Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34017 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 20 

International Mail Manual; 

Incorporation by Reference 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service announces 

the issuance of Issue 36 of the Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, International Mail Manual 

(IMM®) and its incorporation by 

reference in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on June 16, 2010. The 

incorporation by reference of Issue 36 of 

the IMM is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of June 16, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lizbeth Dobbins, (202) 268–3789. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issue 36 of 

the International Mail Manual was 

issued on May 11, 2009. It replaced all 

previous editions. Issue 36 of the IMM 

continues to serve the objectives of the 

Postal Service’s Transformation Plans, 

the 2004–2008 Five-Year Strategic Plan, 

the Strategic Transformation Plan 2006– 

2010, and Vision 2013, Plan for 2009– 

2013 to enable the Postal Service to 

fulfill its long-standing mission of 

providing affordable, universal mail 

service. The Plans’ key strategies 

include improving operational 

efficiency, supporting growth through 

added value to customers, and 

enhancing the Postal Service’s 

performance-based culture. 

In addition, Issue 36 sets forth 

specific changes such as: new mailing 

standards for authorized shipments of 

small packets to Cuba to align USPS®

with U.S. Department of Commerce 

regulations; to expand the use of 

Priority Mail International® Flat Rate 

Envelopes and Boxes to Ascension and 

the Falkland Islands; reorganization of 

sections 260, 290, and 310 to clarify 

eligibility for M-bags; and, to codify the 

Postal Service Sure Money®

(DineroSeguro®) service as one of its 

international money transfer services. 

Issue 36 also corrects various printing 

and format errors and omissions in the 

previous Issue. 

The International Mail Manual is 

available to the public on a subscription 

basis only from: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, P.O. Box 979050, St. 

Louis, MO 63197–9000. The 

subscription price for one issue is 

currently $50 to addresses in the United 

States, and $70 to all foreign addresses. 

The IMM is also published and 

available to all users on the Internet at 

http://pe.usps.com. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20 

Foreign relations, Incorporation by 

reference. 

■ In view of the considerations 

discussed above, the Postal Service 

hereby amends 39 CFR part 20 as 

follows: 

PART 20—INTERNATIONAL POSTAL 

SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 20 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 

307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 407, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 

3201–3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 

3632, 3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Section 20.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 20.1 International Mail Manual; 

incorporation by reference. 

(a) Section 552(a) of Title 5, U.S.C., 

relating to the public information 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, provides in pertinent 

part that matter reasonably available to 

the class of persons affected thereby is 

deemed published in the Federal 

Register when incorporated by reference 

therein with the approval of the Director 

of the Federal Register. In conformity 

with that provision, with 39 U.S.C. 

410(b)(1), and as provided in this part, 

the U.S. Postal Service hereby 

incorporates by reference its 

International Mail Manual (IMM), Issue 

36, dated May 11, 2009. The Director of 

the Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. 

(b) The current Issue of the IMM is 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(a) of this section. Successive Issues of 

the IMM are listed in the following 

table: 

International mail 

manual Date of issuance 

Issue 1 ....................... November 13, 1981. 

Issue 2 ....................... March 1, 1983. 

Issue 3 ....................... July 4, 1985. 

Issue 4 ....................... September 18, 1986. 

Issue 5 ....................... April 21, 1988. 

Issue 6 ....................... October 5, 1988. 

Issue 7 ....................... July 20, 1989. 

Issue 8 ....................... June 28, 1990. 

Issue 9 ....................... February 3, 1991. 

Issue 10 ..................... June 25, 1992. 

Issue 11 ..................... December 24, 1992. 

Issue 12 ..................... July 8, 1993. 

Issue 13 ..................... February 3, 1994. 

Issue 14 ..................... August 4, 1994. 

Issue 15 ..................... July 9, 1995. 

Issue 16 ..................... January 4, 1996. 

International mail 

manual Date of issuance 

Issue 17 ..................... September 12, 1996. 

Issue 18 ..................... June 9, 1997. 

Issue 19 ..................... October 9, 1997. 

Issue 20 ..................... July 2, 1998. 

Issue 21 ..................... May 3, 1999. 

Issue 22 ..................... January 1, 2000. 

Issue 23 ..................... July 1, 2000. 

Issue 24 ..................... January 1, 2001. 

Issue 25 ..................... July 1, 2001. 

Issue 26 ..................... January 1, 2002. 

Issue 27 ..................... June 30, 2002. 

Issue 28 ..................... January 1, 2003. 

Issue 29 ..................... July 1, 2003. 

Issue 30 ..................... August 1, 2004. 

Issue 31 ..................... May 31, 2005. 

Issue 35 ..................... May 12, 2008. 

Issue 36 ..................... May 11, 2009. 

■ 3. Section 20.2 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 20.2 Effective date of the International 

Mail Manual. 

The provisions of the International 

Mail Manual Issue 36, effective May 11, 

2009, are applicable with respect to the 

international mail services of the Postal 

Service. 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14493 Filed 6–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[FRL–9163–5] 

RIN 2060–AG12 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Notice 25 for Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Determination of Acceptability. 

SUMMARY: This Determination of 

Acceptability expands the list of 

acceptable substitutes for ozonedepleting substances under the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

program. The substitutes are for use in 

the following sectors: Refrigeration and 

air-conditioning, foam blowing, 

aerosols, and sterilants. The majority of 

the acceptability decisions find 

substitutes acceptable as alternatives to 

the class II ozone depleting substances 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)–22, 

HCFC–142b and blends containing one 

or both of these substances. EPA is also 

finding one of the alternatives, HFO– 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1234ze, acceptable as a substitute for 

CFC–113 in the heat transfer end use 

and as a substitute for CFC–11 in the 

aerosol propellant end use. The listing 

of additional refrigerant alternatives as 

acceptable will provide users in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning sector 

with more options for replacing HCFC– 

22 and HCFC–142b, which, pursuant to 

EPA’s phaseout regulations, may 

generally be used only as a refrigerant 

to service equipment manufactured 

before January 1, 2010. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118 

(continuation of Air Docket A–91–42). 

All electronic documents in the docket 

are listed in the index at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Air Docket (No. A–91–42), 

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 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Fiffer by telephone at (202) 

343–9464, by facsimile at (202) 343– 

2338, by e-mail at 

fiffer.melissa@epa.gov, or by mail at 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mail Code 6205J, Washington, DC 

20460. Overnight or courier deliveries 

should be sent to the office location at 

1310 L Street, NW., 10th floor, 

Washington, DC 20005. 

For more information on the Agency’s 

process for administering the Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the original SNAP 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 

13044). Notices and rulemakings under 

the SNAP program, as well as other EPA 

publications on protection of 

stratospheric ozone, are available from 

EPA’s Ozone Depletion Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ including 

the SNAP portion at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What acronyms and abbreviations are used 

in this document? 

II. How does the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program 

work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements and 

authority for the SNAP program? 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

implementing Section 612? 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

III. How does today’s SNAP listing relate to 

the HCFC phaseout? 

A. Why is EPA issuing a SNAP listing of 

alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

(HCFC)–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof? 

B. What happened during the most recent 

milestone in the HCFC phaseout? 

C. How does today’s SNAP listing affect 

alternatives to HCFCs other than HCFC– 

22, HCFC–142b, and blends thereof? 

D. In servicing existing refrigeration or airconditioning equipment, may I continue 

to use refrigerants, previously found 

acceptable by SNAP, that contain HCFC– 

22, HCFC–142b, and blends thereof? 

IV. What are my existing and new options for 

alternative refrigerants? 

V. What are my existing and new options for 

alternative foam blowing agents? 

VI. What are my existing and new options for 

alternative aerosol propellants? 

VII. What are my existing and new options 

for alternative sterilants? 

I. What acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document? 

Below is a list of acronyms and 

abbreviations used in this document. 

ACGIH American Conference of 

Government Industrial Hygienists 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Limit 

AEL Acceptable Exposure Limit 

AIHA American Industrial Hygiene 

Association 

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAS ID # Chemical Abstract Service 

Registry Number 

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CEGL Continuous Exposure Guidance Level 

EPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act 

GWP Global Warming Potential 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon 

IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life and 

Health 

IPCC International Panel on Climate Change 

NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

NRC National Research Council 

ODP Ozone Depletion Potential 

ODS Ozone-Depleting Substance 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

PEL Permissible Exposure Limit 

REL Recommended Exposure Limit 

PMN Pre-Manufacture Notice 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy 

TLV Threshold Limit Value 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

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 EPA to develop a 

program for evaluating alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances (ODS). EPA 

refers to this program as the SNAP 

program. The major provisions of 

Section 612 are: 

1. Rulemaking 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

promulgate rules making it unlawful to 

replace any class I (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 

unacceptable for specific uses and to 

publish a corresponding list of 

acceptable alternatives for specific uses. 

The list of acceptable substitutes is 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/lists/index.html and the lists of 

unacceptable substitutes, substitutes 

acceptable subject to use conditions and 

substitutes acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits are found at 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34019 

1As 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. 

2As defined at 40 CFR 82.17 ‘‘end-use’’ means 

processes or classes of specific applications within 

major industrial sectors where a substitute is used 

to replace an ozone-depleting substance. 

before new or existing chemicals are 

introduced into interstate commerce for 

significant new uses as substitutes for a 

class I substance. The producer must 

also provide the Agency with the 

producer’s unpublished health and 

safety studies on such substitutes. 

5. Outreach 

Section 612(b)(1) states that the 

Administrator shall seek to maximize 

the use of federal research facilities and 

resources to assist users of class I and 

II substances in identifying and 

developing alternatives to the use of 

such substances in key commercial 

applications. 

6. Clearinghouse 

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency 

to set up a public clearinghouse of 

alternative chemicals, product 

substitutes, and alternative 

manufacturing processes that are 

available for products and 

manufacturing processes which use 

class I and II substances. 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

implementing Section 612? 

On March 18, 1994, EPA published 

the original rule (59 FR 13044) 

establishing the process for 

administering the SNAP program and 

issued EPA’s first lists identifying 

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 

in the major industrial use sectors (40 

CFR part 82, subpart G). These major 

industrial use sectors are: Refrigeration 

and air-conditioning; foam blowing; 

solvents cleaning; fire suppression and 

explosion protection; sterilants; 

aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; 

and tobacco expansion. These sectors 

comprise the principal industrial sectors 

that historically consumed the largest 

volumes of ODS. 

Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA 

to list as acceptable only those 

substitutes that do not present a 

significantly greater risk to human 

health and the environment as 

compared with other substitutes that are 

currently or potentially available. 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone 

who plans to market or produce a 

substitute to replace a class I or II ODS 

in one of the eight major industrial use 

sectors must provide notice to the 

Agency, including health and safety 

information on the substitute, at least 90 

days before introducing it into interstate 

commerce.1 This requirement applies to 

the person planning to introduce the 

substitute into interstate commerce, 

typically chemical manufacturers, but 

may also include importers, 

formulators, equipment manufacturers, 

or end-users 2 when they are responsible 

for introducing a substitute into 

commerce. 

