of use in the rule includes use in the 

manufacturing process, which occurs within the 

United States. 

13 In addition to acceptable commercially 

available substitutes, the SNAP program may 

consider potentially available substitutes. The 

SNAP program’s definition of ‘‘potentially 

available’’ is ‘‘any alternative for which adequate 

health, safety, and environmental data, as required 

for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a 

determination of acceptability, and which the 

Agency reasonably believes to be technically 

feasible, even if not all testing has yet been 

completed and the alternative is not yet produced 

or sold.’’ (40 CFR 82.172) 

developing alternatives to the use of 

such substances in key commercial 

applications. 

6. Clearinghouse 

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency 

to set up a public clearinghouse of 

alternative chemicals, product 

substitutes, and alternative 

manufacturing processes that are 

available for products and 

manufacturing processes which use 

class I and II substances. 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

implementing CAA section 612? 

On March 18, 1994, EPA published 

the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) 

which established the process for 

administering the SNAP program and 

issued EPA’s first lists identifying 

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 

in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR 

part 82, subpart G). These sectors are the 

following: Refrigeration and air 

conditioning; foam blowing; solvents 

cleaning; fire suppression and explosion 

protection; sterilants; aerosols; 

adhesives, coatings and inks; and 

tobacco expansion. These sectors 

comprise the principal industrial sectors 

that historically consumed the largest 

volumes of ozone-depleting substances 

(ODS). 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone 

who produces a substitute to replace a 

class I or II ODS in one of the eight 

major industrial use sectors must 

provide the Agency with notice and the 

required health and safety information 

on the substitute at least 90 days before 

introducing it into interstate commerce 

for significant new use as an alternative. 

40 CFR 82.176(a). While this 

requirement typically applies to 

chemical manufacturers as the person 

likely to be planning to introduce the 

substitute into interstate commerce,9 it 

may also apply to importers, 

formulators, equipment manufacturers, 

or end-users 10 when they are 

responsible for introducing a substitute 

into commerce. The 90-day SNAP 

review process begins once EPA 

receives the submission and determines 

that the submission includes complete 

and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). 

The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 

CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a 

substitute earlier than 90 days after a 

complete submission has been provided 

to the Agency. 

The Agency has identified four 

possible decision categories for 

substitute submissions: Acceptable; 

acceptable subject to use conditions; 

acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits; and unacceptable.11 40 CFR 

82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed 

use limits are both considered ‘‘use 

restrictions’’ and are explained below. 

Substitutes that are deemed acceptable 

without use conditions can be used for 

all applications within the relevant enduses within the sector and without 

limits under SNAP on how they may be 

used. Substitutes that are acceptable 

subject to use restrictions may be used 

only in accordance with those 

restrictions. Substitutes that are found 

to be unacceptable may not be used after 

the date specified in the rulemaking 

adding such substitute to the list of 

unacceptable substitutes.12

After reviewing a substitute, the 

Agency may determine that a substitute 

is acceptable only if certain conditions 

in the way that the substitute is used are 

met to ensure risks to human health and 

the environment are not significantly 

greater than other available substitutes. 

EPA describes such substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions.’’ 

Entities that use these substitutes 

without meeting the associated use 

conditions are in violation of section 

612 of the Clean Air Act and EPA’s 

SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). 

For some substitutes, the Agency may 

permit a narrow range of use within an 

end-use or sector. For example, the 

Agency may limit the use of a substitute 

to certain end-uses or specific 

applications within an industry sector. 

The Agency requires a user of a 

narrowed use substitute to demonstrate 

that no other acceptable substitutes are 

available for their specific application. 

EPA describes these substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits.’’ A person using a substitute that 

is acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits in applications and end-uses that 

are not consistent with the narrowed 

use limit is using these substitutes in 

violation of section 612 of the CAA and 

EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 

82.174(c). 

The section 612 mandate for EPA to 

prohibit the use of a substitute that may 

present risk to human health or the 

environment where a lower risk 

alternative is available or potentially 

available 13 provides EPA with the 

authority to change the listing status of 

a particular substitute if such a change 

is justified by new information or 

changed circumstance. 

The Agency publishes its SNAP 

program decisions in the Federal 

Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment 

rulemaking to place any alternative on 

the list of prohibited substitutes, to list 

a substitute as acceptable only subject to 

use conditions or narrowed use limits, 

or to remove a substitute from either the 

list of prohibited or acceptable 

substitutes. 

In contrast, EPA publishes ‘‘notices of 

acceptability’’ to notify the public of 

substitutes that are deemed acceptable 

with no restrictions. As described in the 

preamble to the rule initially 

implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 

13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not 

believe that rulemaking procedures are 

necessary to list substitutes that are 

acceptable without restrictions because 

such listings neither impose any 

sanction nor prevent anyone from using 

a substitute. 

Many SNAP listings include 

‘‘comments’’ or ‘‘further information’’ to 

provide additional information on 

substitutes. Since this additional 

information is not part of the regulatory 

decision, these statements are not 

binding for use of the substitute under 

the SNAP program. However, regulatory 

requirements so listed are binding under 

other regulatory programs (e.g., worker 

protection regulations promulgated by 

the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46131 

Administration (OSHA)). The ‘‘further 

information’’ classification does not 

necessarily include all other legal 

obligations pertaining to the use of the 

substitute. While the items listed are not 

legally binding under the SNAP 

program, EPA encourages users of 

substitutes to apply all statements in the 

‘‘further information’’ column in their 

use of these substitutes. In many 

instances, the information simply refers 

to sound operating practices that have 

already been identified in existing 

industry and/or building codes or 

standards. Thus, many of the 

statements, if adopted, would not 

require the affected user to make 

significant changes in existing operating 

practices. 

D. What are the guiding principles of the 

SNAP program? 

The seven guiding principles of the 

SNAP program, elaborated in the 

preamble to the initial SNAP rule and 

based on section 612, are discussed 

below. 

• Evaluate substitutes within a 

comparative risk framework 

The SNAP program evaluates the risk 

of alternative compounds compared to 

available or potentially available 

substitutes to the ozone depleting 

compounds which they are intended to 

replace. The risk factors that are 

considered include ozone depletion 

potential as well as flammability, 

toxicity, occupational health and safety, 

and contributions to climate change and 

other environmental factors. 

• Do not require that substitutes be 

risk free to be found acceptable 

For substitutes to be found acceptable 

they must pose less risk than other 

substitutes, but they do not have to be 

risk free. Where risks of a substitute 

would otherwise be higher than other 

substitutes, EPA may find these 

alternatives acceptable subject to use 

conditions or narrowed use limits that 

would manage the risk. 

• Restrict those substitutes that are 

significantly worse 

EPA does not intend to restrict a 

substitute if it has only marginally 

greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions 

would be extremely difficult. The 

Agency also does not want to intercede 

in the market’s choice of substitutes by 

listing as unacceptable all but a few 

substitutes for each end-use. Thus, the 

Agency will not list a potential 

substitute as unacceptable unless EPA 

determines that the substitute is 

significantly more harmful to human 

health or the environment than other 

available or potentially available 

alternatives. 

• Evaluate risks by use 

Central to SNAP’s evaluations is the 

intersection between the characteristics 

of the substitute itself and its specific 

end-use application. Section 612 

requires that substitutes be evaluated by 

use. Environmental and human health 

exposures can vary significantly 

depending on the particular application 

of a substitute. Thus, the risk 

characterizations must be designed to 

represent differences in the 

environmental and human health effects 

associated with diverse uses. This 

approach cannot, however, imply 

fundamental tradeoffs with respect to 

different types of risk to either the 

environment or to human health. 

• Provide the regulated community 

with information as soon as possible 

The Agency recognizes the need to 

provide the regulated community with 

information on the acceptability of 

various substitutes as soon as possible. 

To do so, EPA issues notices or 

determinations of acceptability and 

rules identifying substitutes as 

unacceptable, acceptable to use 

conditions or acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits in the Federal 

Register. In addition, we maintain lists 

of acceptable and unacceptable 

alternatives on our Web site, 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. 

• Do not endorse products 

manufactured by specific companies 

The Agency does not issue companyspecific product endorsements. In many 

cases, the Agency may base its analysis 

on data received on individual 

products, but the addition of a 

substitute to the acceptable list based on 

that analysis does not represent an 

endorsement of that company’s 

products. 

• Defer to other environmental 

regulations when warranted 

In some cases, EPA and other federal 

agencies have developed extensive 

regulations under other sections of the 

CAA or other statutes that address any 

potential environmental impacts that 

may result from the use of alternatives 

to class I and class II substances. For 

example, use of some substitutes may in 

some cases entail increased use of 

chemicals that contribute to 

tropospheric air pollution. The SNAP 

program takes existing regulations 

under other programs into account 

when reviewing substitutes. 

E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating 

substitutes under the SNAP program? 

EPA applies the same criteria for 

determining whether a substitute is 

acceptable or unacceptable. These 

criteria, which can be found at 

§ 82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric 

effects and related health and 

environmental impacts, ecosystem risks, 

consumer risks, flammability, and cost 

and availability of the substitute. To 

enable EPA to assess these criteria, we 

require submitters to include various 

information including ozone depletion 

potential (ODP), global warming 

potential (GWP), toxicity, flammability, 

and the potential for human exposure. 

When evaluating potential substitutes, 

EPA evaluates these criteria in the 

following groupings: 

• Atmospheric effects—The SNAP 

program evaluates the potential 

contributions to both ozone depletion 

and climate change. The SNAP program 

considers the ozone depletion potential 

and the 100-year integrated GWP of 

compounds to assess atmospheric 

effects. 

• Exposure assessments—The SNAP 

program uses exposure assessments to 

estimate concentration levels of 

substitutes to which workers, 

consumers, the general population, and 

environmental receptors may be 

exposed over a determined period of 

time. These assessments are based on 

personal monitoring data or area 

sampling data if available. Exposure 

assessments may be conducted for many 

types of releases including: 

(1) Releases in the workplace and in 

homes; 

(2) Releases to ambient air and surface 

water; 

(3) Releases from the management of 

solid wastes. 

• Toxicity data—The SNAP program 

uses toxicity data to assess the possible 

health and environmental effects of 

exposure to substitutes. We use broad 

health-based criteria such as: 

(1) Permissible Exposure Limits 

(PELs) for occupational exposure; 

(2) Inhalation reference 

concentrations (RfCs) for noncarcinogenic effects on the general 

population; 

(3) Cancer slope factors for 

carcinogenic risk to members of the 

general population. 

When considering risks in the 

workplace, if OSHA has not issued a 

PEL for a compound, EPA then 

considers Recommended Exposure 

Limits from the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, 

Workplace Environmental Exposure 

Limits (WEELs) set by the American 

Industrial Hygiene Association, or 

Threshold Limit Values set by the 

American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists. If limits for 

occupational exposure or exposure to 

the general population are not already 

established, then EPA derives these 

values following the Agency’s peer 

reviewed guidelines. Exposure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46132 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information is combined with toxicity 

information to explore any basis for 

concern. Toxicity data are used with 

existing EPA guidelines to develop 

health-based limits for interim use in 

these risk characterizations. 

• Flammability—The SNAP program 

examines flammability as a safety 

concern for workers and consumers. 

EPA assesses flammability risk using 

data on: 

(1) Flash point and flammability 

limits (e.g. OSHA flammability/

combustibility classifications); 

(2) Data on testing of blends with 

flammable components; 

(3) Test data on flammability in 

consumer applications conducted by 

independent laboratories; and 

(4) Information on flammability risk 

mitigation techniques. 

• Other environmental impacts—The 

SNAP program also examines other 

potential environmental impacts such as 

ecotoxicity and local air quality 

impacts. A compound that is likely to be 

discharged to water may be evaluated 

for impacts on aquatic life. Some 

substitutes are volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes 

whenever a potential substitute is 

considered a hazardous or toxic air 

pollutant (under CAA sections 112 (b) 

and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act subtitle C regulations. 

Over the past twenty years, the menu 

of substitutes has become much broader 

and a great deal of new information has 

been developed on many substitutes. 

Because the overall goal of the SNAP 

program is to ensure that substitutes 

listed as acceptable do not pose 

significantly greater risk to human 

health and the environment than other 

available substitutes, the SNAP criteria 

should be informed by our current 

overall understanding of environmental 

and human health impacts and our 

experience with and current knowledge 

about available and potentially available 

substitutes. Over time, the range of 

substitutes reviewed by SNAP has 

changed, and, at the same time, 

scientific approaches have evolved to 

more accurately assess the potential 

environmental and human health 

impacts of these chemicals and 

alternative technologies. 

F. How are SNAP determinations 

updated? 

Three mechanisms exist for modifying 

the list of SNAP determinations. First, 

under section 612(d), the Agency must 

review and either grant or deny 

petitions to add or delete substances 

from the SNAP list of acceptable or 

unacceptable substitutes. That provision 

allows any person to petition the 

Administrator to add a substance to the 

list of acceptable or unacceptable 

substitutes or to remove a substance 

from either list. The second means is 

through the notifications which must be 

submitted to EPA 90 days before 

introduction of a substitute into 

interstate commerce for significant new 

use as an alternative to a class I or class 

II substance. These 90-day notifications 

are required by section 612(e) of the 

CAA for producers of substitutes to 

class I substances for new uses and, in 

all other cases, by EPA regulations 

issued under sections 114 and 301 of 

the Act to implement section 612(c). 

Finally, we interpret the section 612 

mandate to find substitutes acceptable 

or unacceptable to include the authority 

to act on our own to add or remove a 

substance from the SNAP lists. In 

determining whether to add or remove 

a substance from the SNAP lists, we 

consider whether there are other 

available substitutes that pose a lower 

risk to human health and the 

environment. In determining whether to 

modify a listing of a substitute we 

consider new data not considered at the 

time of our original listing decision, 

including information on new 

substitutes and new information on 

substitutes previously reviewed. 

G. What does EPA consider in deciding 

whether to modify a determination? 

As described in this document and 

elsewhere, including in the original 

SNAP rulemaking published in the 

Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 

FR 13044), section 612 of the CAA 

requires EPA to list as unacceptable any 

substitute substance where it finds that 

there are other substitutes currently or 

potentially available that reduce overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment. In addition to comparing 

the human health and environmental 

effects of other available or potentially 

available substitutes for the same enduses, we also compare substitutes to the 

ozone-depleting substances being 

phased out under the Montreal Protocol 

on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer (Montreal Protocol) and under the 

CAA. 

The original SNAP rule included 

submission requirements and presented 

the environmental and health risk 

factors that the SNAP program considers 

in its comparative risk framework. 

Environmental and human health 

exposures can vary significantly 

depending on the particular application 

of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes 

decisions based on the particular enduse where a substitute is to be used. 

EPA has, in many cases, found certain 

substitutes acceptable only for limited 

end-uses or subject to use restrictions. 

In May 2013 EPA stated: 

EPA recognizes that during the nearly twodecade long history of the SNAP program, 

new alternatives and new information about 

alternatives have emerged. To the extent 

possible, EPA considers new information and 

improved understanding of the risk factors 

for the environment and human health in the 

context of the available or potentially 

available alternatives for a given use. (78 FR 

29035) 

It has now been about twenty years 

since the initial SNAP rule was 

promulgated. In that period, the menu 

of available alternatives has expanded 

greatly and now includes many 

substitutes with diverse characteristics 

and effects on human health and the 

environment. When the SNAP program 

began, the number of substitutes 

available for consideration was, for 

many end-uses, somewhat limited. 

While the SNAP program’s initial 

comparative assessments of overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

were rigorous, often there were few 

substitutes to apply the comparative 

assessment. The immediacy of the class 

I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed 

class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, 

recognizing that they too would be 

phased out and were only an interim 

solution. Other Title VI provisions such 

as the section 610 Nonessential 

Products Ban and the section 605 Use 

Restriction meant a listing under the 

SNAP program did not convey 

permanence. 

Since EPA issued the initial SNAP 

rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 18 

rules and 28 notices expanding the 

menu of options for all SNAP sectors 

and end-uses. Comparisons today are to 

a broader range of options—both 

chemical and non-chemical—than at the 

inception of the SNAP program. 

Industry experience with these 

substitutes has also grown during the 

history of the program. This varies by 

sector and by end-use. 

In addition to an expanding menu of 

substitutes, developments over the past 

20 years have improved our 

understanding of global environmental 

issues. With regards to that information, 

many of the substitute-specific actions 

proposed in this rule have undergone 

comparative assessments that consider 

our evolving understanding of climate 

change. GWPs and climate effects are 

not new elements in our evaluation 

framework, but along with all of our 

review criteria the amount and quality 

of information has expanded. 

To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing 

management of the SNAP program 

considers new information and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46133 

14The relevant scientific and technical 

information summarized to support the 

Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute 

Finding can be found at: www.epa.gov/

climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/

Endangerment_TSD.pdf 

15 IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: 

Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global 

Climate System: Issues Related to 

Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons 

(Cambridge Univ Press, New York). 

16UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting 

Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations 

Environment Programme. 

17Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific 

and Papers, 2013. 

18Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: 

Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/ 

NIST Conference 2012. 

19NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/

hfcs/. 

20 Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. 

McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009) The large 

contribution of projected HFC emissions to future 

climate forcing. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. 

21HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and 

the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp 

22 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario 

Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. 

Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. 

In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 

Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

improved understanding of the risk to 

the environment and human health. 

EPA previously has taken several 

actions revising listing determinations 

from acceptable or acceptable with use 

conditions to unacceptable based on 

information made available to EPA after 

a listing was issued. For example, on 

January 26, 1999, EPA listed the 

refrigerant known by the trade name 

MT–31 as unacceptable for all 

refrigeration and air conditioning enduses. EPA previously listed this blend as 

an acceptable substitute in various enduses within the refrigeration and air 

conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 

30275). Based on new information about 

the toxicity of one of the chemicals in 

the blend, EPA subsequently removed 

MT–31 from the list of acceptable 

substitutes and listed it as unacceptable 

in all refrigeration and air conditioning 

end-uses (January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3861). 

Another example of EPA revising a 

listing determination occurred in 2007 

when EPA listed HCFC–22 and HCFC– 

142b as unacceptable for use in the foam 

sector (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). 

These HCFCs, which are ozone 

depleting and subject to a global 

production phaseout, were initially 

listed as acceptable substitutes since 

they had a lower ODP than the 

substances they were replacing and 

there were no other available substitutes 

that posed lower risk at the time of 

EPA’s listing decision. HCFCs offered a 

path forward for some sectors and enduses at a time when substitutes were far 

more limited. In light of the expanded 

availability of alternative substitutes 

with lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment in specific foam 

end-uses, and taking into account the 

2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA 

changed the listing for these HCFCs in 

these end-uses from acceptable to 

unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted 

that continued use of these HCFCs 

would contribute to unnecessary 

depletion of the ozone layer and delay 

the transition to substitutes that pose 

lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment. EPA allowed existing 

users to continue use for a limited time 

to ensure that they could adjust their 

manufacturing processes to safely 

accommodate the use of other 

substitutes. 

H. Where can I get additional 

information about the SNAP program? 

For copies of the comprehensive 

SNAP lists of substitutes or additional 

information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s 

Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. 

For more information on the Agency’s 

process for administering the SNAP 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the SNAP final 

rulemaking published March 18, 1994 

(59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart G. A complete chronology of 

SNAP decisions and the appropriate 

citations are found at www.epa.gov/

ozone/snap/chron.html. 

III. What actions and information 

related to greenhouse gases have 

bearing on this proposed decision to 

modify prior SNAP determinations? 

GWP, along with other criteria, is a 

factor in the overall evaluation of 

alternatives under the SNAP program. 

During the past two decades, the general 

science on climate change and the 

potential contributions of greenhouse 

gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate 

change have become better understood. 

On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, 

the Administrator issued two distinct 

findings regarding GHGs under section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act 14: 

• Endangerment Finding: the current 

and projected concentrations of the six 

key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere — CO2, methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6) — threaten the public 

health and welfare of current and future 

generations. 

• Cause or Contribute Finding: the 

combined emissions of these wellmixed greenhouse gases from new 

motor vehicles and new motor vehicle 

engines contribute to the greenhouse gas 

pollution which threatens public health 

and welfare. 

Like the ODSs they replace, HFCs are 

potent GHGs.15 Though they represent a 

small fraction of the current total 

volume of GHG emissions, their 

warming impact is very strong because 

they can remain trapped in the 

atmosphere for up to 250+ years 

impacting climate change 20,000 times 

more powerfully than CO2, and their 

emissions are projected to accelerate 

over the next several decades if left 

unregulated. In the United States, 

emissions of HFCs are increasing more 

quickly than those of any other GHGs, 

and globally they are increasing 10–15% 

annually.16 At that rate, emissions are 

projected to double by 2020 and triple 

by 2030.17 HFCs are rapidly 

accumulating in the atmosphere. The 

atmospheric concentration of HFC– 

134a, the most abundant HFC, has 

increased by about 10% per year from 

2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of 

HFC–143a and HFC–125 have risen over 

13% and 16% per year from 2007–2011, 

respectively.18 19

Annual global emissions of HFCs are 

projected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 Gt 

CO2eq in 2050 20, which is comparable 

to the drop in annual GHG emissions 

from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988 

and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the 

buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is 

projected to increase radiative forcing 

by up to 0.4 W m2. This increase may 

be as much as one-fifth to one-quarter of 

the expected increase in radiative 

forcing due to the buildup of CO2 since 

2000, according to the IPCC’s Special 

Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) 

(UNEP, 2011). To appreciate the 

significance of the effect of projected 

HFC emissions within the context of all 

GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 

to 12% of the CO2 emissions in 2050 

based on the IPCC’s highest CO2

emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 

to 69% of CO2 emissions based on the 

IPCC’s lowest CO2 emissions 

pathway.21 22 Additional information 

concerning the peer-reviewed scientific 

literature and emission scenarios is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

IV. What petitions has EPA received 

requesting a change in listing status for 

substitutes with a high global warming 

potential? 

A. Summary of Petitions 

EPA received three petitions 

requesting EPA to modify certain 

acceptability listings of HFC–134a and 

HFC–134a blends. The first petition was 

submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on 

behalf of NRDC, the Institute for 

Governance and Sustainable 

Development (IGSD), and the 

Environmental Investigation Agency-US 

(EIA). The petition requested that EPA 

remove HFC–134a from the list of 

acceptable substitutes for ODS and 

move it to the list of unacceptable 

substitutes in multiple uses. The 

petitioners subsequently clarified that 

they were requesting this change for the 

use of HFC–134a in new passenger cars 

and light-duty trucks, non-medical 

aerosols, and for certain refrigeration 

and foam blowing end-uses. In support 

of their petition, the petitioners 

identified other substitutes for use in 

motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) 

and other sectors, and claimed that 

these other substitutes present much 

lower risks to human health and 

environment than HFC–134a. 