The Agency has identified four 

possible decision categories for 

substitutes: Acceptable; acceptable 

subject to use conditions; acceptable 

subject to narrowed use limits; and 

unacceptable. Use conditions and 

narrowed use limits are both considered 

‘‘use restrictions’’ and are explained 

below. Substitutes that are deemed 

acceptable with no use restrictions (no 

use conditions or narrowed use limits) 

can be used for all applications within 

the relevant end-uses within the sector. 

Substitutes that are acceptable subject to 

use restrictions may be used only in 

accordance with those restrictions. It is 

a violation of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations to replace an ODS with a 

substitute listed as unacceptable, except 

for certain exceptions (e.g., test 

marketing, research and development) 

specified by the regulation. 

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 minimize risks to human health 

and the environment. EPA describes 

such substitutes as ‘‘acceptable subject 

to use conditions.’’ Entities that use 

these substitutes without meeting the 

associated use conditions are in 

violation of section 612 of the CAA and 

EPA’s SNAP regulations. 

For some substitutes, the Agency may 

permit a narrowed 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 

by conducting comprehensive studies. 

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, are using these substitutes in 

an unacceptable manner and are in 

violation of section 612 of the CAA and 

EPA’s SNAP regulations. 

The Agency publishes its SNAP 

program decisions in the Federal 

Register (FR). EPA first proposes 

decisions concerning substitutes that are 

deemed acceptable subject to use 

restrictions (use conditions and/or 

narrowed use limits), or for substitutes 

deemed unacceptable, to allow the 

public opportunity to comment. After 

consideration of the public comments, 

EPA publishes a final decision. 

In contrast, EPA publishes decisions 

that substitutes are acceptable with no 

restrictions in ‘‘notices of acceptability’’ 

without first issuing a proposed 

decision. As described in the rule 

initially implementing the SNAP 

program (59 FR 13044), EPA does not 

believe that notice-and-comment 

rulemaking procedures are necessary to 

list alternatives 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. 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 

‘‘comments’’ or ‘‘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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

3A SNAP listing is not equivalent to an 

allocation, i.e., SNAP acceptability does not equate 

to authorization to produce or import ODS. EPA 

lists companies that have been allocated production 

and consumption allowances of HCFCs in 40 CFR 

82.17 and 82.19. 

4The petition is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0249. 

III. How does today’s SNAP listing 

relate to the HCFC phaseout? 

A. Why is EPA issuing a SNAP listing 

of alternatives to HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof? 

To date, EPA has listed many HCFCs 

as acceptable substitutes for class I ODS 

thus allowing their use as substitutes for 

CFCs and for halons under SNAP. As 

production and importation of HCFCs 

becomes more limited, availability of 

these substances for use in current end 

uses may be limited.3 In addition, EPA’s 

phaseout regulations contain some use 

restrictions for specific substances. In 

particular, per the most recent milestone 

in the HCFC phaseout, as of January 1, 

2010, virgin HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b, 

and blends containing one or both of 

these compounds, may only be used as 

refrigerants to service existing 

equipment (minor exceptions apply: 

Please see details in B, below). 

In previous SNAP notices, EPA has 

listed a number of acceptable substitutes 

for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

containing one or both of these chemical 

compounds (‘‘blends thereof’’). In 

today’s SNAP listing, EPA is providing 

a comprehensive list of acceptable 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof, generally those that 

have been previously found acceptable 

as substitutes, as well as HFO–1234ze in 

several additional end uses. This notice 

only addresses the refrigeration and airconditioning, foam blowing, aerosols, 

and sterilants sectors. Because HCFC– 

22, HCFC–142b, and blends thereof 

have not traditionally been used to any 

significant extent in the fire suppression 

and explosion protection, solvent 

cleaning, tobacco expansion, and 

adhesives, coatings and inks sectors, we 

are not making listing decisions for 

substitutes in these sectors in this 

notice. 

B. What happened during the most 

recent milestone in the HCFC phaseout? 

Under the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer (Montreal Protocol) and the CAA, 

HCFCs are considered transitional 

alternatives in the phaseout of CFCs and 

other class I ODS. HCFCs are less potent 

ozone depleters than are CFCs and other 

class I substances; however, they are 

still subject to both a global and 

domestic phaseout under the Montreal 

Protocol and the CAA. HCFCs will no 

longer be produced in or imported into 

the United States in accordance with a 

tiered phaseout that will culminate in 

the United States in 2030. Under CAA 

Section 610, the sale and distribution of, 

or offer for sale and distribution of 

certain uses of HCFCs in foam blowing 

and in aerosols or other pressurized 

dispensers is prohibited. Further, under 

CAA Section 605(a) and EPA’s 

implementing regulations, use and 

introduction into interstate commerce 

(including sale of HCFCs) is or will be 

prohibited according to the schedule 

available in the rules cited below and at 

40 CFR 82.16, with exceptions for: (1) 

HCFCs that have been used, recovered, 

and recycled; (2) HCFCs completely 

used up in a reaction to create other 

chemicals; and (3) HCFCs used in 

refrigeration equipment manufactured 

before specified dates. 

In a December 10, 1993, rule (58 FR 

65018), EPA established a ‘worst-first’ 

approach for the HCFC phaseout; thus 

the HCFCs with higher ODPs were 

scheduled for phaseout earlier than 

those with lower ODPs. That rule 

announced an accelerated schedule for 

the phaseout of HCFC–22 and HCFC– 

142b, such that the production and 

import of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b for 

use in new equipment would be banned 

as of January 1, 2010. Since 2003 (68 FR 

2819), producers or importers of HCFC– 

22 and HCFC–142b have been required 

to hold allowances and importers of 

used HCFCs have been required to 

obtain prior approval of import on a per 

shipment basis. In a December 15, 2009, 

rule (74 FR 66412), EPA reduced the 

number of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b 

allowances to meet and exceed the 2010 

reduction step under the Montreal 

Protocol. That rule also clarified the use 

ban described in the 1993 rule and 

generally limited virgin HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b to use as refrigerants in the 

servicing of existing equipment. It 

established an exception for the use of 

HCFC–22 as a refrigerant in newly 

manufactured equipment where the 

components were manufactured prior to 

January 1, 2010, and are specified in a 

pre-2010 building permit or contract for 

use on a particular project, as well as 

temporary exceptions for the use of 

HCFC–22 in medical equipment and 

thermostatic expansion valves. For 

additional information on the HCFC 

phaseout, please see the rules 

promulgated on December 10, 1993 (58 

FR 65018), January 21, 2003 (68 FR 

2819), and December 15, 2009 (74 FR 

66412). 

C. How does today’s SNAP listing affect 

alternatives to HCFCs other than HCFC– 

22, HCFC–142b, and blends thereof? 

This notice does not affect previous 

SNAP listings of acceptable alternatives 

to HCFC–141b, which was phased out of 

production in 2003, nor does it list 

alternatives to the remainder of HCFCs, 

such as HCFC–123, HCFC–124, HCFC– 

225ca, and HCFC–225cb, which will be 

phased out on a later schedule. EPA 

anticipates updating the lists of 

acceptable substitutes under SNAP 

before the production phaseout of other 

HCFCs. 

We note that EPA recently received a 

petition concerning the listing of HFC– 

134a in various end uses.4 We are still 

reviewing that petition and nothing in 

this notice should be construed as 

prejudging EPA’s response to that 

petition. 

D. In servicing existing refrigeration or 

air-conditioning equipment, may I 

continue to use refrigerants, previously 

found acceptable by SNAP, that contain 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof? 

HCFC–22, as well as some refrigerant 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b, have previously been 

found acceptable under SNAP for 

specified end uses. As noted above, 

these refrigerant blends, which appear 

in Table 1, below, may continue to be 

used in servicing existing equipment, 

i.e., equipment manufactured before 

January 1, 2010, in those end uses per 

the regulations at 40 CFR 82.15(g)(2)(i). 

(EPA defines the term ‘‘manufactured’’ 

for appliances at 40 CFR 82.3.) 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REFRIGERANTS CONTAINING HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, AND BLENDS THEREOF PREVIOUSLY

DETERMINED ACCEPTABLE UNDER SNAP 

Refrigerant blend Further identification information for blend 

(alternative names and composition) 

Freeze 12 ................................................................................................. R–134a/142b. 

FreeZone .................................................................................................. HCFC Blend Delta; RB–276; R–134a/142b/lubricant. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34021 

5Throughout the decisions, available trade names 

for refrigerants without ASHRAE designations are 

provided in parentheses. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REFRIGERANTS CONTAINING HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, AND BLENDS THEREOF PREVIOUSLY

DETERMINED ACCEPTABLE UNDER SNAP—Continued 

Refrigerant blend Further identification information for blend 

(alternative names and composition) 

GHG–HP ................................................................................................... HCFC Blend Lambda; R–22/600a/142b. 

GHG–X5 ................................................................................................... Autofrost X5; R–22/227ea/600a/142b. 

Greencool (Gu) or China Sun G2018C .................................................... R–1270/22/152a. 

ICOR ......................................................................................................... R–22/142b. 

NARM–502 ............................................................................................... HCFC Blend Iota; R–23/22/152a. 

PFC–330ST, PFC–550HC, PFC–660HC, PFC–1100HC, PFC–1100LT, 

PGC–100, PGC–150.

Compositions are Confidential Business Information (CBI). 

R–401A ..................................................................................................... SUVA MP 39; R–22/152a/124 (53.0/13.0/34.0). 

R–401B ..................................................................................................... SUVA MP 66; R–22/152a/124 (61.0/11.0/28.0). 

R–401C ..................................................................................................... SUVA MP 52; R–22/152a/124 (33.0/15.0/52.0). 

R–402A ..................................................................................................... SUVA HP80; R–125/290/22 (60.0/2.0/38.0). 

R–402B ..................................................................................................... SUVA HP81; R–125/290/22 (38.0/2.0/60.0). 

R–403B ..................................................................................................... ISCEON 69–L; R–290/22/218 (5.0/56.0/39.0). 

R–406A ..................................................................................................... GHG–12; GHG–X3; McMullen Oil McCool; Monroe Air Tech Autofrost– 

X3; R–22/600a/142b (55.0/4.0/41.0). 

R–408A ..................................................................................................... HCFC Blend Epsilon; FX–10; R–125/143a/22 (7.0/46.0/47.0). 

R–409A ..................................................................................................... HCFC Blend Gamma; FX–56; R–22/124/142b (60.0/25.0/15.0). 

R–411A ..................................................................................................... Greencool (Gu) or China Sun G2018A; R–1270/22/152a (1.5/87.5/ 

11.0). 

R–411B ..................................................................................................... Greencool (Gu) or China Sun G2018B; R–1270/22/152a (3.0/94.0/3.0). 

R–414A ..................................................................................................... HCFC Blend Xi; GHG–X4; McMullen Oil Chill-It; McCool Chill-It; Monroe Air Tech Autofrost–X4; R–22/124/600a/142b (51.0/28.5/4.0/16.5). 

R–414B ..................................................................................................... HCFC Blend Omicron; Hot Shot; Kar Kool; R–22/124/600a/142b (50.0/ 

39.0/1.5/9.5). 

R–420A ..................................................................................................... Choice R–420A; R–134a/142b (88.0/12.0). 

THR–04 .................................................................................................... Composition is CBI. 

While HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

may currently continue to be used to 

service existing refrigeration and airconditioning equipment, EPA reiterates 

that HCFCs and HCFC blends are not 

long-term substitutes for ODS. EPA is 

considering whether current or potential 

substitutes are available that pose lower 

risk than these blends. 

IV. What are my existing and new 

options for alternative refrigerants? 

In the refrigeration and airconditioning sector, EPA has previously 

found acceptable HCFC–22 and HCFC 

blends, including those containing 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b. To aid end 

users in the refrigeration and airconditioning sector as they transition 

from use of these refrigerants, this 

section lists, by end use: (1) Refrigerants 

that EPA previously found acceptable as 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and HCFC 

blends, including those containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b; and (2) 

refrigerants that EPA is newly finding 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. Where possible, 

refrigerants listed as acceptable in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

section are identified by their 

designation per American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 34. 

At the end of the decision for each 

end use, there is narrative comparing 

environmental, flammability, and 

toxicity information of the newly 

acceptable alternatives with other 

currently or potentially available 

alternatives. Flammable refrigerants are 

hazardous waste and must be disposed 

of consistent with regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). More environmental and 

health information is also available in 

the original SNAP rule of March 18, 

1994, the notice of acceptability in 

which each substitute was first listed, or 

the sector table, which provides 

identification information, 

environmental information, 

flammability information, and toxicity 

and exposure data for each of the 

acceptable alternatives to HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b, in the refrigeration and airconditioning sector. The sector table is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/refrigerants/index.html. 

A. Household and Light Commercial 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in household and light 

commercial air-conditioning and heat 

pumps: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in household and light 

commercial air-conditioning and heat 

pumps: 

• Ammonia absorption system (new 

equipment) 

• Desiccant cooling (new equipment) 

• Evaporative cooling (new 

equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) 5 (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

6These values are based upon mass-weighted 

averages of the component chemicals, using the 

100-yr GWPs listed in the International Panel on 

Climate Change’s [IPCC] Fourth Assessment Report, 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Another available source for GWPs is the IPCC’s 

Second Assessment Report, Climate Change 1995: 

Working Group I—The Science of Climate Change, 

accessible from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/ 

wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf. 

7EPA 1994. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on 

the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-depleting 

Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–427A (retrofit equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–437A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the household and light commercial airconditioning and heat pumps end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section A.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have 100-year integrated 

(100-yr) global warming potentials 

(GWPs) 6 relative to CO2 ranging from 0 

to about 3390, comparable to or lower 

than that of other substitutes for HCFC– 

22 and blends containing HCFC–22 and/ 

or HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP 

of R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407A is about 2110, the GWP of R–407C 

is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A is 

about 2090, and the GWP of R–507A is 

about 3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) under the CAA. Some of the 

newly listed substitutes contain small 

amounts of components that are 

considered volatile organic compounds 

(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. 

None of the substitutes previously 

found acceptable in IV.A.1, above, 

contain VOCs. However, emissions of 

VOCs from refrigerant blends are 

expected to be small relative to the total 

emissions of VOCs from all sources.7

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) and ASHRAE 

and other safety precautions common in 

the refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8-hours, such 

as Workplace Environmental Exposure 

Limits (WEELs) from the American 

Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) 

or Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) from 

the American Conference of 

Government Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH). Ammonia has a Permissible 

Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 ppm over 8 

hours from OSHA. EPA anticipates that 

users will be able to meet the workplace 

exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and 

PELs) and will address potential health 

risks by following requirements and 

recommendations in the Material Safety 

Data Sheets (MSDSs) and other safety 

precautions common in the refrigeration 

and air-conditioning industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.A.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the household and light 

commercial air-conditioning and heat 

pumps end use. 

B. Residential Dehumidifiers 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in residential dehumidifiers: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in residential 

dehumidifiers: 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5%by weight) (ICOR AT– 

22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–421A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–437A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the residential dehumidifiers end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section B.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, and the GWP of R–507A 

is about 3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. None of 

the substitutes previously found 

acceptable in IV.B.1, above, contain 

VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34023 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.B.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the residential 

dehumidifiers end use. 

C. Reciprocating and Screw Chillers 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in reciprocating and screw 

chillers: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in reciprocating and screw 

chillers: 

• Ammonia absorption chillers or 

vapor compression with secondary loop 

(new equipment) 

• Desiccant cooling (new equipment) 

• Evaporative cooling (new 

equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFC–227ea (new equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–427A (retrofit equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• SP34E (new and retrofit equipment) 

• Stirling cycle (new equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the reciprocating and screw chillers end 

use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section C.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, and the GWP of R–507A 

is about 3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. None of 

the substitutes previously found 

acceptable in IV.C.1, above, contain 

VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.C.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the reciprocating and screw 

chillers end use. 

D. Centrifugal Chillers 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in centrifugal chillers: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in centrifugal chillers: 

• Ammonia absorption chillers or 

vapor compression with secondary loop 

(new equipment) 

• Desiccant cooling (new equipment) 

• Evaporative cooling (new 

equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFC–227ea (new equipment) 

• HFC–245fa (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8EPA’s analysis of the NRC CEGL and rationale 

for preliminary workplace exposure limit are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov as item 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118–0243 EPA anticipates 

that lithium bromide powder will be used 

consistent with the personal protective equipment 

recommendations specified by OSHA (http:// 

www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_

standard_group?p_toc_level=1&

p_part_number=1910#1910_Subpart_I). 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–423A (ISCEON 39TC) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• Stirling cycle (new equipment) 

• Water/lithium bromide (new 

equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the centrifugal chillers end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section D.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, and the GWP of R–507A 

is about 3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. None of 

the substitutes previously found 

acceptable in IV.D.1, above, contain 

VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8-hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. HFC– 

245fa exhibits moderate to low toxicity 

and has an 8-hour WEEL of 300 ppm. 

Water/lithium bromide absorption 

exhibits low toxicity. Lithium bromide 

(LiBr) has a 24-hour/day, 90 day 

Continuous Exposure Guidance Level 

(CEGL) value of 1 mg/m3 from the 

National Research Council (NRC). Based 

on this CEGL, EPA recommends an 8- 

hour preliminary workplace exposure 

limit of 3 mg/m3.8 EPA anticipates that 

users will be able to meet the workplace 

exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, PELs 

and CEGL) and will address potential 

health risks by following requirements 

and recommendations in the MSDSs 

and other safety precautions common in 

the refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. Therefore, we find the newly 

listed substitutes (in IV.D.2, above) 

acceptable because they do not pose a 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the other 

substitutes available in the centrifugal 

chillers end use. 

E. Industrial Process Air-Conditioning 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in industrial process airconditioning: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in industrial process airconditioning: 

• Ammonia vapor compression or 

absorption systems (new equipment) 

• Desiccant cooling (new equipment) 

• Evaporative cooling (new 

equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–423A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–427A (retrofit equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the industrial process air-conditioning 

end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section E.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, and the GWP of R–507A 

is about 3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34025 

9 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxypropane; 

HFE–347mcc3; CAS ID #375–03–1. 

10Methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal; 

HFE–449s1; CAS ID #163702–07–6. 

11Ethoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal; HFE– 

569sf2; CAS ID #163702–05–4. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. None of 

the substitutes previously found 

acceptable in IV.E.1, above, contain 

VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8-hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.E.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the industrial process airconditioning end use. 

F. Industrial Process Refrigeration 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in industrial process refrigeration: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–422A (ISCEON 79) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in industrial process 

refrigeration: 

• Ammonia vapor compression or 

absorption-systems (new equipment) 

• Desiccant cooling (new equipment) 

• Evaporative cooling (new 

equipment) 

• HC Blend A (OZ–12) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• HC Blend B (original formulation of 

HC–12a) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFC–227ea (new equipment) 

• HFE–7000 9 (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFE–7100 10 and HFE–7200 11 as 

secondary heat transfer fluid in not-inkind systems (new equipment) 

• Nitrogen direct gas expansion (new 

equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–290 (Propane) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407A and R–407B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A and R–421B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–423A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–428A (new equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–600 (Butane) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–744 (Carbon dioxide, CO2) (new 

equipment) 

• R–1270 (Propylene) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• Stirling cycle (new equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the industrial process refrigeration end 

use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section F.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3610, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. The hydrocarbon 

substitutes that we are finding 

acceptable are at the low end of this 

range. Specifically, R–290, R–600, R– 

1270, and HC Blends A and B each have 

a GWP of about 5 or less. This in 

contrast with the GWPs of the 

previously listed substitutes, including 

the GWP of R–404A which is about 

3920, the GWP of R–407C which is 

about 1770, the GWP of R–410A which 

is about 2090, the GWP of R–422A 

which is about 3140, and the GWP of R– 

507A which is about 3990. The 

contribution of these refrigerants to 

greenhouse gas emissions is limited 

given the venting prohibition under 

section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations codified at 40 

CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions 

of refrigerant substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

The hydrocarbons R–290, R–600, and 

R–1270, as well as all components of HC 

Blends A and B, are considered VOCs 

under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)) addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under these 

regulations. In comparison, one of the 

substitutes previously found acceptable 

in IV.F.1, above, (R–422A) contains a 

VOC component. Emissions of VOCs 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

Ammonia has an ASHRAE class 2 

flammability classification or moderate 

flammability risk. EPA believes that the 

moderate flammability risks of ammonia 

can be addressed by existing standards 

from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 

safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. Each of the newly listed 

hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon blends 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

has an ASHRAE class 3 flammability 

classification. As early as the 1994 

original SNAP rule, EPA noted that 

hydrocarbons were used in industrial 

process refrigeration, including 

specialized industrial applications such 

as oil refineries and chemical plants. 

EPA noted that these users were familiar 

with hydrocarbons, had safety 

procedures in place, and that their 

facilities were designed to comply with 

the safety standards required for 

managing flammable chemicals. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low when used according to 

standard practices for industrial 

processes and for industrial process 

refrigeration. Most of the blends contain 

HFC or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. HFE– 

7200 has an 8-hour manufacturer 

acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 200 

ppm and HFE–7000 has an 8-hour 

manufacturer AEL of 75 ppm. Within 

the industrial process refrigeration end 

use, such as at chemical or other 

industrial plants, proper exposure 

controls and ventilation are generally 

available as well as established 

protocols for handling potentially 

hazardous materials, and therefore 

overall occupational risk is mitigated. 