On February 14, 2011, EPA found the 

petition complete for MVAC in new 

passenger cars and light-duty vehicles 

and determined it was incomplete for 

other uses of HFC–134a. EPA noted in 

its response that, at a future date, the 

Agency would initiate a notice-andcomment rulemaking in response to the 

one complete aspect of the petition, 

noting in particular that EPA would 

evaluate and take comment on many 

factors, including, but not limited to, the 

timeframe for introduction of newer 

substitutes for MVAC systems into the 

automotive market and potential lead 

time for manufacturers of motor 

vehicles to accommodate substitutes. 

This proposed rule responds to the 

aspect of that petition that we found 

complete. 

On April 26, 2012, EPA received a 

petition from EIA. EIA stated that, in 

light of the comparative nature of the 

SNAP program’s evaluation of 

substitutes and given that other 

acceptable substitutes are on the market 

or soon to be available, EPA should 

remove HFC–134a and HFC–134a 

blends from the list of acceptable 

substitutes for uses where EPA found 

CFCs and HCFCs to be nonessential 

under section 610 of the Act. EIA also 

requested that the schedule for moving 

HFC–134a and HFC–134a blends from 

the list of acceptable to unacceptable 

substitutes be based on the ‘‘most 

rapidly feasible transitions to one or 

more of the’’ acceptable substitutes for 

each use. The petitioner noted that 

initial approvals of HFC–134a for a 

number of end-uses occurred in the 

1990s and were based on the assessment 

made then that (1) HFC–134a does not 

contribute to ozone depletion; (2) HFC– 

134a’s GWP and atmospheric lifetime 

were close to those of other substitutes 

that had been determined to be 

acceptable for the end-uses; and (3) 

HFC–134a is not flammable, and its 

toxicity is low.23 The petitioner stated 

that the analysis used in the listing 

decisions may have been appropriate in 

the 1990s but was no longer reflected 

accurately given the range of other 

available or potentially available 

substitutes at present. 

In addition to petitioning EPA for 

action under SNAP, the petitioner 

requested that the section 610 

Nonessential Products Ban be extended 

to HFC–134a and HFC–134a blends for 

aerosols and pressurized dispensers 

(including tire inflators); foam blowing 

agents; novelty products (including 

propelled plastic party streamers, web 

string, artificial snow, specialty paints 

and excrement ‘‘poop’’ freeze); noise 

horns (including marine safety noise 

horns, sporting event noise horns, 

personal safety noise horns, wallmounted industrial noise horns used as 

alarms in factories and other work areas, 

and intruder noise horns used as alarms 

in homes and cars); foam and 

refrigerants in new domestic 

refrigerators and freezers and other 

retail stand-alone coolers and freezers; 

and cleaning fluids for noncommercial 

electronic, photographic, and other 

equipment. 

On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the 

petitioner that this petition was 

incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have 

exchanged further correspondence that 

can be found in the docket. Although 

EPA has found the petition incomplete, 

EPA’s action in this proposal may be 

considered responsive to certain aspects 

of the petitions given EPA is proposing 

to change the listing of certain HFCs 

used in aerosols and foams from 

acceptable to unacceptable for most 

uses, and proposing to place use 

conditions on the remaining aerosol 

uses. 

A third petition was filed on April 27, 

2012, by NRDC, EIA and IGSD. They 

requested that EPA: 

• Remove HFC–134a from the list of 

acceptable substitutes for CFC–12 in 

household refrigerators and freezers and 

stand-alone retail food refrigerators and 

freezers; 

• Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed 

refrigerants to all except certified 

technicians with access to service tools 

required under existing EPA 

regulations; 

• Adopt a standardized procedure to 

determine the speed of transition from 

obsolete high-GWP HFCs to nextgeneration alternatives and substitutes; 

• Remove, in addition to HFC–134a, 

all other refrigerants with 100-year 

GWPs greater than 150 from the 

acceptable substitutes list for household 

refrigerators and freezers and standalone retail food refrigerators and 

freezers. 

On August 7, 2013, EPA found this 

petition to be incomplete. EPA and the 

petitioner have exchanged further 

correspondence that can be found in the 

docket. Although EPA has found the 

petition incomplete, EPA’s action in this 

proposal may be considered responsive 

to certain aspects of the petition, given 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

of HFC–134a from acceptable to 

unacceptable for new stand-alone retail 

food refrigerators and freezers, as well 

as changing the listing of a number of 

refrigerant blends with higher GWPs for 

new and retrofit stand-alone retail food 

refrigerators and freezers. 

B. How Today’s Action Relates to 

Petitions 

This action primarily recognizes a call 

in the President’s Climate Action Plan 

announced June 2013: 

To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United 

States can and will lead both through 

international diplomacy as well as domestic 

actions . . . Moving forward, the 

Environmental Protection Agency will use its 

authority through the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program to encourage 

private sector investment in low-emissions 

technology by identifying and approving 

climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting 

certain uses of the most harmful chemical 

alternatives. 

The Climate Action Plan also states ‘‘to 

reduce emissions of HFCs, the United 

States can and will lead both through 

international diplomacy as well as 

domestic actions.’’ This proposed rule is 

part of our domestic commitment to 

take action now and, by doing so, also 

supporting efforts to secure a global 

HFC phasedown. For the past five years, 

the United States, Canada, and Mexico 

have proposed an amendment to the 

Montreal Protocol to phase down the 

production and consumption of HFCs. 

Global benefits of the proposal would 

yield significant reductions of over 90 

gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

CO2eq through 2050. The United States, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46135 

the European Union, Japan and other 

countries are all taking actions that will 

promote the uptake of low-GWP 

alternatives and reduce use and 

emissions of high-GWP HFCs. 

This proposal responds to the 

President’s Climate Action Plan and 

also addresses certain aspects of the 

three petitions referred to above. First, 

this action responds to the one aspect of 

the three petitions that EPA found 

complete, namely petitioners’ request 

that EPA change the listing of HFC–134a 

from acceptable to unacceptable in new 

MVACs. (See section V.B. in today’s 

notice.) While EPA found all remaining 

issues in the three petitions incomplete 

with respect to the other end-uses, EPA 

has independently acquired sufficient 

information to address certain other 

requests made by the petitioners 

regarding listing high GWP HFCs as 

unacceptable. Specifically, based on our 

review of the aerosols, foams, and air 

conditioning and refrigeration sectors, 

we are proposing to revise the listings 

for a number of substitutes from 

acceptable to acceptable subject to use 

conditions, or unacceptable. (See 

sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of today’s 

notice.) These substitutes have high 

GWPs as compared with other available 

or potentially available substitutes in 

those end–uses and pose significantly 

greater risk overall to human health and 

the environment. EPA considers the 

intersection between the specific HFC or 

HFC blend and the particular end-use. 

This action does not propose that any 

specific HFC be unacceptable across all 

sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not 

proposing that, for any specific sector, 

the only acceptable substitutes are HFCfree. EPA recognizes that both 

fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs and nonfluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes 

are potentially acceptable. Instead, 

consistent with SNAP’s history and 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA 

is proposing these modifications, and 

will consider future modifications, 

based on the substitutes being 

considered, the SNAP criteria for 

evaluation, and the current suite of 

other available and potentially available 

substitutes in specific sectors and enduses. 

EPA recently issued a proposed rule 

(July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811) that would 

list as acceptable subject to use 

conditions a group of refrigeration and 

air-conditioning alternatives that have 

been submitted and reviewed under the 

SNAP program. That rule would 

enhance the SNAP menu of acceptable 

alternatives for a number of related enduses by proposing to add several 

alternatives as acceptable subject to use 

conditions. 

As noted previously, to date, EPA has 

considered approximately 400 

alternatives. This level of development 

work serves as a clear demonstration of 

the efforts of industry to commercialize 

alternatives that continue to reduce 

overall risk and meet the needs of a 

wide range of consumers. 

Throughout the process of our 

discussions with the regulated 

community on the SNAP related aspects 

of the President’s Climate Action Plan, 

we have sought to convey our continued 

understanding of the role that certainty 

plays in enabling this robust 

development and uptake of alternatives. 

Unfortunately, some of the key strengths 

of the SNAP program, such as its 

chemical and end-use specific 

consideration, its multi criteria basis for 

action, and its petition process tend to 

militate against some measures that 

could provide more certainty, such as 

bright line cut offs. That being said we 

do believe that the proposals we are 

making today, and future proposals we 

may make, may provide some 

guidelines on how EPA intends to apply 

specific criteria in individual end-uses. 

In addition, we remain committed to 

continuing our outreach efforts and to 

sharing our thinking at the earliest 

moment practicable on any future 

actions we might consider. Finally, and 

as it relates to potential future actions 

that that EPA might consider under the 

SNAP program, the Agency continues to 

welcome comments and ideas on 

measures we might consider within the 

SNAP context to provide greater 

certainty to both producers and 

consumers in SNAP regulated industrial 

sectors. 

V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs? 

EPA is proposing to modify the 

listings from acceptable to unacceptable 

for certain HFCs and HFC blends in 

aerosol, foam blowing, and air 

conditioning and refrigerant end-uses 

where other alternatives are available or 

potentially available that pose overall 

lower risk. Per the guiding principle 

stated above, EPA is considering the 

intersection between the specific HFC or 

HFC blend and the particular end-use. 

This action does not propose that any 

specific HFCs be unacceptable across all 

sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not 

proposing that, for any specific sector, 

the only acceptable substitutes are HFCfree. EPA recognizes that both 

fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and nonfluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes 

are potentially acceptable. Instead, 

consistent with SNAP’s history and 

CAA Section 612, EPA is proposing 

these modifications based on the 

substitutes being considered, the SNAP 

criteria for evaluation, and the current 

suite of other available and potentially 

available substitutes. 

EPA is proposing to modify the 

following listings by end-use: 

(1) For aerosol propellants, we are 

proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 

• HFC–125 as unacceptable; 

• HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, allowing its use only in 

specific types of technical and medical 

aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) 

(and prohibiting its use in consumer 

aerosols); and 

• HFC–227ea as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, allowing its use only in 

metered dose inhalers. 

(2) For motor vehicle air conditioning 

systems in newly manufactured lightduty vehicles, we are proposing to list 

• HFC–134a as unacceptable starting 

with model year MY 2021; and 

• The refrigerant blends SP34E, R– 

426A (also known as RS–24), R–416A 

(also known as HCFC Blend Beta or 

FRIGC FR12), R–406A, R–414A (also 

known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), 

R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend 

Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also 

known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG– 

X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also 

known as GHG–HP) as unacceptable 

starting with MY 2017. 

(3) For new and retrofit retail food 

refrigeration (including stand-alone 

equipment, condensing units, direct 

supermarket systems, and indirect 

supermarket systems) and new and 

retrofit vending machines, we are 

proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 

• The HFC blends R–507A and R– 

404A as unacceptable. 

(4) For new and retrofit retail food 

refrigeration (including direct 

supermarket systems and indirect 

supermarket systems), we are proposing 

to list, as of January 1, 2016 

• HFC–227ea, R–407B, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, and 

R–434A as unacceptable. 

(5) For new stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration and new vending 

machines, we are proposing to list, as of 

January 1, 2016 

• HFC–134a and certain other HFC 

refrigerant blends as unacceptable. 

(6) For foam blowing agents, we are 

proposing to list, as of January 1, 2017, 

except where allowed under a narrowed 

use limit, 

• HFC–134a and blends thereof as 

unacceptable in all foam-blowing enduses; 

• HFC–143a, HFC–245fa and HFC– 

365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC 

blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6 as 

unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where they are currently listed as 

acceptable, except for spray foam 

applications; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46136 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• The HFC blend Formacel TI as 

unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where it is currently listed as 

acceptable. 

In general, the dates in this proposal 

for modifying the SNAP listings are 

based on information concerning the 

availability of alternatives with lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment for the end-uses 

considered. EPA is requesting comment 

on the proposed dates. As noted in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion in 

section IX of this preamble, EPA would 

like information on technical challenges 

that may exist. EPA is particularly 

interested in information concerning the 

supply of substitutes in sufficient 

quantities to meet the dates proposed in 

this action. EPA notes that several of the 

end-uses could be broken down further. 

EPA could consider adopting temporary 

narrowed use limits for a specific 

application of an end-use if the Agency 

determined that substitutes would be 

available for all but that specific 

application as of a particular date. For 

other applications in that end-use, the 

rule would list the substitute as 

unacceptable as of that date. For the 

specific application at issue, the rule 

could contain both a temporary 

narrowed use limit with an expiration 

date and a listing as unacceptable upon 

the expiration of the narrowed use limit. 

While the temporary narrowed use limit 

was in place, only persons using a 

substitute in the end-use for that 

specific application would be 

considered to not be in violation of 

section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP 

regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). In 

addition, any such end user would need 

to comply with the requirement to 

analyze and document that there are no 

other alternatives that are technically 

feasible for their specific end-use. To 

support the adoption of a temporary 

narrowed use limit for a specific 

application of an end-use in the final 

rule, commenters should explain why 

other alternatives would not be 

available for the specific application of 

that end-use and for what period of 

time. 

In determining whether to modify the 

listing decisions for substitutes based on 

whether other alternatives are available 

that pose lower risk to human health 

and the environment, we considered, 

among other things: scientific findings, 

information provided by the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel that 

supports the Montreal Protocol, journal 

articles, submissions to the SNAP 

program, the regulations and supporting 

dockets for other EPA rulemakings, 

presentations and reports presented at 

domestic and international conferences, 

and materials from trade associations 

and professional organizations. The 

materials on which we have relied may 

be found in the docket for this action. 

Key references are highlighted in 

section IX of today’s notice. 

A. Aerosols 

1. Background 

The SNAP program provides listings 

for two aerosol end-uses: propellants 

and solvents. Aerosols typically use a 

liquefied or compressed gas to propel 

active ingredients in liquid, paste, or 

powder form. In the case of duster 

sprays used to blow dust and 

contaminants off of surfaces, the 

propellant is also itself the active 

ingredient. Some aerosols also contain a 

solvent, which may be used in 

manufacturing, maintenance and repair 

to clean off oil, grease, and other soils. 

Historically, a variety of propellants 

and solvents have been available to 

formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, 

isobutane) and compressed gases (e.g., 

CO2, N2, N2O, compressed air) have long 

been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, 

the aerosol industry predominantly 

used CFCs. CFCs were excellent 

propellants because of their ability to 

produce a fine spray, their nonflammability, their ability to be stored 

under low pressure, and their low 

reactivity with other ingredients. In 

1978, in response to evidence regarding 

depletion of the earth’s ozone layer, the 

United States banned CFC propellants. 

These regulations did not address 

HCFCs or solvent uses. For example, 

CFC–113 and methyl chloroform 

continued to be used as solvents in 

aerosols and HCFCs continued to be 

used. 

Many consumer products that 

previously used CFC propellants were 

reformulated or replaced with a variety 

of alternatives, including not-in-kind 

substitutes, such as pump sprays or 

solid and roll-on deodorants. Aerosol 

propellant substitutes included HCFCs, 

HCs, HFCs, compressed gases, and 

oxygenated organic compounds. HCFCs 

are controlled substances under the 

Montreal Protocol and subject to 

regulation under the CAA including a 

phaseout of production and import 

under section 605(b)-(c) and use 

restrictions under section 605(a). 

In 1993, EPA issued regulations that 

implemented CAA section 610’s 

Congressionally mandated ban on the 

sale and distribution or offer for sale 

and distribution of certain non-essential 

products containing ozone-depleting 

substances (40 CFR Part 82 Subpart C). 

All aerosol products and pressurized 

dispensers containing, or manufactured 

with, CFCs and HCFCs—except those 

specifically exempted by the 

regulations—are banned from sale and 

distribution in interstate commerce in 

the United States. As a result of the 

Nonessential Products Ban, most aerosol 

products have been using low-GWP 

alternatives with no ozone depletion 

potential since the early 1990s. 

2. Aerosols today 

Following the 1994 ban on the sale 

and distribution of aerosols using 

HCFCs, HCFC propellants were replaced 

with a range of alternatives including 

HFCs (e.g., HFC–134a, HFC–152a), HCs, 

compressed gases, and not-in-kind 

alternatives. HCFC solvents were 

replaced by HFC–43–10mee, HFC– 

365mfc, HFC–245fa, HCs, oxygenated 

organic compounds, hydrofluoroethers 

(HFEs), and trans-dichloroethylene 

(typically blended with an HFC or HFE 

to reduce flammability of the 

formulation). Other acceptable lowGWP fluorinated compounds include 

HFOs. HFO–1234ze(E) is in use and 

under development for use in the 

aerosol industry as a propellant for 

manufacturing aerosol products. EPA 

regulations issued pursuant to CAA 

section 605 prohibit the use of HCFC– 

22 and HCFC–142b for manufacturing 

aerosol products. 40 CFR 82.15(g). EPA 

has proposed regulations addressing the 

use after January 1, 2015 of other HCFCs 

in aerosol products (e.g., HCFC–225ca/ 

cb), as well as other provisions related 

to the phaseout of HCFCs under section 

605 of the CAA (December 24, 2013; 78 

FR 78072). 

The United States aerosol industry 

manufactures aerosol products in the 

following three categories: (1) Consumer 

aerosols, (2) technical aerosols, and (3) 

medical aerosols. Consumer aerosols 

includes products for personal and 

household use. Examples include 

personal care products, such as: 

Cosmetics, hairspray, body sprays, and 

deodorants; automotive products such 

as tire inflators, auto lubricants, and 

brake cleaners; noise horns and safety 

horns; animal repellants; spray 

adhesives with various applications; 

household cleaning products; hand-held 

spray paint cans; eyeglass and keyboard 

dusters; consumer freeze sprays (e.g. 

chewing gum or excrement removal); air 

fresheners; food dispensing products; 

and novelty aerosols (e.g., artificial 

snow, plastic string, noise makers, and 

cork poppers). 

Technical aerosols are aerosol 

products for sale and use solely in 

commercial and industrial applications, 

not for normal day-to-day consumer use 

or medical use. Technical aerosols 

includes industrial cleaners (e.g., 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46137 

24 GWP values cited in this proposal are from the 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated 

otherwise. Where no GWP is listed in AR4, GWP 

values shall be determined consistent with the 

calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and 

referenced materials. 

electronic contact cleaners, brake 

cleaners, flux removers, degreasers); 

pesticides (e.g., certain wasp and hornet 

sprays, aircraft insecticides); a subset of 

dusters (e.g., for photographic negatives, 

semiconductor chip manufacture, 

specimens for observation under 

electron microscope); and spinnerette 

lubricant/cleaning sprays. Technical 

aerosols also includes other 

miscellaneous products such as 

industrial spray paints and document 

preservation sprays. 

Medical aerosols are for sale and use 

for medical purposes and include, but 

are not limited to, products regulated by 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA). Medical aerosols include 

metered dose inhalers for the treatment 

of asthma and chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease, calamine spray, 

anti-fungals, wart treatments, wound 

care sprays, freeze or coolant spray for 

pain relief, spray-on ‘‘liquid’’ bandages, 

and products for removing bandage 

adhesives. 

Some aerosols could be considered 

under more than one of the categories 

described above. For example, insect 

sprays include products with both 

commercial and consumer applications. 

The commercial application would 

include insect sprays used by utility 

power line workers around high tension 

power lines (i.e., a technical aerosol) 

and the consumer use would include 

residential household insect repellant 

commonly sold to homeowners (i.e., a 

consumer aerosol). Another example is 

freeze sprays which may be either 

consumer aerosols (e.g., food freeze 

sprays, animal waste sprays) or medical 

aerosols (e.g., wart removers, pain 

relievers). 

Most of the demand for consumer 

aerosols in the United States is 

concentrated within household 

consumer products. This category has 

the highest production volume, 

reporting a 2.4% increase from 2010 to 

2011 (CSPA 2012). The NAICS code that 

includes many personal care products 

(325620) is the highest grossing NAICS 

category of those that EPA has identified 

as manufacturing consumer aerosols 

(ICF 2014a). Some of the dominant 

consumer aerosols includes air 

fresheners, deodorants, household 

cleaners, and hairspray. 

3. What is EPA proposing concerning 

aerosols? 

Today’s action addresses HFCs in 

propellants in aerosols. EPA is 

proposing to modify the listings for 

HFC–125, HFC–134a and HFC–227ea as 

of January 1, 2016 as follows: 

• EPA is proposing to change the 

listing for the aerosol propellant HFC– 

125 from acceptable to unacceptable. 

• We are proposing to list the aerosol 

propellant HFC–134a as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions allowing its 

use only in the following: Cleaning 

products for removal of grease, flux and 

other soils from electrical equipment or 

electronics; lubricants for electrical 

equipment or electronics; sprays for 

aircraft maintenance; pesticides for use 

near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total 

release insecticide foggers, or in 

certified organic use pesticides for 

which EPA has specifically disallowed 

all other lower-GWP propellants; mold 

release agents; lubricants and cleaners 

for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; 

duster sprays specifically for removal of 

dust from photographic negatives, 

semiconductor chips, and specimens 

under electron microscopes; document 

preservation sprays; metered dose 

inhalers for the treatment of asthma, 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 

allergic rhinitis, and other diseases 

where aerosols can be used for systemic 

delivery through lung, nose, or other 

organs; wound care sprays; topical 

coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and 

products for removing bandage 

adhesives from skin. 

• EPA is also proposing to list HFC– 

227ea as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, allowing its use only in 

metered dose inhalers. 

a. What other alternatives are 

available? 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

decisions for HFC–125, HFC–134a, and 

HFC–227ea as of January 1, 2016 

because safer alternatives (i.e., chemical 

compounds and technological options) 

are available or potentially available 

that reduces the overall risk to human 

health and the environment. Other 

substitutes listed as acceptable 

propellants include HFC–152a, HFO– 

1234ze(E), butane, propane, isobutane, 

CO2 and other compressed gases, and 

dimethyl ether (DME). In addition, 

technological options include not-inkind alternatives such as finger/trigger 

pumps, powder formulations, sticks, 

rollers, brushes, and wipes. These 

alternatives have GWPs ranging from 

zero to 124 compared with HFC–134a’s 

GWP of 1,430, HFC–227ea’s GWP of 

3,220 and HFC–125’s GWP of 3,500.24

All of these alternatives have an ODP of 

zero, are relatively low in toxicity, and 

are capable of remaining below their 

respective exposure limits when used as 

aerosol propellants. In addition to GWP 

and climate impacts, some of the other 

environmental and health attributes that 

the SNAP program considers that differ 

for these alternatives include impacts on 

local air quality and flammability. For 

example, butane, propane, isobutane, 

and DME are VOCs as well as being 

flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, 

and DME are defined as VOCs under 

CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to attain 

and maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards; thus, these 

propellants are subject to federal, state, 

and local regulation that may prevent 

their use as a propellant in aerosols in 

some states and counties that have 

nonattainment areas for ground-level 

ozone. HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC– 

227ea, HFC–152a, HFO–1234ze(E), and 

the compressed gases CO2 and N2 are 

not defined as VOCs under these 

regulations and their use is expected to 

have negligible impact on ground-level 

ozone levels. 

i. Consumer Aerosols 

For consumer aerosols, there are three 

alternatives with lower GWPs that meet 

other environmental regulatory 

requirements: HFC–152a, which has a 

GWP of 124; HFO–1234ze(E) with a 

GWP of 6; and CO2 with a GWP of 1. 

All three have GWPs significantly lower 

than those of the HFCs proposed to be 

unacceptable or subject to use 

conditions (range of GWPs from 1430 to 

3500 for HFC–134a, HFC–227ea and 

HFC–125). These three substitutes also 

provide a range of performance based on 

vapor pressure, which is important 

because it affects the ability to propel 

the necessary ingredients out of the 

aerosol container. The vapor pressures 

of HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–152a, and CO2

at 20 °C are 422 kPa, 510 kPa, and 5776 

kPa, respectively. 

ii. Technical Aerosols 

Technical aerosols sometimes need to 

meet more rigorous requirements for 

selection because of performance 

demands that do not exist for most 

consumer aerosols. For example, 

nonflammable aerosols are needed for 

use on energized electrical circuits, 

where sparking can create a fire or 

explosion hazard. Of the different 

acceptable alternatives, the 

nonflammable options at room 

temperature include HFC–125, HFC– 

134a, HFC–227ea, HFO–1234ze(E) and 

compressed gases including CO2 and N2. 

At slightly higher temperatures (30 °C or 

85 °F), HFO–1234ze(E) exhibits lower 

and higher flammability limits and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46138 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

could catch fire under specific 

conditions of concentration and in the 

presence of a high energy spark or 

flame. Some aerosol product 

formulators have expressed concern that 

the lower vapor pressure of HFO– 

1234ze(E) and the significantly higher 

vapor pressure of CO2 and other 

compressed gases may not provide 

adequate performance in propelling 

contents of a can or in remaining within 

the can for technical aerosols. For 

comparison, the vapor pressures of 

HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–134a, and CO2 at 

20 °C are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5776 

kPa, respectively. 

The conditions under which technical 

aerosols are often used requires nonflammability and/or specific vapor 

pressure be met. Based on the 

information available today, EPA 

believes it is necessary to continue to 

allow for HFC–134a to be used for 

certain technical spray applications 

because of these technical limitations. 

We are therefore proposing to list HFC– 

134a as acceptable subject to use 

conditions which would limit use to 

those specific applications. 

HFC–134a is the propellant with the 

lowest GWP that can consistently meet 

the technical aerosol performance 

requirements, other environmental 

regulatory requirements, and is 

nonflammable. EPA considered whether 

HFC–227ea or HFC–125 should be 

continue to be listed as acceptable for 

any specific uses. However, both these 

HFCs have significantly higher GWPs 

than HFC–134a (HFC–227ea’s GWP is 

3220 and HFC–125’s GWP is 3500). 

Moreover, EPA is not aware of the use 

of HFC–227ea in technical aerosols. 

Similarly, EPA is not aware of any 

significant use of HFC–125 in technical 

aerosols. Neither HFC–227ea nor HFC– 

125 provides greater reduction in health 

or environmental risk than HFC–134a. 

iii. Medical Aerosols 

EPA is proposing to list HFC–134a 

and HFC–227ea as acceptable subject to 

use conditions which specify that these 

two HFCs are acceptable for metered 

dose inhalers (MDIs) to ensure that there 

is no confusion about the ability to 

continue to use these HFCs in these 

medical aerosols. In addition, we are 

proposing to list HFC–134a as 

acceptable subject to use conditions for 

wound care sprays, for topical coolant 

sprays for pain alleviation and for 

products for removing bandage 

adhesives from skin. For medical 

aerosols, there are special needs for 

safety and low toxicity. Furthermore, in 

order for a substitute to be available for 

use in medical devices, it must first be 

reviewed and approved by the FDA. 

FDA has approved medications for use 

in metered dose inhalers using HFC– 

134a and HFC–227ea as propellants, as 

well as some not-in-kind dry powder 

medications. 

FDA has not approved medications 

for MDIs or other medical aerosols using 

HFC–125. EPA is aware of some medical 

aerosols that are currently using 

hydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, 

as well as not-in-kind alternatives; these 

medical aerosols include antifungals, 

calamine sprays, freeze sprays for wart 

removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 

2014a). EPA has insufficient 

information that alternatives other than 

HFC–134a are available as propellants 

in wound care sprays; topical coolant 

sprays for pain alleviation; and products 

for removing bandage adhesives from 

skin. Therefore, we cannot conclude 

that these are available alternatives with 

less overall risk to human health and 

the environment than HFC–134a. For 

these reasons, we are proposing to list 

HFC–227ea as acceptable subject to a 

use condition limiting its use to MDIs 

and to list HFC–134a as acceptable 

subject to use conditions limiting its use 

to MDIs and the other medical uses 

listed above. 

HFC–125 has a GWP of 3,500, which 

is higher than the GWP of all other 

alternatives that are available for use as 

aerosol propellants (HFC–227ea has a 

GWP of 3220; HFC–134 has a GWP of 

1430; HFO–1234ze(E) has a GWP of 6). 

Like HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, CO2 and 

HFO–1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, 

nonflammable and low in toxicity. 

When EPA listed HFC–227ea as 

acceptable (May 22, 1998; 63 FR 28251), 

EPA noted that it was doing so despite 

the relatively high GWP of this 

compound, because it fit a specialized 

application, metered dose inhalers, 

where other substitutes were not 

available that would provide acceptable 

performance. 

EPA’s proposed approach to 

restricting the use of HFC–134a and 

HFC–227ea only to manufacturing 

certain specific types of aerosol 

products is modeled upon the 

Nonessential Product Ban exemptions 

for ODS in subpart C of 40 CFR part 82. 

A difference between that ban and the 

proposed use conditions is that the 

Nonessential Products Ban addressed 

the sale and distribution or offer for sale 

and distribution of aerosol products in 

interstate commerce, whereas this 

proposal addresses the propellants that 

may be used in manufacturing aerosol 

products. 

Today, EPA is proposing to list HFC– 

125 as unacceptable, HFC–227ea as 

acceptable subject to use conditions 

allowing its use only for MDIs and 

HFC–134a as acceptable subject to use 

conditions allowing its use only for 

specific technical and medical aerosols, 

including MDIs. We request comment 

on this approach to modifying the 

listings of these three HFCs. We also 

request comment on whether any of the 

proposed technical aerosol uses of HFC– 

134a should not be allowed or whether 

there are additional uses that should be 

added to the list of allowed uses under 

the use conditions. Through this action, 

EPA is not intending to alter the listing 

as acceptable for HFC–227ea and HFC– 

134a for metered dose inhalers. EPA is 

seeking comment on the additional 

medical and technical aerosol uses of 

HFC–134a. 

b. What other approaches is EPA 

considering? 

EPA is considering two approaches to 

changing the listings for aerosols and 

seeks comments on both. The first, as 

discussed above, is to find HFC–125 

unacceptable and find HFC–227ea and 

HFC–134a acceptable subject to use 

conditions, where the use conditions 

specify a list of allowed uses or product 

types that may continue to use these 

HFCs (e.g., metered dose inhalers for 

both HFCs, insect sprays used near high 

tension power lines for HFC–134a). A 

second approach we are considering is 

to find HFC–125 unacceptable and to 

find HFC–134a acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits in technical and 

medical aerosols and HFC–227ea 

subject to narrowed use limits in 

metered dose inhalers. Narrowed use 

limits are considered ‘‘use restrictions’’ 

and are explained above. In this case, 

only persons using HFC–227ea in 

metered dose inhalers or using HFC– 

134a in technical or medical aerosols 

would be considered to not be in 

violation of section 612 of the CAA and 

EPA’s SNAP regulations (40 CFR 

82.174(c)). The terms ‘‘technical 

aerosol’’ and ‘‘medical aerosol’’ would 

apply to the types of aerosols described 

above in section 2. ‘‘Aerosols today.’’ 

Under the narrowed use limits, a 

manufacturer or other user intending to 

use the substitute could only use HFC– 

134a in manufacturing a technical or 

medical aerosol, or HFC–227ea in 

manufacturing a metered-dose inhaler, 

after ascertaining that other alternatives 

are not technically feasible. The user 

also would be required to document 

their evaluation. 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). 

Advantages to the proposed approach 

of specifying the allowed uses are that 

the list is clear about which products 

are allowed to use HFC–134a or HFC– 

227ea, both for users and for EPA. In 

addition, because EPA is specifying the 

uses in advance, end-users would not be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46139 

25Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 

required to perform an evaluation and 

would not be required keep paperwork 

to document their evaluation, thereby 

reducing regulatory burden. A potential 

advantage of setting narrowed use limits 

is that it may encourage a larger number 

of manufacturers and users to evaluate 

alternatives and potentially identify 

more uses where HFC–134a is not 

required. Further, establishing narrowed 

use limits may allow greater flexibility 

if there are additional types of technical 

or medical aerosol products with 

performance or safety constraints 

requiring HFC–134a that EPA has not 

identified in this proposal. EPA requests 

comment on these two approaches to 

modifying the listings of HFC–134a and 

HFC–227ea as aerosol propellants. 

c. When would the modified listings 

apply? 

EPA is proposing January 1, 2016 as 

the date on which the listings for HFC– 

125, HFC–134a and HFC–227ea would 

be modified. Thus products 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2016 in contravention of the 

unacceptable or acceptable subject to 

use conditions listing for these 

substitutes could not be used. 

We are proposing this date because 

we believe it is expeditious but will 

allow sufficient time after this proposed 

rule for end users to make the transition 

to alternatives. Based on the information 

available to EPA today and on various 

discussions with industry 

representatives. EPA believes that 

formulators and packagers of aerosols 

can make the necessary changes within 

this timing (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 

2014). In most cases, EPA believes it 

will take approximately six months for 

the necessary changes to be made. This 

timing would provide the affected 

aerosol manufacturers and packagers 

sufficient time to change and test 

formulations and, to the extent 

necessary, to change the equipment in 

their factories. 

To prevent stranded inventory, we are 

proposing that products manufactured 

prior to January 1, 2016 using these 

propellants, could be still be sold, 

imported, exported, and used by the end 

user after January 1, 2016. This would 

avoid the possibility that end users 

would need to dispose of a usable 

product, including the potential for 

improper releases of the content into the 

environment. 

d. On which topics is EPA requesting 

comment? 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposal to change the listing for the 

following aerosol propellants: HFC–125 

from acceptable to unacceptable; HFC– 

134a from acceptable to acceptable, 

subject to use conditions allowing its 

use only in: cleaning products for 

removal of grease, flux and other soils 

from electrical equipment or electronics; 

lubricants for electrical equipment or 

electronics; sprays for aircraft 

maintenance; pesticides for use near 

electrical wires, in aircraft, in total 

release insecticide foggers, or in 

certified organic use pesticides for 

which EPA has specifically disallowed 

all other lower-GWP propellants; mold 

release agents; lubricants and cleaners 

for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; 

duster sprays specifically for removal of 

dust from photographic negatives, 

semiconductor chips, and specimens 

under electron microscopes; document 

preservation sprays; metered dose 

inhalers for the treatment of asthma, 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 

allergic rhinitis, and other diseases 

where aerosols can be used for systemic 

delivery through lung, nose, or other 

organs; wound care sprays; topical 

coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and 

products for removing bandage 

adhesives from skin; and HFC–227ea 

from acceptable to acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, allowing its use only in 

metered dose inhalers. 

EPA also received suggestions from 

the aerosol industry to consider an 

exception to allow the use of HFC–134a 

in additional categories of aerosol 

products. EPA is not proposing to 

include these categories, either because 

we are aware of existing products in 

these categories using low GWP 

propellants, or because we have 

insufficient information indicating that 

the use of HFC–134a is necessary for 

these categories of products because 

other substitutes that pose lower risk are 

not currently or potentially available. 

These categories include: component 

freeze sprays, tissue freezes, 

refrigeration system flushes, portable 

safety horns for use in marine and 

industrial applications, tire inflators, 

and personal defense sprays. We are 

aware of low-GWP formulations already 

on the market today for defensive sprays 

and tissue freezes. These formulations 

may use flammable and/or nonflammable propellants. We request 

information on why available 

substitutes other than HFC–134a are not 

and cannot be used in these categories 

of products, including information on 

why flammability may be a concern or 

not in the product category; whether 

other alternative propellants with lower 

GWP in place of HFC–134a have been 

tested in these products; and what 

results of those tests have shown about 

the technical feasibility and/or safety of 

the other alternative propellants. 

Finally, we request comments on 

modifying the listings as of January 1, 

2016. We request commenters include 

specific information on whether it 

would be technically feasible for endusers to transition by January 1, 2016, 

and, if not, what steps are necessary for 

manufacturers to switch to other 

alternatives and how long those steps 

are expected to take. 

B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for 

Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

1. Background 

MVAC systems cool passenger cars, 

light duty trucks, buses, and rail 

vehicles. CFC–12 refrigerant was 

historically used in MVAC systems. 

HFC–134a replaced CFC–12 in new 

equipment in the early 1990s. Today, 

HFC–134a is the dominant refrigerant 

used in light-duty vehicles worldwide. 

When EPA found HFC–134a acceptable 

in MVAC for light duty vehicles in 1994 

(March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044), the 

Agency stated: 

HFC–134a does not contribute to ozone 

depletion. HFC–134a’s GWP and atmospheric 

lifetime are close to those of other 

alternatives which have been determined to 

be acceptable for this end-use. However, 

HFC–134a’s contribution to global warming 

could be significant in leaky end-uses such 

as MVACs. EPA has determined that the use 

of HFC–134a in these applications is 

acceptable because industry continues to 

develop technology to limit emissions. In 

addition, the number of substitutes available 

for use in MVACs is currently limited. HFC– 

134a is not flammable and its toxicity is low. 

This analysis was consistent with the 

information available in 1994. Since 

that time, four additional substitutes 

have been added to the list of 

substitutes that are acceptable subject to 

use conditions for light duty vehicles. 

As described more fully below, if these 

other substitutes are used in systems 

designed consistent with the prescribed 

use conditions, they pose significantly 

lower risk to human health and the 

environment than HFC–134a. EPA is 

therefore proposing to remove HFC– 

134a from the list of acceptable 

substitutes for new light-duty vehicles’ 

MVAC systems and add it to the list of 

unacceptable substitutes. 

Since 1994, additional alternatives for 

MVACs have been listed as acceptable 

subject to use conditions.25 Three of 

these alternatives—HFO–1234yf, HFC– 

152a, and carbon dioxide (R–744)—are 

non-ozone depleting like HFC–134a and 

have low GWPs compared to HFC–134a. 

HFC–152a has a GWP of 124, HFO– 

1234yf has a GWP of 4, and R–744 (by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46140 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

26http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/

OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea. 

27 Daimler, 2014 

28Mexichem statement during motor vehicle 

stakeholder meeting December 6, 2013 

29 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU 

MAC Directive). Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML. 

definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC– 

134a has a GWP of 1,430. R–744 is 

nonflammable, HFO–1234yf and HFC– 

152a are flammable, but are subject to 

use conditions that address 

flammability concerns. All three 

substitutes are subject to use restrictions 

that ensure exposure limits that protect 

against adverse health effects will not be 

exceeded and all three are VOC exempt. 

At the time EPA listed HFC–134a as 

acceptable, the agency was not aware of 

any vehicle manufacturer, MVAC 

supplier, or chemical producer 

considering HFO–1234yf as a 

refrigerant. Today, HFO–1234yf is in 

use in MVAC systems in approximately 

nine 26 models in the United States by 

several manufacturers of light-duty 

vehicles. EPA expects additional models 

will be introduced using HFO–1234yf 

systems over the next several years. 

To date, at least one global 

manufacturer of light-duty vehicles has 

announced their intention to 

commercialize vehicles using R–744 in 

MVAC systems later this decade.27 In 

the mid-1990s, EPA became aware that 

R–744 systems might be a feasible 

alternative in this application, but the 

state of research and development 

indicated that it was not yet available 

because a design had not yet been 

developed that would allow safe use in 

MVAC systems in light duty vehicles. 

Nearly 20 years later, EPA is still not 

aware of current commercial use of R– 

744 in MVAC systems. However, 

significant research and development is 

occurring in order to ensure R–744 can 

be used safely in MVAC systems. 

In addition to HFO–1234yf, HFC– 

152a, and R–744, EPA is aware of 

ongoing research and development 

which could ultimately result in future 

listings of additional alternatives for 

MVAC systems. One chemical producer 

indicated their intent to seek SNAP 

approval for another low-GWP 

alternative that is a blend with a GWP 

below 150.28

There are also other blends which 

EPA has listed as acceptable or 

acceptable subject to use conditions. 

None of these are currently used by the 

original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs). Several of these previously 

listed substitutes have GWPs that are 

significantly higher than the GWPS for 

HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744 and 

higher overall risk than these other three 

substitutes. EPA is proposing to list as 

unacceptable the following substitutes 

in addition to HFC–134a: SP34E (GWP 

of 1300), R–426A (also known as RS–24) 

(GWP of 1508), R–416A (also known as 

HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12) (GWP 

of 1015) and the HCFC blends, R–406A, 

R–414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi 

or GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as 

HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend 

Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 

12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda 

(also known as GHG–HP), with GWPs 

ranging from 1480 to 2340 and ODPs 

ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. For 

simplicity, we refer to these substitutes 

as ‘‘the refrigerant blends’’ in the 

following discussion. 

2. What is EPA proposing regarding use 

of HFC–134a and use of refrigerant 

blends in MVAC systems for newly 

manufactured light-duty motor 

vehicles? 

EPA is proposing to list HFC–134a as 

unacceptable for use in MVAC systems 

in newly manufactured light-duty 

vehicles beginning with MY 2021. We 

are proposing MY 2021 because that is 

the time by which all light-duty vehicle 

models can be redesigned to safely use 

MVAC systems using other available 

refrigerants. As explained above, three 

alternatives on the SNAP list of 

acceptable substitutes subject to use 

conditions —HFC–152a, R–744, and 

HFO–1234yf—have significantly lower 

GWPs than HFC–134a. All three of these 

lower-GWP alternatives are non-ozone 

depleting and are subject to use 

restrictions that ensure exposure limits 

that protect against adverse health 

effects will not be exceeded. All three 

are VOC exempt. HFO–1234yf and 

HFC–152a are flammable, but are 

subject to use conditions that address 

flammability concerns. R–744 is not 

flammable. Because HFC–134a has a 

significantly higher GWP than HFC– 

152a, R–744, and HFO–1234yf and 

because the risks posed by these three 

refrigerants are addressed through use 

conditions, we are proposing to list 

HFC–134a as unacceptable. However, 

because the three refrigerant alternatives 

pose lower risk than HFC–134a only if 

used consistent with the established use 

conditions, in deciding when the 

unacceptability determination should 

apply, we considered the date by which 

automobile manufacturers will be able 

to redesign all vehicle models 

(including design of the MVAC systems) 

consistent with the use conditions. 

EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant 

blends SP34E, R–426A, R–416A, R– 

406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC 

Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also 

known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC 

Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), 

Freeze 12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend 

Lambda (also known as GHG–HP) as 

unacceptable beginning in MY 2017 for 

use in MVAC systems in newly 

manufactured light-duty motor vehicles. 

Since these refrigerant blends are not 

currently in use in any MVAC systems 

in light-duty vehicles, we believe it is 

appropriate for the unacceptability 

determination to apply to model year 

vehicles currently being designed. 

Further, all but the first two of these 

blends have ODPs, and all have 

significantly higher GWPs than other 

alternatives such as HFC–152a, HFO– 

1234yf, and CO2. 

EPA has previously examined when 

automobile manufacturers may be able 

to transition their fleets to lower GWP 

refrigerants in its rules to extend the 

greenhouse gas and fuel economy 

standards for model year (MY) 2017– 

2025 light-duty vehicles. 77 FR 62624, 

62807–810 (October 15, 2012); see also 

75 FR 25325, 25431–32 (May 7, 2010) 

(discussing the same issue for MY 2012– 

2016 light duty vehicles). EPA and the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration jointly issued these 

rules on August 28, 2012. Over the 

lifetime of the MY 2017–2025 light-duty 

vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles), these rules are projected to 

save approximately 4 billion barrels of 

oil and 2 billion metric tons of GHG 

emissions, with societal net benefits up 

to $451 billion. 77 FR 62629. The 

standards build off those set in April 

2010 for MY 2012–2016 light-duty 

vehicles, which are projected to save 

approximately 1.85 billion barrels of oil 

and 962 million metric tons of GHG 

emissions over the lifetime of the 

affected vehicles, with societal net 

benefits of up to $192 billion. 75 FR 

25347. EPA projects that the entire lightduty vehicle fleet will meet a target of 

163 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(CO2eq) per mile in MY 2025 (or 54.5 

mpg if the automotive industry meets 

the target exclusively through fuel 

efficiency improvements). 

When refrigerants leak from current 

motor vehicle air conditioning systems, 

they contribute to overall GHG 

emissions. Using lower GWP 

refrigerants can significantly reduce the 

climate impact of these emissions. 

Given the increasing availability of 

lower-GWP chemicals suitable for this 

purpose and systems that can use them, 

as well as increasing requirement for 

lower-GWP refrigerants in Europe,29

EPA based the light-duty GHG standards 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46141 

30As previously noted, HFO–1234yf, R–744 and 

HFC–152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use 

conditions and many of the use conditions address 

the design of systems to account for the 

flammability or exposure. 

31Nelson, Gabe ‘‘Automakers’ switch to new 

refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, 

European mandate’’ Automobile News, December 

30, 2013. http://www.autonews.com/article/

20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea. 

32Weissler, Paul, ‘‘A/C Industry Faces Challenges 

From Daimler R–1234yf Issue, Explores Other 

Options,’’ Automotive Engineering International, 

April 2, 2013. 

33One manufacturer informed EPA in a meeting 

that hardware changes were necessary or likely 

when shifting from a HFC–134a to a HFO–1234yf 

system, including the following: compressor oil 

and/or compressor changes, possible A/C piping 

modification due to the change in valve shape, and, 

in the vehicle manufacturing plant, additional 

refrigerant charging process changes. (EPA 

Memorandum: ‘‘Notes from Meeting with Nissan 

Concerning Alternative Refrigerant Transition’’, Tad 

Wysor, April 2014.) Other manufacturers made 

similar statements to EPA. 

for MYs 2017–2025 in part on an 

expected gradual transition to lowerGWP refrigerants. Thus, in setting the 

level of the standards, EPA projected 

that the industry will make the full 

transition to lower-GWP refrigerants 

over the period of time spanning 

between MY 2017 and MY 2021, and 

the level of the standard in each of these 

model years reflects a projected 20 

percent increase in substitution in each 

model year and complete transition by 

MY 2021. 77 FR 62720/2–3. In support 

of the assumption of this multi-year 

transition, the Light-Duty GHG rule for 

MYs 2017–2025 includes an extensive 

discussion of the refrigerant substitute 

availability and technical feasibility of 

transitioning the fleet. 77 FR 62720; 

62807–810. 