EPA anticipates that users will be able 

to meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, PELs, and manufacturer 

AELs) and will address potential health 

risks by following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.F.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the industrial process 

refrigeration end use. 

G. Bus and Passenger Train AirConditioning 

The bus and passenger train airconditioning end use previously had 

substitutes listed as acceptable for 

HCFC–22 itself, but not as substitutes 

for blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b; this is reflected in category 

(1), below. 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

in bus and passenger train airconditioning: 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B and R–422D (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–427A (retrofit equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in bus and passenger train 

air-conditioning: 

• Evaporative cooling (new 

equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B and R–422D (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–427A (retrofit equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• SP34E (new and retrofit equipment) 

• Stirling cycle (new equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the bus and passenger train airconditioning end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section G.1 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3250, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920 and the GWP of 

R–507A is about 3990. The contribution 

of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 

emissions is limited given the venting 

prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of 

the CAA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations codified at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of 

refrigerant substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. However, 

emissions of VOCs from refrigerant 

blends are expected to be small relative 

to the total emissions of VOCs from all 

sources. 

None of the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22 and blends containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b is 

flammable. The toxicity risks of the 

newly listed substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b are low. Most of the blends 

contain HFC or hydrocarbon 

components with workplace exposure 

limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 

over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the 

AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. For 

each of these substitutes, EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.G.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the bus and passenger train 

air-conditioning end use. 

H. Ice Skating Rinks 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in ice skating rinks: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–422A (ISCEON 79) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34027 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in ice skating rinks: 

• Ammonia vapor compression or 

absorption systems (new equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–407A and R–407B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A and R–421B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–423A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–428A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the ice skating rinks end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section H.2 are non-ozone depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3610, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, and the GWP of R–422A 

is about 3140. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. In 

comparison, one of the substitutes 

previously found acceptable in IV.H.1, 

above, (R–422A) contains a VOC 

component. Emissions of VOCs from 

refrigerant blends are expected to be 

small relative to the total emissions of 

VOCs from all sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. Therefore, we find the newly 

listed substitutes (in IV.H.2, above) 

acceptable because they do not pose a 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the other 

substitutes available in the ice skating 

rinks end use. 

I. Cold Storage Warehouses 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in cold storage warehouses: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407A and R–407C (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–422A (ISCEON 79) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–428A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–744 (Carbon dioxide, CO2) (new 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in cold storage warehouses: 

• Ammonia vapor compression or 

absorption systems (new equipment) 

• Desiccant cooling (new equipment) 

• Evaporative cooling (new 

equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFC–227ea (new equipment) 

• Pressure stepdown (new 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–407B (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A and R–421B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–423A (ISCEON 39TC) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• Self-chilling cans containing 

recycled CO2 (not generating CO2 via 

chemical reaction) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• SP34E (new and retrofit equipment) 

• Stirling cycle 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the cold storage warehouses end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section I.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, the GWP of R–422A is 

about 3140, the GWP of R–428A is about 

3610, and the GWP of R–507A is about 

3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. In 

comparison, two of the substitutes 

previously found acceptable in IV.I.1, 

above, (R–422A and R–428A) contain 

some VOC components. However, 

emissions of VOCs from refrigerant 

blends are expected to be small relative 

to the total emissions of VOCs from all 

sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. For each 

of these substitutes, EPA anticipates that 

users will be able to meet the workplace 

exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and 

PELs) and will address potential health 

risks by following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. Therefore, we find the newly 

listed substitutes (in IV.I.2, above) 

acceptable because they do not pose a 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the other 

substitutes available in the cold storage 

warehouse end use. 

J. Refrigerated Transport 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in refrigerated transport: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407A and R–407C (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–428A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in refrigerated transport: 

• Cryogenic system using recaptured 

liquid CO2 or liquid nitrogen (new 

equipment) 

• Direct nitrogen expansion (new 

equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/ 

1.9% by weight) (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–407B and R–407D (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A and R–421B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422A (ISCEON 79) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• SP34E (new and retrofit equipment) 

• Stirling cycle (new equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the refrigerated transport end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section J.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407A is about 2110, the GWP of R–407C 

is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A is 

about 2090, the GWP of R–428A is about 

3610, and the GWP of R–507A is about 

3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. In 

comparison, one of the substitutes 

previously found acceptable in IV.J.1, 

above, (R–428A) contains some VOC 

components. However, emissions of 

VOCs from refrigerant blends are 

expected to be small relative to the total 

emissions of VOCs from all sources. 

None of the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22 and blends containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b is 

flammable. The toxicity risks of the 

newly listed substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b are low. Most of the blends 

contain HFC or hydrocarbon 

components with workplace exposure 

limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 

over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the 

AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. For 

each of these substitutes, EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. Therefore, we find the newly 

listed substitutes (in IV.J.2, above) 

acceptable because they do not pose a 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the other 

substitutes available in the refrigerated 

transport end use. 

K. Retail Food Refrigeration 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in retail food refrigeration: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34029 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–422A (ISCEON 79) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–428A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–744 (Carbon dioxide, CO2) (new 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in retail food refrigeration: 

• Ammonia vapor compression with 

a secondary loop (new equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFE–7100 and HFE–7200 as 

secondary heat transfer fluid in not-inkind systems (new equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–407B (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A and R–421B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–427A (retrofit equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• SP34E (new and retrofit equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the retail food refrigeration end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section K.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, the GWP of R–422A is 

about 3140, the GWP of R–428A is about 

3610, and the GWP of R–507A is about 

3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. In 

comparison, two of the substitutes 

previously found acceptable in IV.K.1, 

above, (R–422A and R–428A) contain 

some VOC components. However, 

emissions of VOCs from refrigerant 

blends are expected to be small relative 

to the total emissions of VOCs from all 

sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. HFE– 

7200 has an 8-hour manufacturer AEL of 

200 ppm. For each of these substitutes, 

EPA anticipates that users will be able 

to meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, PELs, and manufacturer 

AEL) and will address potential health 

risks by following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.K.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the retail food refrigeration 

end use. 

L. Commercial Ice Machines 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in commercial ice machines: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–428A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in commercial ice 

machines: 

• Ammonia vapor compression or 

absorption-systems (new equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–407A and R–407B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A and R–421B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422A (ISCEON 79) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• Stirling cycle (new equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the commercial ice machines end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section L.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, the GWP of R–428A is 

about 3610, and the GWP of R–507A is 

about 3990. The contribution of these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. In 

comparison, one of the substitutes 

previously found acceptable in IV.L.1, 

above, (R–428A) contains some VOC 

components. However, emissions of 

VOCs from refrigerant blends are 

expected to be small relative to the total 

emissions of VOCs from all sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.L.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the commercial ice 

machines end use. 

M. Household Refrigerators and 

Freezers 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in household refrigerators and 

freezers: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–422A (ISCEON 79) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–428A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in household refrigerators 

and freezers: 

• Ammonia absorption systems (new 

equipment) 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A and R–421B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–424A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–427A (retrofit equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• RS–44 (2003 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the household refrigerators and freezers 

end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section M.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, the GWP of R–422A is 

about 3140, the GWP of R–428A is about 

3610, and the GWP of R–507A is about 

3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. In 

comparison, two of the substitutes 

previously found acceptable in IV.M.1, 

above, (R–422A and R–428A) contain 

some VOC components. However, 

emissions of VOCs from refrigerant 

blends are expected to be small relative 

to the total emissions of VOCs from all 

sources. 

With the exception of ammonia, none 

of the newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b is flammable. 

EPA believes that the flammability risks 

posed by ammonia can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA and 

ASHRAE and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b 

are low. Most of the blends contain HFC 

or hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 

ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.M.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the household refrigerators 

and freezers end use. 

N. Vending Machines 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in vending machines: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34031 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in vending machines: 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• SP34E (new and retrofit equipment) 

• Stirling cycle (new equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the vending machines end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section N.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, and the GWP of R–507A 

is about 3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. None of 

the substitutes previously found 

acceptable in IV.N.1, above, contain 

VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

None of the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22 and blends containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b is 

flammable. The toxicity risks of the 

newly listed substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b are low. Most of the blends 

contain HFC or hydrocarbon 

components with workplace exposure 

limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 

over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the 

AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.N.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the vending machines end 

use. 

O. Water Coolers 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in water coolers: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

• R–507A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in water coolers: 

• HFC–134a (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–410B (new equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–421A and R–421B (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–426A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–434A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• RS–24 (2002 formulation) (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• SP34E (new and retrofit equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the water coolers end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section O.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, the GWP of R–410A 

is about 2090, and the GWP of R–507A 

is about 3990. The contribution of these 

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions 

is limited given the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which 

limit emissions of refrigerant 

substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. None of 

the substitutes previously found 

acceptable in IV.O.1, above, contain 

VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

None of the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22 and blends containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b is 

flammable. The toxicity risks of the 

newly listed substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b are low. Most of the blends 

contain HFC or hydrocarbon 

components with workplace exposure 

limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 

over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the 

AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

12HFC–1234ze; HFO–1234ze(E); HFC–1234ze(E); 

trans-1,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene; CAS ID #29118– 

24–9. 

13 1,1,1,2,2,4,5,5,5-nonafluoro-4-(trifluoromethyl)- 

3-pentanone or FK–5–1–12mmy2; CAS ID #756–13– 

8. 

14Octamethylcyclo-tetrasiloxanes (e.g., D4, CAS 

ID #556–67–2) and decamethylcyclo-pentasiloxanes 

(e.g., D5, CAS ID #541–02–6). 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.O.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the vending machines end 

use. 

P. Very Low Temperature Refrigeration 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in very low temperature 

refrigeration: 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in very low temperature 

refrigeration: 

• HFE–7100 and HFE–7200 as 

secondary heat transfer fluid in not-inkind systems (new equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–422B and R–422C (new and 

retrofit equipment) 

• R–744 (Carbon dioxide, CO2) (new 

equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the very low temperature refrigeration 

end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and blends containing HCFC– 

22 and/or HCFC–142b listed above in 

section P.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 

contrast to HCFC–22 or blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22 and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 

about 3390, comparable to or lower than 

that of other substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP of 

R–404A is about 3920, the GWP of R– 

407C is about 1770, and the GWP of R– 

410A is about 2090. The contribution of 

these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 

emissions is limited given the venting 

prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of 

the CAA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations codified at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of 

refrigerant substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

Some of the newly listed substitutes 

contain small amounts of components 

that are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. None of 

the substitutes previously found 

acceptable in IV.P.1, above, contain 

VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

None of the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22 and blends containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b is 

flammable. The toxicity risks of the 

newly listed substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b are low. Most of the blends 

contain HFC or hydrocarbon 

components with workplace exposure 

limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 

over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the 

AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. HFE– 

7200 has an 8-hour manufacturer AEL of 

200 ppm. R–744 has a PEL of 5000 ppm. 

EPA anticipates that users will be able 

to meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, PELs and AEL) and will 

address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in IV.P.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the vending machines end 

use. 

Q. Non-Mechanical Heat Transfer 

Systems 

HFO–1234ze,12 which was previously 

listed as a substitute for class I and class 

II ODS in several foam blowing end uses 

(September 30, 2009; 74 FR 50129) is 

today being listed as acceptable as a 

substitute for CFC–113, HCFC–22, and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b, in the heat transfer end 

use. You may find the submission under 

Docket items EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0222 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0247 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. We note that EPA 

is also reviewing this substance through 

a Pre-Manufacture Notice (PMN) under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) and users will be subject under 

TSCA to any requirements established 

through the PMN process. 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC blends, including those 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, in non-mechanical heat transfer 

systems: 

• HFC–4310mee (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–404A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–407C (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–410A (new equipment) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in non-mechanical heat 

transfer systems: 

• C6-perfluoroketone 13 (NovecTM

649) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• HFC–245fa (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFE–7000 (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFE–7100 (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFE–7200 (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• HFO–1234ze (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/ 

1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) (ICOR 

AT–22) (new and retrofit equipment) 

• R–417A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–422B, R–422C, and R–422D (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• R–438A (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

• R–744 (Carbon Dioxide, CO2) (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• Volatile Methyl Siloxanes 14 (new 

and retrofit equipment) 

• Water (new and retrofit equipment) 

3. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as a substitute for CFC–113 

in non-mechanical heat transfer 

systems: 

• HFO–1234ze (new and retrofit 

equipment) 

Comparison to other refrigerants in 

the non-mechanical heat transfer 

systems end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for CFC– 

113, HCFC–22, and blends containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b listed 

above in section P.2 and 3 are nonozone-depleting, in contrast to CFC– 

113, HCFC–22, or blends containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b. They are 

comparable to other acceptable 

substitutes for CFC–113, HCFC–22, and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. HFO–1234ze has no 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34033 

15 Due to additional data on toxicity, EPA is able 

to use a lower uncertainty factor and recommend 

a higher workplace AEL compared to the 

preliminary AEL analysis (where an AEL of 375 

ppm was recommended). 16The risk screen as well as derivations of EPA’s 

recommended workplace AEL and preliminary 

consumer exposure limit (acute) are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov as item EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2003–0118–0250. 

ODP. HFO–1234ze has a GWP of 6 and 

an atmospheric lifetime of 

approximately 2 weeks (Javadi et al., 

2008). The newly listed substitutes have 

GWPs ranging from 0 to about 3390, 

comparable to or lower than that of 

other substitutes for CFC–113, HCFC– 

22, and blends containing HCFC–22 

and/or HCFC–142b. For example, the 

GWP of HFC–4310mee is about 1640, 

the GWP of R–404A is about 3920, the 

GWP of R–407C is about 1770, and the 

GWP of R–410A is about 2090. The 

contribution of these refrigerants to 

greenhouse gas emissions is limited 

given the venting prohibition under 

section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations codified at 40 

CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions 

of refrigerant substitutes. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. C6- 

perfluoroketone and HFO–1234ze are 

considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. Some of 

the newly listed substitutes contain 

small amounts of components that are 

considered VOCs under those 

regulations. In comparison, none of the 

substitutes previously found acceptable 

in IV.Q.1, above, contain VOCs. EPA has 

received a petition to exempt HFO– 

1234ze from the definition of VOC for 

purposes of SIPs to attain and maintain 

the NAAQS on the basis that the 

chemical has a low photochemical 

reactivity. EPA intends to address the 

request through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. Further, emissions of VOCs 

from refrigerant blends are expected to 

be small relative to the total emissions 

of VOCs from all sources. 

With the exception of some of the 

volatile methyl siloxanes, none of the 

newly listed substitutes for CFC–113, 

HCFC–22, and blends containing 

HCFC–22 and/or HCFC–142b is 

flammable. Some volatile methyl 

siloxanes have flammability risks, and 

EPA believes that these will be 

addressed by existing standards from 

OSHA, ASHRAE, guidelines in the 

MSDSs, and other safety precautions 

common in the refrigeration and airconditioning industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for CFC–113, HCFC–22, and 

blends containing HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–142b are low. The potential 

health effects of HFO–1234ze at lower 

concentrations include drowsiness and 

dizziness. At sufficiently high 

concentrations, it may cause central 

nervous system depression or irregular 

heartbeat. HFO–1234ze could cause 

asphyxiation, if air is displaced by 

vapor in a confined space. The 

substitute may also irritate the lungs, 

skin or eyes or cause frostbite. These 

potential health effects are common to 

many refrigerants. EPA anticipates that 

users of non-mechanical heat transfer 

systems will take action consistent with 

the recommendations specified in the 

manufacturers’ MSDSs for HFO–1234ze. 

EPA recommends a workplace AEL of 

1,000 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted 

average for HFO–1234ze.15 EPA 

recommends a preliminary consumer 

exposure limit (acute) of 10,000 ppm on 

a 30-minute time-weighted average. Our 

risk screen found that workplace and 

consumer exposure, respectively, are 

likely to be well below these levels.16

As for the other newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, most of the blends contain HFC or 

hydrocarbon components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. C6-perfluoroketone has an 

8-hour manufacturer AEL of 150 ppm, 

HFE–7200 has an 8-hour manufacturer 

AEL of 200 ppm, and HFE–7000 has an 

8-hour manufacturer AEL of 75 ppm. 

EPA anticipates that users will be able 

to meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, PELs, manufacturer 

AELs and EPA recommendation) and 

will address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

industry. Therefore, we find the newly 

listed substitutes (in IV.P.2 and 3, 

above) acceptable because they do not 

pose a greater overall risk to human 

health and the environment than the 

other substitutes available in the nonmechanical heat transfer end use. 

V. What are my existing and new 

options for alternative foam blowing 

agents? 

Historically, HCFC–22 and HCFC– 

142b, along with HCFC–141b, have been 

used as substitutes for CFC–11 and 

CFC–12 in foam blowing. HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b were originally found 

acceptable as substitutes for CFCs in all 

foam blowing end uses under the SNAP 

program (March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13084). 

In 2007, EPA found a number of foam 

blowing agents containing HCFCs 

unacceptable for use as substitutes for 

ODS, because alternatives exist with 

zero or lower ODPs. Specifically, EPA 

has found HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and 

blends thereof unacceptable as 

substitutes for CFCs in the following 

end uses: 

Æ Rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; 

Æ Rigid polyurethane appliance; 

Æ Rigid polyurethane spray and 

commercial refrigeration, and sandwich 

panels; 

Æ Rigid polyurethane slabstock and 

other foams; 

Æ Polystyrene extruded insulation 

boardstock and billet; 

Æ Phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock; 

Æ Flexible polyurethane; and 

Æ Polystyrene extruded sheet 

(40 CFR part 82 appendix Q to 

subpart G) 

EPA has also found HCFC–22, HCFC– 

142b, and blends thereof unacceptable 

as substitutes for HCFC–141b in the 

following end uses: 

Æ Rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; 

Æ Rigid polyurethane appliance; 

Æ Rigid polyurethane spray and 

commercial refrigeration, and sandwich 

panels; and 

Æ Rigid polyurethane slabstock and 

other foams 

(40 CFR part 82 appendix K to subpart 

G and 40 CFR part 82 appendix Q to 

subpart G) 

Existing users of HCFC–22, HCFC– 

142b, and blends thereof, as of 

November 4, 2005, were allowed a 

transition period (which varied in time 

by end use and application) to switch to 

alternatives, depending on the specific 

use. The last of these transition periods 

ended January 1, 2010 (40 CFR part 82 

appendix Q to subpart G). 

Finally, EPA has found that HCFC– 

124 is unacceptable as a substitute for 

HCFC–123, HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b, 

HCFC–22, or blends thereof in all foam 

blowing end uses (40 CFR Part 82 

Appendix K to Subpart G). 

In the original SNAP rulemaking EPA 

addressed the use of blends in foam 

blowing applications. EPA determined 

that notification was not required for 

‘‘use of blends or mixtures of substitutes 

listed as acceptable under the SNAP 

program in open-celled or closed-cell or 

semi-rigid end uses’’ but was required in 

the following end-uses: polyurethane 

and polyisocyanurate rigid laminated 

boardstock; polyurethane spray foam; 

polystyrene extruded boardstock and 

billet foams; phenolic foams; and 

polyolefin foams (59 FR 13084, March 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

17HFO–1234ze(E); HFC–1234ze(E); trans-1,3,3- 

tetrafluoroprop-1-ene; CAS ID #29118–24–9. 

18, 1994). Therefore, blends of 

acceptable substitutes are also 

acceptable substitutes for the following 

foam blowing end uses: rigid 

polyurethane, appliance; rigid 

polyurethane, commercial (including 

commercial foam and sandwich panels, 

but excluding spray foam); rigid 

polyurethane, slabstock; flexible 

polyurethane; polystyrene, extruded 

sheet; and integral skin polyurethane. 

To aid end users as they transition 

from use of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b, 

sections IV.A through K list, by end use: 

(1) Foam blowing agents that EPA 

previously found acceptable as 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

or all HCFCs; and (2) foam blowing 

agents that EPA is newly finding 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, or blends thereof. At the 

end of the decision for each end use, 

there is narrative comparing 

environmental, flammability, and 

toxicity information of the newly 

acceptable alternatives with other 

currently or potentially available 

alternatives. Flammable blowing agents 

are hazardous waste when disposed and 

must be disposed of consistent with 

regulations under RCRA. More 

environmental information, 

flammability information, and toxicity 

and exposure data is also available in 

the original SNAP rule of March 18, 

1994, the notice of acceptability in 

which each substitute was first listed, or 

the sector table for each of the 

acceptable alternatives to HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof, in the 

foam blowing sector. The sector table is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/foams/index.html. The sector table 

also includes further identification 

information (including composition and 

trade names) for each substitute. 

Due to the unique flammability 

concerns that affect listings in the spray 

foam application, for greater clarity this 

document separates listings for spray 

foam (section V.D) from listings for 

commercial refrigeration foam and 

sandwich panels (section V.C). 

Commercial refrigeration foam, spray 

foam, and sandwich panels together 

constitute the rigid polyurethane 

commercial refrigeration foam, spray 

foam, and sandwich panels end use. 