At the time the Light Duty GHG rule 

was promulgated, EPA (and other 

entities) voiced concerns with the 

potential supply of HFO–1234yf, but 

today production plans for the 

refrigerant appear to be in place to make 

it available in volumes that meet current 

and projected domestic auto industry 

demand, consistent with the projections 

in the Light Duty GHG rulemaking. 

Multiple production facilities are now 

producing HFO–1234yf, and recently 

another global chemical producer 

announced plans to produce HFO– 

1234yf by 2017. Moreover, some 

automotive manufacturers are 

developing systems that can safely use 

other substitutes, including R–744, and 

continued progress is likely given the 

EU’s implementation of the MAC 

Directive. If some global light-duty 

motor vehicle manufacturers use R–744, 

additional volumes of HFO–1234yf that 

would have been used by those 

manufacturers will then become 

available. Therefore, there also appears 

to be sufficient supply to meet demand 

domestically and abroad, including in 

the European Union, during this time 

frame. 

In addition to considering when the 

supply of alternative refrigerants would 

be sufficient to transition the entire light 

duty vehicle fleet, EPA necessarily also 

considered when vehicle manufacturers 

could design systems for safe use of 

these alternatives consistent with the 

regulatory use conditions.30 EPA 

considered the practices used by the 

auto manufacturing industry in 

introducing new technologies into their 

vehicles. For each vehicle model, 

manufacturers establish a ‘‘redesign’’ (or 

product development) cycle over which 

they plan any significant technological 

changes to that vehicle. Between the 

major redesign model years, they may 

make only minor ‘‘refresh’’ changes. 

Redesign cycles vary by model and by 

manufacturer and average about 5 

model years in duration. (See 77 FR 

62712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for a 

more detailed discussion of this 

practice.) At any point in time, a 

manufacturer may have some vehicles at 

or approaching a major redesign point 

and others that are earlier in their 

product cycle. 

In the final rule establishing lightduty vehicle GHG standards for MYs 

2017–2025, EPA assumed that the 

transition to alternative refrigerants 

would generally occur during 

manufacturer model redesigns and used 

the overall typical industry redesign 

cycle of 5 model years to estimate how 

the expected industry-wide transition to 

new refrigerants might occur. For 

analytical purposes, and based on 

information available at the time, we 

projected that the transition would 

occur from MY 2017 until MY 2021. 

EPA recognizes there have been some 

early adopters. The transition began in 

a small number of MY 2013 vehicles 

and is increasing in MY 2014 but has 

been relatively limited to date.31 While 

some may maintain that early adoption 

equates to a faster overall transition, 

EPA notes that early adoption remains 

limited and therefore we continue to 

view our projection of full transition not 

occurring until MY 2021 as reasonable. 

Although there may be some limited 

ability to switch a vehicle model to an 

MVAC system using a low GWP 

refrigerant in between redesign periods, 

most model types will require 

significant hardware changes that may 

only be possible during a redesign. 

HFO–1234yf, for example, has 

measurably lower efficiency than that of 

HFC–134a, usually requiring hardware 

changes and/or changes to overall air 

conditioning system design and 

layout.32 33 This contrasts with the case 

of the transition in the 1990s from CFC– 

12 to HFC–134a, where the systems had 

similar coefficients of performance and 

manufacturers were able to switch many 

vehicles mid-cycle. Vehicles that 

require relatively more cooling capacity 

will be more dependent on a redesign 

cycle for a transition to HFO–1234yf 

since the specifications for hardware 

would need to be revisited. Most 

manufacturers have ‘‘locked-in’’ their 

planned product designs out to MY 

2016, MY 2017, or even MY 2018. If any 

of these manufacturers have not 

planned to implement alternative 

refrigerant systems in these late model 

year vehicles, the next design cycle 

opportunity to make a change would be 

unlikely to occur until MY 2021 (or 

even MY 2022). In addition, at least one 

manufacturer has stated that it plans on 

using R–744 (CO2) systems. R–744 

systems require significantly more 

complex redesign and hardware and 

would need to occur during product 

redesign, not product refresh given its 

pressure is significantly different than 

HFC–134a. These systems are currently 

in prototype phase, and there are 

significant technical hurdles yet to 

overcome. Given EPA’s understanding, 

above, of the supply of the alternative 

refrigerants and the redesign cycle for 

MVAC systems, EPA is proposing to list 

HFC–134a as unacceptable for new 

MVAC systems beginning with MY 2021 

because this is the time by which all 

light-duty vehicle models can be 

redesigned to safely use MVAC systems 

with alternative refrigerants. 

As a cross-check, EPA explored 

whether vehicles and MVAC systems 

designed consistent with the use 

conditions for the three alternative 

refrigerants might be available earlier 

than MY 2021, evaluating (but not 

proposing) MYs 2017 and 2019. MY 

2017 is the date included in the petition 

described above and in the EU MAC 

Directive. Since most motor vehicle 

manufacturers will seek a global vehicle 

design platform, selecting the same date 

as the date in the EU MAC Directive has 

some weight. MY 2019 is an 

intermediate date between MYs 2017 

and 2021. 

The agency believes it is necessary for 

MVAC system redesigns for many 

vehicles to occur during a design cycle 

to safely use the substitute refrigerants, 

as just explained. Manufacturers are 

currently designing or have ‘‘locked in’’ 

designs for vehicles several model years 

into the future. The information 

currently before the Agency thus 

indicates that it would not be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46142 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34Typically, regulations promulgated under CAA 

Title VI have applied to specified calendar years, 

However, because the MVAC system used is so 

closely related to vehicle design, we have used MY 

for purposes of this proposed rule. Model years 

cover almost two calendar years, beginning after 

January 1 of the previous calendar year and ending 

on January 1 of the following calendar year. 

technically feasible for manufacturers to 

safely transition all vehicles from HFC– 

134a MVACs by MY 2017. EPA is not 

proposing the MY 2019 date for the 

same reasons. However, we solicit 

comment on whether all manufacturers 

would be able to safely transition all 

vehicles away from HFC–134a MVAC 

systems by MY 2017 or MY 2019. 

We also considered whether a MY 

later than MY 2021 should be the 

appropriate time for use of HFC–134a in 

MVAC systems in new vehicles to be 

listed as unacceptable. In recent 

meetings with the major trade 

associations for the auto industry (the 

Alliance and Global Automakers) as 

well as with meetings with several 

individual manufacturers, industry 

representatives indicated that some of 

them may have a relatively small 

number of vehicle models that will not 

have had the opportunity for an 

engineering redesign by MY 2021. They 

also indicated that there may be 

technical barriers for certain models that 

would require longer product design 

cycles if the systems were to use 

substitute refrigerants. However, we do 

not have sufficient non-confidential 

information to conclude that systems 

capable of using alternative refrigerant 

safely will not be ‘‘currently or 

potentially available’’—within the 

meaning of section 612 (c)(2) of the 

Act—until after MY 2021. EPA requests 

comments on changing the status of 

HFC–134a in a model year later than 

MY 2021 (such as MY 2025), including 

specific information supporting claims 

that a transition by MY 2021 would not 

be technically feasible because specific 

model vehicles cannot be redesigned to 

safely use alternative refrigerants by 

MY2021. For the reasons explained 

earlier, EPA believes safer alternatives 

will be available by MY 2021. 

Based on the information before the 

Agency, EPA is thus proposing to 

modify the listing of HFC–134a to 

unacceptable as of MY 2021 for light 

duty vehicles, while seeking comment 

on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs later than 

2021.34

EPA is not proposing changes that 

would alter the ability to service 

existing motor vehicles designed to use 

HFC–134a. Such a change could strand 

the installed base of equipment or force 

retrofits to other refrigerants. In order to 

safely use most MVAC refrigerants, the 

vehicle design as well as the MVAC 

design may need to be modified in order 

to ensure the refrigerant can be used 

safely. For that reason, the three lowGWP refrigerants that currently are 

listed as acceptable in new MVACs— 

HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744–are 

not listed as acceptable to retrofit a 

system designed to use a different 

refrigerant. 

Once MVAC systems are designed 

and installed with lower GWP 

substitutes, they will likely need to be 

serviced. Some stakeholders have 

expressed a concern that the price 

differential between HFO–1234yf and 

HFC–134a provides an economic 

incentive to replace HFO–1234yf with 

HFC–134a during servicing. See 77 FR 

62807. Two sets of regulations under 

title VI of the CAA make it clear that 

doing so is unlawful. First, the SNAP 

regulations prohibit using a substitute 

refrigerant to ‘top-off’ a system that uses 

another refrigerant. Second, the original 

refrigerant must be recovered in 

accordance with regulations issued 

under section 609 of the CAA prior to 

charging with a substitute (40 CFR 

82.34). Thus, the recycling and recovery 

regulations prohibit adding a new 

refrigerant to the system without first 

recovering the refrigerant already in the 

system. Therefore, it is not permissible 

to add HFC–134a to an MVAC system 

that contains HFO–1234yf, as may well 

occur if a consumer were to service his 

or her own car’s A/C system without 

refrigerant recovery equipment. In 

addition, the SNAP listings for HFO– 

1234yf and HFC–134a require the use of 

unique fittings for each alternative 

refrigerant. Using an adapter or 

deliberately modifying a fitting to use a 

different refrigerant is a violation of 

these use conditions. 

EPA seeks comments on changing the 

listing of SP34E, R–426A, R–416A, R– 

406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC 

Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also 

known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC 

Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), 

Freeze 12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend 

Lambda (also known as GHG–HP) to 

unacceptable for use as refrigerants in 

air conditioning systems for newly 

manufactured light-duty motor vehicles 

beginning with MY 2017 and changing 

the listing of HFC–134a to unacceptable 

beginning with MY 2021. 

3. Would this action affect EPA’s light 

duty vehicle rule? 

Today’s proposal, should EPA adopt 

it, will have no direct effect on the MY 

2017–2025 light duty vehicle GHG 

standards. Those standards are 

established by rule and EPA is not 

reopening that rule in this proceeding. 

We do note, however, that today’s 

proposal is relevant to one of the 

compliance flexibilities in the light duty 

vehicle standards. The light duty 

vehicle standards do not require any 

specific means of compliance. 

Manufacturers thus have the flexibility 

to either switch refrigerants or to 

comply with the standards by other 

means. The light duty standards do 

provide that manufacturers can generate 

credits from use of alternative 

refrigerants with lower GWPs than that 

of HFC–134a through MY 2025, and the 

ability to generate and use those credits 

towards compliance with the light duty 

standards will not change if this action 

is finalized as proposed. See 77 FR 

62804–809. (As noted above, the level of 

the standard reflects the assumption of 

100% substitution by MY 2021). Even 

though a manufacturer may choose to 

comply with the light duty standard by 

a strategy not involving refrigerant 

substitution, in MY 2021, this proposed 

rule, if finalized, would still require the 

manufacturer to use an MVAC designed 

for a refrigerant other than HFC–134a. 

C. Retail Food Refrigeration and 

Vending Machines 

1. Background 

Retail food refrigeration, an end-use 

within the SNAP program that is also 

considered a subset of the broader term 

‘‘commercial refrigeration,’’ is 

characterized by storing and displaying, 

generally for sale, food and beverages at 

different temperatures for different 

products (e.g., chilled and frozen food). 

The designs and refrigerating capacities 

of equipment vary widely. Vending 

machines are another subset of 

commercial refrigeration considered as a 

separate end-use within the SNAP 

program due to differences in where 

such equipment is placed and the 

additional mechanical and electronic 

components required to accept 

payment, provide the selected product, 

and prevent theft or damage from 

vandalism. 

Retail food refrigeration is composed 

of three main categories of equipment: 

Stand-alone equipment; condensing 

units; and supermarket systems, the 

latter often in designs referred to as 

multiplex or centralized refrigeration 

systems. Stand-alone equipment 

consists of refrigerators, freezers, and 

reach-in coolers (either open or with 

doors) where all refrigeration 

components are integrated and, for the 

smallest types, the refrigeration circuit 

is entirely brazed or welded. These 

systems are charged with refrigerant at 

the factory and typically require only an 

electricity supply to begin operation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46143 

35http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advancedrefrigeration. 

Condensing units exhibit refrigerating 

capacities ranging typically from 1 kW 

to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). 

They are composed of one (and 

sometimes two) compressor(s), one 

condenser, and one receiver assembled 

into a single unit, which is normally 

located external to the sales area. This 

equipment is connected to one or more 

nearby evaporator(s) used to cool food 

and beverages stored in display cases 

and/or walk-in storage rooms. 

Condensing units are commonly 

installed in convenience stores and 

specialty shops such as bakeries and 

butcher shops. 

Typical supermarket systems are 

known as multiplex or centralized 

systems. They operate with racks of 

compressors installed in a machinery 

room; different compressors turn on to 

match the refrigeration load necessary to 

maintain temperatures. Two main 

design classifications are used: Direct 

and indirect systems. In the United 

States, direct systems are the most 

widespread. At least 70 percent of 

supermarkets in the United States use 

centralized direct expansion (DX) 

systems to cool their display cases.35

The refrigerant circulates from the 

machinery room to the sales area, where 

it evaporates in display-case heat 

exchangers, and then returns in vapor 

phase to the suction headers of the 

compressor racks. The supermarket 

walk-in cold rooms are often integrated 

into the system and cooled similarly, 

but an alternative option is to provide 

a dedicated condensing unit for a given 

storage room. Another type of 

supermarket design, often referred to as 

a distributed refrigeration system, uses 

an array of separate compressor racks 

located near the display cases rather 

than having a central compressor rack 

system. Each of these smaller racks 

handles a portion of the supermarket 

load, with 5–10 such systems in a store. 

Indirect supermarket designs include 

secondary loop systems and cascade 

refrigeration. Indirect systems use a 

chiller or other refrigeration system to 

cool a secondary fluid that is then 

circulated throughout the store to the 

cases. Compact chiller versions of an 

indirect system rely on a lineup of 10– 

20 units, each using small charge sizes. 

As the refrigeration load changes, more 

or fewer of the chillers are active. 

Compact chillers are used in a 

secondary loop system whereby the 

chillers cool a secondary fluid that is 

then circulated throughout the store to 

the display cases. Each compact chiller 

is an independent unit with its own 

refrigerant charge, reducing the 

potential for refrigerant to be released 

from leaks or catastrophic failures. 

Cascade systems use a compressor to 

raise the low-temperature coolant from 

low-temperature conditions up to an 

intermediate temperature while a 

separate refrigerant system uses a 

different refrigerant to condense the 

coolant. Each system within the cascade 

design contains its own refrigerant 

charge allowing the use of different 

refrigerants in each system. This 

application has generally used a lowGWP refrigerant, specifically carbon 

dioxide (R–744), in the low-temperature 

system, with a variety of refrigerants in 

the medium-temperature system. 

Refrigerant choices depend on the 

refrigerant charge, the temperature 

required, and energy efficiency, among 

other things. In addition to regulations 

pursuant to the SNAP program, other 

federal or local regulations may also 

affect refrigerant choice. For instance, 

regulations from the OSHA may restrict 

or place requirements on the use of 

some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R– 

717). Building codes from local and 

State agencies may also incorporate 

limits on the amount of particular 

refrigerants used. There are and will 

continue to be a number of factors that 

retailers must consider when selecting 

the refrigerant and operating system 

design. While a number of approaches 

exist, there is no uniformly accepted 

holistic analysis of the multiple factors, 

which include the following: Energy 

efficiency; system performance; 

potential impact on community safety; 

ambient temperatures; potential risk to 

personal safety; cost; and minimization 

of direct and indirect environmental 

impacts. EPA recognizes that these and 

other factors mean there will be a range 

of options, and the ultimate selection 

remains with the owner and operator of 

the system. 

Acceptable non-HFC substitutes in 

use today for new multiplex systems 

include R–717 and R–744. These can be 

used alone or in combination with other 

refrigerants in other parts of the 

equipment, depending on the 

equipment and its design (e.g., a 

secondary-loop contains one refrigerant 

while the primary loop contains a 

different refrigerant). For stand-alone 

refrigeration equipment, propane (R– 

290) is listed as acceptable subject to 

use conditions, and EPA has also 

proposed that the hydrocarbon blend R– 

441A and isobutane (R–600a) be listed 

as acceptable subject to use conditions 

(July, 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). The 

Agency also has proposed elsewhere 

that these three hydrocarbon refrigerants 

be listed as acceptable subject to use 

conditions for vending machines (July, 

9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Other substitutes, 

such as blends of saturated HFCs 

already listed as acceptable under 

SNAP, are currently in use in the United 

States, while HFOs and blends 

containing HFOs are being developed 

and tested but have not yet been 

submitted to the SNAP program for 

review. 

The most commonly-used HFCs and 

HFC blends in retail food refrigeration 

include HFC–134a, R–404A, R–407A, 

R–422D, and R–507A. HFC–134a is a 

non-ozone depleting chemical with the 

chemical formula C2H2F4. It is used in 

a variety of air-conditioning and 

refrigeration end-uses, including motor 

vehicle air conditioners, home 

appliances (such as refrigeratorfreezers), vending machines and 

building air-conditioning chillers. It is 

also used in other sectors such as foam 

blowing and aerosol propellants. HFC– 

134a has a GWP of 1,430. 

R–404A is a non-ozone depleting 

blend of refrigerants HFC–125, HFC– 

143a, and HFC–134a with GWPs of 

3,500, 4,470, and 1,430 respectively. R– 

404A’s GWP is about 3,920 based on the 

44/52/4 mass percentages of the three 

HFCs contained in the blend. R–404A is 

currently acceptable for a variety of 

medium- and low-temperature 

refrigeration applications including 

retail food refrigeration equipment such 

as food display and storage cases; 

vending machines; cold storage 

warehouses; commercial ice machines; 

refrigerated transport; and industrial 

process refrigeration. 

R–407A is a non-ozone depleting 

blend of refrigerants HFC–32, HFC–125 

and HFC–134a with GWPs of 675, 3,500, 

and 1,430 respectively. R–407A’s GWP 

is about 2,100 based on the 20/40/40 

mass percentages of the three HFCs 

contained in the blend. R–407A is 

acceptable for a variety of medium- and 

low-temperature refrigeration 

applications including retail food 

refrigeration equipment such as food 

display and storage cases; cold storage 

warehouses; commercial ice machines; 

refrigerated transport; and industrial 

process refrigeration. R–407A is not 

currently on the SNAP lists of 

acceptable or unacceptable refrigerants 

for vending machines. 

R–422D is a non-ozone depleting 

blend of refrigerants HFC–125, HFC– 

134a, and R–600a with GWPs of 3,500, 

1,430, and 8 (GE, 2008) respectively. R– 

422D’s GWP is about 2,700 based on the 

approximate 65.1/31.5/3.4 mass 

percentages of the two HFCs and one 

hydrocarbon contained in the blend. R– 

422D is acceptable for a variety of 

medium- and low-temperature 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

36EPA has not previously found HFC–227ea 

acceptable as a retrofit refrigerant in this end-use. 

refrigeration applications including 

retail food refrigeration equipment such 

as food display and storage cases; cold 

storage warehouses; commercial ice 

machines; refrigerated transport; and 

industrial process refrigeration. R–422D 

is most commonly used to retrofit 

existing systems such as those operating 

on HCFC–22 and is less likely to be 

used in manufacturing new equipment. 

R–507A (also designated as R–507) is 

a non-ozone depleting blend of 

refrigerants HFC–125 and HFC–143a 

which have GWPs of 3,500 and 4,470, 

respectively. R–507A’s GWP is about 

3,990 based on the 50/50 mass 

percentages of the two HFCs contained 

in the blend. R–507A is acceptable for 

a variety of medium- and lowtemperature refrigeration applications 

including in retail food refrigeration 

equipment such as food display and 

storage cases; cold storage warehouses; 

refrigerated transport; and industrial 

process refrigeration. 

2. What is EPA proposing for new and 

retrofit retail food refrigeration 

(condensing units and supermarket 

systems)? 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

for nine HFC blends for new and retrofit 

retail food refrigeration equipment from 

acceptable to unacceptable as of January 

1, 2016. These nine blends are R–404A, 

R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–428A, R–434A and R–507A. 

EPA is not aware of any significant use 

in the United States of the blends R– 

407B, R–421B, R–428A or R–434A in 

retail food refrigeration equipment. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to change 

the listing of HFC–227ea in new retail 

food refrigeration equipment from 

acceptable to unacceptable.36 These ten 

refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

2,730 to 3,985. They are nonflammable. 

They contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of ‘‘VOC,’’ 

with the exception of small amounts of 

R–290 and R–600a in five of the blends, 

and thus are not expected to contribute 

significantly to smog. These refrigerants 

are relatively low in toxicity, and 

practices common in the refrigeration 

industry ensure that their workplace 

exposure limits are not exceeded. These 

practices include adhering to those 

specified in the material safety data 

sheets and others common in the 

commercial refrigeration industry. 

Applicable workplace exposure limits 

for the compounds comprising these 

refrigerants—HFC–32, HFC–125, HFC– 

134a, HFC–143a, HFC–227ea, R–290 

and R–600a—include Workplace 

Environmental Exposure Limits 

(WEELs) of 1000 ppm on an 8-hour 

time-weighted average (TWA) from the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association (AIHA); a manufacturer’s 

recommended occupational exposure 

limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA); a 

permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 

1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) from the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) and a 

recommended exposure limit (REL) of 

800 ppm (10-hr TWA) from the National 

Institutes for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH). 

EPA believes there are several HFC 

and non-HFC substitutes that provide 

lower overall risk than the refrigerants 

EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable 

and that are currently used in 

commercial refrigeration. For both new 

and retrofit equipment, acceptable 

refrigerants that pose less risk to human 

health and the environment include 

HFC–134a, R–407A, R–407C, R–407F, 

R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R–424A, R– 

426A, and R–438A. Additionally, in 

new retail food refrigeration, three other 

substitute refrigerants are listed as 

acceptable: R–717 vapor compression 

with secondary loop, R–410A, and R– 

744. 

a. New Condensing Units and 

Supermarket Systems 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

of the following refrigerants from 

acceptable to unacceptable in new retail 

food refrigeration equipment 

(condensing units and supermarket 

systems) as of January 1, 2016: HFC– 

227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– 

434A, and R–507A. These refrigerants 

have GWPs ranging from approximately 

2,730 to 3,985. Two of these refrigerants, 

R–404A and R–507A, are currently in 

extensive use in the retail food 

refrigeration market. EPA is also aware 

of some use of R–422A and R–422D in 

retrofit situations only, not in new 

equipment. We are not aware of the use 

of any of the other six refrigerants in 

retail food refrigeration, although we 

seek comment on such use. 

Other acceptable alternatives that 

pose lower risk are also in use in the 

various types of retail food refrigeration 

equipment. For condensing unit 

systems, R–407C and R–407F are in use 

in the United States, and R–744 and 

HCs are being used in limited 

demonstration trials in Europe and 

elsewhere. The GWP for R–407C (a 

blend of HFC–32, HFC–125, and HFC– 

134a) is about 1,770, and R–407F 

(another blend of HFC–32, HFC–125, 

and HFC–134a) has a GWP of about 

1,820. As a comparison, R–404A has a 

GWP of 3,920, R–507A has a GWP of 

3,990, and the other refrigerants 

proposed unacceptable have GWPs 

ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. 

For multiplex rack systems, 

substitutes R–407A, R–407F, and R–744 

are all currently in use in the United 

States and can be used more safely than 

the substances that EPA is proposing to 

list as unacceptable. These substitutes 

have GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,110. In 

addition, testing is underway with HCs 

and HFC/HFO blends, though these 

refrigerants have not been submitted to 

SNAP for review in this application. 

Each of these four substitutes as well as 

other substitutes in development with 

lower GWPs have zero ODP and are safe 

for the ozone layer. R–407A, R–407F, 

and R–744 all have toxicity lower than 

or comparable to the refrigerants 

proposed unacceptable. None of the 

three examples that would remain on 

the acceptable list is flammable, and 

none is considered a VOC. 

b. Retrofit Condensing Units and 

Supermarket Systems 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

of the following refrigerants from 

acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit 

retail food refrigeration equipment 

(condensing units and supermarket 

systems) as of January 1, 2016: R–404A, 

R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–428A, R–434A, and R–507A. 

We are aware of four of these nine 

refrigerants being used to retrofit retail 

food equipment: R–404A, R–507A, R– 

422A, and R–422D. We are not aware of 

any use of the other five refrigerants to 

retrofit retail food refrigeration 

equipment but seek comment on any 

such use. This action would not apply 

to servicing existing equipment 

designed for these nine refrigerants or to 

equipment that had been retrofitted to 

use those refrigerants before January 1, 

2016. For instance, systems retrofitted to 

R–404A or R–507A prior to January 1, 

2016, would be allowed to continue to 

operate and to be serviced using those 

refrigerants. 

For condensing units and 

supermarket systems, where retrofits are 

common, blends such as R–407A and 

R–407F have become the norm for 

retrofits, rather than the four identified 

in the previous paragraph. The blends 

R–407A and R–407F have zero ODP and 

GWPs of 2,107 and 1,825, respectively. 

Other zero-ODP refrigerants that are 

currently listed as acceptable for use as 

retrofits in retail food refrigeration 

include HFC–134a, R–407C, R–417A, R– 

421A, R–422B, R–426A and R–427A 

and they have GWPs ranging from 1,430 

to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the 

other nine blends we are proposing as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46145 

37The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can 

be found on EPA’s Web site at: www.epa.gov/

spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf. 

38For example, see CCAC 2012. 

39EPA has proposed to exempt R–290 in standalone retail food refrigeration equipment from the 

venting prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 

21871). 

40The risks due to the flammability of these 

refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the 

SNAP rule finding them acceptable subject to use 

conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832) and 

docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286) 

and information is found in a SNAP proposed rule 

signed June XX, 2014 and docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0748). 

unacceptable, which have GWPs 

ranging from 2,729 to 3,985. 

An unacceptability listing for these 

nine blends in retrofitted equipment 

could primarily affect the many stores 

that operate using HCFC–22, but also 

those using CFC–12, R–502, and several 

HCFC-containing blends such as R– 

401A, R–402A and R–408A. This is 

because as EPA reduces or eliminates 

the production and import of ODSs, 

stores will have less material to meet 

service demands. While the ODS 

phaseout does not require owners to 

retrofit their equipment, a decrease in 

the availability of virgin material may in 

turn lead operators of those stores to 

consider retrofits, although under our 

proposal certain refrigerants would not 

be acceptable. For instance, some stores 

currently using HCFC–22 may choose to 

retrofit as the production and import of 

HCFC–22 is phased down and 

eventually phased out by 2020 per 40 

CFR 82.16. EPA recently proposed 

HCFC–22 allowance allocations for the 

2014–2019 time period (December 24, 

2013; 78 FR 78071). Some have 

questioned whether finding certain 

refrigerants unacceptable for retrofit 

might provide an incentive to stores to 

continue to operate with the ODS they 

are currently using for longer than they 

might otherwise plan, and we seek 

comment on this question. In response 

to this question, we note that many 

retail chains have been able to minimize 

the impact of the HCFC–22 phasedown 

by maintaining their own stockpile of 

HCFC–22, for instance by recovering 

from stores that are decommissioned or 

retrofitted and using such supplies in 

stores that continue to operate with 

HCFC–22. We also note that some 

service is being performed with 

reclaimed material, with over four 

million pounds of HCFC–22 being 

reclaimed every year since at least 2000, 

and over seven million pounds every 

year since 2006.37 While we don’t know 

how this reclaim market will change in 

the future, recent history shows that the 

market is using reclaimed material in 

addition to limited newly-produced 

supplies that are being reduced by the 

phaseout. 

Regardless of the continued supply of 

HCFC–22, we believe that the majority 

of retrofits are planned for reasons other 

than the supply of the refrigerant 

currently in-use, for instance during 

planned maintenance overhauls or 

when upgrading to more energy efficient 

equipment. We also see that many 

retrofits are already directed towards 

lower-GWP blends such as R–407A and 

R–407F instead of R–404A and R–507A, 

as mentioned above. Further, we believe 

that other options, given the multi-year 

history of their successful use, are 

sufficient to meet the various features— 

such as capacity, efficiency, materials 

compatibility, cost and supply—that 

affect the choice of a retrofit 

refrigerant.38

3. What is EPA proposing for new and 

retrofit stand-alone equipment? 

a. New Stand-Alone Equipment 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

for HFC–134a and other refrigerants for 

new stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment from acceptable to 

unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. 

These other refrigerants are FOR12A, 

FOR12B, HFC–227ea, IKON B, KDD6, 

R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/

1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, 

R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R– 

421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R– 

507A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 

(2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR– 

03. These refrigerants have GWPs 

ranging from approximately 600 up to 

approximately 3,990. 

Acceptable substitutes in new standalone equipment include R–744 and R– 

290. EPA recently proposed to find R– 

600a and R–441A acceptable subject to 

use conditions in new stand-alone 

equipment (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). 

These existing and potential substitutes 

have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 

compared to HFC–134a with a GWP of 

1,430, R–404A with a GWP of 

approximately 3,920, and R–507A with 

a GWP of approximately 3,990. None of 

the substitutes currently listed or 

proposed for listing as acceptable has an 

ODP. While R–290, R–600a, and R– 

441A are VOCs, EPA’s analysis 

indicates that their use as refrigerants in 

this end-use would not significantly 

affect meeting national ambient air 

quality standards. At the time we listed 

R–290 as acceptable subject to use 

conditions, we analyzed the potential 

air quality impacts of emissions of these 

VOCs and did not find this potential 

risk to the environment to be significant 

(ICF, 2014e).39 We have likewise 

proposed to exempt R–600a and R– 

441A used in stand-alone equipment 

from the venting prohibition (July 9, 

2014; 79 FR 38811). These three 

substitutes are also flammable; however, 

the use conditions specified (or 

proposed for R–600a and R–441A) 

would ensure that they do not pose 

greater risk than any of the substitutes 

currently listed as acceptable in new 

stand-alone equipment.40 None of the 

refrigerants currently listed as 

acceptable or that we have proposed to 

add to the list of acceptable substitutes 

presents significant human health 

toxicity concerns or other ecosystem 

impacts. Apart from R–290 and R–744, 

those refrigerants listed acceptable for 

new stand-alone equipment either 

contain an HCFC (and are addressed in 

Section VI below) and/or do not appear 

to be in production. 

We understand that R–290 is already 

in use globally, including in the United 

States, and that R–600a is in use outside 

of the United States as well as in test 

market trials in the United States. We 

believe that these two refrigerants can 

satisfy the vast majority of the current 

market for use in stand-alone 

equipment. We note that there may be 

a need to modify the equipment design 

in order to meet the use conditions for 

R–290 and the proposed use conditions 

for R–600a and R–441A (July 9, 2014; 79 

FR 38811). Because there are other 

substitutes that pose lower risk, we are 

proposing to change the listing to 

unacceptable for new stand-alone 

equipment of the following refrigerants: 

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC– 

227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/ 

600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R– 

407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R– 

434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, and THR–03. 

b. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

for R–404A and R–507A from 

acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit 

refrigerants for stand-alone equipment 

as of January 1, 2016. This action would 

not apply to servicing existing 

equipment designed for those 

refrigerants or to equipment retrofitted 

to use those refrigerants before January 

1, 2016. For instance, equipment 

retrofitted to R–404A or R–507A prior to 

January 1, 2016, would be allowed to 

continue to operate using those 

refrigerants. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

41EPA has proposed to exempt R–290 (propane) 

R–600a (isobutane) and R–441A in vending 

machines from the venting prohibition found at 40 

CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871). 

42The Coca-Cola Company has identified carbon 

dioxide as its HFC-free refrigerant of choice for new 

equipment (Coca Cola, 2012). 

43 ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S 

Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. 

While we do not believe retrofits are 

common in stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment, a number of 

refrigerants are listed as acceptable for 

this purpose. For equipment still 

operating using ozone-depleting 

refrigerants, we believe there are options 

available other than R–404A and R– 

507A that present lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment that 

are available. Our analysis indicates that 

other options such as HFC–134a can be 

used to retrofit stand-alone units. 

4. What is EPA proposing for new and 

retrofit vending machines? 

a. New Vending Machines 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

for HFC–134a and other refrigerants for 

new vending machines from acceptable 

to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. 

These other refrigerants are FOR12A, 

FOR12B, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/290/

134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, 

R–407C, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R– 

421A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

426A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), and SP34E. These 

refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 600 up to approximately 

3,990. 

Acceptable existing substitutes with 

lower GWPs that pose less risk to 

human health and the environment in 

this end-use include R–744, which is 

currently being used in this end-use. In 

addition, EPA recently proposed to find 

R–600a, R–290 and R–441A acceptable 

subject to use conditions in new 

vending machines (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 

38811). We note that some redesign 

would be required to meet the use 

conditions set for all three of these 

substitutes—R–600a, R–290 and R– 

441A— in the recent proposal (July 9, 

2014; 79 FR 38811). 

These four substitutes (R–744 and the 

three proposed hydrocarbons) have 

GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to 

HFC–134a with a GWP of 1,430, R– 

404A with a GWP of approximately 

3,920, and R–507A with a GWP of 

approximately 3,990. None of these 

substitutes currently listed or proposed 

for listing as acceptable has an ODP. 

While the HCs (R–441A, R–600a and R– 

290) are VOCs, EPA’s analysis indicates 

that their use as refrigerants in this enduse would not significantly affect 

meeting national ambient air quality 

standards. (ICF 2014e).41 These three 

substitutes are also flammable; however, 

the proposed use conditions for these 

three substitutes would ensure they do 

not pose greater risk than substitutes 

that are already listed as acceptable 

(July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). None of the 

substitutes currently listed or proposed 

to be listed as acceptable present 

significant human health toxicity 

concerns or other ecosystem impacts. 

Hence, we find that R–290, R–600a and 

R–441A are potentially available and 

present a lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment than HFC– 

134a and the other refrigerants proposed 

to be listed as unacceptable in new 

vending machines. 

For new vending machines, EPA has 

found R–744 acceptable without use 

conditions. While the vast majority of 

vending machines using non-ODS 

refrigerant currently use HFC–134a, 

units are now being manufactured to 

use R–744. At least one major global 

buyer of vending machines is 

committed to transitioning all of their 

new U.S.-placed equipment to R–744.42

Given the large market share that this 

company holds, it is likely that R–744 

components and units are already or 

will shortly become a viable option for 

all vending machine OEMs and 

purchasers. 

Given the zero ODP and low GWP of 

R–744 and the other hydrocarbons that 

EPA has proposed to find acceptable 

subject to use conditions in vending 

machines, the use conditions that we 

have proposed to establish for the 

hydrocarbon refrigerants, and the fact 

that the risks based on other factors 

such as toxicity are not greater than for 

HFC–134a, we propose to change the 

listing of HFC–134a and the alternatives 

listed in the first paragraph of this 

section to unacceptable in new vending 

machines. 

b. Retrofit Vending Machines 

EPA is proposing to change the listing 

for R–404A and R–507A from 

acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit 

refrigerants for vending machines 

operating on CFC–12, HCFC–22, and 

blends containing HCFCs, as of January 

1, 2016. This action would not apply to 

servicing existing equipment designed 

for those refrigerants or to equipment 

that had been retrofitted to use those 

refrigerants before January 1, 2016, 

including those systems previously 

using ozone-depleting refrigerants such 

as HCFC–22. For instance, systems 

retrofitted to R–404A or R–507A prior to 

January 1, 2016, would be allowed to 

continue to operate using those 

refrigerants. 

Under our proposal, the following 

refrigerants would remain acceptable for 

retrofitting vending machines: FOR12A, 

FOR12B, HFC–134a, IKON A, IKON B, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

42.5/1.5), R–407C, R–417A, R–417C, R– 

421A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

426A, R–437A, R–438A, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), SP34E, and THR–02. 

These refrigerants have GWPs from 

approximately 50 to approximately 

3,100, while the two refrigerants 

proposed unacceptable, R–404A and R– 

507A, have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985, 

respectively. In this respect, these two 

refrigerants present a higher risk to 

human health and the environment. 

Looking at the other SNAP criteria, we 

find that those refrigerants remaining 

acceptable present similar risk to human 

health and the environment: they are 

nonflammable, they are not VOCs, and 

they do not exhibit significant human 

health toxicity concerns or other 

ecosystem impacts. Hence, we believe 

these options present lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

than R–404A and R–507A. 

5. When would the listings change? 

Through this action, we are proposing 

that all listing changes that apply within 

commercial refrigeration would occur 

on the same date—January 1, 2016. 

Looking at the intersection between the 

end-use and the alternatives EPA 

believes that changing the listings as of 

January 1, 2016, allows sufficient 

opportunity for any planned new 

installations or manufacturing 

equipment lines in these end-uses to be 

redesigned to use a substitute to the 

refrigerants we are proposing to find 

unacceptable. We also believe that this 

date would allow any plans for future 

retrofits to these blends to be 

reconsidered, given the multiple other 

substitutes that would remain 

acceptable. For many years other 

refrigerants such as R–407A and R–407F 

that would remain on the acceptable 

lists pursuant to our proposal have been 

gaining market share in supermarket 

applications, in both new equipment 

and as retrofit fluids.43 As part of this 

market expansion, manufacturers have 

developed equipment to use them, and 

that equipment is available to buyers 

now. In addition, many companies have 

implemented these other refrigerants, in 

both new construction and as retrofits, 

and have built up the skills, knowledge 

and experience to more fully utilize 

these refrigerants in a timeframe that 

would accommodate January 1, 2016 as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46147 

44 Ibid. 

45Refrigeration 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. 

the date of unacceptability. For standalone equipment and vending machines, 

new equipment is being installed using 

refrigerants that are acceptable or are 

proposed acceptable with use 

conditions, including R–744, R–290 and 

R–600a.44 EPA requests comment on 

this proposed date. EPA is also 

interested in information concerning the 

supply of substitutes in sufficient 

quantities to meet a domestic transition 

within the proposed timeframe. 

6. Applicability To Service of Existing 

Equipment 

As noted above, EPA is not proposing 

to alter the ability to service existing 

retail food refrigeration equipment or 

vending machines with the refrigerant 

they contain as of January 1, 2016. We 

recognize the value of the currently 

installed appliances and are not seeking 

to shorten their useful lifetime. EPA also 

recognizes that servicing for existing 

equipment is often accomplished with 

recovered and recycled refrigerants. 

EPA seeks comments on allowing for 

the continued servicing of the existing 

retail food refrigeration equipment and 

vending machines with the refrigerant 

they contain as of January 1, 2016. 

7. Energy Efficiency Consideration 

Energy efficiency has not historically 

been a criterion by which a refrigerant 

is analyzed under the SNAP program, 

and it is not used as one of the criteria 

in this proposal. However, EPA 

recognizes that the energy efficiency of 

particular models of equipment is a 

significant factor when choosing 

commercial refrigeration equipment. We 

also recognize that the energy efficiency 

of any given piece of equipment is in 

part affected by the choice of refrigerant 

and the particular thermodynamic and 

thermophysical properties that 

refrigerant possesses. 

Throughout the phaseout of ozonedepleting substances, EPA has seen the 

energy efficiency of refrigeration and 

air-conditioning equipment increase, 

despite changing refrigerant options. In 

some cases, this was because new 

chemicals were developed that 

possessed unique properties that 

allowed high energy efficiency levels to 

be obtained. In addition, technological 

improvement in equipment designs and 

controls has increased energy efficiency. 

Although today’s proposal would 

eliminate some refrigerant choices, we 

do not believe it would have a 

detrimental effect on this trend in 

increased energy efficiency. In fact, 

there are multiple case studies available 

that highlight the energy efficiency 

gains achieved by some of the low-GWP 

refrigerants, such as R–744, R–290 and 

R–600a, that are available or potentially 

available for the end-uses addressed in 

this proposal. We welcome additional 

information and comment on improved 

energy efficiency associated with 

switching refrigerants. 

For instance, in supermarket 

refrigeration, a theoretical analysis 

(Emerson 2014) examined the energy 

use of R–407A and R–410A, both of 

which would remain acceptable under 

this proposal, against that of R–404A, 

which would be listed as unacceptable. 

Although this analysis found that both 

blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop 

in efficiency in the low-temperature part 

of the store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream), 

they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% 

increase in the medium-temperature 

part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy 

products, chilled prepared food). Given 

that supermarkets have significantly 

larger use of medium-temperature 

equipment, the net effect would be for 

the alternatives to use less energy than 

R–404A. This manufacturer’s analyses 

showed similar increases in energy 

efficiency compared to R–404A in 

supermarkets and stand-alone 

equipment for a variety of low-GWP 

refrigerants that are not yet listed under 

SNAP but are in development. 

While that manufacturer’s analysis 

showed slightly higher energy 

consumption than R–134a in theoretical 

calculations for stand-alone equipment, 

other results with actual equipment 

have shown otherwise. For instance, in 

stand-alone equipment, one user 

reported that ‘‘HC freezers are 

significantly more energy-efficient and 

use a natural hydrocarbon refrigerant 

with lower global warming potential 

than the HFC refrigerants commonly 

used in US freezers’’ (Ben and Jerry’s, 

2014). Likewise, for vending machines, 

one purchaser has indicated that while 

introducing over one million units using 

R–744, they have increased the energy 

efficiency of their cooling equipment 

over 40% since 2000, many years after 

they adopted HFC–134a (Coca-Cola, 

2014). 

Finally, we note that energy efficiency 

is influenced, but not determined, by 

the refrigerant. As new products are 

designed for the use of particular 

refrigerants, manufacturers have the 

opportunity to change designs to take 

advantage of a given refrigerant’s 

characteristics. The redesign and 

development phase is also an 

opportunity to improve other 

components that will affect the overall 

efficiency of the equipment, such as the 

use of more efficient motors and 

compressors, improved heat exchangers, 

better controls, improved insulation 

(e.g., on display cases) and sealing (for 

products with doors), more efficient 

lighting, etc. 

The United States Department of 

Energy (DOE) has promulgated, under 

separate rulemaking and separate 

authority, energy efficiency 

requirements for several types of 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

including products that would be 

affected by this proposal. While EPA’s 

proposal would limit the choice of 

refrigerant a manufacturer could use in 

new equipment, EPA notes that such 

equipment would still be subject to the 

DOE requirements and would normally 

need to meet the standards set.45 As 

discussed above, EPA does not believe 

this proposal would prevent compliance 

with the DOE rules, and we note that 

many compliant models are already 

commercially available that do not use 

the refrigerants EPA has proposed as 

unacceptable. EPA requests comment on 

the effects this proposal would have on 

the energy efficiency of the commercial 

refrigeration end-uses addressed and in 

particular the effect, if any, this 

proposal would have on meeting 

applicable DOE standards. 

8. What other options is EPA 

considering? 

EPA is considering but is not 

proposing to change the listing for 

several other substitutes in retail food 

refrigeration. We are seeking comment 

on these substitutes. 

a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units 

and Supermarket Systems 

When analyzing supermarket retail 

food refrigeration systems, as an 

alternative to changing the listing to 

unacceptable for HFC–227ea, R–407B, 

R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

428A, and R–434A, we are considering 

setting a use restriction to limit the 

charge size of these chemicals allowed 

to be used in condensing units and 

supermarket systems. Supermarkets 

could use systems employing one of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

46Additional information on GreenChill is 

available at http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/. 47 In addition to reaching this HFC charge size 

limit, stores must use only non-ozone-depleting 

refrigerants and must meet a store-wide annual 

refrigerant emissions rate of no more than 15% in 

order to be certified at the Gold level. 48For example, IPCC 2006 indicates that the 

average lifetime of medium and large commercial 

refrigeration equipment is between seven and 15 

years. 

many advanced refrigeration designs 

currently deployed in the United States, 

such as distributed refrigeration, 

secondary-loop, and cascade designs. To 

set the charge size limit, EPA is 

considering the charge size limit that is 

necessary, but not fully sufficient, to 

achieve a Gold-Level Store Certification 

under EPA’s GreenChill Store 

Certification Program.46 That 

specification requires that the store 

must achieve an average HFC refrigerant 

charge equal to or less than 1.25 pounds 

of refrigerant per MBTU/hr total 

evaporator heat load.47

For new equipment, one reason we 

are considering a use restriction 

requiring a small charge is to limit the 

amount of high-GWP refrigerant that 

would be emitted in a catastrophic 

event. However, given the high GWP of 

these refrigerants compared to other 

refrigerants that are available in these 

end-uses, we do not believe that use 

with a small charge size adequately 

addresses the greater risk they pose. 

Further, we recognize that using a 

lower-GWP refrigerant, such as R–407A 

or R–407F, is also possible in smallcharge systems, and several stores are 

operating with such systems today. 

For retrofits, two primary factors lead 

us to consider a use restriction for a 

small charge size in place of listing the 

substitutes as unacceptable. First, there 

are many different supermarket systems 

in operation with ozone-depleting 

refrigerants today, and there may be 

some concern that not all could be 

retrofitted with the lower-GWP blends, 

i.e., whether there truly are alternatives 

‘‘available’’ for the purpose. As to this 

concern, we reflect on three points. 