However, because of the heightened risk 

of using a flammable blowing agent 

when blowing spray foam, in most cases 

we have not listed flammable 

substitutes as acceptable in spray foam 

(e.g., methyl formate and C3–C6 

saturated light hydrocarbons), although 

we have found some acceptable for use 

in commercial refrigeration foam and in 

sandwich panels (see April 11, 2000; 65 

FR 19327, December 18, 2000; 65 FR 

78977, August 21, 2003; 68 FR 50533, 

and September 30, 2009; 74 FR 50129). 

In limited circumstances, where the 

submitter of a specific substitute has 

supplied EPA with a safety training 

program for customers to address the 

flammability risks unique to spray foam, 

we have listed such flammable blowing 

agents as acceptable for spray foam 

applications (see December 6, 1999; 64 

FR 68039 and October 1, 2004; 69 FR 

58903). 

A. Rigid Polyurethane & 

Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock 

HFO–1234ze,17 which was previously 

listed as a substitute for class I and class 

II ODS in several foam blowing end uses 

(September 30, 2009; 74 FR 50129) is 

today being listed as a substitute for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof in five other foam blowing end 

uses. You may find the submission 

under Docket items EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2003–0118–0222 and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2003–0118–0246 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in rigid polyurethane & 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• 2-chloropropane 

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® TI 

• Formic acid 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• Methyl formate 

• TranscendTM Technologies, as an 

additive to SNAP-approved blowing 

agents in blends making up to 5% by 

weight of the total foam formulation. 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in rigid 

polyurethane & polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock: 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the rigid polyurethane & 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof listed above in section A.2 are 

non-ozone-depleting, in contrast to 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, or blends 

thereof. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in their 

lack of risk for ozone depletion. The 

newly listed substitutes have GWPs 

ranging from 0 to 794, comparable to or 

lower than that of other substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof. For example, the GWP of HFC– 

134a is about 1430 and the GWP of 

HFC–245fa is about 1030. 

None of the newly listed refrigerant 

substitutes contain any components that 

are defined as HAPs under the CAA. 

C3–C6 saturated hydrocarbons, HFO– 

1234ze, and some components of Exxsol 

blowing agents are considered VOCs 

under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)) addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

EPA has received a petition to exempt 

HFO–1234ze from the definition of VOC 

for purposes of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS on the basis that 

the chemical has a low photochemical 

reactivity. EPA intends to address the 

request through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. Of the substitutes 

previously found acceptable in V.A.1, 

above, 2-chloropropane and formic acid 

are VOCs. 

Among the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, or blends 

thereof, Exxol Blowing Agents, HFC– 

365mfc, and C3–C6 saturated 

hydrocarbons are flammable. Examples 

of other flammable foam blowing agents 

that we previously found acceptable in 

this end use include 2-chloropropane, 

EcomateTM, formic acid, HFC–152a, and 

methyl formate. EPA believes that the 

flammability risks can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA, 

guidelines from the manufacturer, and 

other safety precautions common in the 

foam blowing industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof are low. The 

potential health effects of HFO–1234ze 

at lower concentrations include 

drowsiness and dizziness. The 

substitute may also irritate the lungs, 

skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At 

sufficiently high concentrations, it may 

cause central nervous system depression 

or irregular heart beat. HFO–1234ze 

could cause asphyxiation, if air is 

displaced by vapor in a confined space. 

These potential health effects are 

common to many foam blowing agents. 

EPA anticipates that users in foam 

blowing end uses will take action 

consistent with the recommendations 

specified in the manufacturers’ MSDSs 

for HFO–1234ze. EPA recommends a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34035 

18 Due to additional data on toxicity, EPA is able 

to use a lower uncertainty factor and recommend 

a higher workplace AEL compared to the 

preliminary AEL analysis (where an AEL of 375 

ppm was recommended). 

19The risk screen is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0250. 

workplace AEL of 1,000 ppm on an 8- 

hour time-weighted average for HFO– 

1234ze, which is updated from our 

preliminary recommendation that 

accompanied the acceptability listing 

for HFO–1234ze in several other foam 

blowing end uses (74 FR 50129; 

September 30, 2009).18 Our risk screen 

found that workplace exposure is likely 

to be well below that level.19

As for the other newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, HFC–365mfc, C3–C6 saturated 

light hydrocarbons, and Exxsol blowing 

agents contain components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

ACGIH. EPA anticipates that users will 

be able to meet the workplace exposure 

limits (WEELs, TLVs, PELs and EPA 

recommendation) and will address 

potential health risks by following 

requirements and recommendations in 

the MSDSs and other safety precautions 

common in the foam blowing industry. 

Therefore, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in V.A.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the rigid polyurethane & 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use. 

B. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in rigid polyurethane appliance 

foam: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® TI 

• Formic acid 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Methyl formate 

• TranscendTM Technologies, as an 

additive to SNAP-approved blowing 

agents in blends making up to 5% by 

weight of the total foam formulation. 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam: 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

• Vacuum panels 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the rigid polyurethane 

appliance foam end use: 

We are finding all of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof listed above in 

section V.B.2, with the exception of 

vaccum panels, to also be acceptable in 

the rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use. Vacuum panels have an ODP 

and GWP of 0, are not VOCs or HAPs, 

are non-flammable, and do not present 

toxicity concerns. Please see section 

V.A.2 for further information on the 

environmental and safety impacts of the 

newly listed alternatives compared to 

other available alternatives. For the 

reasons discussed above in this section 

and in section V.A.2, we find that the 

newly listed substitutes (in V.B.2, 

above) are acceptable because they do 

not pose a greater overall risk to human 

health and the environment than the 

other substitutes available in the rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam end use. 

C. Rigid Polyurethane Commercial 

Refrigeration Foam and Sandwich 

Panels 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in rigid polyurethane 

commercial refrigeration foam and 

sandwich panels: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® TI 

• Formic acid 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Methyl formate 

• TranscendTM Technologies, as an 

additive to SNAP-approved blowing 

agents in blends making up to 5% by 

weight of the total foam formulation. 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in rigid 

polyurethane commercial refrigeration 

foam and sandwich panels: 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• HFC–365mfc/HFC–245fa blends 

containing at least 5% HFC–245fa 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the rigid polyurethane 

commercial refrigeration foam and 

sandwich panels end use: 

We are finding all of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof listed above in 

section V.C.2, with the exception of 

HFC–365mfc/HFC–245fa blends 

containing at least 5% HFC–245fa, to 

also be acceptable in the rigid 

polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock end use. Blends of 

HFC–365mfc/HFC–245fa containing at 

least 5% HFC–245fa are comparable to 

other acceptable substitutes for HCFC– 

22, HCFC–142b, or blends thereof in the 

rigid polyurethane commercial 

refrigeration foam and sandwich panels 

end use in their lack of risk for ozone 

depletion. In addition, these blends 

have average GWPs ranging from 870 to 

960, comparable to or lower than other 

substitutes (e.g., the GWP of HFC–134a 

is about 1430 and the GWP of HFC– 

245fa is about 1030). HFC–365mfc and 

HFC–245fa are exempt from the 

definition of VOCs under CAA 

regulations addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

HFC–365mfc is flammable. Examples of 

other flammable foam blowing agents 

that we previously found acceptable in 

this end use include EcomateTM, formic 

acid, HFC–152a, and methyl formate. 

EPA believes the flammability risks can 

be addressed by existing standards from 

OSHA, guidelines from the 

manufacturer, and other safety 

precautions common in the foam 

blowing industry. With regard to 

toxicity, HFC–245fa has an 8-hour 

WEEL of 300 ppm. EPA anticipates that 

users will be able to meet the WEEL and 

will address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and 

other safety precautions common in the 

foam blowing industry. Please see 

section V.A.2 for further information on 

the environmental and safety impacts of 

the other newly listed alternatives 

compared to available alternatives. 

For the reasons discussed above in 

this section and in section V.A.2, we 

find the newly listed substitutes (in 

V.C.2, above) acceptable because they 

do not pose a greater overall risk to 

human health and the environment than 

the other substitutes available in the 

rigid polyurethane commercial 

refrigeration foam and sandwich panels 

end use. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

D. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in rigid polyurethane spray 

foam: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® TI 

• Formic acid 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in rigid 

polyurethane spray foam: 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc/HFC–245fa blends 

containing at least 5% HFC–245fa 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the rigid polyurethane spray 

foam end use: 

We are finding all of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof listed above in 

section V.D.2 to also be acceptable in 

the rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use. Please see section V.A.2 for 

further information on the 

environmental and safety impacts of the 

newly listed alternatives compared to 

available alternatives. For the reasons 

above in this section and in section 

V.A.2, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in V.D.2, above) acceptable 

because they do not pose a greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than the other substitutes 

available in the rigid polyurethane spray 

foam end use. 

E. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and 

Other 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in rigid polyurethane slabstock 

and other foams: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® TI 

• Formic acid 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• Methyl formate 

• TranscendTM Technologies, as an 

additive to SNAP-approved blowing 

agents in blends making up to 5% by 

weight of the total foam formulation. 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in rigid 

polyurethane slabstock and other foams: 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the rigid polyurethane 

slabstock and other foams end use: 

We are finding all of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof listed above in 

section V.E.2 to also be acceptable in the 

rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use. Please see section V.A.2 for 

further information on the 

environmental and safety impacts of the 

newly listed alternatives compared to 

available alternatives. For the reasons 

above and in V.A.2, we find the newly 

listed substitutes (in V.E.2, above) 

acceptable because they do not pose a 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the other 

substitutes available in the rigid 

polyurethane, slabstock and other foam 

end use. 

F. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and 

Billet 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in polystyrene extruded 

boardstock and billet: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® B 

• Formacel® TI 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in 

polystyrene extruded boardstock and 

billet: 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the polystyrene extruded 

boardstock and billet end use: 

We are finding all of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof listed above in 

section V.F.2 to also be acceptable in the 

rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use. Please see section V.A.2 for 

further information on the 

environmental and safety impacts of the 

newly listed alternatives compared to 

available alternatives. For the reasons 

above and in section V.A.2, we find the 

newly listed substitutes (in V.F.2, 

above) acceptable because they do not 

pose a greater overall risk to human 

health and the environment than the 

other substitutes available in the 

polystyrene, extruded boardstock and 

billet end use. 