First, based on the regulations phasing 

out CFCs in 1996, equipment using 

CFCs today would be at least 18 years 

old, beyond the typical average 

lifetime.48 Because it is typical to retire 

older equipment before newer 

equipment, it is likely that many stores 

using those refrigerants would be 

decommissioned, or the refrigeration 

systems would be replaced rather than 

retrofitted. Second, we do not see an 

impediment in the continued operation 

of stores currently using refrigerants 

proposed unacceptable for new and/or 

retrofit equipment (see section 6 above). 

We know that some stores have systems 

that continue to use CFC–12 and/or R– 

502, the production and import of 

which was phased out in 1996, and 

believe the same long equipment 

lifetimes can be achieved, if desired, 

with equipment installed prior to 

January 1, 2016, using the refrigerants 

we propose as unacceptable. Finally, 

where retrofits to refrigerants that are 

not proposed as unacceptable have 

occurred, the industry has been able to 

achieve acceptable capacity and 

efficiency levels. All these factors point 

to the ability of industry to make 

business decisions on which stores to 

decommission or retrofit and when to 

do so while maintaining their 

operations without the need to rely on 

the refrigerants we are proposing as 

unacceptable. 

Second, some have questioned 

whether removing options from the list 

of acceptable retrofit substitutes might 

present a perverse incentive for stores 

with older systems (more likely to leak) 

to continue use of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants, primarily HCFC–22 but also 

CFC–12, R–502, and multiple blends 

containing HCFCs, rather than retrofit or 

replace those systems with a new 

refrigerant. While production and 

import of HCFC–22 and all other HCFCs 

used in the acceptable retrofit blends are 

capped, the stores using them would 

continue to leak ozone-depleting 

refrigerants into the atmosphere. The 

additional refrigerant that they would 

need to service that leaky equipment 

might not have been produced in the 

first place if the demand was not there. 

Nonetheless, given the tight controls on 

production and import of ozonedepleting refrigerants, we believe the 

market will determine where those 

limited supplies are directed and where 

a store may retrofit to a refrigerant other 

than those proposed to be listed as 

unacceptable. 

EPA requests comments on both 

concerns addressed above, particularly 

the availability of substitutes able to 

work with the design of existing systems 

that might be retrofitted, and the 

possible perverse incentives an 

unacceptable listing might bring to 

continue to operate older, less efficient, 

and/or leakier ODS systems. EPA also 

requests comments on the specified 

charge size limit and how it would be 

met in both new and retrofit retail food 

refrigeration (condensing units and 

supermarket systems) if EPA were to 

propose a use restriction rather than 

take final action by listing some or all 

of these refrigerants as unacceptable for 

condensing units and supermarket 

systems. 

b. New Stand-Alone Equipment and 

Vending Machines 

For new stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment and vending 

machines, we are considering 

maintaining the acceptability status of 

HFC–134a and blends with a lower 

GWP—FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, 

IKON B, SP34E, THR–02, and THR– 

03—subject to a use restriction. One 

reason to maintain the acceptability of 

these refrigerants, in particular HFC– 

134a, would be to allow niche 

applications to continue to use the 

primary refrigerant employed in these 

end-uses while new low-GWP 

substitutes are developed. 

For new vending machines, we are 

considering whether substitutes other 

than HFC–134a are available for lowtemperature refrigeration applications, 

for instance, for ice-cream novelty or 

microwavable frozen-food vending 

machines and, if not, whether to 

establish a use restriction that HFC– 

134a could only be used in vending 

machines designed for, and 

maintaining, an internal temperature of 

32 °F (0 °C) or below. However, we 

believe that the availability of R–744, 

which is listed as acceptable, and the 

availability of HCs, which we have 

proposed to list as acceptable, do not 

support such an action. We are 

requesting comment on the viability of 

these substitutes in low-temperature 

applications. Further, we are asking for 

comment on the supply of components 

designed for R–744, hydrocarbons, or 

other potential substitutes for use in 

low-temperature vending machines and 

how that supply might affect the ability 

of manufacturers to continue to provide 

such equipment to meet these 

applications and customers’ 

requirements including energy 

efficiency goals. 

For new stand-alone equipment, we 

note that HCs pose additional 

challenges related to their flammability. 

Some stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration appliances utilizing HCs 

have required design changes, and our 

use conditions require meeting specific 

charge size limits, raising questions of 

the viability of HCs in all larger 

applications within this end-use. EPA is 

considering adding a use restriction 

limiting the use of HFC–134a and the 

blends mentioned to only larger-sized 

units, while finding it unacceptable in 

smaller-sized units. To determine the 

dividing line between ‘‘small’’ and 

‘‘large’’ units, we are considering 

options such as the number of doors 

within a single unit, the refrigeration 

capacity of the unit, and the interior 

volume. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46149 

Although we are considering this 

option, we are not proposing it because 

we feel other options exist to design 

units using other less harmful 

alternatives, even in large stand-alone 

units. The SNAP acceptability listing for 

R–744 in stand-alone equipment does 

not include a restriction on charge size 

or any other use condition. We also 

recognize the ability to apply separate 

refrigeration circuits within a given 

cabinet; for instance one circuit with up 

to 150 grams of R–290 to cool a portion 

of the unit and a second circuit with up 

to 150 grams of R–290 to cool the rest 

of the unit. Such dual-circuit designs 

might be particularly effective if 

different parts of the unit are used for 

different products that require different 

temperature conditions or have different 

refrigeration loads. 

EPA seeks comments on this option 

and particularly on how one would 

determine what size of a unit could not 

use substitutes that would remain on 

the acceptable list under this proposal 

or that we have recently proposed be 

added to the acceptable list; where the 

dividing line would be drawn; and how 

such a use restriction could avoid 

unintended consequences such as the 

over-sizing of units to allow the use of 

HFC–134a. 

EPA believes that R–744, an 

acceptable option for both new standalone retail food refrigeration equipment 

and new vending machines, and R–290, 

an acceptable substitute for new standalone retail food refrigeration equipment 

and proposed as acceptable for new 

vending machines, could satisfy the vast 

majority of new equipment in these enduses. However, we seek additional 

information and studies that would help 

us understand whether certain designs 

(e.g., 3-door and other large retail food 

refrigeration stand-alone equipment) 

could meet the charge size limit in the 

case of R–290. We also seek information 

regarding whether certain applications 

(e.g., low-temperature vending 

machines) could be effective while 

maintaining current energy efficiency 

levels in the case of R–744. 

c. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment and 

Vending Machines 

EPA has proposed to find R–404A and 

R–507A unacceptable for retrofits in 

both stand-alone equipment and 

vending machines. EPA is considering 

also changing the acceptability status of 

several other refrigerants to 

unacceptable. Under this option, we 

would change the status of the following 

refrigerants from acceptable to 

unacceptable in retrofit retail food 

refrigeration (stand-alone equipment): 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R– 

407C, R–407F, R–417A, R–417C, R– 

421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– 

427A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), and RS–44 (2003 

formulation). Likewise, this option 

would change the status of the following 

refrigerants from acceptable to 

unacceptable in retrofit vending 

machines: KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407C, R– 

417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–507A, and RS–24 (2002 

formulation). The refrigerants in these 

two lists have GWPs that range from 

1,505 to 3,985. 

These refrigerants have higher GWPs 

than HFC–134a, which would remain 

acceptable for retrofits, and in this 

respect pose a higher risk to human 

health and the environment. Similar to 

HFC–134a, these other refrigerants do 

not pose increased risk due to toxicity, 

flammability, ODP and ecological 

effects. EPA believes that HFC–134a 

would be the most likely refrigerant to 

be used to retrofit stand-alone 

equipment and vending machines still 

operating on ozone-depleting 

refrigerant. EPA questions whether the 

other refrigerants listed above would 

serve any retrofit need, and whether 

finding them unacceptable would 

reduce overall risk to human health and 

the environment. EPA believes some 

existing vending machines and standalone equipment still use class I ozonedepleting refrigerants such as CFC–12 

and R–502 and that even more 

equipment continues to use class II 

ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily 

HCFC–22. Other than HFC–134a, we do 

not believe there are substitutes that 

would likely be used for most of this 

equipment for purposes of retrofitting. 

We seek comment on the option of 

finding other substitutes, in addition to 

R–404A and R–507A, unacceptable as 

retrofit refrigerants in vending machines 

and stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment. In particular, we are 

interested in an assessment of the 

existing stock of equipment operating 

with ozone-depleting refrigerants, the 

likelihood that they will require a 

retrofit before being replaced with a new 

unit, and the substitute(s) that could be 

and are likely to be used. 

d. Status of R–404A and R–507A in 

Other End-Uses 

Considering the high GWP of R–404A, 

R–507A, and some of the other blends 

proposed as unacceptable, EPA is 

considering finding them unacceptable 

in several other end-uses, besides retail 

food refrigeration and vending 

machines, such as cold storage rooms 

and warehouses, ice machines, 

refrigerated transport, and industrial 

process refrigeration. We believe that 

the substitutes that are being used in 

retail food refrigeration, such as R–407A 

and R–407F, would be theoretically 

viable in these other end-uses too, given 

that the operational characteristics of 

such equipment, such as temperature to 

be maintained, are similar. Those two 

substitutes, and others, have been found 

acceptable in the four end-uses 

mentioned. In addition, low-GWP 

substitutes have been found acceptable 

under SNAP for some of these end-uses, 

and research is underway in the others. 

For example, for the industrial process 

refrigeration end-use, R–744, R–717, 

and several HCs have been found 

acceptable. For cold storage warehouses, 

R–744 is acceptable for new equipment, 

and R–717 is in widespread use. R–744 

for refrigerated transport and HCs for ice 

machines have been tested and, 

although not yet listed under SNAP, are 

being used outside the United States. In 

these two end-uses, the list of 

acceptable refrigerants is similar to that 

for supermarket applications, spanning 

a wide range of GWPs. Several HFC 

blends with GWPs considerably lower 

than those of R–404A and R–507A are 

being used in retail food refrigeration, 

especially in supermarkets and, as 

stated above, are acceptable in the four 

end-uses mentioned; however, we have 

limited knowledge of their use in these 

other end-uses. For that reason, we have 

not proposed finding R–404A and R– 

507A unacceptable in these other enduses. 

EPA requests comment on the use and 

viability of both low-GWP refrigerants 

(e.g., R–744, R–717, and HCs) and other 

HFC-blends (e.g., R–407A and R–407F) 

and the possibility of listing R–404A, R– 

507A, and other high-GWP blends 

unacceptable in any or all of these four 

end-uses—cold storage warehouses, ice 

machines, refrigerated transport, and 

industrial process refrigeration. EPA 

also solicits comments on the feasibility 

of the proposed deadlines and whether 

earlier or later dates would be more 

appropriate. 

D. Foam Blowing Agents 

EPA is proposing to change the 

listings from acceptable to unacceptable 

beginning January 1, 2017, except where 

allowed under a narrowed use limit, for 

HFC–134a and blends thereof in all 

foam blowing end-uses, and for HFC– 

365mfc, HFC–245fa and blends thereof 

for all foam blowing end-uses except 

spray foam applications. Specific enduses and applications include: (1) Rigid 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

polyurethane appliance foam; (2) 

flexible polyurethane; (3) rigid 

polyurethane: commercial refrigeration, 

and sandwich panels; (4) rigid 

polyurethane (slabstock and other); (5) 

rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; 

(6) integral skin polyurethane; (7) 

polystyrene (extruded sheet); (8) 

polystyrene: extruded boardstock and 

billet; (9) polyolefin; and (10) phenolic 

insulation board and bunstock. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to change 

the listings from acceptable to 

unacceptable for the following foam 

blowing agents in the following enduses as of January 1, 2017: (1) Formacel 

B in polystyrene (extruded boardstock 

and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam, rigid 

polyurethane (spray, commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels), 

rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral 

skin polyurethane, polystyrene extruded 

sheet and polyolefin; (3) Formacel Z–6 

in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, 

rigid polyurethane (commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels), 

rigid polyurethane slabstock, 

polystyrene (extruded boardstock and 

billet), integral skin polyurethane, and 

polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4) 

HFC–143a in phenolic insulation board 

and bunstock. 

1. Background 

Foams are plastics (such as 

polyurethane or polystyrene) that are 

manufactured using blowing agents to 

create bubbles or cells in the material’s 

structure. The foam plastics 

manufacturing industries, the markets 

they serve and the blowing agents used 

are extremely varied. The range of uses 

includes building materials, appliance 

insulation, cushioning, furniture, 

packaging materials, containers, 

flotation devices, filler, sound proofing 

and shoe soles. Some foams are rigid 

with cells that still contain the foam 

blowing agent, which can contribute to 

the foam’s ability to insulate. Other 

foams are open-celled, with the foam 

blowing agent escaping at the time the 

foam is blown, as for flexible foams. 

Historically, a variety of foam blowing 

agents have been used for these 

applications. CFCs and HCFCs were 

typically used given their favorable 

chemical properties. CFCs and HCFCs 

are controlled substances under the 

Montreal Protocol and subject to 

regulation under the CAA including a 

phaseout of production and import 

under section 604 for CFCs and section 

605(b)–(c) for HCFCs and use 

restrictions on HCFCs under section 

605(a). The regulations implementing 

section 610 of the CAA include a ban on 

sale or distribution of foam products 

blown with class I and class II ODS: 

however, for foam products containing 

a class II ODS, the ban is subject to an 

exception for foam insulation products 

as defined at 40 CFR 82.62. 

The SNAP program has found 

acceptable a variety of non-ODS 

blowing agents, including HFCs (e.g., 

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc), 

hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, 

and methyl formate. In addition, lowGWP fluorinated compounds in use 

include HFO–1234ze(E) and trans-1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

(Solstice 1233zd(E)). 

Blowing agents are approved on an 

end-use basis. The SNAP program 

considers the following end-uses: 

a. Rigid polyurethane (appliance 

foam) includes insulation foam in 

domestic refrigerators and freezers. 

b. Rigid polyurethane (spray, 

commercial refrigeration, and sandwich 

panels) includes buoyancy foams, 

insulation for roofing, wall, pipes, metal 

doors, vending machines, coolers, and 

refrigerated transport vehicles. 

c. Rigid polyurethane (slabstock and 

other) includes insulation for panels 

and pipes. 

d. Rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

includes insulation for roofing and 

walls. 

e. Flexible polyurethane includes 

foam in furniture, bedding, chair 

cushions, and shoe soles. 

f. Integral skin polyurethane includes 

car steering wheels, dashboards, and 

shoe soles. 

g. Polystyrene (extruded sheet) 

includes foam for packaging and 

buoyancy or flotation. 

h. Polystyrene (extruded boardstock 

and billet) includes insulation for 

roofing, walls, floors, and pipes. 

i. Polyolefin includes foam sheets and 

tubes. 

j. Phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock includes insulation for roofing 

and walls. 

2. What is EPA proposing for foam 

blowing agents? 

EPA is proposing to change the 

listings from acceptable to unacceptable 

for HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc, and any blends containing 

these blowing agents for all foam enduses and applications except for spray 

foam as of January 1, 2017. In addition, 

we propose to change the listings from 

acceptable to unacceptable for the 

following foam blowing agents in the 

following end-uses: (1) Formacel B in 

polystyrene (extruded boardstock and 

billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam, rigid 

polyurethane (spray, commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels), 

rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral 

skin polyurethane, polystyrene extruded 

sheet and polyolefin; (3) Formacel Z–6 

in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, 

rigid polyurethane (commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels), 

rigid polyurethane slabstock, 

polystyrene (extruded boardstock and 

billet), integral skin polyurethane, and 

polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4) 

HFC–143a in phenolic insulation board 

and bunstock, all as of January 1, 2017— 

that is, it would be prohibited to blow 

foam using these blowing agents for 

these uses beginning January 1, 2017. In 

addition, we propose that it would be 

prohibited to import closed cell foam 

products or products containing closed 

cell foam that contain any of the 

blowing agents listed as unacceptable. 

EPA is also seeking comment on 

whether the Agency should consider 

use of the foam blowing agent to apply 

to open cell foam and products 

containing open cell foam, and in 

particular what would be the legal basis 

for doing so. Finally, we are providing 

a limited exception to the date when the 

unacceptability determinations apply 

for certain military and space 

applications where there is 

documentation that additional time is 

required to complete qualification 

testing. 

a. What other foam blowing agents are 

being used? 

Various foam blowing agents have 

been historically used. The opportunity 

to use hydrocarbons (HCs), CO2, and 

water in the 1990s for a range of foam 

blowing applications in the United 

States has allowed many foam blowing 

end-uses and applications to transition 

from ODS, thus reducing the end-uses 

that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have 

been a low-GWP and cost-effective 

alternative available for large parts of 

the foam sector, particularly in flexible 

polyurethane foam, polystyrene sheet 

foam, polyurethane slabstock foam, 

polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock, phenolic, and 

polyolefin foams. HCs also are used in 

most of the other end-uses, but less 

extensively than in these six end-uses. 

However, flammability of foam blowing 

agents, including HCs, can be a concern, 

particularly for spray foam applications. 

Over the past ten years both 

fluorinated and non-fluorinated 

alternatives have expanded both the list 

of options for specific foam uses and the 

foam uses in which these alternatives 

are now used has also grown. A number 

of new foam blowing agents with low 

GWPs have been introduced during the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46151 

49These are hydrocarbons with three to six 

carbons, including propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, isopentane, cyclopentane, and hexane. 

50Wang 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. 

51Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric 

Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ 

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. 

52Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit. 

53Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit. 

past several years. Many end users have 

indicated interest in these newer 

alternatives, often to improve energy 

efficiency of the foam products 

manufactured with the foam blowing 

agent. Production volumes for some of 

these newer substitutes are expanding 

rapidly to keep pace with growing 

demand. For example, HFO–1234ze(E) 

and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene have recently been listed as 

acceptable. HFO–1336mzz(Z) is 

currently under review by EPA as a 

substitute foam blowing agent. These 

newer substitutes, which do not raise 

the flammability concerns of HCs, may 

prove appropriate for end-uses where 

flammable agents raise safety concerns. 

The process and timing for retooling 

facilities that use the blowing agents or 

that incorporate the foam product into 

another product will vary depending on 

the substitute selected. In some cases, 

manufacturing facilities such as 

household refrigerator manufacturers 

have already begun the testing of and 

transitioning to lower-GWP substitutes 

for foam blowing. 

b. What are the health and 

environmental impacts of the substitute 

foam blowing agents? 

i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents 

The HFCs that we are proposing to 

find unacceptable have GWPs ranging 

from 794 for HFC–365mfc to 4470 for 

HFC–143a, which is significantly higher 

than the GWPs of other acceptable 

substitutes. The HFC blends that we are 

proposing to find unacceptable have 

GWPs that vary depending on the 

specific composition; the range of GWPs 

for blends are 140 to 1500 for Formacel 

B, 1330 to close to 1500 for Formacel TI, 

370 to 1290 for Formacel Z–6, 740 to 

1030 for blends of HFC–365mfc with at 

least 4% HFC–245fa, and 900 to 1100 

for commercial blends of HFC–365mfc 

with 7 to 13% HFC–227ea and the 

remainder HFC–365mfc. All of the HFCs 

and HFC blends that we are proposing 

to find unacceptable consist of 

compounds that are non-ozonedepleting and are VOC-exempt. Toxicity 

is not a significant concern for these 

alternatives because they may be used 

for blowing foam consistent with 

required or recommended workplace 

exposure limits. For example, HFC– 

134a, HFC–143a, and HFC–245fa can be 

used consistent with their respective 

AIHA WEELs of 1000 ppm, 1000 ppm, 

and 200 ppm (8-hr TWA) in the foam 

end-uses where they are acceptable. Of 

the foam blowing agents that we 

propose to be unacceptable, some are 

nonflammable (HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

Formacel TI, blends of HFC–365mfc 

with at least 4% HFC–245fa, and 

commercial blends of HFC–365mfc with 

7 to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder 

HFC–365mfc), while others are 

flammable (HFC–365mfc and HFC– 

143a). The HFC blends Formacel B and 

Formacel Z–6 may be flammable 

depending on the exact composition, 

with the less flammable or 

nonflammable formulations having 

higher GWPs, in some cases as high as 

1300 to 1500. 

In addition to the GWP of foam 

blowing agents, another potential 

climate impact from foam blowing 

agents is the insulation value of the 

blown foam. This may matter for rigid 

insulation foams, where the foam 

blowing agent may add more or less 

insulation value to rigid polyurethane 

appliance foam; rigid polyurethane 

spray, commercial refrigeration and 

sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane 

slabstock and other foam; polystyrene 

extruded boardstock and billet; rigid 

polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock; and phenolic 

insulation board and bunstock. A foam 

with better overall insulation value can 

reduce indirect greenhouse gas 

emissions from power plants if the foam 

insulation results in greater energy 

efficiency and less need for heating or 

cooling. Some studies have indicated 

that hydrocarbons and CO2 may provide 

less insulation value to an insulation 

foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. 

Recent information on some of the 

newer fluorinated foam blowing agents 

with low GWPs, such as HFO–1234ze(E) 

and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene, indicates these foam blowing 

agents provide comparable or greater 

insulation value than their HCFC and 

HFC predecessors and therefore may be 

of interest to companies considering 

transition to more energy-efficient 

options. In addition, even a foam 

blowing agent that provides less 

insulation value may still not impact the 

foam’s overall energy efficiency where 

thicker foam is used. Because of the 

variety of foam blowing agents available 

in each end-use, we believe that there 

are sufficient options that will not have 

an adverse impact on indirect 

greenhouse emissions. 

ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam 

For rigid polyurethane appliance 

foam, saturated light HCs (C3–C6 49), 

CO2, vacuum panels, water, ecomateTM, 

Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, 

HFO–1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable 

alternatives (in-kind and not-in-kind) 

with GWPs that range from zero to 

seven. Toxicity is not a significant 

concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing appliance 

foam consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits. With the exception of HCs and 

Exxsol blowing agents, these 

alternatives contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of 

the alternatives listed above, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

contains chlorine and has measurable 

ODP. Its ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 50 51

is roughly one order of magnitude 

higher than the ODP of HFC–134a 

which is considered to have zero 

ODP.52 Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene’s impact on global 

atmospheric ozone abundance is 

expected be statistically insignificant.53

Of the various options listed in this 

paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, HCs, and methyl formate are 

flammable, and the others are 

nonflammable. The hazards of the 

flammable compounds in this end-use 

can be adequately addressed in the 

process of meeting OSHA regulations 

and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC– 

134a, Formacel TI, HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc, and Formacel Z–6 have 

significantly higher GWPs than the 

other available substitutes mentioned 

above in this paragraph, thereby 

increasing overall risks to human health 

and the environment. 

iii. Flexible Polyurethane 

For flexible polyurethane used for 

foam furniture, bedding, chair cushions, 

shoe soles and other applications, 

acceptable substitutes include acetone, 

saturated light HCs (C3–C6), Exxsol 

blowing agents, CO2, ecomateTM (i.e., 

methyl formate), HFC–152a, and water 

with GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Of 

the substitutes listed for flexible 

polyurethane, all have an ODP of zero. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern for 

these substitutes because they may be 

used for blowing flexible polyurethane 

foam consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits. With the exception of HCs and 

Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes 

contain compounds that are exempt 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46152 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

54UNEP, 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. 

55UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible 

Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 

Assessment. This document is accessible at http:// 

ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/

FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf. 

from the definition of VOC. Of the 

various options listed in this paragraph, 

ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, 

HFC–152a, and hydrocarbons are 

flammable, and the others are 

nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this 

end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, and 

HFC–365mfc have significantly higher 

GWPs than the other available 

substitutes mentioned above in this 

paragraph, thereby increasing overall 

risks to human health and the 

environment. 

iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam 

For rigid polyurethane spray foam, 

which includes insulation for roofing, 

wall, pipes, and buoyancy, acceptable 

substitutes include HFC–245fa, 

commercial blends of HFC–365mfc and 

HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% 

HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC– 

365mfc, blends of HFC–365mfc and at 

least 5% HFC–245fa, CO2, water, Exxsol 

blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO– 

1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs ranging 

from zero to 1100. Toxicity is not a 

significant concern for these alternatives 

because they may be used for spray 

foam consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits. With the exception of Exxsol 

blowing agents, these substitutes 

contain compounds that are exempt 

from the definition of VOC. Of the 

substitutes listed above, only trans-1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an 

ODP, and as discussed above for rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam, its impact 

on global atmospheric ozone abundance 

is expected be statistically insignificant. 

Flammability is of particular concern 

in spray foam applications, in part 

because they are applied onsite in 

pressurized equipment with spray guns, 

sometimes in proximity to hot, 

flammable substances such as tar. The 

alternative manufacturers have 

developed training to assist end-users in 

addressing the flammability hazards of 

the flammable compounds in this enduse (Exxsol blowing agents and 

ecomateTM); however, these alternatives 

have limited, if any, use in spray foams 

in the United States.54 55 Flammability 

risks are more difficult to mitigate than 

in most other foam applications 

because, unlike in a factory setting, it is 

unlikely that ventilation can be 

provided that removes flammable 

vapors and maintains them below the 

lower flammability limit, and it is not 

practical to make all electrical fixtures 

explosion proof when applying spray 

foam in place in a residential building. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC– 

134a and blends thereof and Formacel 

TI unacceptable in this application. We 

are proposing that HFC–245fa; 

commercial blends of HFC–365mfc and 

HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% 

HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC– 

365mfc; and blends of HFC–365mfc and 

at least 5% HFC–245fa remain 

acceptable in spray foam because these 

three nonflammable foam blowing 

agents reduce overall risk compared to 

the available flammable alternatives. 

The three HFC blends that remain 

acceptable reduce overall risks to 

human health and the environment 

compared to HFC–134a and Formacel TI 

in this application because they have 

lower GWPs. 

v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in 

Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich 

Panels 

For rigid polyurethane used in 

commercial refrigeration and sandwich 

panels, which includes insulation for 

roofing, wall, metal doors, vending 

machines, coolers, buoyancy, and 

refrigerated transport vehicles, 

acceptable alternatives include 

saturated light HCs (C3–C6), ecomateTM, 

CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, 

methyl formate, HFO–1234ze(E), and 

trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

with GWPs ranging from zero to seven. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern for 

these alternatives because they may be 

used for blowing foam for commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels, 

consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits. With the exception of 

hydrocarbon, and Exxsol blowing 

agents, these substitutes contain 

compounds that are exempt from the 

definition of VOC. Of the substitutes 

listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as 

discussed above for rigid polyurethane 

appliance foam, its impact on global 

atmospheric ozone abundance is 

expected to be statistically insignificant. 

Of the various substitutes listed in this 

paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, formic acid, hydrocarbons, and 

methyl formate are flammable, and the 

others are nonflammable. The 

flammability hazards of the flammable 

compounds in this end-use can be 

adequately addressed in the process of 

meeting OSHA regulations and fire 

codes. In these applications, HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, Formacel Z–6 

and Formacel B have significantly 

higher GWPs than the other available 

substitutes mentioned above in this 

paragraph, thereby increasing overall 

risks to human health and the 

environment. 

vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and 

Other Foam 

For rigid polyurethane slabstock and 

other foam, saturated light HCs (C3–C6), 

CO2, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, methyl formate, HFO–1234ze(E), 

and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene are acceptable alternatives with 

GWPs that range from zero to seven. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern for 

these alternatives because they may be 

used for blowing slabstock foam 

consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits. With the exception of HCs and 

Exxsol blowing agents, these 

alternatives contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of 

the alternatives listed above, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has 

an ODP, and as discussed above for 

rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its 

impact on global atmospheric ozone 

abundance is expected be statistically 

insignificant. Of the various options 

listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, 

Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl 

formate are flammable, and the others 

are nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this 

end-use, HFC–134a, Formacel TI, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, and Formacel Z–6 

have significantly higher GWPs than the 

other available substitutes mentioned 

above in this paragraph, thereby 

increasing overall risks to human health 

and the environment. 

vii. Rigid Polyurethane and 

Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock 

For rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, 

saturated light HCs (C3–C6), CO2, water, 

ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, 

methyl formate, HFC–152a, HFO– 

1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable 

alternatives with GWPs that range from 

zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant 

concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing laminated 

boardstock consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits. With the exception of HCs and 

Exxsol blowing agents, these 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46153 

alternatives contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of 

the alternatives listed above, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has 

an ODP and as discussed above for rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam, trans-1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene’s 

impact on global atmospheric ozone 

abundance is expected be statistically 

insignificant. Of the various options 

listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, 

Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl 

formate are flammable, and the others 

are nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this 

end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, and 

HFC–365mfc have significantly higher 

GWPs than the other available 

substitutes mentioned above in this 

paragraph, thereby increasing overall 

risks to human health and the 

environment. 

viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet 

For polystyrene extruded sheet, 

acceptable substitutes include saturated 

light hydrocarbons (C3–C6), CO2, water, 

Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM

(methyl formate), and HFC–152a. These 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 

124. Toxicity is not a significant 

concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing extruded 

polystyrene foam consistent with 

required or recommended workplace 

exposure limits. With the exception of 

HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these 

substitutes contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of 

the substitutes listed above in this 

paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of 

the various substitutes listed in this 

paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, HFC–152a, and HCs are 

flammable, and the others are 

nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this 

end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc, Formacel TI and Formacel Z–6 

have significantly higher GWPs than the 

other available substitutes mentioned 

above in this paragraph, thereby 

increasing overall risks to human health 

and the environment. 

ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock 

and Billet 

For polystyrene extruded boardstock 

and billet, acceptable substitutes 

include saturated light hydrocarbons 

(C3–C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing 

agents, ecomateTM (methyl formate), 

HFC–152a, and HFO–1234ze(E). These 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 

124. Toxicity is not a significant 

concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing extruded 

polystyrene foam consistent with 

required or recommended workplace 

exposure limits. With the exception of 

HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these 

substitutes contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of 

the substitutes listed above in this 

paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of 

the various substitutes listed in this 

paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, HFC–152a, and HCs are 

flammable, and the others are 

nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this 

end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc, Formacel B and Formacel Z–6 

have significantly higher GWPs than the 

other available substitutes mentioned 

above in this paragraph, thereby 

increasing overall risks to human health 

and the environment. 

x. Integral Skin Polyurethane 

In integral skin polyurethane, which 

includes foam in car steering wheels, 

dashboards, and shoe soles, substitutes 

include acetone, saturated light HCs 

(C3–C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing 

agents, methyl formate, ecomateTM, 

HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–152a, and trans-1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. These 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 

zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant 

concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing integral 

skin polyurethane foam consistent with 

required or recommended workplace 

exposure limits. With the exception of 

HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these 

substitutes contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of 

the substitutes listed above, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has 

an ODP and as discussed above for rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam, its impact 

on global atmospheric ozone abundance 

is expected be statistically insignificant. 

Of the various substitutes listed in this 

paragraph, acetone, methyl formate, 

ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, 

HFC–152a, and hydrocarbons are 

flammable, and the others are 

nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this 

end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z– 

6 have significantly higher GWPs than 

the other available substitutes 

mentioned above in this paragraph, 

thereby increasing overall risks to 

human health and the environment. 

xi. Polyolefin Foam 

For polyolefin foam, saturated light 

HCs (C3–C6), CO2, water, ecomateTM, 

Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, 

HFC–152a, blends of HFC–152a and 

saturated light HCs, HFO–1234ze(E), 

and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene are acceptable alternatives with 

GWPs that range from zero to 124. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern for 

these alternatives because they may be 

used for blowing polyolefin foam 

consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits. With the exception of HCs, HC 

blends, and Exxsol blowing agents, 

these alternatives contain compounds 

that are exempt from the definition of 

VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in 

this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. 

Of the various options listed in this 

paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, HCs, and methyl formate are 

flammable, and the others are 

nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this 

end-use, HFC–134a, Formacel TI, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, and Formacel Z–6 

have significantly higher GWPs than the 

other available substitutes mentioned 

above in this paragraph, thereby 

increasing overall risks to human health 

and the environment. 

xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and 

Bunstock 

In phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock, which includes insulation for 

roofing and walls, acceptable substitutes 

include saturated light HCs (C3–C6),), 

CO2, 2-chloropropane, water, Exxsol 

blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO– 

1234ze(E), and HFC–152a. These 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 

124. Toxicity is not a significant 

concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing phenolic 

foam consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits. With the exception of 2- 

chloropropane, hydrocarbons, and 

Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes 

contain compounds that are exempt 

from the definition of VOC. Of the 

substitutes listed above in this 

paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of 

the various substitutes listed in this 

paragraph, 2-chloropropane, ecomateTM, 

Exxsol blowing agents, HFC–152a, and 

HCs are flammable, and the others are 

nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46154 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this 

end-use, HFC–143a, HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, and HFC–365mfc have 

significantly higher GWPs than the 

other available substitutes mentioned 

above in this paragraph, thereby 

increasing overall risks to human health 

and the environment. 

For the foam end-uses listed above, 

both fluorinated and non-fluorinated 

substitutes are being used today in the 

U.S.; EPA recognizes that the formulator 

and systems house will consider other 

criteria including toxicity, flammability, 

and local air quality. However, given the 

range of substitutes available, we 

believe that there are other alternatives 

available for formulators or systems 

houses that pose less risk for human 

health and the environment than the 

HFCs and HFC blends proposed to be 

listed as unacceptable. 

c. How does EPA propose to regulate 

foams and products containing foams? 

EPA is proposing to regulate foam 

blowing agents contained in the cells of 

closed cell foams and proposes to 

consider these foams and products 

containing them to be subject to the 

proposed unacceptability 

determinations, as well as the use of the 

foam blowing agent in manufacturing 

those products. Section 612(c) of the 

Clean Air Act refers to ‘‘replacing’’ ODS 

with substitutes. In the case of the foam 

blowing agent sector, we have 

previously interpreted unacceptability 

determinations as referring solely to 

replacing the foam blowing agent and 

have not interpreted the SNAP lists to 

apply to products made with foam. 

Thus, an unacceptable foam blowing 

agent may not be used in or imported 

into the United States. However, 

products made with unacceptable foams 

blown overseas may be imported. For 

example, refrigerators containing 

appliance foam blown with the 

unacceptable blowing agent HCFC–141b 

may still be imported into the United 

States, even though the SNAP program 

has listed HCFC–141b as an 

unacceptable foam blowing agent 

(September 30, 2004 at 69 FR 58269). 

Under this interpretation of our SNAP 

regulations if this proposal becomes 

final the foam blowing agents we are 

proposing to find unacceptable would 

be prohibited from being used or 

imported into the United States, but 

foam products or products containing 

foam, such as appliances or furniture 

made with these unacceptable foam 

blowing agents, could be imported. 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to adopt 

a different interpretation for closed cell 

foams that would result in prohibiting 

both import and manufacture of 

products made with the blowing agents 

proposed to be unacceptable. This 

approach would have an effect similar 

to the earlier nonessential product ban 

for products containing unacceptable 

foam blowing agents, prohibiting import 

and distribution of such products. For 

closed cell foams, the blowing agents 

are retained in cells after the foam is 

blown and provide insulation value. 

Foam blowing end-uses that contain 

closed-cell foams include rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam; rigid 

polyurethane: Spray, commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels; rigid 

polyurethane (slabstock and other); rigid 

polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock; polystyrene 

(extruded sheet); polystyrene: extruded 

boardstock and billet; polyolefin; and 

phenolic insulation board and bunstock. 

Foam blowing end-uses containing open 

cell foams include flexible polyurethane 

and integral skin polyurethane. In 

comparison, in open cell foams, the 

blowing agent is not retained and would 

have escaped prior to import. Thus, an 

open cell product blown with an 

unacceptable foam blowing agent (or 

products containing such an open cell 

foam) would not contain any of that 

agent when imported in the United 

States whereas a closed cell product 

would still retain some of the foam 

blowing agent. EPA is proposing and is 

seeking comment on whether the 

Agency should consider use of the foam 

blowing agent to apply to products with 

closed cell foam since the product still 

contains at least some of the foam 

blowing agent and thus is replacing 

other foam blowing agents. EPA is also 

seeking comment on whether the 

Agency should consider use of the foam 

blowing agent to apply to open cell 

foam and products containing open cell 

foam, and in particular on what would 

be the legal basis for doing so. 

d. When would the listings change? 

Through this action, EPA is proposing 

to change the listings for foam blowing 

agents as of January 1, 2017. Based on 

information concerning the timeframes 

from past transitions, EPA believes this 

date allows sufficient opportunity to 

redesign for a different foam blowing 

agent. However, EPA is seeking 

comment on changing the listings as of 

January 1, 2016. The foam industry was 

able to convert from HCFC–142b and 

HCFC–22 to other acceptable substitutes 

between EPA’s proposed 

unacceptability determination in 

November 2005 and its final 

determination in March 2007, which 

specified that existing users of the 

unacceptable HCFCs must transition by 

March 1, 2008, for most uses. EPA also 

provided an additional 18 months for 

this transition for marine flotation foam, 

to September 1, 2009, and allowed until 

January 1, 2010, for a transition away 

from HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in 

extruded polystyrene foam boardstock 

(March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). EPA is 

requesting comment on using January 1, 

2017 as the date on which foam must 

not be blown using HFC–134a, HFC– 

365mfc, HFC–245fa, HFC–143a and 

blends thereof, or Formacel B, Formacel 

TI, and Formacel Z–6. We are also 

seeking comment on whether a 

transition could be completed by 

January 1, 2016. In particular, we 

request comment on whether these 

dates would be sufficient time for the 

transition where the foam product is 

incorporated into a larger product (e.g., 

commercial refrigeration foam used in 

transport refrigeration), and whether 

there are any specific foam end-uses or 

applications that may require additional 

time and, if so, how long and why. 

Based on this information, EPA could 

consider grandfathering options for 

foam blowing agents in specific enduses or could provide a different date 

for use to be unacceptable. 

e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or 

Space- and Aeronautics-Related 

Applications 

EPA is proposing an exception to the 

proposed unacceptability determination 

for HFC and HFC blend foam blowing 

agents for military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications. EPA is 

also proposing that the narrowed use 

limit would expire on January 1, 2022. 

Under a narrowed use limit, the end 

user for a military or space- and 

aeronautics application would need to 

ascertain that other alternatives are not 

technically feasible and document the 

results of their analysis. See 40 CFR 

82.180(b)(3). For the military, there are 

several unique performance 

requirements related to weapon systems 

that require extensive testing prior to 

qualifying alternatives for HFCcontaining foams. While the vast 

majority of applications for foams are 

anticipated to be able to transition to 

acceptable alternatives by the proposed 

January 1, 2017 date, in a very small 

number of cases, the timeframes 

associated with testing and 

qualifications for weapon systems could 

take longer. In addition, some of the 

lower-GWP alternatives may not be 

available at this time in certain specialty 

applications with unique military 

requirements such as undersea; 

aerospace; and chemical, biological, and 

radiological warfare systems. In the case 

of space- and aeronautics-related 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46155 

56These three HCFCs have previously been listed 

as unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP 

sectors. 

applications, HFCs are used in 

numerous applications, including 

certain mission-critical applications 

such as foam blowing for which 

appropriate substitutes have not yet 

been identified. Past experience 

indicates that transitions away from 

CFC- and HCFC-blown foams in similar 

applications took several years due to 

the challenging operational 

environment and the lengthy 

requalification process associated with 

human-rated space flight systems. 

Under the acceptable for narrowed 

use limits category, users of a restricted 

agent within the narrowed use limits 

category must make a reasonable effort 

to ascertain that other substitutes or 

alternatives are not technically feasible. 

Users are expected to undertake a 

thorough technical investigation of 

alternatives to the otherwise restricted 

substitute. Although users are not 

required to report the results of their 

investigations to EPA, users must 

document these results, and retain them 

in their files for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Under a narrowed use limit, the end 

user for a military or space- and 

aeronautics- related application would 

need to ascertain that other alternatives 

are not technically feasible and 

document the results of their analysis. 

See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Documentation 

should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the 

substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other 

alternatives, e.g., performance, technical 

or safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes 

will be available and projected time for 

switching. 

EPA is seeking comment on this 

proposed narrowed use limitation for 

military or space- and aeronauticsrelated applications In addition, EPA is 

also seeking comment on the timeframe 

for this narrowed use limitation, 

recognizing that if all alternatives are 

not qualified in advance of 2022, the 

Agency may need to revisit and adjust 

the end date. 

f. Summary 

EPA seeks comments on changing the 

listings for the proposed foam end-uses. 

In particular, EPA is interested in 

whether there are specific uses other 

than spray foam that require the use of 

HFC–134a, HFC–365mfc, HFC–245fa, 

and blends thereof, or the blends 

Formacel B, Formacel TI, or Formacel 

Z–6 for reasons of fire safety or 

technical feasibility. We request 

comment on whether closed cell foam 

products and products containing 

closed cell foams should be subject to 

the unacceptability determinations, 

which under our current interpretation 

would otherwise only apply to the use 

of the foam blowing agent. We also seek 

comment on whether the Agency should 

consider use of the foam blowing agent 

to apply to open cell foam and products 

containing open cell foam, and in 

particular what would be the legal basis 

for doing so. EPA also requests 

comment on whether the proposed date 

provides an appropriate length of time 

for transition and whether there should 

be different dates for certain foam enduses due to technical challenges that 

may exist for some foam end-uses but 

not all. EPA is also interested in 

information concerning the supply of 

substitutes in sufficient quantities to 

meet a domestic transition in the 

timeframe proposed in this action. EPA 

also takes comment on the proposed 

exception for military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications as 

described above. 

VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs? 

EPA is proposing to modify the 

listings for three HCFCs in certain enduses because the three HCFCs are 

subject to the use restrictions in CAA 

section 605(a) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. 

Additionally, the nonessential products 

ban under CAA section 610 also 

restricts sale and distribution of certain 

products containing or manufactured 

with these three HCFCs. We believe it 

is important that the SNAP listings not 

indicate that these HCFCs may be used 

when another program under title VI of 

the CAA would prevent such use. Thus, 

we are proposing to align the 

requirements. The HCFCs addressed in 

this rule are listed as acceptable or 

acceptable subject to use conditions in 

the aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire 

suppression and explosion protection 

agents, sterilants, and adhesives, 

coatings and inks sectors. This in 

addition to the proposed 

unacceptability of HCFC-containing 

refrigerants in MVAC systems (see 

section V.B. of this preamble). 

A. What are the proposed modifications 

to the listings for the three HCFCs and 

in which end-uses? 

EPA is proposing to modify the 

listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b, 

and HCFC–22, as well as blends that 

contain these substances, from 

acceptable to unacceptable in all 

sectors 56 except refrigeration and air 

conditioning. EPA is not addressing 

HCFC use for refrigeration and air 

conditioning because CAA section 

605(a) and our implementing 

regulations allows for continuing use of 

HCFCs to service equipment. We are 

proposing that the listings would be 

modified 60 days following issuance of 

a final rule promulgating this proposal. 

B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for 

HCFCs? 

EPA is proposing to modify the 

listings for these three HCFCs and 

blends containing these HCFCs to align 

the SNAP listings with other Title VI 

regulations, specifically section 605 and 

its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

part 82 subpart A and section 610 and 

its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

part 82 subpart C. 

1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the 

Three HCFCs With Regulations 

Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 

610 

CAA Section 605(a) explicitly 

prohibits the introduction into interstate 

commerce or the use of any class II 

substance as of January 1, 2015, unless 

such substance: 

(1) Has been used, recovered, and 

recycled; 

(2) is used and entirely consumed 

(except for trace quantities) in the 

production of other chemicals; 

(3) is used as a refrigerant in 

appliances manufactured prior to 

January 1, 2020; or 

(4) is listed as acceptable for use as a 

fire suppression agent for nonresidential 

applications in accordance with section 

612(c). 

Through rulemaking, EPA accelerated to 

January 1, 2010, the prohibitions on use 

and introduction into interstate 

commerce for HCFC–141b, HCFC–22, 

and HCFC–142b that has not been used, 

recovered, and recycled. See 40 CFR 

82.15(g). With respect to refrigeration 

and air conditioning uses, EPA’s 

implementing regulations prohibit the 

use and introduction into interstate 

commerce of these HCFCs, unless used, 

recovered, and recycled, in equipment 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010. EPA’s proposal to modify the 

listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–22, and 

HCFC–142b, including blends that 

contain these HCFCs, in various 

applications is consistent with the 

accelerated dates contained in our 

implementing regulations and covers 

end-uses where these HCFCs have 

previously been listed as acceptable as 

aerosols, refrigerants, foam blowing 

agents, fire suppressants, cleaning 

solvents, sterilants, and adhesives, 

coatings and inks. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46156 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

57Section 610(d) contains certain exceptions and 

also authorizes EPA to grant exceptions in specific 

circumstances. For the complete list of exceptions, 

see EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart C. 

58 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives, 2014. 

Section 605(a) complements section 

610, which prohibited the sale and 

distribution, as well as offer for sale and 

distribution, in interstate commerce of 

aerosol products and pressurized 

dispensers containing a class II 

substance (i.e., HCFCs), and plastic 

foam products containing or 

manufactured with a class II substance, 

with limited exceptions.57 This 

statutory prohibition took effect on 

January 1, 1994. Consequently, most 

foams and aerosols have not used 

HCFCs since 1994. 