G. Phenolic Insulation Board and 

Bunstock 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in 

phenolic insulation board and bunstock: 

• 2-chloropropane 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the phenolic insulation board 

and bunstock end use: 

We are finding all of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof listed above in 

section V.G.2, with the exception of 2- 

chloropropane, to also be acceptable in 

the rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use. 2-chloropropane is comparable 

to other acceptable substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof in the phenolic insulation board 

and bunstock end use in its lack of risk 

for ozone depletion. Additionally, we 

estimate it has a GWP of 5 or less, 

comparable to or lower than that of 

other substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC– 

142b, and blends thereof (e.g., the GWP 

of HFC–134a is about 1430, the GWP of 

HFC–245fa is about 1030, and the GWP 

of carbon dioxide is 1). 2-chloropropane 

is considered a VOC under CAA 

regulations addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

2-chloropropane is flammable, like the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34037 

20Composition is claimed as CBI by the 

submitter. 

newly listed substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, or blends thereof, Exxol 

Blowing Agents, HFC–365mfc, and C3– 

C6 saturated hydrocarbons. Examples of 

other flammable foam blowing agents 

that we previously found acceptable in 

this end use include EcomateTM, HFC– 

152a, and methyl formate. EPA believes 

the flammability risks can be addressed 

by existing standards from OSHA, 

guidelines from the manufacturer, and 

other safety precautions common in the 

foam blowing industry. With regard to 

toxicity, EPA recommends a workplace 

exposure limit of 350 ppm on an 8-hour 

time-weighted average for 2- 

chloropropane (65 FR 37900, June 19, 

2000). EPA anticipates users will be able 

to meet the recommended workplace 

exposure limit and will address 

potential health risks by following 

requirements and recommendations in 

the MSDS and other safety precautions 

common in the foam blowing industry. 

Please see section V.A.2 for further 

information on the environmental and 

safety impacts of the other newly listed 

alternatives compared to available 

alternatives. For the reasons above and 

in section V.A.2, we find the newly 

listed substitutes (in V.G.2, above) 

acceptable because they do not pose a 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the other 

substitutes available in the phenolic 

insulation board & bunstock end use. 

H. Polystyrene, Extruded Sheet 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in polystyrene, extruded sheet: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® TI 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in 

polystyrene, extruded sheet: 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the polystyrene, extruded 

sheet end use: 

We are finding all of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof listed above in 

section V.H.2 to also be acceptable in 

the rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use. Please see section V.A.2 for 

further information on the 

environmental and safety impacts of the 

newly listed alternatives compared to 

available alternatives. For the reasons 

above and in section V.A.2, we find the 

newly listed substitutes (in V.H.2, 

above) acceptable because they do not 

pose a greater overall risk to human 

health and the environment than the 

other substitutes available in the 

polystyrene, extruded sheet end use. 

I. Flexible Polyurethane 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in flexible polyurethane: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in 

flexible polyurethane: 

• Acetone 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the flexible polyurethane end 

use: 

We are finding all of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof listed above in 

section V.I.2, with the exception of 

acetone, to also be acceptable in the 

rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

end use. Acetone is comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in its 

lack of risk for ozone depletion. Acetone 

has a GWP of 0.5, comparable to or 

lower than that of other substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof (e.g., the GWP of HFC–134a is 

about 1430, the GWP of HFC–245fa is 

about 1030, and the GWP of carbon 

dioxide is 1). Acetone is exempt from 

the definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

Acetone is flammable, along with other 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

or blends thereof, including Exxol 

Blowing Agents, HFC–365mfc, and C3– 

C6 saturated hydrocarbons. Examples of 

other flammable foam blowing agents 

that we previously found acceptable in 

this end use include EcomateTM and 

HFC–152a. EPA believes that the 

flammability risks can be addressed by 

existing standards from OSHA, 

guidelines from the manufacturer, and 

other safety precautions common in the 

foam blowing industry. With regard to 

toxicity, acetone has an 8-hour ACGIH 

TLV of 500 ppm. EPA anticipates that 

users will be able to meet the TLV and 

will address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and 

other safety precautions common in the 

foam blowing industry. Please see 

section V.A.2 for further information on 

the environmental and safety impacts of 

the other newly listed alternatives 

compared to available alternatives. For 

the reasons above and in section V.A.2, 

we find the newly listed substitutes (in 

V.I.2, above) acceptable because they do 

not pose a greater overall risk to human 

health and the environment than the 

other substitutes available in the flexible 

polyurethane end use. 

J. Polyolefin 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in polyolefin: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® TI 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in 

polyolefin: 

• Blends of HFC–152a and saturated 

light hydrocarbons (C3–C6) 

• Chemical Blend A 20

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the polyolefin end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof listed above in section V.J.2 are 

non-ozone-depleting, in contrast to 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, or blends 

thereof. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in their 

lack of risk for ozone depletion. The 

newly listed substitutes have GWPs 

ranging from 0 to 790, comparable to or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

21The risk screen is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0250. 

22The derivation of EPA’s recommended AEL is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov as item 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118–0250. 

lower than that of other substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof. For example, the GWP of HFC– 

134a is about 1430 and the GWP of 

HFC–245fa is about 1030. 

HFO–1234ze is currently considered a 

VOC, and Exxsol blowing agents and 

C3–C6 saturated hydrocarbons contain 

compounds that are considered VOCs 

under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)) addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

EPA has received a petition to exempt 

HFO–1234ze from the definition of VOC 

for purposes of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS on the basis that 

the chemical has a low photochemical 

reactivity. EPA intends to address the 

request through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. None of the acceptable 

substitutes previously listed in this end 

use are VOCs. However, HFO–1234ze, 

Exxsol blowing agents, and C3–C6 

saturated hydrocarbons have lower 

overall environmental and health risk 

compared to other substitutes. 

Among the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, or blends 

thereof, Exxol Blowing Agents, HFC– 

365mfc, and C3–C6 saturated 

hydrocarbons are flammable. Examples 

of other flammable foam blowing agents 

that we previously found acceptable in 

this end use include Ecomate TM and 

HFC–152a. EPA believes the 

flammability risks can be addressed by 

following existing standards from 

OSHA, guidelines from the 

manufacturer, and other safety 

precautions common in the foam 

blowing industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof are low. The 

potential health effects of HFO–1234ze 

at lower concentrations include 

drowsiness and dizziness. The 

substitute may also irritate the skin or 

eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently 

high concentrations, it may cause 

central nervous system depression or 

irregular heart beat. HFO–1234ze could 

cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by 

vapor in a confined space. The 

substitute may also irritate the lungs, 

skin or eyes or cause frostbite. These 

potential health effects are common to 

many foam blowing agents. EPA 

anticipates that users in foam blowing 

end uses will take action consistent 

with the recommendations specified in 

the manufacturers’ MSDSs for HFO– 

1234ze. EPA recommends a workplace 

AEL of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour timeweighted average for HFO–1234ze, 

which is updated from our preliminary 

recommendation that accompanied the 

acceptability listing for HFO–1234ze in 

several other foam blowing end uses (74 

FR 50129; September 30, 2009). Our risk 

screen found that workplace exposure is 

likely to be well below that level.21

As for the other newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFC–22 and/or HCFC– 

142b, HFC–365mfc, C3–C6 saturated 

light hydrocarbons and Exxsol blowing 

agents contain components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from 

the ACGIH. EPA anticipates that users 

will be able to meet the workplace 

exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, PELs, 

manufacturer’s recommendation, and 

EPA recommendation) and will address 

potential health risks by following 

requirements and recommendations in 

the MSDSs and other safety precautions 

common in the foam blowing industry. 

For the above reasons, we find the 

newly listed substitutes (in V.J.2, above) 

acceptable because they do not pose a 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the other 

substitutes available in the polyolefin 

end use. 

K. Integral Skin Polyurethane 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, blends thereof, or for all 

HCFCs in integral skin polyurethane: 

• Carbon dioxide, CO2

• EcomateTM

• Formacel® TI 

• Formic acid 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–245fa 

• Methyl formate 

• Water 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in 

integral skin polyurethane: 

• Acetone 

• Electroset technology 

• Exxsol blowing agents 

• HFC–365mfc 

• HFO–1234ze 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons C3–C6 

(e.g., propane, butane, isobutane, 

pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, 

cyclohexane) 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents in the integral skin polyurethane 

end use: 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof listed above in section V.K.2 are 

non-ozone-depleting, in contrast to 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, or blends 

thereof. They are comparable to other 

acceptable substitutes for HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof in their 

lack of risk for ozone depletion. The 

newly listed substitutes have GWPs 

ranging from 0 to 794, comparable to or 

lower than that of other substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof. For example, the GWP of HFC– 

134a is about 1430 and the GWP of 

HFC–245fa is about 1030. 

HFO–1234ze is currently considered a 

VOC, and Exxsol blowing agents and 

C3–C6 saturated hydrocarbons contain 

compounds that are considered VOCs 

under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)) addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

EPA has received a petition to exempt 

HFO–1234ze from the definition of VOC 

for purposes of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS on the basis that 

the chemical has a low photochemical 

reactivity. EPA intends to address the 

request through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. An acceptable substitute 

previously listed in this end use that is 

a VOC is formic acid. 

Among the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, or blends 

thereof, acetone, Exxol Blowing Agents, 

HFC–365mfc, and C3–C6 saturated 

hydrocarbons are flammable. Examples 

of other flammable foam blowing agents 

that we previously found acceptable in 

this end use include EcomateTM, formic 

acid, and HFC–152a. EPA believes that 

the flammability risks can be addressed 

by existing standards from the OSHA, 

guidelines from the manufacturer, and 

other safety precautions common in the 

foam blowing industry. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof are low. HFC– 

365mfc, C3–C6 saturated light 

hydrocarbons and Exxsol blowing 

agents contain components with 

workplace exposure limits of 500 to 

1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such 

as WEELs from the AIHA or threshold 

limit values (TLVs) from the ACGIH. 

EPA recommends a workplace AEL of 

1000 22 ppm on an 8-hour timeweighted average for HFO–1234ze, 

which is updated from our preliminary 

recommendation that accompanied the 

acceptability listing for HFO–1234ze in 

several other foam blowing end uses (74 

FR 50129, September 30, 2009). EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the workplace exposure limits 

(WEELs, TLVs, PELs and EPA 

recommendation) and will address 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 34039 

23HFO–1234ze(E); HFC–1234ze(E); trans-1,3,3- 

tetrafluoroprop-1-ene; CAS ID #29118–24–9. 

24The derivation of EPA’s recommended AEL, 

preliminary consumer exposure limit (intermittent), 

and risk screen are available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0250. 

potential health risks by following 

requirements and recommendations in 

the MSDSs and other safety precautions 

common in the foam blowing industry. 

For the above reasons, we find the 

newly listed substitutes (in V.K.2, 

above) acceptable because they do not 

pose a greater overall risk to human 

health and the environment than the 

other substitutes available in the 

integral skin polyurethane end use. 

VI. What are my existing and new 

options for alternative aerosols? 

A. Propellants 

We previously found HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b acceptable as substitutes for 

CFC–11 in the aerosol propellant end 

use. In the aerosol propellants end use, 

the two HCFCs typically have not been 

blended. 