Recognizing that other HCFCs are not 

yet subject to the use and interstate 

commerce prohibitions in section 605 

and 40 CFR 82.15(g), EPA is not 

proposing to change the SNAP listings 

for HCFCs other than HCFC–141b, 

–142b, and –22 and blends containing 

those substances at this time. EPA may 

revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs 

in a later rulemaking as appropriate. 

2. Anticipated Effects 

EPA does not anticipate that these 

changes will have a significant effect on 

the use of HCFC–141b, –142b, and –22 

since existing regulations limit the use 

of these three HCFCs (unless used, 

recovered, and recycled) in almost all 

end-uses in the United States (see 40 

CFR 82.15(g)). For the sectors addressed 

in this rulemaking, EPA is not aware of 

anyone using recovered, recycled or 

reclaimed HCFC–22, HCFC–141b and 

HCFC–142b. In addition, as a result of 

the use restrictions in CAA section 605 

and 40 CFR 82.15(g), as well as the sale 

and distribution restrictions on certain 

products containing or manufactured 

with these substances in CAA section 

610 and 40 CFR part 82 subpart C, most 

sectors have taken significant steps to 

transition to non-ODS substitutes. For 

example, HCFCs in aerosol applications 

have been replaced by HCs, HFO– 

1234ze, roll-ons, pump sprays, and 

HFC–152a, excluding some niche 

technical applications that still rely on 

HCFCs not addressed in this action. 

HCFCs in foam blowing agents have 

largely been replaced by, among other 

things, methyl formate, HCs, Solstice– 

1233zd(E), and carbon dioxide; any 

remaining HCFC use in this sector is 

limited to HCFCs not addressed in this 

action. For these reasons, we believe it 

is technically feasible for sources to 

comply with the proposed changes to 

the listings for these three HCFCs within 

60 days of a final rule issued consistent 

with this proposal. 

EPA seeks comment on its proposal to 

modify the listings for HCFC–141b, 

–142b, –22, and blends containing these 

substances. EPA is particularly 

interested in comments on both the 

scope of the proposed modifications and 

the timing. 

VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to 

exports and imports? 

The requirements of the SNAP 

program apply to both exports and 

imports. EPA understands that some 

manufacturers may be interested in 

whether the listing decisions, if 

finalized as proposed, would apply to 

their products. EPA has previously 

responded to comments about the 

applicability of the SNAP program to 

products destined for export. Most 

recently, in a final rule issued December 

20, 2011, EPA responded to a comment 

concerning whether appliances 

manufactured for export should be 

allowed to have larger charge sizes than 

those being sold in the United States 

(and thus not have to comply with the 

use conditions being established in that 

rule). EPA stated that: 

Under section 612 of the Clean Air 

Act, the SNAP program is applicable to 

any person introducing a substitute into 

interstate commerce. Interstate 

commerce is defined in 40 CFR 

82.104(n) as: The distribution or 

transportation of any product between 

one state, territory, possession or the 

District of Columbia, and another state, 

territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia, or the sale, use or 

manufacture of any product in more 

than one state, territory, possession or 

the District of Columbia. The entry 

points for which the product is 

introduced into interstate commerce are 

the release of a product from the facility 

in which the product was 

manufactured, the entry into a 

warehouse from which the domestic 

manufacturer releases the product for 

sale or distribution, and at the site of 

United States Customs clearance. This 

definition applies to any appliances 

produced in the United States, 

including appliances that will be 

exported. (76 FR 78846) 

Therefore, EPA concluded that the 

same use conditions apply to appliances 

being exported. 

The range of sectors and end-uses 

covered by the SNAP program varies. 

Some end-uses, such as the refrigeration 

and air conditioning sector, includes 

appliances charged by OEMs and 

appliances typically field-charged. 

Some appliances charged by OEMs are 

hermetically sealed and other 

appliances are not. Furthermore, these 

appliances differ from products such as 

aerosols or foams because of the 

potential for servicing the appliances 

throughout their use. Some 

manufacturers of motor vehicle air 

conditioners identified a potential 

concern that there may be a lack of 

servicing infrastructure for low-GWP 

alternatives in markets outside the U.S. 

EPA recognizes that the transition to 

alternatives may occur at a different 

pace in different global markets. For 

example, the European Union is 

planning to transition to low-GWP 

alternatives for MVACs in 2017 which 

is several years earlier than what EPA is 

proposing. However, other countries 

have not indicated any specific plan to 

transition to low-GWP alternatives for 

MVACs. If finalized as proposed, HFC– 

134a would be listed as unacceptable in 

model year 2021 and the 

unacceptability listing would include 

MVACs that will be exported. 

EPA applies the SNAP requirements 

equally to imports and exports. 

However, EPA understands the 

concerns for proper infrastructure for 

servicing appliances in markets outside 

the U.S. EPA believes there is ample 

time between now and model year 2021 

for such infrastructure to be established. 

EPA welcomes comments and specific 

information on this topic. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ It raises novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and 

any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

EPA conducted an analysis 58 that 

considered the economic impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities, as 

further discussed in the section C 

below. The analysis also considered 

that, specific to refrigerants used in air 

conditioning systems for newly 

manufactured light-duty vehicles, there 

are considerable environmental benefits 

of a transition to alternative refrigerants 

and there are costs associated with those 

substitutions. Based on recent 

information in manufacturers’ product 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46157 

59 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives, 2014. 

plans, a limited number of 

manufacturers may have been planning 

to meet the GHG standards but still 

continue to use HFC–134a beyond MY 

2021 for a limited number of their 

models. However, we believe there is 

time for any such manufacturers to 

make appropriate adjustments. These 

manufacturers could incur costs 

attributable to this proposal 

(representing the proposed requirement 

to cease use of HFC–134a by MY 2021), 

but there would be environmental 

benefits in the form of increased 

reductions of GHG emissions from 

MVAC systems which would not 

otherwise occur, assuming these 

manufacturers also continue with their 

plans to achieve the reductions by 

means other than substitution of MVAC 

refrigerant. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

proposed rule is an Agency 

determination. It contains no new 

requirements for reporting. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations in subpart G of 40 

CFR part 82 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0226. This 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

included five types of respondent 

reporting and recordkeeping activities 

pursuant to SNAP regulations: 

Submission of a SNAP petition, filing a 

SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification 

for test marketing activity, 

recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable 

subject to use restrictions, and 

recordkeeping for small volume uses. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 

and 48 CFR Chapter 15.C. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the Agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of this rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After conducting an analysis 59 that 

considered the economic impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities, I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The requirements of this proposed rule 

with respect to HFCs, if finalized as 

proposed, would impact manufacturers 

of some consumer and technical aerosol 

products, retail food refrigeration 

equipment, vending machines, motor 

vehicles, and products containing 

phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, 

polyurethane, and polystyrene foams. 

The requirements of this proposed rule 

with respect to HCFCs, if finalized as 

proposed, would affect manufacturers of 

aerosols, foams, solvent cleaning, fire 

suppression, and adhesives, coatings, 

and inks. This rule’s provisions do not 

create enforceable requirements for 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

technicians, but they would indirectly 

affect technicians servicing motor 

vehicle air conditioning systems, retail 

food refrigeration equipment, and 

vending machines where the technician, 

rather than the refrigeration or AC 

equipment owner, purchases servicing 

equipment for different refrigerants. 

EPA expects these indirect impacts on 

technicians are minimal, because the 

transitions to different refrigerants 

required by this rule are already 

occurring due to other regulations (e.g., 

light duty vehicle GHG rule) and 

corporate social responsibility 

initiatives (e.g., Consumer Goods Forum 

pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), 

and because many of the still-acceptable 

alternatives are already used for these 

refrigeration or air conditioning 

equipment types. Further, most 

acceptable HFC refrigerant blends can 

be recovered and serviced using 

equipment that service technicians 

already own. In some uses, there is no 

significant impact of the proposed rule 

because the substitutes proposed to be 

prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use 

of HFC–134a as a propellant in 

consumer aerosol products, use of HFC– 

134a as a foam blowing agent in various 

polyurethane foams). A significant 

portion of the businesses regulated 

under this rule are not small businesses 

(e.g., car manufacturers, appliance 

manufacturers). About 500,000 small 

businesses could be subject to the 

rulemaking, although more than 99% of 

small businesses subject to this 

proposed rulemaking would be 

expected to experience zero compliance 

costs. EPA continues to be interested in 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcomes 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts, in particular technical 

challenges, including time to transition, 

that may exist for some small entities 

but not all. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

State, local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local, or 

tribal governments. The enforceable 

requirements of this proposed rule 

related to prohibiting certain 

substitutes, including HFC–134a, R– 

404A and R–507A, would require new 

equipment to be manufactured using 

other available options but would not 

require changes to existing equipment 

that is already manufactured or 

purchased. Thus, this rule is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. This action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This regulation applies 

directly to facilities that use these 

substances and not to governmental 

entities. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This regulation 

applies directly to facilities that use 

these substances and not to 

governmental entities. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and State and local governments, 

EPA specifically solicits comments on 

this proposed action from State and 

local officials. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46158 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and 

because the Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

proposed rule restricts the use of certain 

substitutes that have greater overall 

risks for human health and the 

environment, primarily due to their 

high global warming potential. The 

reduction in GHG emissions would 

provide climate benefits for all people, 

including benefits for children and 

future generations. The public is invited 

to submit comments or identify peerreviewed studies and data that assess 

effects of early life exposure to the 

alternatives addressed in this action. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol 

uses are not related to the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. For the 

end-uses that are related to energy 

effects such as refrigeration and air 

conditioning, a number of alternatives 

are available to replace those 

refrigerants that are proposed as 

unacceptable in this action; many of the 

alternatives are as energy efficient or 

more energy efficient than the 

substitutes being proposed as 

unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded 

that this rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

proposed rule does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. This proposed 

rule, if finalized, would prohibit a 

number of substances with ODPs or 

high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and 

GWP emissions would assist in 

restoring the stratospheric ozone layer 

and provide climate benefits. 

IX. References 

This preamble references the 

following documents, which are also in 

the Air Docket at the address listed in 

Section I.B.1. Unless specified 

otherwise, all documents are available 

electronically through the Federal 

Docket Management System, Docket # 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. 

Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Climate Change: Summaries of Recent 

Scientific and Papers, 2013. 

Ben and Jerry’s, 2014. Cleaner, Greener 

Freezers. This document is accessible at 

http://www.benjerry.com/values/howwe-do-business/cleaner-greener-freezers. 

CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on ClimateFriendly Alternatives in Commercial 

Refrigeration. Meeting Summary. 8 

December 2012. This document is 

accessible at http://www.unep.org/ccac/

Portals/50162/docs/TechForum/

FINAL%20REPORT%20Commercial%20

Technology%20Forum%20final.pdf. 

Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This 

document is accessible at: http://assets.

coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b

6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-grireport.pdf. 

Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 

Millionth HFC-Free Cooler Globally, 

Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, 

January 22, 2014. This document is 

accessible at http://www.coca-cola

company.com/press-center/pressreleases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionthhfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2. 

Consumer Specialty Products Association 

(CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol Pressurized 

Products Survey—61st Annual Products 

Survey. April 15, 2012. 

Daimler, ‘‘Climate Change: EU Scientists Say 

Daimler’s Safety Concerns About New 

Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,’’ 

Stephen Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily 

Environment Report, March 11, 2014. 

This document is accessible at http://

news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_

display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=

dennotallissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=

0. 

Directive 2006/40/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 

2006 (EU MAC Directive). This 

document is accessible at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:

EN:HTM. 

Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. 

Refrigerants. March 13, 2014. 

EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or 

Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 

Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean 

Air Act. Technical Support Document. 

December 7, 2009. This document is 

accessible at: www.epa.gov/

climatechange/Downloads/

endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf. 

EPA, 2012. Factsheet: Summary of 

Refrigerant Reclamation 2000–2012. This 

data is accessible at: www.epa.gov/

spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/

recsum.pdf. 

EPA, 2013. Benefits of Addressing HFCs 

under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013. 

EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. 

EPA, Greenchill. ‘‘Advanced Refrigeration’’. 

This document is accessible at: http://

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/

documents/gc_storecertprogram

08232011.pdf. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46159 

EPA Memorandum: ‘‘Notes from Meeting 

with Nissan Concerning Alternative 

Refrigerant Transition’’, Tad Wysor, 

April 2014. 

GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program Submission 

to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, October 2008. 

Honeywell, 2014. Aerosols Overview— 

Honeywell Solstice® Propellant. EPA 

meeting. February 27, 2014. 

ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the 

U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

May, 2014. 

ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the 

U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

May, 2014. 

ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the 

U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. 

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. May, 2014. 

ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 

2014. 

ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential 

Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on 

Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 

February, 2014. 

ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Options to 

Change Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives. April, 2014. 

ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary CostAnalysis for Regulatory Options to 

Change Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives. June, 2014. 

IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 

Prepared by the National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston 

H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and 

Tanabe K. (eds). Published: Institute for 

Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 

Japan. This document is accessible at 

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/

2006gl/index.html. 

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. 

Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, 

USA. This document is accessible at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_

data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. 

IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System 

Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. 

Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, 

H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate 

Change 2013: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I 

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. 

Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and 

P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: 

Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the 

Global Climate System: Issues Related to 

Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, 

New York). 

Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: 

Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, 

ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. 

Nelson, Gabe ‘‘Automakers’ switch to new 

refrigerant will accelerate with EPA 

credits, European mandate’’ Automobile 

News, December 30, 2013. This 

document is accessible at http://www.

autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/

312309996/warmingto-the-idea. 

NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.

cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/. 

Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric 

Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion 

Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional 

model.’’ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867– 

10874, 2010. 

UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible 

Foams Technical Options Committee, 

2010 Assessment. This document is 

accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/

Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/

FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.

pdf. 

UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in 

Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, 

A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 

2011. This document is accessible at 

http://www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/

pdf/HFC_report.pdf. 

UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: 

Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, 

Additional Information on Alternatives 

to ODS. September, 2013. This document 

is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/

Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/

TEAP_Reports/TEAP_

TaskForce%20XXIV-7-May2013.pdf. 

Velders, G. J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. 

McFarland, S.O. Andersen (2009) The 

large contribution of projected HFC 

emissions to future climate forcing. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. Wang 

D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. 

‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s 

Potential Impact on Atmospheric 

Ozone.’’ Department of Atmospheric 

Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, 

IL. September 26, 2011. 

Weissler, Paul, ‘‘A/C Industry Faces 

Challenges From Daimler R–1234yf 

Issue, Explores Other Options,’’ 

Automotive Engineering International, 

April 2, 2013. This document is 

accessible at http://articles.sae.org/

11870/. 

WMO, 2010. World Meteorological 

Organization. Scientific Assessment of 

Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone 

Research and Monitoring Project— 

Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, 

Switzerland, 2011. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Stratospheric ozone layer. 

Dated: July 9, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 82 as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 

7671q. 

Subpart G—Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

■ 2. Amend Subpart G by adding 

Appendix U to read as follows: 

Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Unacceptable Substitutes and 

Substitutes Subject To Use Restrictions 

Listed in the [DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] Final Rule, Effective [DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46160 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—AEROSOLS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Propellants ........................... HFC–125 ........................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 HFC–125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 354–33–6 and it is also 

known by the name 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane. 

HFC–125 has a high GWP of 3,500. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment. 

Products using this propellant that are manufactured 

prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. 

Propellants ........................... HCFC–22 and HCFC– 

142b.

Unacceptable effective 

[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 ....................... Unacceptable effective 

[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. 

TABLE 2—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Propellants ..... HFC–134a .... Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

As of January 1, 2016, acceptable only for 

use in: 

• Metered dose inhalers for the treatment 

of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and 

other diseases where aerosols can be 

used for systemic delivery through lung, 

nose, or other organs 

• cleaning products for removal of grease, 

flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics 

• lubricants for electrical equipment or 

electronics 

• sprays for aircraft maintenance 

• pesticides for use near electrical wires or 

in aircraft, in total release insecticide 

foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP 

propellantsmold release agents 

HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811– 

97–2 and it is also known by the name 

1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has 

a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Use is allowed for the specified uses because of the 

greater technical and safety demands in 

these applications compared to other aerosol applications. 

It is prohibited to use aerosol products other 

than those specified here using HFC–134a 

that are manufactured on or after January 

1, 2016. Aerosol products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 

1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, 

distributed and used after that date. 

• lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes 

for synthetic fabrics 

• duster sprays specifically for removal of 

dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under 

electron microscopes 

• document preservation sprays 

• wound care sprays topical coolant sprays 

for pain alleviationproducts for removing 

bandage adhesives from skin. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46161 

TABLE 2—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Propellants ..... HFC–227ea .. Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

As of January 1, 2016, acceptable only for 

use in metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease.

HFC–227ea has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 

431–89–0 and it is also known by the name 

1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane. HFC– 

227ea has a relatively high GWP of 3,220. 

Use is allowed for metered dose inhalers 

because of the greater technical and safety 

demands in this application compared to 

other aerosol applications. 

It is prohibited to use aerosol products other 

than metered dose inhalers using HFC– 

227ea that are manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2016. Aerosol products using 

this propellant that are manufactured prior 

to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, 

exported, distributed and used after that 

date. 

TABLE 3—REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Retail food refrigeration 

(new and retrofit).

R–404A .............................. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.R–404A is a blend, by weight, of 44% HFC–125, 4% 

HFC–134a, and 52% HFC–143a. It has a high GWP 

of approximately 3,920. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(new and retrofit).

R–507A .............................. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.R–507A is a blend, by weight, of 50% HFC–125 and 

50% HFC–143a. It has a high GWP of approximately 3,990. Other substitutes are available for this 

end-use with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(condensing units and supermarket systems)(new).

HFC–227ea, R–407B, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422C, 

R–422D, R–428A, R– 

434A.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 

3,607. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(condensing units and supermarket systems)(retrofit).

R–407B, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422C, R–422D, 

R–428A, R–434A.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 

3,607. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(stand-alone units only) 

(new only).

HFC–134a ......................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also 

known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. 

HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. 

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment. 

Retail food refrigeration- 

(stand-alone units only) 

(new only).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC– 

227ea, IKON B, KDD6, 

R–125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R– 

407A, R–407B, R–407C, 

R–407F, R–410A, R– 

410B, R–417A, R–421A, 

R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, 

R–424A, R–426A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, 

R–438A, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), RS–44 

(2003 formulation), 

SP34E, THR–03.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 550 to 3,607. Other substitutes are available 

for this end-use with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment. 

Vending machines (new and 

retrofit).

R–404A .............................. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.R–404A is a blend, by weight, of 44% HFC–125, 4% 

HFC–134a, and 52% HFC–143a. It has a GWP of 

approximately 3,920. Other substitutes are available 

for this end-use with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46162 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Vending machines (new and 

retrofit).

R–507A .............................. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.R–507A is a blend, by weight, of 50% HFC–125 and 

50% HFC–143a. It has a GWP of approximately 

3,990. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Vending machines (new 

only).

HFC–134a ......................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also 

known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. 

HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. 

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment. 

Vending machines (new 

only).

FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON 

B, KDD6, R–125/290/

134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

42.5/1.5), R–407C, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–417A, 

R–421A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–426A, 

R–437A, R–438A, RS– 

24 (2002 formulation), 

SP34E.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 550 to 3,085. Other substitutes are available 

for this end-use with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment. 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in 

passenger cars and lightduty trucks only).

HFC–134a ......................... Unacceptable as of Model 

Year (MY) 2021.

HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also 

known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. 

HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. 

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment. 

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).

Unacceptable as of MY 

2017.

These refrigerants all contain HCFCs. They have 

GWPs ranging from 1,480 to 2,340 and ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment. 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in 

passenger cars and lightduty trucks only).

R–416A (FRIGC FR–12, 

HCFC Blend Beta).

Unacceptable as of MY 

2017.

This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately 

1,080 and an ODP of approximately 0.008. Other 

substitutes are available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment. 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in 

passenger cars and lightduty trucks only).

SP34E ............................... Unacceptable as of MY 

2017.

This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately 

1,410. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in 

passenger cars and lightduty trucks only).

R–426A (RS–24, new formulation).Unacceptable as of MY 

2017.

This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately 

1,510. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

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 until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute 

is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46163 

TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Spray.

HFC–134a and 

Formacel TI.

Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use 

Limits.

Acceptable until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

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 until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute 

is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

Flexible Polyurethane.HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof.

Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use 

Limits.

Acceptable until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

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: 

Slabstock and 

Other.

HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, 

and Formacel 

Z–6.

Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use 

Limits.

Acceptable until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

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 until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute 

is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46164 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet.HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof, 

Formacel TI, 

and Formacel 

Z–6.

Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use 

Limits.

Acceptable until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

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 until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute 

is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

Integral Skin 

Polyurethane.

HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, 

and Formacel 

Z–6.

Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use 

Limits.

Acceptable until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

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. 

Polyolefin ........... HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, 

and Formacel 

Z–6.

Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use 

Limits.

Acceptable until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

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 until January 1, 2022 

only in military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

Users are required to document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute 

is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

TABLE 5—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information 

All ......................................... Blends of HCFC–141b ...... Unacceptable effective 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE].

HCFC–141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11 

under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously found 

HCFC–141b unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses (appendix M to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). 

HCFC–141b has an ODP of 0.11. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46165 

TABLE 5—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information 

Polyolefin ............................. HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof.

Unacceptable effective 

[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 

ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065 respectively under the Montreal Protocol. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance.HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, 

and Formacel Z–6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Spray ... HFC–134a and Formacel 

TI.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and 

Sandwich Panels.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof; Formacel 

TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Flexible Polyurethane .......... HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Slabstock and Other.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, 

and Formacel Z–6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Rigid Polyurethane and 

Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof, Formacel 

TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Polystyrene: Extruded 

Boardstock and Billet.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof, Formacel 

B, and Formacel Z–6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Integral Skin Polyurethane .. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof; Formacel 

TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment Other substitutes are available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Polyolefin ............................. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof; Formacel 

TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment Other substitutes are available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. 

Phenolic Insulation Board 

and Bunstock.

HFC–143a, HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc, and blends 

thereof.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including GWP. 

TABLE 6—FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Total Flooding ...................... HCFC–22 ........................... Unacceptable effective 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE].

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 

HCFC–22 for total flooding fire suppression and explosion protection is prohibited as of January 1, 

2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion 

potential of 0.055. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
46166 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—STERILANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Sterilants .............................. Blends containing HCFC– 

22.

Unacceptable effective 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE].

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 

HCFC–22 for sterilants is prohibited as of January 

1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart A. HCFC–22 has an ozone depletion potential of 0.055. 

TABLE 8—ADHESIVES, COATINGS AND INKS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Adhesives, coatings and 

inks.

HCFC–141b and blends 

thereof.

Unacceptable effective 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE].

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 

HCFC–141b for adhesives, coatings and inks is prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical 

has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18494 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4