Under the Nonessential Products Ban 

in Section 610 of the CAA, and EPA’s 

regulations implementing that provision 

at 40 CFR subpart C, the sale and 

distribution or offer for sale and 

distribution of HCFCs in pressurized 

containers is banned. However, EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 82.70 provide 

exceptions for a limited number of 

specific uses. For aerosol propellants, 

these include: 

• Medical devices listed in 21 CFR 

2.125(e); 

• Mold release agents that contain 

HCFC–22 as a propellant where 

evidence of good faith efforts to secure 

alternatives indicates that, other than a 

class I substance, there are no suitable 

alternatives; 

• Spinnerette lubricants/cleaning 

sprays used in the production of 

synthetic fibers, which contain class II 

substances for solvent purposes and/or 

contain class II substances for 

propellant purposes; 

• Document preservation sprays 

which contain HCFC–22 as a propellant, 

but which contain no other class II 

substance and which are used solely on 

thick books, books with coated, dense or 

paper and tightly bound documents; 

• Aerosol or pressurized dispenser 

cleaning fluid for electronic and 

photographic equipment which contains 

a class II substance that is sold or 

distributed to a commercial purchaser. 

To aid end users in the aerosol 

propellants end use as they transition 

from use of HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and 

blends thereof, this section lists: 1) 

Propellants that EPA previously found 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b; and 2) a propellant 

that EPA is newly finding acceptable as 

a substitute for CFC–11, HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof. At the 

end of the decision for the end use, 

there is narrative comparing 

environmental, flammability, and 

toxicity information of the newly 

acceptable alternative with other 

currently or potentially available 

alternatives. More environmental and 

health information is also available in 

the original SNAP rule of March 18, 

1994, the notice of acceptability in 

which each substitute was first listed, or 

the sector table for each of the 

acceptable alternatives to HCFC–22, 

HCFC–142b, and blends thereof, in the 

aerosol propellants end use. The sector 

table is available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozone/snap/aerosol/index.html. The 

sector table also includes further 

identification information (including 

composition and trade names) for each 

substitute. 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b in aerosol propellants: 

• Alternative processes (pumps, 

mechanical pressure dispensers, nonspray dispensers) 

• Compressed gases (e.g., carbon 

dioxide, air, nitrogen, and nitrous oxide) 

• Dimethyl ether 

• HFC–125 

• HFC–134a 

• HFC–152a 

• HFC–227ea 

• Saturated light hydrocarbons, C3– 

C6 (e.g., propane, isobutane, n-butane) 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as a substitute for CFC–11, 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof as an aerosol propellant: 

• HFO–1234ze 23

HFO–1234ze is non-ozone-depleting 

in contrast to the ozone depleting 

substances which it replaces. In its lack 

of risk for ozone depletion, HFO–1234ze 

is comparable to other substitutes for 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b such as 

HFC–134a, HFC–152a, and compressed 

CO2. HFO–1234ze’s 100-year GWP is 6, 

comparable to or lower than that of 

other substitutes for CFC–11, HCFC–22 

and HCFC–142b. For example, the GWP 

of HFC–134a is about 1430, the GWP of 

HFC–152a is about 124, and the GWP of 

compressed CO2 is 1. 

Neither HFO–1234ze nor any of the 

previously acceptable substitutes in the 

propellant end use are HAPs. HFO– 

1234ze is currently considered a VOC 

under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)) addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

Other acceptable substitutes in the 

propellant end use that are VOCs are 

dimethyl ether and the saturated light 

hydrocarbons (C3–C6). EPA has 

received a petition to exempt HFO– 

1234ze from the definition of VOC for 

purposes of SIPs to attain and maintain 

the NAAQS on the basis that the 

chemical has a low photochemical 

reactivity. EPA intends to address the 

request through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. 

HFO–1234ze is not flammable. The 

toxicity risks of HFO–1234ze are low. 

The potential health effects of HFO– 

1234ze at lower concentrations include 

drowsiness and dizziness. At 

sufficiently high concentrations, it may 

cause central nervous system depression 

or irregular heart beat. HFO–1234ze 

could cause asphyxiation, if air is 

displaced by vapor in a confined space. 

The substitute may also irritate the 

lungs, skin or eyes or cause frostbite. 

These potential health effects are 

common to many propellants. EPA 

anticipates that users in the propellant 

end use will take action consistent with 

the recommendations specified in the 

manufacturers’ MSDSs for HFO–1234ze. 

EPA recommends a workplace exposure 

limit of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour timeweighted average for HFO–1234ze. EPA 

recommends a preliminary consumer 

exposure limit (intermittent) of 420 

ppm. Our risk screen found that 

workplace and consumer exposure, 

respectively, are likely to be well below 

these levels.24 EPA anticipates that 

users will be able to meet the 

recommended workplace and consumer 

exposure limits and will address 

potential health risks by following 

requirements and recommendations in 

the MSDSs and labels and other safety 

precautions common in the aerosol 

industry. For the above reasons, we find 

HFO–1234ze acceptable because it does 

not pose a greater overall risk to human 

health and the environment than the 

other substitutes acceptable in the 

aerosol propellants end use. 

VII. What are my existing and new 

options for alternative sterilants? 

A. Sterilants 

Sterilants are chemicals, blends, or 

devices used to sterilize medical 

equipment. Many sterilants contain 

ethylene oxide (EtO) as a component. In 

this sector, EPA has previously found 

acceptable ethylene oxide blends 

containing a blend of HCFC–22 and/or 

HCFC–124. HCFC–142b has not been 

used in this sector. 

To aid end users in the sterilant end 

use as they transition from use of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

34040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ethylene oxide blends containing 

HCFC–22, this section lists: (1) 

Sterilants that EPA previously found 

acceptable as substitutes for ethylene 

oxide blends containing HCFC–22; and 

(2) sterilants that EPA is newly finding 

acceptable as substitutes for ethylene 

oxide blends containing HCFC–22. 

At the end of the decision for the end 

use, there is narrative comparing 

environmental, flammability, and 

toxicity information of the newly 

acceptable alternative with other 

currently or potentially available 

alternatives. Flammable and highly 

reactive sterilants are hazardous waste 

when disposed. Sterilants must be 

registered by EPA under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) prior to use. Also, 

requirements of the Food and Drug 

Administration for medical devices 

apply to equipment using sterilants. 

More environmental and health 

information is also available in the 

original SNAP rule of March 18, 1994, 

the notice of acceptability in which each 

substitute was first listed, or the sector 

table for each of the acceptable 

alternatives to ethylene oxide blends 

containing HCFC–22, in the sterilant 

end use. The sector table is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ 

sterilants/index.html. The sector table 

also includes further identification 

information (including composition and 

trade names) for each substitute. 

1. EPA previously found the following 

acceptable as substitutes for ethylene 

oxide blends containing HCFC–22 as 

sterilants: 

• IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 1, 3, and 

6 (blends of CF3I/CO2/EtO) 

• Mini-Max® Cleaner 

2. EPA is newly finding the following 

acceptable as substitutes for ethylene 

oxide blends containing HCFC–22 as 

sterilants: 

• CO2/EtO 

• Hydrogen peroxide gas plasma 

systems 

• Peroxyacetic acid/hydrogen 

peroxide gas plasma systems 

• Pure EtO 

• Steam 

The newly listed substitutes for 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends 

thereof listed above in section VII.A.2. 

are non-ozone-depleting, in contrast to 

HCFC–22 blends. They are comparable 

to other acceptable substitutes for 

HCFC–22 blends in their lack of risk for 

ozone depletion. The newly listed 

substitutes have GWPs of one or less, 

comparable to or lower than that of 

other substitutes for HCFC–22 blends. 

For example, the GWP of the IoGas 

blends is less than one. 

Peroxyacetic acid and ethylene oxide 

are considered VOCs under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. Ethylene 

oxide is a hazardous air pollutant under 

EPA regulations. EPA’s National 

Emission Standards for Hospital 

Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers apply to this 

substance and blends that contain it (see 

subpart WWWWW of 40 CFR part 63). 

EPA has previously found other blends 

containing ethylene oxide to be 

acceptable as sterilants. Further, blends 

that do not contain ethylene oxide are 

often still reactive. 

Among the newly listed substitutes 

for HCFC–22 blends, pure ethylene 

oxide and peroxyacetic acid, a 

component in a peroxyacetic acid/ 

hydrogen peroxide gas plasma system, 

are flammable. Hydrogen peroxide is 

not flammable per se, but is highly 

reactive and must be handled cautiously 

at the concentrations required for use in 

sterilization equipment. These sterilants 

should be used in equipment designed 

to reduce the risks of flammable or 

highly reactive chemicals. EPA believes 

that the flammability and reactivity 

risks can be addressed by existing 

standards from OSHA, NIOSH, and 

EPA, and/or by guidelines from the 

manufacturer, and other safety 

precautions common during 

sterilization. 

The toxicity risks of the newly listed 

substitutes for HCFC–22 blends are 

comparable to the risks of the IoGas 

blends that EPA previously found 

acceptable as substitutes for blends of 

ethylene oxide and HCFCs. Ethylene 

oxide has an OSHA PEL of 1 ppm on an 

8-hour time-weighted average and a 

NIOSH IDLH of 800 ppm (30-minute). 

This compound may be carcinogenic. 

Hydrogen peroxide, used in gas plasma 

systems, has an OSHA PEL of 1 ppm (8- 

hr TWA) and a NIOSH IDLH value of 75 

ppm (30 min). Peroxyacetic acid, used 

together with hydrogen peroxide in gas 

plasma systems, has an AEGL–1 of 0.17 

ppm from 10 min to 8 hours to avoid 

irritation and an AEGL–2 of 0.5 ppm 

from 10 min to 8 hours to avoid 

‘‘irreversible or other serious, longlasting adverse health effects * * *.’’ 

(Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 

Selected Airborne Chemicals, 

Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels, National Research 

Council of the National Academies, 

2009). EPA anticipates that users will be 

able to meet the workplace exposure 

limits (PELs, IDLHs, and AEGLs) and 

will address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDSs and 

other safety precautions common when 

working with sterilants. For the above 

reasons, we find the newly listed 

substitutes (in VII.A.2, above) 

acceptable because they do not pose a 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the other 

substitutes available in the end use. 

You can find a complete chronology 

of SNAP decisions and the appropriate 

Federal Register citations from the 

SNAP section of EPA’s Ozone Depletion 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/chron.html. This information is 

also available from the Air Docket (see 

ADDRESSES section above for contact 

information). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 10, 2010. 

Brian J. McLean, 

Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 

Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14510 Filed 6–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 174 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0609; FRL–8829–9] 

Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab Protein 

in Corn; Temporary Exemption from 

the Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab 

protein in corn in or on the food and 

feed commodities of corn; corn, field; 

corn, sweet; and corn, pop, when used 

as a plant-incorporated protectant in 

accordance with the terms of 

Experimental Use Permit 67979-EUP-8. 

Syngenta Seeds, Incorporated submitted 

a petition to EPA under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

requesting a temporary exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of Bacillus thuringiensis 

eCry3.1Ab protein in corn under the 

FFDCA. The temporary tolerance 

exemption expires on June 1, 2012. 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

16, 2010. Objections and requests for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES